• 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!

"Countries With Stricter Gun Laws Have Less Murders"

DebateChallenge said:
Right wing violence is greater than left wing violence? Yeah right (sarcasm) just look at all the rioting that went on in the wake of Trump's victory over Hillary in 2016, rioting done by the left wing. Compare that to all the rioting done by the right wing when Obama won in 2008 and 2012. What rioting? Oh that's right, it didn't happen. The right wing didn't riot when Obama won. Not a snowball's chance in Hell.
Click to expand...

There was as much rioting after CLinton's loss as there was in NJ after 9-11: none.

Right wing violence is far more than rioting (remember what happened to the right at Charlottesville?).

Just don't, and you are better off.
 
Rich2018 said:
To get a reasonable comparison.

It's what you might call a "peer" country.

Similar culture etc
Click to expand...
Well if you want to compare the USA to another western country Brazil would be such a country, after all Brazil is a western country, its located in the western hemisphere and its part of the americas so for all intents and purposes it is a western country so if you want your comparison to be based on geographical location Brazil would be an excellent comparison. You yourself pointed out how Brazil has strict gun laws and a murder rate that's sky high so you did my work for me, thank you.
Mexico is another western country that has really strict gun laws and a high murder rate. There are many other examples as well.
 
Visbek said:
So you allege that people cherry-pick, and then you... cherry-pick? Nice.

South Africa has a high crime rate not because of gun laws, but because their law enforcement is a basket case. The police spent decades upholding apartheid, beating blacks and arresting political activists, not stopping crimes. Apartheid also shattered trust in government and law enforcement, and encouraged vigilantism on all sides. (Anti-immigrant sentiment is also manifesting as violence, by the way.) It's taken years to retrain the police (a difficult task even in the best of times), and for people to care about the rule of law. Even so, enforcement of gun laws is surely weak compared to many other nations.

One result of this is that murder rates shot up for years, and only started to fall when Apartheid started to collapse in the early 90s:

Crime-Stats-South-Africa.png



We should also note that gun control activists never say that "gun ownership is the only factor in homicide rates." So you're not only cherry-picking, you're also using a straw man argument. Real nice.

Meanwhile, it isn't hard to find dozens of nations with decent gun control laws -- and perhaps more importantly, a culture less fanatical about guns than the US -- that have lower homicide rates, correlated with lower gun ownership rates. After all, there are around 140 nations with lower homicide rates than the US....
Click to expand...
I cherry pick? South Africa is just one example. There are many other examples of countries that have stricter gun laws and higher murder rates than the USA.
 
CaughtInThe said:
and yet that's the weapon they use to gun down their wives/girlfriends.
Click to expand...

And if they didn't have guns they would use knives, hammers, crowbars, bare hands to murder their wives/girlfriends.
 
DebateChallenge said:
And if they didn't have guns they would use knives, hammers, crowbars, bare hands to murder their wives/girlfriends.
Click to expand...

and less wives/girlfriends/kids would die.

but no one cares about that.
 
CaughtInThe said:
and less wives/girlfriends/kids would die.

but no one cares about that.
Click to expand...

including you. and you are merely speculating. You want to complain about gun ownership but you are afraid to come out and tell us what you really want
 
DebateChallenge said:
No they wouldn't, their murderous husbands/boyfriends would kill them all the same, just by different methods.


I care, that's why I want the murderous husbands/boyfriends properly dealt with.
Click to expand...

No they probably wouldn't
 
DebateChallenge said:
No they wouldn't, their murderous husbands/boyfriends would kill them all the same...
Click to expand...

Well that's false. Unless you think a estranged husband or ex can shoot his wife and kids in a grocery store parking lot with a hammer.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Well that's false. Unless you think a estranged husband or ex can shoot his wife and kids in a grocery store parking lot with a hammer.
Click to expand...

No but he can bludgeon them to death with a hammer in a parking lot, although its more likely they would do it at home as Mark O Barton killed his wife and two children with a hammer at home.
 
DebateChallenge said:
No but he can bludgeon them to death with a hammer in a parking lot, although its more likely they would do it at home as Mark O Barton killed his wife and two children with a hammer at home.
Click to expand...

Much less likely
 
DebateChallenge said:
Perhaps the most favorite game that the gun control crowd loves to play is to point out how countries with stricter gun laws have less murders. Countries such as the U.K. and Australia and Japan, all of which have very strict gun control, all have lower murder rates than a country such as the U.S.A. which is much more gun friendly. Making such claims is all fine and dandy if you want to cherry pick but just because a country has stricter gun laws doesn't mean it has a lower murder rate and just because a country is more gun friendly doesn't mean it has a higher murder rate.

Take for instance the country of South Africa. In South Africa they've got much stricter gun control than in the USA and they've also got a much higher murder rate. The murder rate in the USA is roughly 5.3 per 100,000 people whereas in South Africa its roughly 35.9 per 100,000 people. So in the country of South Africa with their much stricter gun laws they've got a murder rate that's close to 7 times higher than that of the much more gun friendly USA. So there you have it, stricter gun control does not mean less murders and if you point out countries such as the U.K. and Australia and Japan you're doing nothing but cherry picking and that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

The whole citing UK and Austrlia as examples of gun bans working is a bogus argument in the first place. Those countries have had low number of homicides before their bans and their homicides didn't drastically drop after the bans.The number of homicides we have in the US without the use of firearms is higher than what the UK and Australia have. Bragging that gun bans worked in the UK and Australia is like bragging speed bumps worked in neighborhood that had no problems with speeding to begin with.

