• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

marywollstonecraft said:
perhaps the problem isn't guns ... perhaps the problem is that americans are more prone to violence ... 5.22 murders per 100,000 compared to 1.23 ....[/QUOTE

There is no doubt that certain segments of our society are more prone to violence, but the bottom line is that bad people are going to do bad things.
Click to expand...
 
marywollstonecraft said:
perhaps the problem isn't guns ... perhaps the problem is that americans are more prone to violence ... 5.22 murders per 100,000 compared to 1.23 ....
Click to expand...
It's not all Americans, it's Americans in cities with populations greater than 250,000. America happens to have more of those size cities.
 
apdst said:
marywollstonecraft said:
perhaps the problem isn't guns ... perhaps the problem is that americans are more prone to violence ... 5.22 murders per 100,000 compared to 1.23 ....[/QUOTE

There is no doubt that certain segments of our society are more prone to violence, but the bottom line is that bad people are going to do bad things.
Click to expand...

simplistic. but if that is so, society CAN reduce the harm they can do by restricting access to weapons that are designed for war zones.
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
It's not all Americans, it's Americans in cities with populations greater than 250,000. America happens to have more of those size cities.
Click to expand...

a greater percentage of Australians live in large urban centres with populations above one million, and yet we have less than a quarter of the number of murders per capita, so that can't be the reason.
 
Jerry said:
Not at all: Australia: More Violent Crime Despite Gun Ban
Click to expand...

murders?

less than one quarter?

no mass shootings since the gun ban?

your source is linking this to the gun ban, which was not relevant at all for the type of crimes referred to.

you need to look at other factors that may be influencing these statistics. going to the original report, rather than relying on a source that cherry picks information to suit its own agenda, would be sensible.
 
apdst said:
He's not making stuff up. It's a fact that gun control has never had a positive effect on the crime rate.

If the gun bill passes and it becomes illegal to open carry in a mv, then we'll see violent crime become rampant on the highways. Carjackings are going to become the crime de jour.
Click to expand...

that may indicate inherent problems within your society, but it would significantly reduce the risk of incidents like Sandy Hook.
 
Jerry said:
For everything on that list, we disregard failed methods in favor of those methods which work
Click to expand...
Fewer people are killed by guns in countries with stricter gun control. I'd say that's working.
apdst said:
He's not making stuff up. It's a fact that gun control has never had a positive effect on the crime rate.
Click to expand...
How about the homicide by firearm rate? Has gun control affected that?

How come the pro gun crowd always tries to twist the argument on this? I want to ban certain types of guns to lower the homicide rate. We have evidence of this working in other countries. Let's keep our eyes on what's important.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Fewer people are killed by guns in countries with stricter gun control. I'd say that's working.

.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Homicide rates are based on poverty, corruption in gov't, ineffective policing, factions/tribes/gangs, and drug dealing.

Gun ownership rates or gun laws have frack-all to do with it one way or the other.

Violent crime rates in England are 4x higher than the US, the only thing they have less of is murder but they have far more of everything else.

All verifiable stats.

Mexico has truly draconian gun control, yet it is practically a war zone due to corruption, ineffective LE and drug trade.


Canada has FIVE TIMES the gun ownership rates of Great Britain... but there is very little difference in homicide rate (1.2 to 1.6). Why doesn't Canada have 5x the murder rate of Britain when they have five times as many guns? Culture, of course. Same reason Canada is generally more peaceful and has far less violent crime in general.


From a previous thread on this same theme...

I will list the top nations in order of rates of intentional homicide, also showing their rates of private gun ownership, then show the USA by contrast.

Name.... homicide rate per 100,000.... gun ownership rate per 100.

Honduras... 91.6... 6.2
El Salvador... 69.2 ... 5.8
Cote d'Ivoire... 56.9 ... not listed
Jamaica... 52.2 ... 8.1
Venezuela ... 45.1 ... 10.7
Belize ... 41.1 ... 10
Virgin Islands ... 39.2 ... not listed
Guatemala ... 38.5 ... 13.1
skipping down a bit...
Columbia ... 33.4 ... 5.9
South Africa... 31.8 ... 12.7
skipping down some more...
Greenland ... 19.2 ... not listed
Russia ... 10.2 ... 8.9
skipping down some more...
Ukraine.... 5.2 ... 6.6
Cuba... 5.0 ... 4.8

And finally, well over halfway down the list...

USA... 4.2 ... 88.8


Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As it turns out, the United States does not have that high of a homicide rate compared to most other countries, and given the amount of privately owned arms we are FAR more peaceable than most on a per-gun-owned basis.

OBVIOUSLY, gun ownership is NOT directly linked to murder rates.
Click to expand...
 
Goshin said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...
Uhh, no, it's accurate. Regardless of what you wish to credit the lower deaths to, it's still correct.

Gun ownership rates or gun laws have frack-all to do with it one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's simple logic. The fewer people who can have easy access to a gun, the fewer people who can use a gun to kill people. The argument then becomes "if they really want to, they will", which could very well be true, but it's also true it is so much more difficult to kill with any other weapon.

Violent crime rates in England are 4x higher than the US, the only thing they have less of is murder but they have far more of everything else.
Click to expand...
Violent crime is measured differently in England than in the United States. This is not really a relevant statement. But, while we're on the subject, I'd much rather be mugged than murdered.

Mexico has truly draconian gun control, yet it is practically a war zone due to corruption, ineffective LE and drug trade.

Canada has FIVE TIMES the gun ownership rates of Great Britain... but there is very little difference in homicide rate (1.2 to 1.6). Why doesn't Canada have 5x the murder rate of Britain when they have five times as many guns? Culture, of course. Same reason Canada is generally more peaceful and has far less violent crime in general.
Click to expand...
Would you argue 300 million guns in this country contribute to a gun culture?

From a previous thread on this same theme...
Click to expand...

I looked at your list...and THOSE are the type of countries you want to compare the United States to? Shouldn't we be comparing ourselves more to countries who are 1st world and/or civilized countries?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Uhh, no, it's accurate. Regardless of what you wish to credit the lower deaths to, it's still correct.

I disagree. It's simple logic. The fewer people who can have easy access to a gun, the fewer people who can use a gun to kill people. The argument then becomes "if they really want to, they will", which could very well be true, but it's also true it is so much more difficult to kill with any other weapon.

Violent crime is measured differently in England than in the United States. This is not really a relevant statement.

Would you argue 300 million guns in this country contribute to a gun culture?



I looked at your list...and THOSE are the type of countries you want to compare the United States to? Shouldn't we be comparing ourselves more to countries who are 1st world and/or civilized countries?
Click to expand...



You're wrong, and the stats prove you are wrong. If you want to be snobbish about Honduras and Mexico, there's Russia and the Ukraine; there's Britains high violent crime rate.

Nations with draconian gun control should have lower murder rates if you were stating a fundamental truth, regardless of economic status... but they don't and you aren't.

Poverty and wealth inequality, corruption and ineffective gov, faction/tribe/gang, drug trade.... these are the primary causal agents of murder, not guns.

Deny it if you wish, but if you study the data it is as obvious as daylight.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Fewer people are killed by guns in countries with stricter gun control. I'd say that's working.

How about the homicide by firearm rate? Has gun control affected that?

How come the pro gun crowd always tries to twist the argument on this? I want to ban certain types of guns to lower the homicide rate. We have evidence of this working in other countries. Let's keep our eyes on what's important.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
murders?

less than one quarter?

no mass shootings since the gun ban?

your source is linking this to the gun ban, which was not relevant at all for the type of crimes referred to.

you need to look at other factors that may be influencing these statistics. going to the original report, rather than relying on a source that cherry picks information to suit its own agenda, would be sensible.
Click to expand...
If I'm misunderstanding the types of crimes you were referring to, that could be because you can't be bothered for form whole sentences. You make sloppy posts and then crumb when someone can't follow your line of thought.
 
