microdome: GAT_00:

serial_crusher: Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.

Kind of goes with the point I'm making about how we could have fewer pointless deaths. I'm not sure why you find that argument hard to grasp.

And countries with fewer cars have fewer automobile accident deaths, so we should ban cars?

Scroll up for my argument preemptively calling you a retard for advancing that argument.

dittybopper: Wait a minute: You get your public policy information from fictional TV shows? Even worse, ones that are 15 years old? That's like taking your talking points from Meat-head on All In The Family

His statistics are accurate.

globalwarmingpraiser: You do realize that the Wild West was mainly a concoction of fiction right

Which proves the point that the romanticism makes people think that violence is a good solution, doesn't it?

globalwarmingpraiser: Our drug laws also contribute to our high murder rate.

Look at the suicide rate with firearms then. That alone is higher than most countries total firearms deaths. Then see previous points I've made for elaboration.

I've known two people who died in car crashes. I've known nobody personally who has died from gunshot wounds. But old age is the worst killer. Ban old age and I'm with you.

Nobody gets out of here alive.

/Just saying. No real point.
//Guns. Meh. Banning guns. Meh.

trotsky: The problem is not with guns or even gun owners. It's the "gun culture" in this country.

American gun culture has always struck me as a sort of bizarre mix of dick-swinging hypermachismo and apocalyptic paranoia.

R.A.Danny: To head off every argument is the Second Amendment

Ah yes, the world is black and white. Convincing argument.

GAT_00: Silly Jesus: people don't kill people, guns do

And guns kill people a lot easier than anything else.

To steal from West Wing:

If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?

You're joking, right? The Swiss ISSUE guns to their citizens! In 2011 they rejected stricter gun laws. Switzerland has the highest militia gun ownership rate in the world!

Please hurry up and quote Meathead so I can also shoot holes in those fictional statements.

GAT_00: No, you don't need a gun for safety.

I leave it to others to rip apart your arguments (which some have already have). But here is a basic inescapable fact - guns are part of the fabric of this country and enshrined in our founding documents. There is no way you will ever get rid of guns. Period. Unless you create martial law - which is 100 times worse than having guns around. We should focus on education and training from an early age and not unnecessary fear mongering.

But to your point - every so often society goes nuts (see aftermath of Katrina, LA riots, etc). And living in Minnesota we experience massive amounts of snow that brings everything to a halt including local law enforcement. I would like to have the basic tools to protect myself and my family in those situations. And a stun gun isn't going to do it (which -btw - are abused by law enforcement).

/yes - I'm a gun owner
//my dad taught me to respect them starting at a very early age

microdome: Fewer cars=fewer car accidents

Which is why we have safety equipment in cars. As many people die today in car crashes as did in 1970 IIRC, but there are something like three times as many cars. Therefore, car safety has saved measures. So your argument is utter bullshiat. What you are actually arguing by using cars as an example is that gun safety and control is a good thing. So thanks for making my argument for me.

GAT_00: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?

I am guessing it is actually because Americans are more homicidal by nature. I would bet there is more incoming disparity in America than in those countries, and poverty leads to violence. Especially when your country has a big "third world" immigrant population from countries with a lot of violence (see: Mexico).

GAT_00: No, you don't need a gun for safety. You don't. If someone kills you from a distance, a gun won't help you anyway, because you don't walk around with it in your hand. This isn't the Wild West, despite how often some of you claim it is with all the minorities committing crimes. A lot of murders happen at close range. Ranges where non-lethal deterrence works. Ever seen a taser fail to drop someone? It's pretty rare. What's more, a taser can be used exactly as a gun would be used, is as easy to pull out, and can be used just as quickly as a gun. In other words, you're no less safe.

Most tasers have to be reloaded, so if you miss, you are farked. That means the criminal will likely kill or beat you severely.

For all those people saying "but only poor African countries like the Congo have higher gun death rates than the USA!".

You wouldn't go to the Congo without a gun, would you? Cause you KNOW everyone else has one. I wouldn't go to the USA without a gun either.

Coming on a Bicycle: There are 'pro-gun'groups? What do they do all day - shoot each other?

microdome: GAT_00:

serial_crusher: Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.

Kind of goes with the point I'm making about how we could have fewer pointless deaths. I'm not sure why you find that argument hard to grasp.

And countries with fewer cars have fewer automobile accident deaths, so we should ban cars?

Ban? No. Work to reduce their number? Absolutely.

globalwarmingpraiser: Method is complately unimportant.

Yeah, it's equally easy to kill yourself no matter the method. The method has no meaning at all. I forgot you were actually this dense.

R.A.Danny: Except for those willing to throw The Constitution in the trash of course.

Every single amendment is flexible and has changed greatly in interpretation over the years. What's more, the Constitution was intended to change over time. So to stand there and scream that one amendment should never change in the slightest not only goes contrary to the actual intent of the Constitution, but also says that you think the people who designed the document to change were wrong.

gingerjet: I leave it to others to rip apart your arguments

I've yet to see anyone disprove anything or make an argument that I didn't already address and dismiss.

gingerjet: enshrined in our founding documents

See above.

Jesus, can we just ban terrorist groups like the NRA and get it over with?

vygramul: yet serves no legitimate purpose

The availability and consumption of consumer goods will increase public satisfaction, even if those goods serve no purpose beyond consumption.

Just relabel the program "Cash for Clunkers."

vygramul: GAT_00: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?

I hate to break it to you, but if you look at Canada, you start having to conclude we really are more homicidal by nature. Lots of guns, far fewer deaths nevertheless. Switzerland - way higher penetration of guns (lol), way fewer deaths.

It's actually quite concerning. How the fark did we get to love violence so much and hate sexuality so much? How do we get out of here?

I tend to agree Americans are more violent. Keep in mind the us is a very militarized culture (I am not saying its bad), so violence to solve problems is a viable solution to most. The issue becomes people are too quick to escilate. The US serves a global purpose this way(lots of volunteers to fight bad guys and a culture that values it). Also, European countries are better than US at treating and detecting mental health issues. The study also does not take into account density of populations. The US violent cities places have more people in them than entire countries listed above.

/rural state American
//has many guns and has not had to shoot anyone.
/// would if necessary.

Robo Beat: trotsky: The problem is not with guns or even gun owners. It's the "gun culture" in this country.

American gun culture has always struck me as a sort of bizarre mix of dick-swinging hypermachismo and apocalyptic paranoia.

You couldn't be more wrong. Hunting for food, sport shooting, personal protection, none of these have anything to do with dick swinging and paranoia. I enjoy going to the range a couple of times a month and blowing off steam by myself, how does that fit your statement. Guns are tools no different than a hammer. If you give a hammer to a craftsman you will get a house. You give it to a psychopath you will get a crushed skull. Gun hate makes as much sense as hammer hate.

Maybe they will do an ammo buyback program next time

R.A.Danny: GAT_00: your argument is utter bullshiat

You know what's bullshiat? Going from defending Sandusky to this crap.

Hey look, pointless threadjacking and off topic to try to paint villains instead of using rational discourse. I'm totally convinced now!

machoprogrammer: I am guessing it is actually because Americans are more homicidal by nature.

Nobody has ever managed to prove that. As such, it is not an arguable counterpoint.

machoprogrammer: Most tasers have to be reloaded

They also have a very small range. They aren't intended to be used as a spray weapon. Use them correctly. Failure to use a defensive measure correctly doesn't mean it's a bad solution. The most common use of your gun when attacked is against you. So because it gets used wrong, it shouldn't be used as a defensive weapon?

microdome: I still fail to see your point.

So, safety measures for cars are good, but safety measures for guns are bad. That appears to be your point.

globalwarmingpraiser: The US doesn't even make the top ten

Therefore suicide isn't a problem! Marvelous.

serial_crusher: GAT_00: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?

How do you think that statistic is relevant to anything? Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths. Way to go, Sherlock.
The question is whether they have just as many murders in other forms. Turns out they don't,

Did you look at the list that you linked?

Most recent murder rate in the US: 5.0 per 100,000

For the other countries:
Australia: 1.34
United Kingdom: 1.17
France: 1.09
Denmark: 1.01
Sweden: 0.99
Germany: 0.86
Switzerland 0.66
Japan 0.40

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Yes, but the mentality of the "get the guns off the streets" people is that of "people don't kill people, guns do, so if we get rid of guns, all will live in peace." These guys are just replacing broken guns with working ones. OMG MORE EVIL GUNS. I think it's funny.

It is? You better go tell them that, because they sure aren't saying it.

They're not? FTFA:

"We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so we can take guns off the street and it's unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities," said Melissa Stratton, a police spokeswoman.

Seems to me like that's pretty much what they're getting at.


GAT_00: If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?


Sorry, but that makes no sense. You might want to start stealing your talking points from a better TV show. One that might not try to "massage" those statistics and instead compare different jurisdictions with different laws on a per capita homicide basis, which would make more sense.

Minnesota has TONS of guns, very high gun ownership... and yet they have a homicide rate pretty comparable with Great Britain.
Switzerland also has a very, VERY, high gun ownership level... and yet Great Britain wishes they could have a homicide rate as low as them.

And on the flipside, the Bahamas have much more restrictive gun laws than most places in the US and yet the murder rate is FIVE TIMES higher than it is in the US, and in fact is comparable only to the District of Columbia, a single US city which has INCREDIBLY restrictive gun laws.

So there's obviously something other than just guns at play with homicide rates. Guns aren't the only thing that make homicides easy. That big chef's knife in your kitchen makes homicides pretty easy too. Ropes, chains, clubs, fire... Simply being the Earth's preeminent super-predator with the ability to think creatively and improvise makes homicides pretty easy. If there's one thing human kind never has seemed to have any problem with, it's finding ways to kill each other - yes, even before we had firearms.

So yeah, culture is the part which makes the difference. If you still don't believe so, just go check in with Switzerland... and then go check with machete owners in Rwanda.

R.A.Danny: GAT_00: Every single amendment is flexible and has changed greatly in interpretation over the years.

True. The Miller and Chicago rulings have actually made the case for gun owners stronger.

So you're just going to ignore that whole part you don't like about how you're advocating that we actively oppose the intent of the Constitution.

GAT_00: Which is why we have safety equipment in cars. As many people die today in car crashes as did in 1970 IIRC, but there are something like three times as many cars. Therefore, car safety has saved measures. So your argument is utter bullshiat. What you are actually arguing by using cars as an example is that gun safety and control is a good thing. So thanks for making my argument for me.

And violent crime in this country has been falling steadily since 1990. Matter of fact - it has never been lower. And there are more guns on street than any time in our history. And besides - the majority of gun related deaths are ... get this ... suicides.

In 2007 there was 12,632 non-suicide deaths via guns and 41,059 deaths via car. Those numbers are already pretty low. Those numbers can get lower (looks like both numbers have continue to fall) but the question we have to ask ourselves - is mandating yet another regulation or control worth the cost (either in freedom, money, etc) to save one or two people out of a population of 300 million? We could make cars 100% safe but no one could buy one. We could ban guns and confiscate all of them but we would have zero freedom.

globalwarmingpraiser: GAT_00: vygramul: hate sexuality

That I blame on the Puritans. As for the violence, I think that may stem from a romanticism of a Wild West where guns solved everything and glorifying those who used guns best, plus Cold War trauma where ultra-violence was present as a possibility every day. I think that slowly traumatizes people and leads to thinking violence is acceptable. It is an interesting coincidence, or perhaps not a coincidence, that violent crime began to fall shortly after the Cold War ended. I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify that.

serial_crusher: Does a taser look as scary as a gun?

This is why I figure gun-style tasers exist. Familiar handling, plus the resemblance gets the point across.

serial_crusher: Since you don't appear to have any evidence, you just assert that only 50% would have still happened?

I'm operating on the assumption that some murders were planned out and were carried out by a gun. If someone decides to kill someone, the ready availability and ease of a gun makes a murder fairly easy to commit. Having to instead stab someone is a lot more personal and some people would not carry that out. Additionally, it is harder to stab someone than shoot someone at range 3 or 4 times. Stabbing is up close and personal, it's a lot easier to fight back, and I would think that the survival rate is higher. Therefore less murders would occur. Additionally, suicide is easier with a gun. Pills are reversible if you get there in time, working up a noose is quite a bit harder, and I don't think all that many people stab themselves to death. So suicides would drop.

serial_crusher: Yes, countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.

Kind of goes with the point I'm making about how we could have fewer pointless deaths. I'm not sure why you find that argument hard to grasp.

You do realize that the Wild West was mainly a concoction of fiction right. The gunfights are so famous because they were rare. Now in my personal belief, we have glorified violence as a country. This is due to our youth as a country, as well as our throwing of the yoke of a tyrannical government through force of arms. Now, I am one of those that thinks that having guns in the hands of individuals makes throwing off tyrannical goverment easier, but you have to have a inate distrust of auithority as a natio to make it happen.

Our drug laws also contribute to our high murder rate. I would love to see a comparison with outher nations homicide rates, excluding drug related homicide. This would give us an idea of what the effect of liberalizing our drug laws would be. In the end until we look at the true effects of these things can we act in a rational manner. But until we address these things we are not going to find any real solutions, for to the victim of a homicide, or any violent crime for that matter, the tool used to commit the act is much less important than the act itself. If my gun has no effect on you, then you you have no interest in my gun. Much like sexuality, drug use, or any other action.

Thanks I ignored the elephant in the room. Yes! Using swat teams to bust marijuana growers and the huge profit margins due to drug pilicy has a tendency to drive violent people to the trade.