• 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!

There seems to be very little correlation between gun laws and gun deaths[W76]

There seems to be very little correlation between gun laws and gun deaths

People who commit violent crimes should be in prison. we put too many people who do not commit VIOLENT crimes in prison and let too many VIOLENT criminals out too soon. STATES should enhance criminals sentences for those who engage in violence or threaten violence.

the following CRAP needs to go away period

1) the 1934 NFA-its unconstitutional

2) the Hughes amendment to the GCA of 68-its unconstitutional

3) the GCA of 68-its unconstitutional

4) the Lautenberg Amendment to the 69 GCA-its unconstitutional

5) magazine limits at a state level

6) "assault weapon bans" at a state level

7) limits on how many firearms you can buy in a given time period

8) "may issue" CCW licenses. they should all be shall issue

Sure I agree with you. Besides these eight laws, you believe the punishment for all the other non-violent gun laws you agree with? You don't think increasing the punishment to a very high level would teach people to be more responsible gun owners?

I honestly don't know where I stand on this, i'm just curious what you think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nobody cares what smug Brits who happily gave up their rights as Englishmen think about our preservation of them. Would that English rights were as alive and well in England as they are here.

Did it ever occur to you that they don't want to emulate your bloody example ? Given that your homicide rate per 100,000 is 4.7 times than theirs and that 70% of those involve the use of a firearm it looks like they are the ones getting it right.

Nobodys pining after guns in England I can assure you
 
GUN homicides. Dead is dead. At a minimum, include homicides from all causes to have even a remotely accurate picture.

There ya go ....

Graph-1.jpg

Note how its the guns that uniquely differentiate the US homicides from other developed countries
 
why do white Americans-with far easier access to firearms than Europeans-have no higher rates of gun violence than white Europeans who live in Nanny states that don't trust their citizens to easily own firearms?

This is nonsense as you've been shown many times. Your 'whitest' state (Montana) has a gun homicide rate of nearly 4 times the national average and around 25 times the EU average yet only a 0.67% black minority

Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

You are looking for racial scapegoats for your problems when its the access to firearms
 
Last edited:
take out blacks living in Democrat run cities and our rates aren't any higher than most of Europe's

You may as well simply say "filter out a bunch of data until you get the result i want."
 
More guns = more death

Simple



Wrong.


Setting aside your myopic focus on Europe, many nations have far lower rates of gun ownership yet far FAR higher homicide rates than the US.


In fact the US is roughly in the middle of all nations in homicides, and closer to Europe than to the rate-leader nations.


I've posted this before...

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.
 
Time to cut through the bullschtick.


America is not Europe, and Europe is not America.


What works in one will not necessarily work in the other.



Our history, culture, psychology, sociology, government both theory and practice, and our lives and lifestyles are VERY different on a fundamental level.


America was colonized by outcasts, renegades, rebels, outsiders, the desperate, the determined, those too different or independent to fit in well in Europe. Those colonists fought bloody guerilla warfare against the natives for a century, fought hardship and privation, lived far from villages and towns and help and developed an fiercely independent and self-reliant nature.

Mix English outcasts, Irish renegades, Scottish rebels, German mercenaries, religious outcasts, add a century of fighting the wilderness and the natives and you get a people unlike any in Europe. Mix in a lot of intermarriage with the Natives and a dash of their warrior culture as well.


Europe has been village-centered, group-centered, for over a millenia. Americans carved out family farms and ranches amid vast empty wilderness full of hostile natives. Our heritage is one of individuality and independence and self-reliance to a degree all but incomprehensible to most Europeans.


Private firearm ownership has been commonplace and wide spread since the beginning. It was never common in Europe.


Western European murder rates were low even before the institution of strict gun control in the latter half of the 20th century. American murder rates have always been high, even back when guns were single-shot affairs and many conflicts were settled with knives and hatchets.


In Europe, gun control hasn't been as much of an issue because there weren't many privately owned guns to control in the first place.


In America, there are more guns than people, and most of them have never been registered and cannot be tracked.


Yet, we've seen gun control failures in Europe as well. Europe has as many mass killings as America, and they are often accomplished using weapons that are banned or highly restricted. See Charlie Hebdo, the Norway massacre, and others. Gun control doesn't work so well when individuals or groups are determined to get around it... it just ensures unarmed victims.

Most US mass shootings occur in "gun free zones"... allegedly gun-free that is.