Goshin said:
You're wrong, and the stats prove you are wrong.
Click to expand...
The stats I've seen say otherwise.
there's Britains high violent crime rate.
Click to expand...
As I said, violent crime rate is measured differently in England (and most countries really) so it's not really a good comparison.

Nations with draconian gun control should have lower murder rates if you were stating a fundamental truth
Click to expand...
And most civilized/1st world countries do.

Poverty and wealth inequality, corruption and ineffective gov, faction/tribe/gang, drug trade
Click to expand...
All factors...and all things which are found in most countries.

Deny it if you wish, but if you study the data it is as obvious as daylight.
Click to expand...
Australia has shown a decline in gun related homicide. Japan has extremely low firearm related murder rates. Even England, who you keep talking about having a violent crime rate, has a low gun related homicide rate. Developed countries, countries we compare ourselves to, with strict gun laws (not necessarily restrictive, but strict) have lower homicide rates. Regardless of what you wish to accredit that to, it is the facts.

apdst said:
No, it hasn't.
Click to expand...
Yes, they have. Australia is a prime example. Australia had 104 firearm related homicides in 1996 (when the gun laws were enacted) to 30 in 2010. I'd say that was effective.
 
Slyfox696 said:
The stats I've seen say otherwise.
As I said, violent crime rate is measured differently in England (and most countries really) so it's not really a good comparison.

And most civilized/1st world countries do.

All factors...and all things which are found in most countries.

Australia has shown a decline in gun related homicide. Japan has extremely low firearm related murder rates. Even England, who you keep talking about having a violent crime rate, has a low gun related homicide rate. Developed countries, countries we compare ourselves to, with strict gun laws (not necessarily restrictive, but strict) have lower homicide rates. Regardless of what you wish to accredit that to, it is the facts.

Yes, they have. Australia is a prime example. Australia had 104 firearm related homicides in 1996 (when the gun laws were enacted) to 30 in 2010. I'd say that was effective.
Click to expand...

The usual, tired trick of limiting it to "gun murder" or "gun crime."

The United States a lower Citroen car accident rate than France does. Does that tell anyone anything useful? About cars, accidents, Citroens, or anything at all? Indeed it does not.

Violent crime in the United States is at record lows. Gun ownership is at a record high. Both are facts.
 
Jerry said:
If I'm misunderstanding the types of crimes you were referring to, that could be because you can't be bothered for form whole sentences. You make sloppy posts and then crumb when someone can't follow your line of thought.
Click to expand...

what you are really saying is that you understand well what I said ... but rather than admit that I am correct, you will attack me because I chose to not waste words in my response to your post, as it referred to ill founded and cherry picked information. :)
 
Harshaw said:
The usual, tired trick of limiting it to "gun murder" or "gun crime."

The United States a lower Citroen car accident rate than France does. Does that tell anyone anything useful? About cars, accidents, Citroens, or anything at all? Indeed it does not.

Violent crime in the United States is at record lows. Gun ownership is at a record high. Both are facts.
Click to expand...

but why is your murder rate so high relative to similar countries?
 
Goshin said:
Wrong.

Homicide rates are based on poverty, corruption in gov't, ineffective policing, factions/tribes/gangs, and drug dealing.
Click to expand...

so what you are saying is that the US is considerably less effective at dealing with these issues than other, similar countries. why is that?

It can't be because you are not tough enough on crime - you also have a significantly higher prison population than similar countries - in fact - higher than ANY other country.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun ownership rates or gun laws have frack-all to do with it one way or the other.

Violent crime rates in England are 4x higher than the US, the only thing they have less of is murder but they have far more of everything else.

All verifiable stats.
Click to expand...

maybe so, but since when was all violent crime regarded as homicide?


