There's empirical evidence to refute the orginal post... every country where gun controls are enforced there's less gun violence than those that don't have such legislation... excluding Canada... But I'm a gun owner, so I'm not actually for complete gun control... as for the constitution.... it doesn't mention guns at all, it says arms... a nuclear weapon is an arm also, does this country have the right to keep it's citiznes from owning nuclear weapons-darn right it does... and so this country has the right to enforce a limited amouont of gun control for that reason... its called judicial review, what did the framers mean when they wrote the second amendment? THey were talking about flintlocks not Uzzis, there needs to ba a limited amount of gun control, debating how much is useful but whatever laws that are made should be useful by empirical evidence.
Gun control logic
by Gregor 174 Replies latest social current
-
-
IP_SEC
it says arms...
You understand the word "intent" do you dawg?
Less gun related violence: I guess the mafia starts using slingshots ya? Yes I will submit to the idear that if less people had guns, then less people would be inclined to do stupid things with guns. I just say if you do a stupid or illegal thing thing with a gun (or slingshot or car) the law ought to come down on you like a ton of bricks. If you are responsible with your gun, slingshot, or car. You ought to be left alone.
-
Brother Apostate
Q: Is there a direct correlation, for each country, between the number of households with guns and the Gun Death Rate?
A: There is no correlation.
Finland has no prohibitions on gun ownership, and 16%more guns per capita than the US, yet they have roughly half the Intentional Gun Death rate of the US.
Denmark has one fifth as many guns per capita as USA, yet Denmark’s Gun Death Rate is three quarters the per capita Gun Death Rate of the US
Northern Ireland has only one-fifth as many guns per capita as the US, yet the Gun Death rate is one third the per capita Gun Death rate of the US
USA has 21 times as many guns per capita as Netherlands, yet Netherlands’ Gun Death Rate is only one forth the per capita Gun Death Rate of the US
Norway has three quarters as many guns per capita as the US, yet the Gun Death rate is less thanone third the per capita Gun Death rate of the US
Australia has 40% as many guns per capita as the US, yet the Gun Death Rate is 21% the per capita Gun Death Rate of the US
USA has 4100 times! as many guns per capita as Singapore, yet Singapore’s Gun Death Rate is 56 times! the per capita Gun Death Rate of the US
I could go on and on, but I believe I’ve made my point. You do the math.
What does this tell us? There is no correlation between gun ownership per capita and murder rate per capita, its all over the map. It is a cultural thing.
From the chart below, the last column gives the correlation, which is all over the map, and not at all linear. The last column is a ratio of how many households have firearms per country, vs how many intentional deaths by gun per country.
Table 1 - International Firearms Regulation, Access and Death
Country
Licensing of gun owners?
Registration of firearms?
Other
Households with firearms (%)
Gun Homicide (per 100,000)
Gun Suicide (per 100,000)
Total Intentional Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Correlation
Ratio of HHWF%
To
TIGDR
Japan
Yes
Yes
Prohibits handguns with few exceptions
0.6
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.12
Singapore
Yes
Yes
Most handguns and rifles prohibited
0.01 (795 in the country)
0.07
0.17
0.24
24.0
Taiwan
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.15
0.12
0.27
N/A
Kuwait
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.34
0.03
0.37
N/A
England/Wales
Yes
Yes
Prohibits handguns
4.0
0.07
0.33
0.4
0.10
Scotland
Yes
Yes
Same as England and Wales
4.0
0.19
0.30
0.49
0.12
Netherlands
Yes
Yes
1.9
0.27
0.28
0.55
0.29
Spain
Yes
Yes
Some handguns and rifles are prohibited
13.1
0.19
0.55
0.74
0.06
Ireland
Yes
Yes
N/A
0.30
0.94
1.24
N/A
Germany
Yes
Yes
8.9
0.21
1.23
1.44
0.16
Italy
Yes
Yes
N/A
1.16
1.11
2.27
N/A
Sweden
Yes
Yes
Restrictions in some regions
20
0.18
2.09
2.27
0.11
Denmark
Yes
Long guns only
