Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Kinder eggs are banned in the US...but guns aren't! Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I find a lot of apologists for America's gun laws and culture show a fundamentalism that would make an Islamist blush. It is why they demand the government does something when terror attacks occur but collectively shrug their shoulders when mass shootings occur.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Clearly not so poor given you're doing exactly what is being suggested in the image and treating gun crime as its own super special thing that has a unique solution to all other problems. Now, as for why homicide rates are so much higher in America than the UK there are a multitude of reasons which ultimately come together to the UK never having had particularly high homicide rates. If we look at recent firearms restrictions in the UK we get the 1968 firearms acts, and the 1997 acts neither of which were followed by decreases in homicide rates, even when we restrict it to gun homicides and in fact firearms related crime is still up on those before the 1997 act. We see a similar story in Australia where homicide rates didn't change after they implemented restrictions in the mid 90s, where a reduction in gun homicides was seen it was offset by other means; the assault weapon ban brought in under Clinton wasn't renewed party because there was no statistical change in homicide rates and in both Ireland and Jamaica homicide rates soared after guns were more strictly controlled.

    Even if we look within America itself there isn't even a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates:

    The correlation coefficient of that data set is 0.1

    And if we look solely at mass shootings the coefficient drops to -0.006 in the following:


    The first is DoJ data for 2012 and the second is for 2015 up to September.

    If we cross reference these with the guns and ammo list of best states for gun owners we come up with some interesting results, for instance New York is the worst state (DC is worse still but that isn't on our graphs) but has way higher homicide rates than the second best, Vermont despite having about half as many households with guns. New Jersey is barely better than New York but has even higher homicide rates. California, 5th worst state, it climbs higher still. Utah, 4th best for gun owners, one of the lowest homicide rates. New Hampshire, 10th best state, would be better if it weren't for Governor vetoes, pretty lax control, very easy to get a licence, lowest homicide rate in the country and one of the lowest for gun crime.

    Now if we go back to looking at the graphs how do you want to explain Delaware, very very low ownership rate yet by my reckoning 8th highest homicide rate (and some of the most restrictive gun laws in America) or Idaho, third highest ownership yet I make that 8th lowest homicide rate (it only comes out as 32nd best state but that's due to poor showings when it comes to use-of-force, in all other areas it does well)?

    And you know how I said earlier that DC was excluded, that might be so you can actually read the charts because the homicide rate in DC is all the way up in the 20s and it has absurdly tight to the point of until recently banning carrying guns in public, the second amendment basically didn't exist in DC until after Heller, and even now they try to make life as hard as possible for prospective gun owners.
    Pretty superficial argument. There are still guns permitted in the most restrictive states, and those restrictive states have no border controls with completely lax states. Your whole argument is that there is not an absolute correlation across each grade of regulation with gun safety. But it does not address the actual point that fundamental regulation of guns across the US as a whole, it is contended, would make the place safer. Until one of the points in your graph is regulated to that extent, the graph is useless.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    So legalise heroin?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=RVNmax;74000834]To me it would seem obvious. 1) Nobody is saying there's nothing wrong with the shooter like the graphic is implying. 2) You are not allowed to carry weapons of any kind so there are restrictions around these items. We have to combat all of those examples. 3) It's impossible to get rid of the others. 4) The tools used in the other 3 do not restrictively exist for killing, i.e. they have other very uses. Whereas, guns are solely used to kill. 5) The gun is the one that makes killing the easiest. It is quite difficult to kill via other methods, hence dramatically reducing the chance of successful homicides of innocent individuals. Moreover, we all have a moment of anger, hence carrying around a gun would dramatically increase the chance of impulse killing.]/quote]

    You're saying it would be easy to get rid of over 300m guns? How many illegal firearms are there still in the UK and we never had particularly many, some estimates put it at half a million.

    Where is the sense in saying that one hypothesis is not correct due to a lack of correlation and then saying that the opposite is true due by listing the extreme examples that suit your argument?
    BTW how would you explain those examples?
    I would say that it doesn't make sense to partially restrict guns by a uncontrolled geographical territory. A complete ban in one state when any Tom, **** and Harry can bring a gun in from another state is pointless and would of course play into criminals' hands.
    I think you will find that a lack of evidence that gun control works is sufficient to suggest it doesn't work so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, it's also ironic that you're making the case against gun control yourself, of course it's pointless banning guns from the sane, law abiding citizen when the criminal can get them just fine, there are over a million shotguns legally owned in England and Wales, the only time those are problems are when stolen

    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    Honestly, you anti gun control people are clinical morons.