Look at England and Wales.Low homicides before the bans and no real change after the bans.
England and Wales number of murders- 1898- 2002.jpgengland_wales.JPG
 
PeteEU said:
No one is taking gun rights away.. most people just want simple background checks and regulations that dont put the guns in the hands of wack jobs that will go out and shoot up an elementary school.

It is amazing that you need a drivers license to own and drive a car, but guns.. naw no checks needed there! You need to be 21 to drink in the US, but buy a gun.. naw no problem young 12 year old. American priorities are absolutely ****ed up.
Click to expand...


Actually that is false. You don't need a driver's license to buy a car. If you can't afford to pay for the car all at once then the car dealership and the loan company loaning you money are going to want you licensed and insured so that you and they are covered in the event of an auto accident. However if you were to walk into a dealership with all the money necessary to buy the car then you don't need a license. The license is only for driving the car on public roads, not on private property. So if we did treat guns like cars then you wouldn't need a license and background check to buy a gun.

I know that since you are not an American you don't understand the difference between a right and a state granted privilege. A right means you don't need the government''s permission to do somethig. A state granted privilege is something you have to ask the government permission to do an the government can take it away at any time. Driving on public roads is a state granted privilege. Buying/owning and carrying a gun are constitutional rights.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Perhaps the most favorite game that the gun control crowd loves to play is to point out how countries with stricter gun laws have less murders. Countries such as the U.K. and Australia and Japan, all of which have very strict gun control, all have lower murder rates than a country such as the U.S.A. which is much more gun friendly. Making such claims is all fine and dandy if you want to cherry pick but just because a country has stricter gun laws doesn't mean it has a lower murder rate and just because a country is more gun friendly doesn't mean it has a higher murder rate.

Take for instance the country of South Africa. In South Africa they've got much stricter gun control than in the USA and they've also got a much higher murder rate. The murder rate in the USA is roughly 5.3 per 100,000 people whereas in South Africa its roughly 35.9 per 100,000 people. So in the country of South Africa with their much stricter gun laws they've got a murder rate that's close to 7 times higher than that of the much more gun friendly USA. So there you have it, stricter gun control does not mean less murders and if you point out countries such as the U.K. and Australia and Japan you're doing nothing but cherry picking and that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

...What's the robbery rate with a country that has gun control, for example?

Side note: There are more 'murders' with automobiles, for example, than guns. Why don't you start a thread about that? You know, you might kill two birds with one stone and make it more difficult to drive or own a car thus helping your AGW climate change cause?:roll:

2ND Side Note: Does eliminating guns make you feel safer when there are still cars and swimming pools (and CO2), for example?
 
Last edited:
DebateChallenge said:
No but he can bludgeon them to death with a hammer in a parking lot, although its more likely they would do it at home as Mark O Barton killed his wife and two children with a hammer at home.
Click to expand...

Dude. Some of these men are exes and don't live with their ex wives. Some aren't allowed to be around their kids.

So they just shoot their families when they are out and about. Well, unless they have remote controlled GPS hammers.
 
aociswundumho said:
Less wives/girlfriends would die if they were armed and able to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

We're now to the point where folks like this are saying that women need to be in their own homes and beds carrying to protect themselves against their husbands/boyfriends.

That's just totally messed up. And why wouldn't a husband/ex simply shoot the wife when she turns her back either inside the home or outside the home?
 
CaughtInThe said:
We're now to the point where folks like this are saying that women need to be in their own homes and beds carrying to protect themselves against their husbands/boyfriends.
Click to expand...

The alternative is they are unarmed and might end up getting murdered because of it. Guns equalize the natural physical advantage men have over women. How is that a bad thing?

That's just totally messed up.
Click to expand...

No, what's totally messed up is that you would prefer them to be defenseless.
 
aociswundumho said:
The alternative is they are unarmed and might end up getting murdered because of it. Guns equalize the natural physical advantage men have over women. How is that a bad thing?



No, what's totally messed up is that you would prefer them to be defenseless.
Click to expand...

And the kids need to be armed too. No reason for them to be defenseless.....unless you hate freedom?
 
aociswundumho said:
The alternative is they are unarmed and might end up getting murdered because of it. Guns equalize the natural physical advantage men have over women. How is that a bad thing?...
Click to expand...

whoa. did really expect you to double down regarding wives carrying to protect themselves against potentially being gunned down by their husbands.

does that include while their showering? sleeping? breast feeding? surfing the internet (who is behind you right now)? gardening? during sex? preparing a tax return? vacuuming? watching Netflix?
 
CaughtInThe said:
whoa. did really expect you to double down regarding wives carrying to protect themselves against potentially being gunned down by their husbands.

does that include while their showering? sleeping? breast feeding? surfing the internet (who is behind you right now)? gardening? during sex? preparing a tax return? vacuuming? watching Netflix?
Click to expand...

The context is hostile exes. I was responding to what you wrote:

Some of these men are exes and don't live with their ex wives. Some aren't allowed to be around their kids.
Click to expand...
 
aociswundumho said:
The context is hostile exes. I was responding to what you wrote:
Click to expand...

and some of these women, who are gunned down by the husbands and boyfriends (who also sometimes shoot the kids too) need to carry to protect themselves, right?
 
CaughtInThe said:
and some of these women, who are gunned down by the husbands and boyfriends (who also sometimes shoot the kids too) need to carry to protect themselves, right?
Click to expand...

I would leave that decision up to each woman, unlike you who wants to use criminal law to make that decision for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom