This seems to be a constant issue in PP. That no country thus far has been 'comparable' to the US. What country would be? It's often disputed that the US either has A)More varied population B) Borders C) Lots of land D) I can't think of anything at the moment.

But my point is, what country can be compared to the US? Otherwise statistics from other countries are deemed worthless for comparison. And that the US's own statistics can't be compared with anything but their own.

I have to admit, though, that comparing these numbers isn't the ultimate solution. It's been pointed out that there are countries with widespread gun ownership and incredibly low firearm homicide rates (Switzerland, Norway).

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of countries with strict gun control also have very low (firearm) homicide rates (Germany, England, Japan). It would be foolish to claim that there is no correlation between the two.

I agree that there are examples for either case but take Britain for example, even before they completely banned handguns they have had incredibly low crime rate involving guns. So they are a terrible example of what happens when you completely ban weapons like that. A lot of the crime problems in the United States stem from problems that have nothing to do with gun control. Take California for example, they have some of the harshest gun control laws in the United States yet they continue to have horrible crime. California has a large illegal alien problem which I am sure contributes to their crime rates.

Another issue is the education of the public about firearms; far too many people these days seem to be completely ignorant about firearms assuming that they are only used to kill people. This is especially true with the knee jerk reactions that happen in areas where a recent killing(s) have been committed with guns.

Killing animals, killing people, and practicing.

True, people have knee jerk reactions about them, but I don't see how education about guns will make people think that they are used for anything but the three things listed. All it might do for your cause is to get people to marginalize the impact that guns have on violence. The most people can take away from the education is the impression that the weapons are only a very minor factor, and best ignored.

It'll always be hard to comfort people who have just been exposed to shootings. "Guns only killed a *few* people, I mean, geez, put it in perspective." might work fine for those of us that haven't been affected by it recently. But can you imagine it having any effect in a situation like Columbine after their shootings? People don't want to hear that, they want someone/something to blame, wether it's legit or a scapegoat.

Using US statistical trends to attribute or misattribute a decrease in firearms deaths upon another country's introduction of a buyback scheme makes you one of the blunter knives in the draw, but then again:

Timmyyyy

Calling America ethnically diverse is a laugh and a half. Maybe in the border states, and the big cities, but by and large, you won't find Black people outside of the south, and you won't find Poles in Washington state.

Aside from Chinks and aboriginees, though, what else does Australia have?

Most gun owners will never have to even point a gun at another human being let alone kill them. The primary use of any firearm that is used outside of war is sport shooting, i.e. hunting, skeet shooting, competition shooting, etc. I don't care if these people want something to blame to think that because less than 1/2% of guns in the United States are used in crimes that the rest of the 99.5% should be taken away is retarded.

Also for those who are outside of the United States, what makes you think that the majority of Americans don't want to have the right to own guns? Don't you think that if there was a large enough movement to get ride of them that they would be gone? But in reality that isn't how it is, we have restriction of how people go about legally buying guns because most people are smart enough to see the sense in that, but the majority of the pressure to get ride of guns comes from a few people who spread lies, i.e. Cop killer bullets as an example. Any sensible American would see that getting ride of our rights is not a smart idea, as chances are you will never get those rights back.

Double Post:
That isn't true. Here in Oregon we have a large population of Asians and Russians. I see black people all the time, not in the same numbers as you do in the south but it isn't like you make it out to be that they all stay in the same place.

Not really, no. I'm sure outcry would arise at the basic principle of altering the constitution, of the ideal of the amendment itself, not to mention lobbying and gun-toting legislators in high places.

Stricter gun control isn't the same thing as forbidding any citizen to own a gun, ever.

And while those populations have a local effect on their communities, "American Society" is by and large, unaffected. My point is that regionally, you can make the case for diversification, but on a national level, we have a by and large white society, dominated by whites, and based around white values.

The problem with gun control, though, is that it tends to trivialize the right if it's effective, or is trivial in and of itself.

It depends, really, on the purpose of the gun control. If, like with the Brady bill, all you're basing your bannings on are aesthetics, then you have a trivial law. If you base it on an actual lethality threshold, though, then not only is the law itself trivial, but you also trivialize the right to own the guns that are left. A gun registry, also, is a huge waste of money, because the only people that will register their weapons would be those who don't intend to commit crimes with them in the first place. The actual benefit it'd give to Law Enforcement wouldn't justify the cost of maintaining the beurocracy required for a gun registry.

Waiting limits, and criminal background checks, though, are perfectly reasonable. I don't see how you could be denied a right to bear arms if the retailer refuses your service based on your background.

Also, I'm not entitled to overnight delivery. You have to pay extra for that shit.

Skexis, we have amended the constitution before. However the right to bear arms was added in the second amendment. Why amend something just to turn around and remove it?

From the way most of the anti gun people would have you believe is that every gun is a terrible danger to everyone around it, especially children because they want to play at the fears of parents. But the statistics don't really match what a lot of these anti-gun groups like to say. There are by far more responsible gun owners than there are wackos out there shooting people.

The Right to Bear Arms wasn't added to the constitution, it was an article of the original Bill of Rights. =/

The only Constitutional Ammendment that's been repealed, as far as I know, was Prohibition.

I'm...not arguing for removing it. I'm saying even if there were a large enough movement that wanted to tighten gun laws (or get rid of guns altogether), it probably wouldn't get done, for the reasons I said.