    Tell me, could someone kill 50 people and injure over 400 others with a bat, knife or strangling?

    There's a mass shooting nearly every other day in America because of their idiotic notion that they need their guns.

    Do you know how many mass shooting there have been in Austrialia since they banned guns?
    I'll give you 58 killed and 434 killed with a vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
    I'll give you over 100 with a gun despite very heavy restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novemb..._Paris_attacks

    Depending on what constitutes a mass shooting there have been between about 3 and 6 with the rate of mass killings not having decreased, same goes for the UK where mass killings are actually up on pre ban, and if we remove terrorism we didn't really have mass killings before the ban and we haven't really had them since yet again we're not seeing the changes the gun control lobby tell you there will be.

    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    That's bull ****. Compare rates in the UK to the US.

    Using a US state with a recent gun restriction as an example of a gun free state is about as logical as using the US as an example of an alcohol free country during the prohibition.

    It is a fact that effective restriction on guns would reduce crime levels. But the difficulty is in having an effective restriction.
    And yet again, if an effective restriction on guns reduces crime levels then why is it not observable anywhere else in the world, is it that places like the UK, Australia, and Ireland did not have effective restrictions or is it that the argument is unsound.

    And then to all of you you get a graph like this which doesn't compare the nice and conforming UK and US but scores of countries and shows countries with high ownership rates but low homicide rates (and similarly low ownership high homicide)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Pretty superficial argument. There are still guns permitted in the most restrictive states, and those restrictive states have no border controls with completely lax states. Your whole argument is that there is not an absolute correlation across each grade of regulation with gun safety. But it does not address the actual point that fundamental regulation of guns across the US as a whole, it is contended, would make the place safer. Until one of the points in your graph is regulated to that extent, the graph is useless.
    I'll take DC, right on the far left of the graph and crushing everything else right down, or one of the many countries which banned guns and did not see any statistically significant reductions in homicide rates.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'll take DC, right on the far left of the graph and crushing everything else right down, or one of the many countries which banned guns and did not see any statistically significant reductions in homicide rates.
    You can show any other stats which illustrate your point. However, the two graphs you showed were not illustrative of anything relevant to the argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    An important thing to realise about the gun debate in the US is that it has very intense racial overtones and derives from the history of racism. The NRA is basically a modernised offshoot of the KKK and gun owning rights were not an issue until the modern period, when the federal government clamped down on states practising active racism, such as those in the South. Gun owning then became a substitute, with whites and especially white cops effectively free to shoot black people at will in those territories. The widespread desire to own guns amongst white families is entirely based on fear of the black man.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I ran a few figures myself this morning: guns and ammo rankings, population density, GDP per capita, percentage of the population that is white and the outcomes we're too surprising and will probably get me called racist.

    Guns and ammo, excluding DC:

    With DC excluded we get a correlation coefficient of -0.3151 suggesting a weak negative correlation, include DC and this changes to 0.0049 no correlation

    Population density:

    Excluding DC R=-0.0484 (no correlation) and unsurprisingly throwing DC in really skews things and it goes right up to 0.7664

    Next up comes GDP per capita:

    R=-0.2414 (quite a weak negative correlation) which again unsurprisingly surges to 0.6158 (fairly strong positive) when DC is included

    And finally racial demographics:

    This is the only graph including DC and with DC included we get R=-0.4587 (-0.3702 without DC) so there is a negative correlation in there. If we instead just remove Hawaii this goes to -0.5795 (and excluding DC too we get -0.5331)

    So we see a weak negative correlation between gun rights and homicide rates for states, no correlation with population density, a weak negative correlation with GDP per capita, and a moderate to strong negative correlation with the white population.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    You can show any other stats which illustrate your point. However, the two graphs you showed were not illustrative of anything relevant to the argument.
    Not this one?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RVNmax)



    Another strawman :sigh::cockup::judge:
    Who said it is? It's just the one that is easiest to solve. You just take 'em away. You can say it is idealistic, and of course it is easier said than done. However, there is a somewhat obvious solution to a massive problem. Have you got a better alternative?
    It’s so much easier to solve that when the uk did it the homicide rate increased.

    This isn’t a issue in a vacuum like people who are against guns try to argue, would you prefer the current firearm homicide rate in America or would you rather ban guns and increase the overall A’s has happened in the uk and the other countries that jammy has mentioned?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not this one?
    Better than your completely irrelevant one, yeah.

