Arizona shooting range accident

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

So why is it that the homicide rate in London is around 2.5 per 100,000 per year and is significantly lower than most large US cities?

Chicago - 15.2
LA - 7.8
NYC - 4.0
Houston 16.3

---

If you correlate gun ownership and rights to murder rates, don't cherry pick examples and you'll find a much clearer picture. I live in a city approaching 500,00 that has a murder rate as low as London. It dropped, as did violent crime statewide, when concealed carry permits became legal in the state.

If you look at US cites as a whole, the most violent have a combination of strict gun laws, higher rates of gang activity, and a stretched or otherwise ineffective police department. And if you look at statistics virtually anywhere in the US, the vast majority of gun crime takes place at the hands of those not legal gun owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.

---

If you look at the reality of statistics rather than a large stretch, you will find that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns and/or owners prohibited from having them. Twisting facts won't help your case any, and I call BS on your statement.

Link please!


As for the later sweeping statement, laughable. Quite a few areas of crime in your country are as high as the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.

---

On the contrary, the people who legally own guns can be trusted. Its the ones with illegal guns that you have to worry about.

Over here there are an estimated 2 million illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. Imagine if we citizens couldn't protect ourselves with our guns. We'd be sitting ducks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

On the contrary, the people who legally own guns can be trusted. Its the ones with illegal guns that you have to worry about.

Over here there are an estimated 2 million illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. Imagine if we citizens couldn't protect ourselves with our guns. We'd be sitting ducks!

---

But if gun restrictions had been in place there would have been fewer guns in circulation to start with and criminals would find it much harder to get their hands on one.

Did Oscar Pistorius have an illegal weapon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

But if gun restrictions had been in place there would have been fewer guns in circulation to start with and criminals would find it much harder to get their hands on one.

Did Oscar Pistorius have an illegal weapon?

---

Did the police in the UK have illegal weapons when they gunned down an innocent kid they suspected of being a terrorist? No, but the comparisons would be very similar. Both are very isolated incidents that amount to hardly a blip in the statistics of what happens on a regular basis day to day.

The reality of day to day happenings is that in the developed word, a very tiny percentage of gun crime takes place at the hands of legal gun owners, both civilian or police/military. And in most cases where it does take place, it was simply poor judgement that takes a life, not any intentional criminal act.


IMO criminals the world over find guns if they want one, it's simply the severity of the laws about illegal ownership that keeps them from doing so in many countries. This is where the US fails, and felons, people with mental problems, etc all have access that is far too easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If you look at the reality of statistics rather than a large stretch, you will find that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns and/or owners prohibited from having them. Twisting facts won't help your case any, and I call BS on your statement.

Link please!

---

Please accept my apologies.

I must confess, it's been a while since I checked this and quite frankly, I find the stats for Australia disgraceful:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms - 11,068
- CDC Tables 2011

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....3?OpenDocument
Murder (firearms) - 41
- ABS Tables 2011

US Homicide rate/100,000 people = 3.48503
AU Homicide rate/100,000 people = 0.17826

This actually works out to be only 19 times safer. We have a serious problem in our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Please accept my apologies.

I must confess, it's been a while since I checked this and quite frankly, I find the stats for Australia disgraceful:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms - 11,068
- CDC Tables 2011

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....3?OpenDocument
Murder (firearms) - 41
- ABS Tables 2011

US Homicide rate/100,000 people = 3.48503
AU Homicide rate/100,000 people = 0.17826

This actually works out to be only 19 times safer. We have a serious problem in our country.

---

Quite a comical attempt, ignoring the question at hand. Even then your numbers were obviously exaggerated. My point discussed crime with legally owned guns vs crime with illegally owned guns.

But then again, you were aware of that. And you're probably also aware that violent crime in the US has been trending down for years.... guns and all. During that time the "safe" Aussies have seen increases in many violent crimes. But I'm sure that increase and greater per capita chances of being assaulted or raped makes people feel better because they aren't allowed to have a gun to protect themselves from it. But since the murder rate by firearms was trending down in Australia before the gun ban, you somehow justify to yourself how it helped.

Again, a matter of the whole perspective vs select statistics.

I don't want to come over as saying rape isn't serious crime but isn't murder usually a tad more serious than assault or even rape?

In addition:


Part of the reason the figures for sexual assault are on the increase is because women aren't as afraid to report rape as they used to. This is because of a change in our society and our attitude towards rape where police take it more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

My point discussed crime with legally owned guns vs crime with illegally owned guns.

---

Well there's a thing...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rimes-plummet/
About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
- Forbes, 14th May 2013

I don't know how you make your claim that "that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns" when no stats have been complied in about a decade:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rimes-plummet/
2004 (the most recent year of data available)
- same article

Do you know more than the Dept of Justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo;1012473
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
[I

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state[/I]
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

---

I agree, but we are talking about a piece of legislation which is almost 250 years old and totally obsolete.