Please...stop trying to win this by claiming that your statistics are better than their statistics.

Skexis, have you ever actually read the literature that was used as the basis for the assault weapon ban? It was the same as most of the other literature that speaks out against guns, it is very vague, sometimes containing conflicting data, and full of very bias numbers.

Brandylama: Second Amendment?

Double Post:
The Constitution was ratified before the bill of rights was written.

Per square mile perhaps you would be correct, but American population isn't evenly distributed. The major cities are hugely diverse ethnically, and a vast amount of Americans live in these major metropolitan cities, or in the surrounding cities/towns.

And as Gumby wrote, Oregon is a microcosm in itself. The largest city, Portland, is home to European Caucasians (with Germans and Poles in their own sub-cosms), Russians, Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, and Mexicans...and let's not go into individual religious groups. I can't say there are many native French speakers, but you can't have them all. Most of these groups live in "their own areas" within the city, but constantly intermingle. Then in the "outlying areas" the ethnicities become even more obvious. Woodburn, for example, is a prime example of a small(ish) town hosting a large amount of Mexicans, Russians, Euro-Caucasians, and a minority of Asians. Other towns aer set-up in a similar manner, though many of the smaller towns, towns in the "high desert", or aren't along the I-5 corridor are typically less diverse.

You rather missed the point, lad. Yes, you buy the hammer with the expectation to use it, but you don't have to buy a hammer then take up carpentry as a profession because you bought one. The same is true with guns. You don't buy a gun unless you feel there may come a time in which you will need to use it. But you don't become more inclined to become a criminal because you bought a gun.

Guns are a limited use tool, but don't forget that they are only a tool. It still takes a person for a gun to be harmful.

Well, no, guns aren't magical, Charlie, they don't have a curse cast on them which transforms you into an evil man. (And, again, this issue pops up again — the idea of "criminals" as some kind of nebulous OTHER)

No, what is gun is, indeed, is a "limited use tool", where all of its intended uses are basically blowing ragged holes through things. Mostly living things. Whether or not it's CRIMINAL to blow off your teenage son's head when he sneaks in late (because you thought he might be a criminal!) is kind of beside the point.

But GAWRSH, Mickey, I'm not a CRIME-INAL, a CRIMINAL, and that has made all the difference.

Dead Horse++ you almost sound like an Oregonian...

That's not a conclusion. That's a new theory, with no evidence of its own to back it up. Denial is not a river. :P

No to the first question and I don't know the answer to the second.

Such as it is, you're right.

Australia initiated a gun buy-back - and thanks to it, gun crime, injury and death stats dropped across the board, bucking the trend of increase they had been on which prompted them to initiate the program in the first place. Such proof can't be ignored. He can spin it if he likes. It'll just make him look more foolish.

Without statistics, you can't prove anything.

I'd rather have the infinitessimal drop in guaranteedness of my freedoms than the burden of responsibility of owning a firearm, thanks.

And at the same time American gun crime has dropped across the board without the measures the Australian government has put in place. I'm not spinning shit - when you show me evidence that shows that having the right to own firearms causes deaths I'll concede the argument.

You have been given the proof.

You show me your proof of American gun crime dropping. Show me the actual numbers. Quote the study or studies. Otherwise you're still jut blowing hot air as you have been all along.

Arrowhead go back and look at my posts. I posted 4 article links about record low crime rates in the US that continue to drop each year even after our assault weapon ban was lifted.

That or just do a simple google search, you will get your proof.

Not really. It only covers the timeframe between the Brady Act and the lifting of the ban on assault weapons. The only relevance it has is to support the Brady Act.

Double Post:
I'll dig up Gumby's proof, thanks.

How can that not suffice? It clearly shows drop over ~10 years.

There is no debating that there was a drop in crime rate. It doesn't mean that more control on firearms would *not* further decrease violent crime, but that's just another one of those things that you can't answer unless it's attempted. And since it's not desired, it won't be put to the test.

Very weak. Early on, the author neglects to point to specific stats, instead comparing stats without showing them in any form that can be scrutinized. And this is just plain silly:
Comparing averages of Right To Carry states against one state with tight restrictions.

Much better. And I actually believe you now.

Really doesn't say anything on the topic on its own.

Biased as all hell, doesn't cite sources.

But I certainly agree with your overall argument ("Guns should be legal but people really ought to be taught to be responsible with them"?) You'd be right, in that.

Oregonians Unite!

We're the best state in the union, because we don't have sales tax, and we don't have to pump our own gas :p

Anyways, I finally found some info. It would seem that the per-capita crime rate in the US isn't as high as it is in the UK, however the actual homicide rate is higher here. So you're less likely to be the victum of crime in general in the US, but if you are one of those few, you're more likely to die. I found this very interesting...

I feel we are actually close to some sort of compromise on this issue... at the very least the two sides seem to be considering the others point of view. This must be a first for PP...

True. I don't have a problem with things like background checks for example. What concerns me is that one day the goverment might come knocking on my door and demand I turn over my firearms... and that is what some of you are proposing...

Bradylama, I think you're confusing the brady bill with the AWB (assualt weapon ban)

No one is trying to force that responsiblity upon you. As for the proof you're looking for, I posted links to the FBI website showing crime rates at an all time low. You should read the thread before you assume that we're just making stuff up.

Edit: oops I missed your most recent post there. Seems that you found the numbers you were looking for, so nevermind.