    For that to be relevant, you would have to compare two countries which are culturally and socio-economically similar. USA and St Kitts are not too similar, whereas UK and the US are. We know which country has the lower incidence of gun homicide out of those two.

    It is always curious that people like you cite the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people without considering the rate of homicides in the general population. If you look at the number of gun homicides against the rate of homicides, you will see even the "celebrated" gun-owning countries have problems with the number of their overall homicides involving guns. 72.2% of Switzerland's homicides involve guns; 20% of Finland's; 33% of Sweden's; 32% of Canada's. Compared to 6.6% for England and Wales. The celebrated gun-owning countries definitely do have issues with gun crime, in the context of their national homicide rates.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Staunchly anti-gun, interesting the difference though if indeed automatics were illegal in Nevada.

    Shouldn't there be a big investigation into how he got it? The fact so many Americans would support his right to own one still ensures that other people would own them (even if out of state) thus making it easier to acquire. Even if not directly the long culture of gun ownership played a hand.

    Also anti-handgun ownership, handguns wouldn't have made any difference in Vegas and the sheer number of accidents involving toddlers is tragic. Too much "leave it to the parents" parents are idiots and the kids suffer.

    2nd Amendment should be adapted to a more 21st century idea in respect of gun ownership.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Better than your completely irrelevant one, yeah.

    For that to be relevant, you would have to compare two countries which are culturally and socio-economically similar. USA and St Kitts are not too similar, whereas UK and the US are. We know which country has the lower incidence of gun homicide out of those two.
    Are Switzerland and France close enough? But I guess you'll say there are strict restrictions in Switzerland so let's swap that out for Austria which has some of the most lax gun laws in Europe along with one of the lowest homicide rates, about a third of France's where they have strict controls. In fact, Austria has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world and the lowest in Europe (excluding the micro-states). Are you going to try to say that Austria and France are not culturally or socioeconomically similar?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The US needs to sort out its gun problem before it sorts it it's (nonexistent) 'Muslim problem'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Better than your completely irrelevant one, yeah.

    For that to be relevant, you would have to compare two countries which are culturally and socio-economically similar. USA and St Kitts are not too similar, whereas UK and the US are. We know which country has the lower incidence of gun homicide out of those two.
    We also know that homicide rates increased in the uk when we banned handguns, so let’s say that happens in the USA (it has happened in other countries as well) why is banning guns so important that the homicide rate should be increased?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Possession of a gun shouldn't in anyway be considered a right. The police are there to protect you in situations so they should be the only ones able to have a gun in their possession. I'm sorry but considering how easily people can have access to guns isn't right, there's a reason school shooting for example is such a big deal in America because kids can find ways to possess a gun. The fact that more people die because toddlers and young children somehow are left alone with a gun nearby than by a terrorist attack in the US should be looked into and
    dealt with immediately.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 27FT)
    Possession of a gun shouldn't in anyway be considered a right. The police are there to protect you in situations so they should be the only ones able to have a gun in their possession. I'm sorry but considering how easily people can have access to guns isn't right, there's a reason school shooting for example is such a big deal in America because kids can find ways to possess a gun. The fact that more people die because toddlers and young children somehow are left alone with a gun nearby than by a terrorist attack in the US should be looked into and
    dealt with immediately.
    You are more likely to die skydiving is that a problem that should be looked into and dealt with immediately?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, the argument on gun control was ended when certain people in power decided it was bearable for children to be killed as a result of gunfire.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You are more likely to die skydiving is that a problem that should be looked into and dealt with immediately?

    Don't forget drinking and smoking, far bigger killers, prohibition has to be brought back (it was so successful last time) and tobacco must be outlawed, and let's not forget suicide, if we ban that people will definitely stop killing themselves and tens of thousands will live longer. Heart disease is also a massive killer, about a quarter of deaths IIRC so ban fast food and let's save hundreds of thousands!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    We also know that homicide rates increased in the uk when we banned handguns, so let’s say that happens in the USA (it has happened in other countries as well) why is banning guns so important that the homicide rate should be increased?
    Handguns became illegal in 1997. In 1980 the number of homicides was 620 a year, in 1990 it was 669, and in 2000 it was 850. It went all the way up to 1,047 in 2002/03 and dropped down to 639 by 2010/11. There have been a few sub-500 years, and now it's in the 500-600 range.

    Homicides have gone down.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.