I care neither one way, nor the other, so am completely dispassionate and divorced from the event. From where I am standing, the pro-gun arguments are completely sterile in the face of a rationale profound in its simplicity. Attempts to derail the truth, with puerile, and hackneyed arguments, or demands for factual evidence that clearly needs no evidencing are as misguided as they are unhelpful. The world watches on in total bewilderment as brokers of fictitious nonsense ply their craft, in an episodic pantomime. The absurdity is so wearisome, most prefer to rise above the fray, in the (fairly) safe knowledge that time will allow the truth its moment of glory. The question is how do you wish your legacy to read? The world was flat?
FYI, violent crime statistics in the UK are distorted by a large number of kid-on-kid assaults over cell phones. This is just another example of an untruth being manipulated to serve an end. I’ve heard all these arguments over and over, and have read enough statistics and facts that have satisfied my own curiosity.[/quote]
What “ficticious nonsense”? With every anti-gun argument so far, it’s based entirely on emotional, hysterical nonsense. I have yet to see any facts or data to back up the pro-gun argument. If you don’t believe that facts and statistics have a place in this argument, that’s entirely your choice; but don’t think that it entitles you to push for legislation that would very negatively affect other people’s lives just because the anti-gun position makes you feel better.
I’ve made this point before, but will make it again: My mother and almost all of her friends lived through WWII in Austria, Germany, Poland, etc. They had to live through horrible atrocities because they were not able to defend themselves (against soldiers from all sides, since they were all guilty of committing crimes against the citizens there). Why? Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” I do not trust any entity/government that thinks it should be able to overpower the masses, and I’m especially cynical when they claim it’s “for our safety.”
Additionally, for three years I had to deal with a stalker who had threatened to kidnap me and take me to Mexico to have his “Jesus babies.” I had never had relations of any kind with him, but he was convinced that I was his “wife” and even expressed his beliefs to the police. I slept with a gun under my pillow every single night, and that was the only thing that got me through that period of time. Under no circumstances do you or anyone else have the right to take away my ability to defend myself or my family.
If a person doesn’t like guns, don’t buy guns, but do NOT think you have the right to push your beliefs (which are based exclusively on “feelings,” and not facts or evidence) on others who strongly disagree with your “logic” and opinions.[/quote]
So what is the above if not an emotional response? I don’t see much in the way of factual evidence from you either. And as to my rights to express my opinion, that will be equal to yours, yes? However, I do respect your personal situation and understand how you felt threatened. The gun may have made you feel safer, but would you have used it? Would you have been prepared to face the consequences and emotional ordeal of taking a life? In respect of war time, your argument is weak.
I pulled up some interesting data that may be of interest. They are the least biased I could find, but add weight to the anti-gun debate. Crucially, much factual evidence needs to be considered in the light of the severe restrictions placed on research in this area, which has been outlawed (see below).
Direct quote:
The dubious distinction of having the most gun violence goes to Honduras, at 68.43 homicides by firearm per 100,000 people, even though it only has 6.2 firearms per 100 people. Other parts of South America and South Africa also rank highly, while the United States is somewhere near the mid-range. Still, America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.
While the United States has the highest level of gun ownership per capita in the world, its rate of gun homicides, about three per 100,000 people, is far lower than that of Honduras, the country with the world’s highest gun homicide rate (roughly 68 gun murders per 100,000 people).
But America’s homicide rate varies significantly by city and metro area…
The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.
If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
Yes, it’s true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros.
The sad reality is that many American cities have rates of gun homicides comparable to the some of the most violent nations in the world.
With less than 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35-50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns…
U.S. gun violence has had several decades-long cycles over the past three centuries, but shows a long-term downward trend. Overall homicide rates were similar to Western Europe until the 1850s, but since then violence has declined more slowly in the U.S.
It’s tempting to plot the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence across countries, but recent research suggests that gun violence is shaped by “socio-historical and cultural context,” which varies regionally, meaning that it’s not always possible to make direct comparisons. However, it’s still reasonable to compare places with similar histories, and more guns still correlate with more homicides in Western nations. Meanwhile, in developing countries, cities with more guns have more homicides.
We lack some of the most basic information we need to have a sensible gun policy debate, partially because researchers have been prevented by law from collecting it …the Centers for Disease Control, the main U.S. agency that tracks and studies American injuries and death, has been effectively prevented from studying gun violence, due to a law passed by Congress in 1996.
NRC report, and additional data up through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. …other studies have suggested that reduced access to guns would result in less crime. These studies compared homicide rates with gun availability in various states and cities. The most comprehensive estimate is that a 10% reduction in U.S. households with guns would result in a 3% reduction in homicides.
Background checks are promising because a high fraction of future killers already have a criminal record. In one study in Illinois, 71% of those convicted of homicide had a previous arrest, and 42% had a prior felony conviction.
In 1968, Franklin Zimring examined cases of knife assaults versus gun assaults in Chicago. The gun attacks were five times more deadly. …many homicides are unplanned. The outcome depends, at least partially, on the weapon at hand. In that restricted sense, guns do kill people.
The U.S. has one of the highest rates of violent crime and homicide, per capita, of any developed country. According to 2008 figures compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the U.S. homicide rate for 2010 is 5.1 per 100,000 people. Only Estonia’s is higher, at 6.3. The next most violent country is Finland, which has a homicide rate of 2.5, half that of the U.S. The remaining 28 developed countries are even lower, with an average of 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people.
End direct quote.
The biggy here is the research issue, or lack thereof. I believe there are moves to reverse that law.
I read another very interesting report that highlights the partisan distinctions. Democrat gun-ownership has seen a marked drop over recent years, compared to Republican gun-owners. It makes you wonder how different the post Sandy Hook gun-debate would be shaping under a Republican watch.
IMO, a major obstacle is the very large number of guns already in circulation, but all things being equal I don’t see that as insurmountable.
Another very salient point I hear often is raised by spokesmen for the police who are unhappy about putting their lives on the line when facing the large number of armed criminals. I feel the police should have some input here.
If the US can dispatch its armed forces on a revenge mission to kill terrorist at a cost of 4-6 trillion dollars, for the deaths of 3,000 people, then why can’t it divert some of those resources to reducing the 10,000 annual gun-related deaths on its home turf?
I believe the gun-debate is as complex or as simple as you wish to make it. The more politicized the more complex. The more simple the approach, the more effective the outcome.