8
0.23
2.25
2.48
0.31
Israel
Yes
Yes
N/A
0.72
1.84
2.56
N/A
New Zealand
Yes
Handguns. Proposed for long guns
20
0.22
2.45
2.67
0.13
Australia
Yes
Yes
Banned semiautomatics unless good reason
16.0
0.56
2.38
2.94
0.18
Belgium
Some
Yes
Some rifles are prohibited
16.6
0.87
2.45
3.32
0.20
Canada
by 2001
All guns by 2003
Assault weapons and some handguns
26
0.60
3.35
3.95
0.15
Norway
Yes
Unknown
32
0.36
3.87
4.23
0.13
Austria
Yes
Yes
Some handguns and rifles are prohibited
16-18%
0.42
4.06
4.48
0.26
Northern Ireland
Yes
Yes
UK legislation applies
8.4
3.55
1.18
4.72
0.56
France
Yes
Yes, except sporting rifles
22.6
0.55
4.93
5.48
0.24
Switzerland
Yes
Yes
27.2
0.46
5.74
6.2
0.23
Finland
Yes
Yes
No prohibitions
50
0.87
5.78
6.65
0.13
USA
in some states
Handguns in some states
Some weapons in some states
41
6.24
7.23
13.47
0.43
-
dawg
Ip-Sec-I see that point and agree, there are many things that are dangerous that are legal. The problem with the gun control argument is like many others-everyone tries to make the issue black and white but it's not that simple... a slingshot, my 38 special and my shotgun aren't as dangerous as a banna clip Uzzi; you're rigght that we need to debate what should and shouldn't be legal, but that should be the debate... I'll start with an extreme, I think nuclear "arms" shouldn't be legal. I also don't care for the fact that Uzzis can be bought legally... but here's the argument-whether you agree with that shotguns or sidearms should be leagl or not, to deny one a right to buy a nuclear "arm" is perfectly constitutional becasue our framers didn't have knowledge these things were going to be invented. They also didn't know that Uzzis swould one day be made... since they didn't know these things they wern't talking about them when they pinned the 2 amendment. WHat say you?
-
IP_SEC
Dawg
First: It is black and white. "If you harm no one you have not broken the law" (this would be my basic legal tenant were I despot of my own little country)
Second: Guns as arms and nukes as arms are apples and oranges. Guns can serve a purpose of sport, defense, livelihood, and offense (ala Vtech). Nukes serve no purpose but offense and mass destruction.
-
Brother Apostate
Dawg,
Your argument about uzzis being more dangerous than handguns holds no water- It's not the gun that's safe or dangerous, it's the person behind the gun.
Also, you need a lesson on the second amendment. In reality, the concept was partially to provide for citizen militias to combat threats to state or national sovereignty from without, or within.
In other words, the citizens actually would have the right to arm themselves with whatever their potential enemy might bring to bear in a conflict.
Now, the courts have ruled otherwise, but that was clearly the intent of Madison, Jefferson, et al. Read about it.
BA- Clarifying things.
PS- That dawg won't hunt.
-
heathen
yeppers I think you're nuts if you think the only thing they had in mind with the right to bear arms was in order to preserve and protect the republic . Not even an argument there, since people had to use them for hunting and also enjoyed sport .
-
IP_SEC
yeppers I think you're nuts if you think the only thing they had in mind with the right to bear arms was in order to preserve and protect the republic .
They may have had other things in mind but this is the stated reason they protected the right.
-
Warlock
Does anyone remember the "anarchy" DURING and AFTER the L.A. riots? Did anyone see those people being beaten, almost to death at Florence and Normandie? Did anyone see the Korean merchants protecting their property? With slingshots? No. With guns.
After Katrina, would you rather have a butter knife for protection, or an AK 47?
How about the stories that came out of Florida after that huge hurricane a few years back? Those people protected themselves from looters. How? With guns, guns, and more guns.
Like I said, I don't have guns at the moment, but it sure is nice to know I could go get one, or two, today, if I wanted. To shoot up the neighborhood? NO! For self-protection. For just in case.
Warlock
-
heathen
It may be worded that way but there's no way in hell that was the only reason for gun ownership .