Yes I shouldn't have said that, but this is the main point of all of this to me. Make them legal and this happens:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
When facts don't support your cause, just make shit up instead.
Do you have political aspirations by chance?
CONCLUSIONS: The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.
Yes I shouldn't have said that, but this is the main point of all of this to me. Make them legal and this happens:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Doesn't really matter, his life is fucked no matter what now.
More cars = more deaths due to cars. Ban cars and people use mopeds instead.
More mopeds = more deaths due to mopeds.
Pretty obvious.
What is with us men? We argue our points yet in more than a decade online I've never seen any guy change his mind or even really back down.
I'm pointing out that despite what the NRA and many gun advocates say, arming everyone (for self protection, but mostly for firearm sales) won't make us safer.
Criminal homicide
Criminal homicide takes several forms and includes certain unintentional killings. The crime committed in a criminal homicide is determined by the state of mind of the defendant and statutes defining the crime. Murder, for example, is usually an intentional crime. In some jurisdictions, certain types of murders automatically qualify for capital punishment,[2] but if the defendant in a capital case is sufficiently mentally disabled in the United States he or she may not be executed, for reasons described in Atkins v. Virginia, similar to those utilizing an insanity defense.
Varying by jurisdiction, a homicide that occurs during the commission of a felony may constitute murder regardless the felon's mental state with regard to the killing. This is known as the felony murder rule. Much abbreviated and incomplete, the felony murder rule says that one committing a felony may be guilty of murder if someone, including the felony victim, a bystander or a co-felon, dies as a result of his acts, regardless his intent—or lack thereof—to kill.
Criminal homicides [3] also include voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The mental state of the perpetrator of these crimes differs from that of one who commits murder.
Although suicide is not a form of homicide, assisting in another's suicide may constitute criminal homicide, as codified, for instance, in California Penal Code Sec. 401.[4]
State-sanctioned homicide
Main article: Justifiable homicide
Homicides may also be non-criminal when conducted with the sanction of the state. The most obvious examples are capital punishment, in which the state determines that a person should die. Homicides committed in action during war are usually not subject to criminal prosecution either. In addition, members of law enforcement entities are also allowed to commit justified homicides within certain parameters which, when met, do not usually result in prosecution; see deadly force.
[H]omicide is much more common in countries with low levels of human development, high levels of income inequality and weak rule of law than in more equitable societies, where socio-economic stability seems to be something of an antidote to homicide.
Women murdered by their past or present male partner make up the vast majority of [female] victims.[5]
I remember a documentary I once saw about monkeys. It was amazing and funny to see these animals display the full range of emotions that we do, especially fear. The researcher in it said, "All species of monkey commit murder."
What I'm saying is that the human specie has not become sophisticated enough (IMHO) compared to our distant relatives to responsibly and safely wield such efficient killing machines. Until humans move forward, our emotions (especially fear) will always get the better of us. Fear is a great firearm purchase motivator.
Look at many of these school shooters. They were bullied (so was I). It's a really powerless and fearful feeling, especially the fear that it will go on forever. But ah, here comes a fast-firing way to regain power and make them regret ever torturing you. I'll just say I'm glad there were no guns available to me; my mind was immature and impulsive.
The more something is available, the more likely it will be used. Look at weed in Colorado, or Coke Cola around the world, or coal, or cars, or phones, or guns...
With guns so prevalent and humans so fallible I don't see a way out.
Countries with strict gun laws in Europe rarely have anything like this.
To me, shootings prove that monkeys can't handle firearms, so let's make them more available!
Seek mental help. You're insane.
Australia saw this, but 'American Exceptionalism' prevents us from learning from their success.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
It's too bad those options are always blocked by the industry trade group, the NRA (but even they couldn't keep kids from getting to their parents' guns).
it seems stupid to me to let criminals have guns yet take it from lawful citizens.
Why let the criminals have them? The loosening of background check laws at gun shows make them too easy for the wrong people to obtain them.
Buyback programs help reduce the amount of guns in criminal hands (IMO).
I just want to live in a gun-free society, and stories like this just drive that home. I know, then I should leave. Being anti-gun doesn't make me anti-American (even though many correlate the two).
No, most Americans just aren't gullible fools who believe every talking point they read in Mother Jones and similar propaganda rags. If you think Australia's ineffective knee-jerk reaction to Port Arthur was a success, I truly dread learning what you consider a failure.
Australia's half-billion dollar gun confiscation program had no effect on violent crime. The trend of declining firearm murders began in 1969 and remained unchanged by the confiscation.
Another false talking point. The NSSF is the firearm industry's trade group. An overwhelming majority of the NRA's funding comes from membership dues and personal contributions. Corporate contributions and advertising account for less than 15% of revenue.
Practically everything you've said in this thread has been factually incorrect. Are you not even slightly concerned that your sources are consistently lying to you?
I'm not sure I would agree with that. Port Aurthur was in '96. Their ow chart shows increases before that, but a steady decline afterward.
If it's not a trade group, why do they have trade shows?
http://trade-shows.findthebest.com/l/438/National-Rifle-Association-NRA
Seek mental help. You're insane.