Gun laws in the United States

[HyperU2 11]

I think we've already proved that "military grade" weapons are used in less crimes than handguns, I'm not against either one. Of course a deer rifle is more powerful than an AK anyway. Being against any firearm is chipping away at all.

[maturin 12]

I think we've already proved that "military grade" weapons are used in less crimes than handguns, I'm not against either one. Of course a deer rifle is more powerful than an AK anyway. Being against any firearm is chipping away at all.

Used in less crimes in the U.S.

Mexican drug gangs buy our assault rifles, kill thousands of people every year, and we get billions of dollars worth of drugs backed up ruthless gangs peddling product across a lawless border. Or did you think assault rifles in civilian hands was only a problem in Iraq?

And none of this really explains things like the shit Barret pulled. California banned anti-materiel rifles so they refused to sell any of their products to California law enforcement agencies. Apparently they want to maintain a rough parity of force between the government, the drug gangs, the crazy cultists, the survivalists and the general population. On what planet is that even remotely sane?

[HyperU2 11]

Used in less crimes in the U.S.

Mexican drug gangs buy our assault rifles, kill thousands of people every year, and we get billions of dollars worth of drugs backed up ruthless gangs peddling product across a lawless border. Or did you think assault rifles in civilian hands was only a problem in Iraq?

And none of this really explains things like the shit Barret pulled. California banned anti-materiel rifles so they refused to sell any of their products to California law enforcement agencies. Apparently they want to maintain a rough parity of force between the government, the drug gangs, the crazy cultists, the survivalists and the general population. On what planet is that even remotely sane?

Sorry I was just reading the title about Gun laws in the United States.

[maturin 12]

Sorry I was just reading the title about Gun laws in the United States.

Yeah, and I was just talking about crimes committed in the United States because of Gun Laws in the United States. The drug thing is still a thing, right?

[HyperU2 11]

Yeah drugs are a cause of a majority of US crimes. Not guns.

[ryguy 10]

Guns are an enabler. Without guns it becomes quite hard indeed to kill them. If you don't have a gun, what are you gonna do, stab them? Most likely not.

[HyperU2 11]

Guns are an enabler. Without guns it becomes quite hard indeed to kill them. If you don't have a gun, what are you gonna do, stab them? Most likely not.

Happens all the time. More often than with rifles and shotguns combined.

Edited July 20, 2010 by HyperU2

[ryguy 10]

Happens all the time. More often than with rifles or shotguns combined.

In 2006, there were 10,170 homicides (not crimes, homicides) using guns.

There were 1800 homicides involving knives.

[HyperU2 11]

Yeah people are pretty lazy. The problem isn't the ability to kill, it's the desire.

Edited July 20, 2010 by HyperU2

[ryguy 10]

Yeah people are pretty lazy. The problem isn't the ability to kill, it's the desire.

I guess the first sentence is sarcasm, it's pretty hard to figure that out in unformatted text. I wouldn't be so sure to say that, although not related to murder, suicide rates globally are highest on Wednesday (farthest away from the weekends, most depressing day of the week). If people could just wait until saturday maybe things would be different. Same with guns, if you know you can kill someone instantly and from a distance you'll do it more readily than if you have to stab them repeatedly.

---------- Post added at 05:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 AM ----------

Sure it's against my cause, but I'll cite it anyway just for the sake of education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html

There is some evidence, Professor Volokh said, that denying guns to people who might use them in self-defense, usually merely by brandishing them, tends to increase crime rates. There is also evidence that the possibility of confronting a victim with a gun deters some criminals.

In addition, criminals are the people least likely to obey gun control laws, meaning that the laws probably have a disproportionate impact on law-abiding individuals. “For the typical gun control law,†Professor Volokh said, “you’ll have very little positive effect but a possible negative effect.â€

A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs.

[HyperU2 11]

There are just wayyy way more factors than having a gun that go into our homicides. It's not something you can just magically make disappear by restricting law abiding citizens.

[ryguy 10]

The problem is as of date gun control does very very little at reducing homicides, but whether or not you support guns the fact is that if nobody had a gun there would be fewer homicides.

[HyperU2 11]

It's only a fact if you can prove it.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

LOL it's kind of been studied and proven.

At the end of the day, I can't abide the whole 'Its my right to arm bears!' shit. Coz all the reasons given buy these stereo types smack of paranoia or elitest agendas

My country has reasonably strict gun laws, and I'm glad. It dosn't stop me owning them ,but helps keep them out of the hands of smacktards

[HyperU2 11]

Proven? I missed the part where all the guns in the US magically went away for a period of time so this could be studied. It's been speculated maybe.

[Takko 10]

Wrong!

Canada and Finland have similar gun laws and there do happen less crimes,

so its not because of the guns but because of the circumstances, those people are

living in.

[celery 8]

In my humble opinion, the only valid point is : how many people are dying because the firearms are easy to obtain ?

Death rate by firearm per 100,000 population in one year :

France (homicide) : 0.44 (year : 1994)

USA (homicide) : 7.07 (year : 1998)

New Zealand, a country with some of the most liberal firearm politics (for the gun owner) in the western world has a homicide rate of 0.17. NZ is also at the top of the Global Peace Index that measures the level of safety of countries and their citizens with criteria that are shown on the page (including homicides and access to small arms). Countries with relatively liberal gun laws such as Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland are in the top 10 while France and UK are below 30. Those countries are also below France on firearm homicide rates with the exception of Finland (we're looking at almost 20 year old stats for some countries btw).

Summed up, the accessibility of firearms has minimal effect on the actual rate at which they're used in crimes. By homicide rates alone you can't tell which country has what gun laws.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Celery

[Beagle 684]

Germany has one of the most stric gun laws in europe, but that doesnt keep us from beeing the worlds Nr.2 in school massacres in the last Decade. The Guns used in almost all cases where legaly owned by at least a family member of the perpetrators.

Funny is that with the last changes in gun's law it saw a relaxation instead of a intensification...it is harder now to get a license, and the punishments for abuse got doubled, but we now have access to semi automatic assault rifles if we are members of the Bundewehr Reservists Association...funny is'nt it?

[ProfTournesol 956]

New Zealand, a country with some of the most liberal firearm politics (for the gun owner) in the western world has a homicide rate of 0.17. NZ is also at the top of the Global Peace Index that measures the level of safety of countries and their citizens with criteria that are shown on the page (including homicides and access to small arms). Countries with relatively liberal gun laws such as Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland are in the top 10 while France and UK are below 30. Those countries are also below France on firearm homicide rates with the exception of Finland (we're looking at almost 20 year old stats for some countries btw).

Summed up, the accessibility of firearms has minimal effect on the actual rate at which they're used in crimes. By homicide rates alone you can't tell which country has what gun laws.

Mmm that's a very partial point of view i'm afraid. You're making comparisons between small or very small countries and big ones. We all know that populated countries with complex social structures such as France, UK or USA have more security problems than smallest occidental ones, particularly if those small countries are located in the North of Europe, where the "social behaviour" of the citizens is very uniform.

[sparks50 0]

Im gonna have to side with Celery here. Ive yet to see any evidence that reducing(or increasing) availability of guns resulting in more, or less gun crime.

Studies that focuses on perpetrators show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary "lawâ€abiding citizens".

Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant people with life histories of violence,psychopathology,substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors.

People do not suddenly become murderers out of nothing when given the opportunity to.

Edited July 20, 2010 by sparks50

[ProfTournesol 956]

Im gonna have to side with Celery here. Ive yet to see any evidence that reducing(or increasing) availability of guns resulting in more, or less gun crime.

Studies that focuses on perpetrators show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary "lawâ€abiding citizens".

Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant people with life histories of violence,psychopathology,substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors.

People do not suddenly become murderers out of nothing when given the opportunity to.

Well, most of murders aren't committed by so called psychopathic people, but because of sudden violence between people. If i have a gun with me, i kill you. If i don't, i slap your face and that's all.

[dmakatra 1]

Gun laws in themselves might not make or break wether a country will experience a shitload of murders or not. But it definitely won't hurt.

Not having to worry about everyone and his mother and his mother's cat toting a gun around is enough of an argument to enforce restrictive gun laws. It may or it may not effect the murder rate, but it sure as hell makes me feel safer.

[echo1 0]

But surely making it excessively easy for someone to get their hands on a gun just exacerabates that problem? You say that most murders are commited by those with a history of crime... shouldn't there be laws to prevent such people getting their hands on a gun?

[sparks50 0]

Well, most of murders aren't committed by so called psychopathic people, but because of sudden violence between people.

No it isn't. Read some reports of other cases that aren't the incredibly tiny interesting percent that the media focuses on,

and you'll realize that real life is not an Agatha Christie novel.

shouldn't there be laws to prevent such people getting their hands on a gun?

But what can they prevent? I think your asking extremely much from the government here.

Edited July 20, 2010 by sparks50

[Second 0]

Wrong!

Canada and Finland have similar gun laws and there do happen less crimes,

so its not because of the guns but because of the circumstances, those people are

living in.

Not sure is this right sentence, even when i do agree with you that it's not amount of guns. US is number 1 with amount of firearms per capita. Then Yemen, Serbia and Switzerland. Then there's bunch of western nations such as Canada, Sweden, Finland and many others which all belong to class "Western nation with strong hunting traditions". In there cases there's something like 0.25 firearms per citizen/household, which is about half from what US has... If i recall the statistics right. Not that it really means anything as even then firearms are pretty common.

I naturally speak solely for Finland. Bit what i think is different, i'd guess, is that "Western nation with strong hunting traditions"-thingy. Mindset of most firearms owners is that you need gun to hunt. So most firearms are for hunting porpuses, bolt action rifles and semiautomatic or two barrel shotguns. Unlike what it seems to be in US, where you usually get gun for some other porpuse: selfdefence or shooting hobby etc. And because of that handguns, and assaultrifles are much-much more common. Surely i might have fallen into typical BS which both sides throw out at each of other.

So concerningn Finland: It is very easy to get licence for firearms suiting for hunting porpuses: Shotgun or bolt action rifle. You pass hunter's exam, pay annual hunting license for hunter's top organization and you can apply permit for firearm. If your record is clean and there's no reason to believe that you are mentally instable you are guaranteed to get licence.

While those wishing to have handgun or (semi-automatic) assaultrifle has to be citizen with no criminal records and have years of history with firearms, either hunters or member of some shooting club. Being member of shooting club is rocky road to take and i personally would suggest to stat road by hunting. back in 90s getting access to firearms was pretty easy even without hunting background from what i've heard. Alot depended on what kind of policeman was in charge of looking thru apply-forms, some did give licence easily some didn't. But reality in this has changed fast and will remain to be seen as right now in Finland there's pretty hot public debate about what to do with gun laws, due couple schoolmassacres and other brutal shooting incidents. Laws probably will get tighter, but question is: how much and how.

I do like the idea that if male hasn't finished his service but has dropped out in armed forces he's probably won't get access to firearms. As if person quits it usually is indicator of somesort of mental issues. That ofcourse works only if pretty much all men are expected to do their time in military, like in Finland.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Second