Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPiers Morgan, guests debate gun control
"The answer is more guns? It is madness!"
Bozita
(26,955 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)he can't because the answers prove him wrong.
BeyondGeography
(39,386 posts)Because that's what set him off.
Watch the clip and get back to us.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)what we are doing isn't working, maybe time for a new approach. That aside, he wishes to argue the wisdom of gun bans in the EU but refuses to answer why crime rates/victimization have increased in those countries since the bans. He refuses to discuss the historical differences between the US and the EU ban countries...the truth is that pointing to those countries stating they don't have these things happen there because of guns requires one to disregard the statistics showing those countries have always had lower rates even when they had gun laws much like the US. The actual stats fail on the merits of gun control.
I would like to compare availability of mental health services..betting the connection is clearer.
BeyondGeography
(39,386 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Are people less dead who die by other means?
Again, gun bans in the EU had zero impact on crime rates...in several of the ban countries violent crime rates have risen since the bans, while US violent crime rates have been declining for around 30 years according to the FBI.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)since we have suffered through these over and over and over again in this country, yes, providing data on "gun related murder" is very appropriate. Sure, you could commit murder by the use of countless weapons, but guns are, for the most part, specifically designed to kill things, and hand-guns are specifically design to kill people. You can't say that about most knives, piano wire or baseball bats.
"gun bans in the EU had zero impact on crime rates" - as is customery on DU, maybe you could provide a link to data from a reputable source to support this claim.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Mexico, I would think. But I guess they are not considered a 'developed' country. Lot of gun violence there.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)any had an effect on violent crime in the UK or any of the other EU nations which have enacted at various times.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)In the US population 311.5 million (1) there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.
In the UK population 56.1 million (4) there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm (6).
Wika....
pipoman
(16,038 posts)between the US and England, even when England had similar gun laws to the US. The point is that overall crime rates were completely unaffected by their gun bans. The number of violent crimes with guns declined, and other means rose...the violent crime rate didn't change.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)The question from the poster was on what happened in the UK BEFORE and AFTER the bans, not comparing to the U.S. Compare apples and apples, not Apples and PCs.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The US has consistently had a very high murder rate as compared to the other Western Civilizations. Just why is that and why shouldn't we look at those rates and see what is causing our extremely high rate. In US out of the 13,756 murders9,20e were committed by those with guns as compared to England with 550 murdered and only 39 with guns. Could it possibly have to do with a mentality that many share that their should be no restrictions on our so-called rights to have guns. I know about the study "Gun Control in England, The Failed Gold Standard" and what the study being referred to saying that the murder rate had gone up after the passage of striker gun laws. The law was in response to the climbing rate of gun related deaths. What would have been the rate if the strict ker laws would not have been passed? The study does not even attempt to answer that possibility. I do know that in England they have handgun laws in effect for decades. They fact is that shootings as compared to the US are in fact very rare. Could some of the increased rates be attributable to higher density populations, poverty and economic stagnation?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Yeah, probably...failure of society to provide mental health services is responsible for many deaths annually...it really has nothing to do with "more guns". The FBI says that violent crime including violent crime with guns has been in decline for over 30 years even though every single day there are more guns than the day before.
DianaForRussFeingold
(2,552 posts)Thank you for posting this...
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)LeftInTX
(25,611 posts)oldbanjo
(690 posts)we don't live in the UK where people can't protect them self's from the bad guy, if someone breaks in your house in the UK and you hit them with a stick or a frying pan YOU go to jail. The job of the police in the UK is to protect the people, our police only protect the people that they arrest, here in the US you have to protect yourself.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)"here in the US you have to protect yourself."
From the other gun nuts? You need a gun because of all the other guns? Don't you see how fucking circular that is?
oldbanjo
(690 posts)today their are people stealing to get money for drugs, A neighbor was mfg meth, cops did nothing, a cop lives in this house, I increased my weapons due to this. I live in the country, in the woods, very few people around until a neighbor cop started making and selling drugs. A foreclosure (on their land) did finally cure my problems, the law did nothing. I will always have guns and ammo.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)Owning a gun increases your chances of dying. You're much more likely to kill yourself or a loved one. On the other hand, "today their are people stealing to get money for drugs." Ignorance and paranoia added to firearms isn't a good idea.
"Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home."
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
olegramps
(8,200 posts)stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)nrsullivan123
(6 posts)Next time one of these gun advocates say if only there was someone there that was also armed, they could have prevented this shooting just ask them one question---How was John Hinckley Jr. able to shoot President Reagan + James Brady, Police officer Tom Delahanty and Secret Serviceman McCarthy while multiple heavily armed, well trained Secret Servicemen where in close proximity?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)drynberg
(1,648 posts)Has hit the friggin' nail on the head. This has to S-T-O-P, it is quite insane to not seek a method of stopping this NOW. Lobbyists from the NRA and the "Industry" have controlled our lawmakers by the stick of retribution and the honey pot of $$$. Time for Profiles in Courage, no?
johnny156
(21 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)time I see some anti-gun lobby passion/anger at these GD 'patriots'. The answer for them is more guns??? How about more police protection in schools. You don't want to see reasonable and more stringent gun laws. More fucking police. Pay them well, unionize them and give them this assignment. Especially in schools, malls, high traffic areas that draw crowds that attracts these sick idiots with weapons. Looks like, police state for sure is the only answer to 300-million privately owned GUNS! Lose the rights(Franklin) get the fucking protection, oh by the way we will deserve neither according to Franklin. It's the only way. It's a real dilemma.
LiveNudePolitics
(285 posts)It is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and sellers, masquerading as an advocate for the second amendment. Think about that, then ponder all the obstruction they've placed in the way of common sense laws, like tightening regs on assault weapons, and maybe preventing nuts from stockpiling weapons and ammunition for committing mayhem.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Ask a thingamabob salesman what to do about a problem and he'll suggest buying more thingamabobs.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)Not sure why that matters, but I heard it in an argument about gun control. Apparently, you're supposed to yell it whenever anybody talks about gun-assisted violence.
Red Knight
(704 posts)Because gun nuts always say that if you take away guns there will just be mass killings with knives and they don't seem to know the difference.