In America, the massive proliferation of firearms that already exists makes gun control highly problematic. Even Canada had plenty of refuseniks during their attempts to create a long-gun registry, so much a failure that it was discontinued.... imagine trying that in the US and it would be 10x worse.


The large majority of our gun violence is felon on felon, or drug-trade related, or gang related. And frankly, it is still far and away better than Mexico, where legal private ownership of firearms is virtually nonexistent, but drug cartel warriors are better armed than the police and slaughter anyone who annoys them with near impunity.


These sum up the problems rather neatly:


illegalfunny.jpg

gunfreezonecartoon.jpg




America is not Europe, and never will be. European solutions will not work in America. Comparisons between the two are highly inaccurate, like comparing horsepower and computing power.
 
Last edited:
And to REALLY get down to the core principles of the matter...


Really it isn't even the guns themselves, per se.


In a sense it is, because guns are about the most effective personal weapons currently available, and they level the playing field of power.


If the most advanced personal weapons were bows and crossbows and rapiers, that's what I'd be arguing for.



What we're REALLY arguing about is the distribution of PERSONAL POWER.


Some people don't want individuals to possess personal power; some do. Some want the power of force and threat of force reserved to a small elite, others wish it to be distributed more democratically... our Founders were among the latter.


The reasons for this are HUGE... when the Founders chose NOT to reserve all rights to force to the almighty State, but to leave same in the hands of the People, it was a radical statement of democratic equality beyond anything the world has ever seen in modern times.


Never mind that a nuke can melt you, your gun and your city all together at once... that isn't important in this context. What matters is when one man (or woman!) faces another in personal conflict, whether each has the MEANS to face the other as a rough EQUAL in power.


Most of the most terrible crimes, assaults, indignities, oppressions, offenses, tyrannies, and human-inflicted suffering occurs when the Aggressor has far more power than his chosen Victim. In practical terms, in the world as we know it, "rights" and so forth are chiefly relevant between individuals who are roughly EQUAL in power... or at least, the lesser-powered one has the means to HURT the greater power badly. Hence the lust for nuclear arms by many small regimes, and the care with which we treat such regimes (Pakistan and NK are probably not going to be invaded by us anytime soon... double-ditto China, Russia, India... )


Most suffering inflicted by one human upon another is a direct result of an imbalance of power. Equals in power tend to treat each other with caution and diplomacy... but where there is huge inequality in power, the greater will inflict whatever suffering or tyranny on the lesser he cares to. This is seen in bad homes, in gang-infested streets, in boardrooms and the halls of power, and in international politics... but the basic form of it is person to person.


In our age, the gun is the great leveler of Personal Power. With it a skilled 70yo granny can stop a 250# twenty-yr old thug in his tracks, or at least make him back off.


There's an old saying "All men were created equal. Sam Colt made them that way." There's a lotta truth there.


Some people believe in Power to The People... and some don't. It is really that simple, even if they don't realize it.
 
Last edited:
You may as well simply say "filter out a bunch of data until you get the result i want."

well you gun banners and freedom contrarians always claim that its the "easy access to legal firearms" that cause the problems yet White Americans not only have an easier access to firearms than almost any other group in the world, we also have the highest rate of legal gun ownership. Yet we have much lower rates of violent gun crime than say American blacks who have lower rates of legal gun ownership and tend to be concentrated in areas that are controlled by anti gun democrats

its like DC and Virginia. DC had a complete handgun ban. Va didn't. Bannerrhoid operatives blamed Va for the DC gun crime yet Va had much lower numbers.


explain that
 
And to REALLY get down to the core principles of the matter...


Really it isn't even the guns themselves, per se.


In a sense it is, because guns are about the most effective personal weapons currently available, and they level the playing field of power.


If the most advanced personal weapons were bows and crossbows and rapiers, that's what I'd be arguing for.



What we're REALLY arguing about is the distribution of PERSONAL POWER.


Some people don't want individuals to possess personal power; some do. Some want the power of force and threat of force reserved to a small elite, others wish it to be distributed more democratically... our Founders were among the latter.


The reasons for this are HUGE... when the Founders chose NOT to reserve all rights to force to the almighty State, but to leave same in the hands of the People, it was a radical statement of democratic equality beyond anything the world has ever seen in modern times.


Never mind that a nuke can melt you, your gun and your city all together at once... that isn't important in this context. What matters is when one man (or woman!) faces another in personal conflict, whether each has the MEANS to face the other as a rough EQUAL in power.


Most of the most terrible crimes, assaults, indignities, oppressions, offenses, tyrannies, and human-inflicted suffering occurs when the Aggressor has far more power than his chosen Victim. In practical terms, in the world as we know it, "rights" and so forth are chiefly relevant between individuals who are roughly EQUAL in power... or at least, the lesser-powered one has the means to HURT the greater power badly. Hence the lust for nuclear arms by many small regimes, and the care with which we treat such regimes (Pakistan and NK are probably not going to be invaded by us anytime soon... double-ditto China, Russia, India... )


Most suffering inflicted by one human upon another is a direct result of an imbalance of power. Equals in power tend to treat each other with caution and diplomacy... but where there is huge inequality in power, the greater will inflict whatever suffering or tyranny on the lesser he cares to. This is seen in bad homes, in gang-infested streets, in boardrooms and the halls of power, and in international politics... but the basic form of it is person to person.


In our age, the gun is the great leveler of Personal Power. With it a skilled 70yo granny can stop a 250# twenty-yr old thug in his tracks, or at least make him back off.


There's an old saying "All men were created equal. Sam Colt made them that way." There's a lotta truth there.


Some people believe in Power to The People... and some don't. It is really that simple, even if they don't realize it.

which is why the advocates for gun control are-at least 95% of the time-the same people who want more government control
 
This is nonsense as you've been shown many times. Your 'whitest' state (Montana) has a gun homicide rate of nearly 4 times the national average and around 25 times the EU average yet only a 0.67% black minority

Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

You are looking for racial scapegoats for your problems when its the access to firearms

blacks are 13% of the population and cause over half the murders. Your drivel is dismissed.
 
Sure I agree with you. Besides these eight laws, you believe the punishment for all the other non-violent gun laws you agree with? You don't think increasing the punishment to a very high level would teach people to be more responsible gun owners?

I honestly don't know where I stand on this, i'm just curious what you think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe in prison for most non violent offenders. I believe in INCARCERATION of those who have engaged in violent harm of others. Not to "teach them a lesson" but to prevent them from engaging in further harm of others.
 
blacks are 13% of the population and cause over half the murders. Your drivel is dismissed.

OH NOOOOES THE BLACKS!!!!!!


“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.” - Donald Trump

“Laziness is a trait in blacks.” = Donald Trump
 
Last edited:
OH NOOOOES THE BLACKS!!!!!!


“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.” - Donald Trump


more irrelevant bait BS I see from you. every time you post you confirm that you aren't here to "debate"
 
can you find a correlation with this data?
View attachment 67206815

The problem with this chart is that you are comparing countries with fewer firearms per million than the U.S. It would follow that there would be fewer firearm murders. If the same numbers occur with all murders by all means, then the problem isn't the guns but the society. This chart shows meaningless statistics. I remember years ago a chart that showed that some high percentage of traffic accidents occur within 25 miles of the driver's home. But, as you guessed, the amount of driving within 25 miles of home was about the same. It is an old trick to use statistics to push an agenda rather than to actually analyze reality. Sorry, not impressed by the chart.
 
more irrelevant bait BS I see from you. every time you post you confirm that you aren't here to "debate"

cause nothing says I want to have a reasoned debate like

"Your drivel is dismissed"

You are a funny person. LOL
 
cause nothing says I want to have a reasoned debate like

"Your drivel is dismissed"

You are a funny person. LOL

you are well established as posting nothing more than bait comments and snide remarks. You have yet to attempt to support the crap you spew. the bit about "renting" ammunition has completely tarred you as someone not worth taking seriously in this area


your dishonesty in not telling us why you have such a hard on for gun ownership is another factor that contributes to my (and others) view about your motivations
 
you are well established as posting nothing more than bait comments and snide remarks. You have yet to attempt to support the crap you spew. the bit about "renting" ammunition has completely tarred you as someone not worth taking seriously in this area


your dishonesty in not telling us why you have such a hard on for gun ownership is another factor that contributes to my (and others) view about your motivations

to quote another poster.

"Your drivel is dismissed!"

LOL
 
Nobody cares what smug Brits who happily gave up their rights as Englishmen think about our preservation of them. Would that English rights were as alive and well in England as they are here.

So, you're in favor of high crime rates and gangs with more fire power than then police. And you're in favor of someone plotting a terrorist event being able to walk right into his local gun store to buy then means which which to pull it off.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Back
Top Bottom