Mexico has truly draconian gun control, yet it is practically a war zone due to corruption, ineffective LE and drug trade.
Click to expand...

the US/Mexico border is not just problematic for the US: ATF: Mexico seized 68,000 guns made in or imported to United States since 2006 - CBS News

Canada has FIVE TIMES the gun ownership rates of Great Britain... but there is very little difference in homicide rate (1.2 to 1.6). Why doesn't Canada have 5x the murder rate of Britain when they have five times as many guns? Culture, of course. Same reason Canada is generally more peaceful and has far less violent crime in general.
Click to expand...

that is VERY important, and it might be worth looking at why that is.


From a previous thread on this same theme...
Click to expand...

no, it is not ... but the US is clearly a society which is prone to violence - for whatever reason. Throw easy access to weapons which are designed for a war zone into the mix, and look what you end up with.
 
Goshin said:
You're wrong, and the stats prove you are wrong. If you want to be snobbish about Honduras and Mexico, there's Russia and the Ukraine; there's Britains high violent crime rate.
Click to expand...

seriously - you want to compare your country to Russia and Ukraine?

Do you seriously believe the country which claims itself to be the "leader of the free world" is comparable TO corrupt former CIS states?

all violent crime is defined as homicide?

Nations with draconian gun control should have lower murder rates if you were stating a fundamental truth, regardless of economic status... but they don't and you aren't.
Click to expand...

that argument is incredibly simplistic and ignores the many systemic factors that can contribute to violence

Poverty and wealth inequality, corruption and ineffective gov, faction/tribe/gang, drug trade.... these are the primary causal agents of murder, not guns.

Deny it if you wish, but if you study the data it is as obvious as daylight.
Click to expand...

so what you are saying is the US is up to four times as ineffective at dealing with these issues as other OECD countries.

why is that?
 
marywollstonecraft said:
what you are really saying is that you understand well what I said ... but rather than admit that I am correct, you will attack me because I chose to not waste words in my response to your post, as it referred to ill founded and cherry picked information. :)
Click to expand...
I seriously don't know what you were trying to say. Were you trying to bring up the Monash University shooting or what?
 
Harshaw said:
Inner-city gang violence.
Click to expand...

research has shown that gun ownership is also a significant risk factor for homicide in the home: MMS: Error

not to mention a significant factor in unintentional death - including the deaths of children:

Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries (Table 1).[4] The United States has been in this unenviable position for at least the past decade.[5] From 2003 to 2007, the yearly averages of unintentional firearm fatalities were as follows: 62 children aged 0 to 14, 89 youth aged 15 to 19, and 95 young adults aged 20 to 24 years.[6]

Not surprisingly, there are more accidental gun deaths in areas with more guns.[7–9] The differences are substantial. To illustrate, we compare accidental firearm deaths among the states most extreme in terms of firearm ownership levels. States are grouped so that the populations of the high and low gun states are equal. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states (Table 2).

Fatal injuries are only the tip of the iceberg. For every fatality from an accidental shooting, there are more than 10 people injured seriously enough in gun accidents to be treated in hospital emergency departments.[10] In other words, almost 20 people a day are shot unintentionally but do not die. This number does not include any of the more than 45 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for BB/pellet gun wounds (2003–2007) or the many others injured by firearms in other ways (eg, powder burns, struck with a firearm, injured by the recoil of a firearm), many unintentionally.

One study of nonfatal accidental shootings found that the majority were self-inflicted, most involved handguns, and more than one third of the injuries required hospitalization. Injuries often occurred during fairly routine gun handling—cleaning a gun, loading and unloading, target shooting, and so on.[11] It is important to recognize that although some people are at higher risk for unintentional shootings than others, accidents can happen to anyone. No one is completely immune, as shown anecdotally by scores of stories of police, firearms safety instructors, firearms advocates, and other experts who have accidentally shot themselves or others.[12]

Overall, the evidence indicates that a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury. When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard.[13]
Click to expand...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom