Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[This Charming Manc]

Due to time I and keeping posts relativity pithy can we address one Issue at a time?

Your first rebuttal

Mass gun ownership a serious inflates the numbers of american killed every year compared to other similar democracies.

Statistically, more people will inevitably mean more deaths, whether guns are present or not.

Now, I can assume you mean more deaths as a result of gun use. That can be argued. Sure, when comparing Australia, UK, Canada, and US, then yes, the US has more gun related deaths. But that makes sense, since it is the only one with the assurance of gun liberty.

Which agrees with the main point I make. I believe your gun liberty introduces significantly more risk and personal danger than the positive effects it can have on personal safety.

It is also the one with the highest population. As I pointed out before, more people equates into more deaths. The US is also higher in automobile accidents. Again, more people equals more deaths.

When we look at figures like this we tend to look at deaths per 100,000 people, so the different numbers of people taken into consideration.

I will take the UK and USA as two examples, similar cultures, similar levels of industrialisation, urbanisation, multi culturalism, general crime is slightly higher the UK, but the significant difference when it comes to homicide is guns. The US population is roughly 5 times that of the UK ( we are crammed in here ).

The US has more than 1 gun per head the UK about 4 gun for every 100 people, but virtually no handguns.

The murder rate per 100,000 people

• in the US 4.88 per 100,000 or 15,696 people total
• in the UK it is 0.92 per 100,000 or 594 people total,

If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 3,000 homicides per year.

If you look at the gun homicide rate

• in the US 3.54 per 100,000 or 11,208 people total
• in the UK it is 0.04 per 100,000 or 23 people total (2013 figures)

If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 100 gun homicides per year.

If you look at the gun death rate which includes suicides & accidents as well as homicides;

• in the US 10.63 per 100,000 or 33,636 people total
• in the UK it is 0.22 per 100,000 or 122 people total (2013 figures)

If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 600 gun deaths per year.

From the above stats it is not hard to a see why I believe the UK situation brings significantly better outcomes than the current US situation.

A few more observations

• There is a strong coloration between the difference between the two homicide rates and the number of gun homicides in the US.
• Rates for other methods of murder such as poison, knives, suffocation, assault are similar enough to make think that Americans are not more murderous or have more evil intent than Brits.
• Thankfully all murder rates have been dropping on both sides of the Atlantic the past few years

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

I would say that philosophically, it stands for you to prove that guns are the directly responsible for the higher number of deaths, rather than the US having more criminals.

Do you feel i did that ?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

See, while I disagree with the premise about the second amendment, I can find this cartoon humorous due to its conspiracy highlight. Quite intriguing.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Thanks, I was surprised I managed to do that.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

You seem to not understand the reason why people argue for guns, the reason are mixed. I disagree with them but i do recognised the reasons.

I've picked up somewhere you are a fellow Brit and i will tailor my answer to that assumption. If i've got it wrong i'm sorry.

anyway the reasons;

• Some people think liberals are wrong on everything and will argue against anything liberal thinks is a good idea as a matter of principle - it's a minority but i'm sure some are like that.
• The 2nd amendment links freedom and guns in Americans mind in ways that a brits never is.
• As we don't own guns. Its easy for us to see gun ownership as a privileged which needs a strong valid reason for an exception. As Americans have a stronger history owning guns its more natural them to see it as a right not privilege.
• Individualism is much more prevalent in the american mindset, this extends to defending yourself and your family as an individual right and responsibility. Europeans are much more likely to trust in the police/state to defend our safety.
• In a society where criminals are armed as matter of course its hard to imagine a world where they are not.
• American is a large country with vast open spaces, it not always reasonable to expect the police to be 2 minutes away.
• There is a billion dollar industry who spend vast sums of money persuading politicians and the american public they are at risk if they don't have guns.
• In a country where there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation is scary when someone suggests putting yours down.

Now I don't think any of those arguments are valid, but they are enough to make me understand the position taken my many Americans is not without thought or reason.

I apologise to my american friends for talking about them in the third person, and yes that is how I honestly see things.

I agree totally and would point out that it has taken a non-pro-gunner to point out what the pro-gunners here have failed to pointout. Which adds weight to my point that they don't have the intelligence/imagination. In my mind this (and more) is just obvious. As I've said before US educational standard are lacking.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

So instead of taking away guns from everyone, the vast majority of whom have no intention of ever hurting anyone and don't, we will continue to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals who managed to get a hold of guns despite Democrat gun laws.

Now go solve your random stabbing, bucket bomb and acid tossing problems before you try to fix ours.

The UK government have been doing just that. New laws regarding these emerging problems are continually being made and reinforced but you don't know about that because your focus is the other way; 'more guns - bigger guns - faster guns' etc etc.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Not pro-gunners its pro-freedom.. If Susan had been allowed to defend her family and the patrons the killer would have been stopped dead in his tracks. Put yourself in that same situation with your friends and family celebrating your nine year old's birthday party what would you do? Madmen have walked the face of the earth since Cain and will continue to do so firearms or not.

everready

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc to myself (Watchman):
You seem to not understand the reason why people argue for guns, the reason are mixed. I disagree with them but i do recognised the reasons.

I've picked up somewhere you are a fellow Brit and i will tailor my answer to that assumption. If i've got it wrong i'm sorry.

anyway the reasons;

Some people think liberals are wrong on everything and will argue against anything liberal thinks is a good idea as a matter of principle - it's a minority but i'm sure some are like that.
The 2nd amendment links freedom and guns in Americans mind in ways that a brits never is.
As we don't own guns. Its easy for us to see gun ownership as a privileged which needs a strong valid reason for an exception. As Americans have a stronger history owning guns its more natural them to see it as a right not privilege.
Individualism is much more prevalent in the american mindset, this extends to defending yourself and your family as an individual right and responsibility. Europeans are much more likely to trust in the police/state to defend our safety.
In a society where criminals are armed as matter of course its hard to imagine a world where they are not.
American is a large country with vast open spaces, it not always reasonable to expect the police to be 2 minutes away.
There is a billion dollar industry who spend vast sums of money persuading politicians and the american public they are at risk if they don't have guns.
In a country where there are 300,000,000 guns in circulation is scary when someone suggests putting yours down.


Now I don't think any of those arguments are valid, but they are enough to make me understand the position taken my many Americans is not without thought or reason.

I apologise to my american friends for talking about them in the third person, and yes that is how I honestly see things.

My (Watchman) response:
I agree totally and would point out that it has taken a non-pro-gunner to point out what the pro-gunners here have failed to point out. Which adds weight to my point that they don't have the intelligence/imagination. In my mind this (and more) is just obvious. As I've said before US educational standard are lacking.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Glad that I have your word on that. Thanks.

The next step *could be* ... losing the ability to properly defend your family and yourself from a violent aggressor.

And yet here you are posting in it ...

Well it quite fun, but seriously your comment proves my point - no imagination.

 

[Gary K]

I know I owe some of you some replies but I haven't been feeling good, and haven't had the energy to reply. I'll do that as soon as I feel good enough to have the energy to put forth the kind of thoughtful replies your posts deserve.

This is addressed to no one in particular. Its genesis lies in the video of Susan Hupp Gruptia, at least I hope I got that right, testifying before a Senate subcomittee on the 2nd Amendment. Her testimony was so powerful it has been stuck in my head ever since. And today my mind made a connection to a poem I learned probaby 50 years ago, and probably haven't thought of 40+ years.

This poem helped shape my idea of what a woman is really supposed to be. A sort of ideal woman. And Gruptia's testimony showed her to be what I see as what God created women to be. Smart, articulate, knowledgable, and courageous as a lioness in defending what she thinks is right. As I said, thinking about her and her testimony, especially the last few moments of it where she tells those Senators the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment is what brought this John Greenleaf Whittier poem to mind. It is titled, Barbara Frietchie.

[SIZE=+1]U[/SIZE]P from the meadows rich with corn, Clear in the cool September morn,
The clustered spires of Frederick stand Green-walled by the hills of Maryland.
Round about them orchards sweep, Apple and peach trees fruited deep,
Fair as the garden of the Lord To the eyes of the famished rebel horde,
On that pleasant morn of the early fall When Lee marched o'er the mountain-wall;
Over the mountains winding down, Horse and foot, into Frederick town.
Forty flags with their silver stars, Forty flags with their crimson bars,
Flapped in the morning wind: the sun Of noon looked down, and saw not one.
Up rose old Barbara Frietchie then, Bowed with her fourscore years and ten;
Bravest of all in Frederick town, She took up the flag the men hauled down;
In her attic window the staff she set, To show that one heart was loyal yet.
Up the street came the rebel tread, Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.
Under his slouched hat left and right He glanced; the old flag met his sight.
"Halt!" - the dust-brown ranks stood fast. "Fire!" - out blazed the rifle-blast.
It shivered the window, pane and sash; It rent the banner with seam and gash.
Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf.
She leaned far out on the window-sill, And shook it forth with a royal will.
"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head, But spare your country's flag," she said.
A shade of sadness, a blush of shame, Over the face of the leader came;
The nobler nature within him stirred To life at that woman's deed and word;
"Who touches a hair of yon gray head Dies like a dog! March on!" he said.
All day long through Frederick street Sounded the tread of marching feet:
All day long that free flag tost Over the heads of the rebel host.
Ever its torn folds rose and fell On the loyal winds that loved it well;
And through the hillgaps sunset light Shone over it with a warm good-night.
Barbara Frietchie's work is o'er, And the Rebel rides on his raids no more.
Honor to her! and let a tear Fall, for her sake, on Stonewall's bier.
Over Barbara Frietchie's grave, Flag of Freedom and Union, wave!
Peace and order and beauty draw Round thy symbol of light and law;
And ever the stars above look down On thy stars below in Frederick town!

 

[jsanford108]

I agree totally and would point out that it has taken a non-pro-gunner to point out what the pro-gunners here have failed to pointout.

I would say that it isn't a gun control advocate pointing out what no else has, but that you dismiss facts that disprove your claims.

Which adds weight to my point that they don't have the intelligence/imagination. In my mind this (and more) is just obvious. As I've said before US educational standard are lacking.

This is kind of an arrogant statement. Which is better: to be an uneducated idiot or an educated idiot? I would say the latter; for they think they are intellectual, yet they fail to grasp the vastness of their ignorance.

 

[jsanford108]

Due to time I and keeping posts relativity pithy can we address one Issue at a time?

Sure. That works for me. (I thanked this post due to the very civil nature of our discussion)

Which agrees with the main point I make. I believe your gun liberty introduces significantly more risk and personal danger than the positive effects it can have on personal safety.

Yet, that is not what statistics show.

Each year, guns are used 80 times more to protect lives, than to take them. Concealed carry states had reduced murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies. In fact, every public mass shooting since the 50's has occurred only in areas where guns were banned.

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker.

When we look at figures like this we tend to look at deaths per 100,000 people, so the different numbers of people taken into consideration.

I will take the UK and USA as two examples, similar cultures, similar levels of industrialisation, urbanisation, multi culturalism, general crime is slightly higher the UK, but the significant difference when it comes to homicide is guns. The US population is roughly 5 times that of the UK ( we are crammed in here ).

Excellent comparison.

The US has more than 1 gun per head the UK about 4 gun for every 100 people, but virtually no handguns.

That could be the issue in UK, as handguns are the primary gun for self-defense.

The murder rate per 100,000 people

• in the US 4.88 per 100,000 or 15,696 people total
• in the UK it is 0.92 per 100,000 or 594 people total,

If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 3,000 homicides per year.

If you look at the gun homicide rate

• in the US 3.54 per 100,000 or 11,208 people total
• in the UK it is 0.04 per 100,000 or 23 people total (2013 figures)

If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 100 gun homicides per year.

If you look at the gun death rate which includes suicides & accidents as well as homicides;

• in the US 10.63 per 100,000 or 33,636 people total
• in the UK it is 0.22 per 100,000 or 122 people total (2013 figures)

If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 600 gun deaths per year.

From the above stats it is not hard to a see why I believe the UK situation brings significantly better outcomes than the current US situation.

Great points. I do not dispute these statistics at all. But let us consider these statistics for a moment.

Where do these gun related deaths occur in the US? A high majority occur in cities with the strictest gun laws, or even gun bans. The highest total number of these gun crimes occurs in the largest cities, most of which are attributed to gang related homicides. Once again, these places have the strictest of gun laws and even bans in some of them.

Immediately, we can infer that strict guns laws, or even bans, do not stop criminals from using guns.

There is another observation comparing the UK and the US: There are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. Compare that to 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US.

Kitchen knives are being used in as many as half of all stabbings in the UK. It has gotten to the point that some are calling for the ban of knives. Are the knives to blame for the stabbing?

[*]There is a strong coloration between the difference between the two homicide rates and the number of gun homicides in the US.

Naturally. It is easier to kill with a gun than a knife, bat, hands, etc. Also, this is also, once again, attributed to gang violence.

[*]Rates for other methods of murder such as poison, knives, suffocation, assault are similar enough to make think that Americans are not more murderous or have more evil intent than Brits.

I would argue that Americans are more murderous. But, that could just be because of more people/gangs/overall crime.

[*]Thankfully all murder rates have been dropping on both sides of the Atlantic the past few years

This is something that should give us all hope.

Let us consider the murder rates are dropping in the US. There are more guns sold each year than the year before. So, while gun supplies are increasing, murder rates are decreasing. Logically, that cannot mean that guns are the source of crime.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Excellent sources.

Do you feel i did that ?

I think you adequately gave supporting statistics for your position. However, I do not think that your claim is solidified by basic rates and averages, as (correct me if I am wrong) you are attributing murder rates directly to guns.

Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/highest-murder-rate-cities

2010 CDC Report. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995): http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

 

[Grip Docility]

This tragedy was horrific. Love is growing colder and colder.

 

[Tambora]

This tragedy was horrific. Love is growing colder and colder.

True.
But in this case, it was only one that was cold blooded.
And because of neighbors that cared for the community and chased him down and ended his life, we have one less cold blooded killer in the world.

We the people can do much to protect our communities if we band together and take action when threatened.
Stand up America.
Arm yourselves and charge full steam ahead when thugs arrive.

 

[Grip Docility]

True.
But in this case, it was only one that was cold blooded.
And because of neighbors that cared for the community and chased him down and ended his life, we have one less cold blooded killer in the world.

We the people can do much to protect our communities if we band together and take action when threatened.
Stand up America.
Arm yourselves and charge full steam ahead when thugs arrive.

No-one, who harms the innocent, should harm them without resistance. James 1:20; 1 Peter 3:9-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 15 carry a reminder that what violence does occur is a very delicate matter. Society has become grandiose about the taking of life. Ecclesiastes 3:3 is a very important verse to keep in heart.

The lead poisoning that the shooter died of, was a firm fulfillment of Revelation 13:9-10.

 

[Nihilo]

. . .Stand up America.
Arm yourselves and charge full steam ahead when thugs arrive.

Amen. It's easiest to remove freedoms when people do not avail ourselves of them.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Sure. That works for me. (I thanked this post due to the very civil nature of our discussion)

Hopefully we can keep it that way, this however became a long brambly point by point rebutall.

Yet, that is not what statistics show.

You didn't quote any statics, you made a number of claims I have heard made by supporters of the gun lobby many times, but provided no statistical evidence or reference points.

I hadn't before but I tried researching sources on this to see how statistically viable these claims are.

Each year, guns are used 80 times more to protect lives, than to take them

OK this statistic came from a 1992 phone survey study where, 56 respondents out of 5000 claimed to have used there guns to prevent a crime. The 'research' then extrapolated that minute and unscientific sample to create the 80 to 1 figure.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16194/are-guns-in-the-usa-used-80-times-more-often-to-protect-life-than-to-take-it

The numbers can at best be described as a 'gross estimate' but I could use more colourful language. If that is the 'best scientific' research a multi billion dollar industry can quote to justify its position,its case must not be very strong.

The figures I quote come from actually figures compiled by law enforcement agencies of based off actual events

Concealed carry states had reduced murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies.

First i've never argued about open or closed carry, i argue about the sheer numbers and availability of firearms in circulation. So the point not relevant>

I'm sure i will repeat myself discussion. but my stance is limited gun controls that do nothing about supply expects people with harmful and criminal intent to obey a gun law once they have a gun in there hand is at best well intentioned but ineffective.

There is lots of arguments about the claim as well(there is over everything in this debate), but i can find anything completely damning about it either.

In fact, every public mass shooting since the 50's has occurred only in areas where guns were banned.

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker.

The stats comes from same highly flawed study mentioned above. The "National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.". We also know there are 259 justifiable homicides each year.

"Compare that with 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI." - figures more recent that the one I used in the first post.

That could be the issue in UK, as handguns are the primary gun for self-defense.

I'm not sure what the Uk issue is. is it being less likely to be shot or less likely to murdered?

Great points. I do not dispute these statistics at all. But let us consider these statistics for a moment.

Always a but

Where do these gun related deaths occur in the US? A high majority occur in cities with the strictest gun laws, or even gun bans. The highest total number of these gun crimes occurs in the largest cities, most of which are attributed to gang related homicides. Once again, these places have the strictest of gun laws and even bans in some of them.

Immediately, we can infer that strict guns laws, or even bans, do not stop criminals from using guns

I'd agree that once someone has a gun in there hand and criminal intent, gun law matters little.

There is another observation comparing the UK and the US: There are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. Compare that to 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US.

Again a highly misleading stats thrown around by the pro gun lobby

the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”​

https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

I will reply to the rest of you post later.

But please don't post 'facts' and 'stats' pulled of gun memes and sites as truth. As i've shown above, they are usually are not.

We will have a much better and more meaningful discussion if you research facts from neutral sources.

Sources

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-open-carry/
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/...es-more-often-to-protect-life-than-to-take-it

 

[jsanford108]

Hopefully we can keep it that way, this however became a long brambly point by point rebutall.

That is my fault. I try to address too many issues at once. My apologies; I will attempt to keep better focus from here on out.

You didn't quote any statics, you made a number of claims I have heard made by supporters of the gun lobby many times, but provided no statistical evidence or reference points.

Most of my "statistics" are found in either your or my sources. Other claims I make are simple logical deductions made from evidence. Such as "The figures I quote come from actually figures compiled by law enforcement agencies." Just being honest.

OK this statistic came from a 1992 phone survey study where, 56 respondents out of 5000 claimed to have used there guns to prevent a crime. The 'research' then extrapolated that minute and unscientific sample to create the 80 to 1 figure.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16194/are-guns-in-the-usa-used-80-times-more-often-to-protect-life-than-to-take-it

The numbers can at best be described as a 'gross estimate' but I could use more colourful language. If that is the 'best scientific' research a multi billion dollar industry can quote to justify its position,its case must not be very strong.

The stats comes from same highly flawed study mentioned above. The "National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower

I put these two quotes of yours together to illustrate an immediate hypocrisy.

I will take your point that my source was flawed. I did not research it adequately. Yet, you argue against it with a survey. Surveys are grossly inaccurate. If you had said Pew Poll, I would have accepted it readily, as they have shown to be a prestigious, unbiased source for reports. But a survey which asks people about their personal opinion on "victimhood?!" That is paradoxical.

Always a but

Americans have the largest buts.

I have "buts" in my responses in order to widen the gaze of a statistic. It isn't to disprove, but to show scope of a truth/fact.

the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”​

I should have added a disclaimer that it is hard to compare various "violent crimes" for different countries, as they define "violent crime" differently. You are right on that.

https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

But please don't post 'facts' and 'stats' pulled of gun memes and sites as truth. As i've shown above, they are usually are not.

We will have a much better and more meaningful discussion if you research facts from neutral sources.

Sources

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-open-carry/
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/...es-more-often-to-protect-life-than-to-take-it

First, I never get any information from memes. Memes rarely contain a shred of fact.

Secondly, you say I need research from neutral, factual sources, but every source you used in the above response was a blog or left-leaning news source. Neither of which give neutral, factual research. Hold yourself to the same standard. And I shall do the same. That is how we can progress.

I'd agree that once someone has a gun in there hand and criminal intent, gun law matters little.

First i've never argued about open or closed carry, i argue about the sheer numbers and availability of firearms in circulation. So the point not relevant>

I'm sure i will repeat myself discussion. but my stance is limited gun controls that do nothing about supply expects people with harmful and criminal intent to obey a gun law once they have a gun in there hand is at best well intentioned but ineffective.

There is lots of arguments about the claim as well(there is over everything in this debate), but i can find anything completely damning about it either

Okay, this is a good point to really have our discussion.

The reason I mentioned concealed carry was because of the fact that more guns are in circulation every year. This is based on your first source used, which gave statistics based on country. Thus, logically, if guns are correlation all to increases of crime, crime should have gone up in the last decade, in the U.S. But it hasn't. Concealed carry laws being mentioned only strengthened that point.

So, let's discuss gun laws. You argue that strict gun laws will reduce crime, correct? I argue that laws are not obeyed by criminals. You even said, "I'd agree that once someone has a gun in there hand and criminal intent, gun law matters little." Right there, it demonstrates that laws do not affect intent, as criminals are already intending to commit criminal acts.

So, to progress the discussion: 1.) How would gun laws affect intent?

2.) what gun laws do you suggest be implemented?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nihilo]

I understand the point, but I think the analysis is simplistic.

Murder rates actually a complex issues and I saw the same pattern s few years ago, and had to take that in consideration in my thoughts and arguments.

I saw a few factors that contribute to murder rate, but I think guns is a considerable one. Others are;

• Stability of Government
• Effectiveness of the criminal justice system
• Equity of wealth
• Presence of organised crime
• Presence of Gang culture

I think america is closer to Europe in those other aspects than the countries you are comparing america too. So we should expect murder rates the similar to Europe.

We don't they are vastly different, so the area where I see the vast difference is as regards gun ownership. Thus its the are i'm still willing to argue about it .

I'm glad you broke it down by factor. I in no way think that murder is justified in any case, no matter the status of these factors, or your upbringing, or whatever. 'Mom raped you. 'Still doesn't justify murder, that's what murder is, specifically defined to elude innocence. There is no innocence in malice aforethought coupled with using lethal force. That's just murder, and that's the choice put to every murderer, and they all say, "Yes," and the rest of us say, "No." It's just a choice. If anything your five factors are probably just what happens when a place becomes infested with murderers and they have a murderous population. People don't want to get murdered, but they're living with murderers, and they behave in particular ways, as a pattern, and five of those social patterns you've mentioned above. We can probably always find a lot of murderers living where all five of those factors are in negative conditions.

What I would have wanted to see, are the murders graphically represented on a map, to see if there are any patterns with murderers, and where they murder. We could see if some states have more murders than others, or if it's all evenly distributed. We could see that if certain states do have higher murder rates than others, if maybe murders cluster around their cities, or around other areas, or if it's all evenly distributed. What I suspect, is that murderers flock to cities. I don't know if that holds true in Europe or the UK or Australia or wherever, but I think that's what the map would show for America, that cities are concentrated in murderer population. It would be very good to know if certain cities attract fewer murderers than others, and then compare the reason for why some cities, like Mexico City, attracts so many murderers to live there, while other cities are unappealing for murderers.

Murderers feel at home in some cities, and they avoid others, which are the popular cities for murderers to live in? They don't mind it being a rough neighborhood. Where do murderers want to go live, presuming that they prefer cities disproportionately? What cities, when murderers think about where to move to next, do they want to move to most?