Don't pretend that anyone is trying to do anything meaningful at all to work towards the root of the problem here. Gun control zealots are just using the tragedy to push through laws that they've been clamoring about for years. This is nothing more than agenda politics and you and the rest of the gun control world jumped all over it. There will be nothing done to fix the problem of violence in this country. They'll push through some gun control laws and pat themselves on the back.

I haven't agreed with Congress or the President in a long time on anything they've done. I don't even watch the news anymore. I get in discussions because dialogue like this allows for everyone to make more informed opinions on the topics at hand.

Just saying "no guns allowed" in one city that is inundated with weapons doesn't solve problems.

It's fun that you guys use the "violent crimes" statistic as your reason to not ban guns. But the UK enjoys a 1.2 homicide rate per 100,000 while the US is 4.8... tell me which is better?

According to what I'm assuming is the same resource, CANADA has DOUBLE the violent crime rate that the US does. Do you think Canada is twice as dangerous? Do you really believe that?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Oh yeah, one more thing I should point out:

The peak of violent crime was 1995 and IS DOWN 47% SINCE THEN. When did that gun ban go into effect? Not sure. You tell me.

The definitions of violent crime are different in the UK/US, but that's an unnecessary avenue to explore.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Do you not get it? It's not comparing the UK to the US, it's to show that taking guns away doesn't change the root of the problem which is violence (and the UK has banned weapons not just added some gun control measures). Do you honestly think you can get a gun ban amendment to the constitution? If so, then we can discuss it, but I'm here to tell you that it's not happening. Since that's not going to happen, then we can all agree that guns will still be available in some way here, so banning assault weapons or special clips won't really have any affect at all. The only way to lower the rates of violence with guns would be to then work on lowering the rate of violence itself. This is why gun control legislation is just bullshit politics that make people "Feel better" and do no real good whatsoever. Want to find a solution, I'm open to one, but you aren't banning guns, so let's move on and throw out something that will help with the problem of violence.

As for the UK stat, you can't take it on an island. It goes along with other information posted here. Sure they have a lower firearm homicide rate, but they still have a horrendous violence rate and it's a serious problem over there. Certain societies are more prone to violence, and we seem to have one of those. Even if you lower the homicide by firearm rate, you won't fix the violence rate and it will continue to be a problem until people are willing to put forth honest solutions to the societal issues and stop talking all the gun nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect


"The effect of legalized abortion on crime (sometimes referred to as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis) is the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that since unwanted children are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. Moreover, children born under these conditions are usually less fortunate as enough preparation was not put in place for their birth and upbringing. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Opponents generally reject these statistics, and argue that abortion has negative effects on society or decrease in crime is brought about in other ways"

_________________
That's weak sauce!

Not to risk this thread getting off-track, but are you supporting this tosh or just pointing it out neutrally?

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I feel like you disregarded the stat that since 1995 violent crimes have gone down 47%. That seems like a direct correlation with the significant gun control laws enacted in 1997.

I'm open to removing the second amendment. I don't think it's impossible to do, I also don't think it's likely. But we're just discussing things here, not trying to persuade voters.

I completely disagree about societies being prone to violence. I believe people are prone to violence based on their situation, mental health and access to weapons. Just because we have killed people in the past doesn't mean we have a need to kill people in the future.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I would certainly agree on the principle that abortion would help in reducing crime. Abortion is a cheaper solution than having a better foster care system... but all the same.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

This is stupid. I'm sure its true to a degree. Maybe over 50% even. But it could never be tested to give actual results (maybe follow a large sample of children that were going to be aborted and later weren't?). Regardless Roe v Wade happened 40 years ago, and then crime started really declining from the gay 1990's on? Creo que es bullshit, amigo.

@kidhawk I know you're very pragmatic when it comes to these types of things. You are throwing "gun ban" off the table because there is no way in hell that will ever pass Congress. Heston would turn over in his grave, and then probably climb out of it and start shooting people. But put your John Lennon record on and imagine for a moment, there is the rationale that "no guns" would obviously curb gun violence. So can we conclude that stiffer access to guns, more gun traceability, and tighter gun laws would lessen the ownership of guns to some degree? If your still following me down this path, can't we further conclude that this less amount of guns would lessen gun violence in general? I say yes, and you can have your imagination back now.

