Quote: (11-23-2010 11:37 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:
If you look at gun statistics, you will see that the USA has a lower % of citizen to gun ownership than it did probably ever in the history of the country.
If you mention any statistics, could you please provide the link to such statistics, so I can check it too? It is not because I think you're saying unsubstantiated things, but I'd like to see what you consider statistics. As I said, I've participated in such debates before, and would like to avoid a situation when I find myself arguing with an article written by Fox News using the "statistics" which comes from NRA.
Quote:Quote:
Back in the early 1900's both in and out of medium and large sized cities, households had 3-4 guns per person in some cases (this is true today in some areas). Go to the mid-West or deep South and you have people with enough guns in one house, to arm the entire neighborhood. Why aren't these people blasting away like the wild west movies?
Again a common argument, and again an easy one. There are three easy things to consider (there are even more, but those should be enough for starter):
First, a hundred year ago the societies around the world relied significantly more on self-defense than on law enforcement. Quite a lot of countries in Europe, Russia including, had very relaxed gun laws comparing to what they had now. Things started only getting tight around WWII.
Second, Spanish-American war just ended, and looking back in recent history one could predict that the next war is around the corner.
Third, how do you know they did not? It is not like they had Internet and could post about it.
Quote:Quote:
For years in Washington DC anything but a long rifle (with loads of paper work , fees and red tape) was illegal, yet the murder rate per capita was the highest in the USA? Why has the murder rate declined over the years and esp. after they allowed hand gun ownership in the city limits to law abiding citizens?
You obviously did not check the
FBI UCR yourself. Murder rate declined nationwide in 2009, not just in DC. By the way, Baltimore still had more murders in 2009 than DC despite having significantly less gun control. And St.Louis is still the leader, despite having pretty much no gun control.
Quote:Quote:
Prior to this law, guns were not obtained legally. Criminals will have guns weather its in Europe or South America or USA. The only difference is normal law abiding, tax paying citizens lack of gun ownership in these cases.
This is not correct. Not all criminals have guns - only those who need them for "work". Do you really think a burglar needs a gun? A shoplifter? A pickpocketer? I know for sure they do not in Russia, because the criminal penalty for having an illegal gun is significantly larger than for such a crime.
And as I said above, it is not criminals or terrorists who concern me. It is law-abiding citizens who went crazy.
Quote:Quote:
Forget about focusing on the USA for a moment and look at any number of places in the world with restrictive gun laws that have several times the murders, thefts and overal violent crime of the USA, and I'm not talking about war torn 3rd world deserts or jungles, I'm talking fairly advanced cities in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico etc. Places where there are not political wars or foreign invaders.
I don't think comparing Mexico with the USA is apples-to-apples. It is more reasonable to compare the USA with other first world countries with similar culture and background, like Canada, Australia and UK.
From this link, listing firearm homicide rate, and total homicide rate per 100,000:
Australia: firearm 0.31, total 1.57
England & Wales: firearm 0.12, total 1.45
Canada: firearm 0.54, total 1.58
USA: firearm 2.97, total 4.55
As you see, just the homicide rate by firearm only is
twice larger than the combined homicide rate in Australia and UK, and almost twice larger than in Canada. Comparing firearm homicide rates, the US firearm homicide rate is almost 25 (!) times higher than UK.
Quote:Quote:
Maybe its multi-culturalism, I don't claim to have the answer to exactly why, but I do not think removing the guns removes the intent. People can make bombs just like in Northern Ireland, a 1st world area with tons of guns and violence and no legal permits for these weapons.
So how do you explain then why the firearm homicide rate in UK is dramatically (25x!) lower than in US despite having armed criminals and unarmed citizens?
Regarding other violent crimes, check [url =http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob-crime-robberies]robbery rates[/url] (while nationmaster crime statistic is not relevant for some crimes, it matched my numbers for robberies). As you can see, gun ownership doesn't really help US citizens to prevent robberies.
And I am still waiting for answer to my question: what, in your opinion, would Cho do if he didn't have access to guns? How would he kill the same number of people?