Now let's use what we just learned and apply it with the logic that guns are deadlier than other common weapons, hand to hand weapons that bludgeon, stab, or strangle rather than the remote, callous guns that shoot from a distance and blow holes in your body. If gun violence is down now the homicide rates go down and BAM! Bill Cosby's son is still alive.

You make what seem to be logical conclusions, the only problem, is that they don't have a factual basis. The study from Harvard that compared EU countries shows that if there was any correlation at all between lower gun ownership and and homicide rates, it's that it went up, so your theory doesn't hold as factual. It sounds fine in theory, but it just isn't true. Therefor, since your theory cannot be shown to be factual, why do I want to give up my right to own a gun?

It's because gun ownership is not the only factor. Can we stop being so itemized in our discussions? We have ALL came to the conclusion that gun ownership is NOT the only factor in violence.

However the #1 cause of death by firearms is firearms and firearms are probably the easiest way to kill someone.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Actually I was going to bring abortion up as a point of influence to crime and violent behavior. Yes, there is statistical correlation between abortion and crime in the U.S., but a far better example (and one that is almost clinical in its laboratory-like in its parameters) is the example of the Romanian "Decreţei" in the 1960s and 1970s. Overnight, abortion went from being the contraceptive-du-jour to being completely abolished, and pregnancies and women's health strictly monitored and controlled by the government. Birth rate shot to about four times what it was, and crime rate did to, showing a correlation between unwanted babies, poverty and crime. It's a fantastic example, because it's as close to an actual lab test as one could imagine, with distinctly quantifiable results. The guys who wrote the Freakonomics piece on it theorize it had a direct effect on the rebellion that overthrew the dictator who made the decree in the first place, as the oldest "Decreţei" baby would have been 22 years old at the time of the rebellion, primarily backed by a youth movement.

Here's a Freakonomics piece on abortion and crime: http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/ ... u-believe/

Incidentally, according to the same folks, it's not abortion per se that correlates to a drop in crime, but unwanted babies, that put people into societal situations they do not want to be in: http://www.freakonomics.com/2006/06/15/ ... -question/

Back to the topic at hand, many like these guys, argue that what may seem like cause is not, and are the biggest proponents of the "cause =/= correlation" saying. They haven't yet done an in-depth study piece on public shootings and gun safety and the like (that I've found) but I'd look for it in the future.

And we seem to get back to the basic "there are many guns so there are many gun crimes, thus eliminating guns will eliminate this crime" train of thought. Because the majority of vehicular accidents are caused by passenger vehicles, will eliminating these vehicles reduce vehicular deaths?

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Ok, before this thread gets derailed by abortion (don't get me started! ). The article Sailor provided was NOT a Harvard study. It was the take on a Harvard study by a biased source. Let's look at the key information in the what limited information was provided. It compares countries in Western Europe, the ones with the least amount of gun access, Holland (Netherlands) and Denmark, and the one with the most, Norway. Again their respective homicide rates are 1.1, .9, and .6. Let me list their actual annual homicide numbers: Norway - 29; Denmark - 47; Netherlands - 179. The Netherlands also has thrice the population of Norway and Denmark, both of which sit right around 5mil. Anyway when it comes to homicides, these rates are extremely low and we should be envious. It seems nit picky to use these low comparisons to conclude the US wouldn't benefit from lower homicide rates with gun control. Especially since all 3 countries have stricter gun laws than us anyway.

The other country in the article is Russia, which has a homicide rate of 10.2. I would piggyback on Sonic here and say that Russia is Russia, a lot of their problems are socioeconomic, and relate to poverty and stress more than gun control.

I also think it is unfair to use this limited information and then ignore the violence in the UK while comparing it with their homicide rate, which fairly obviously shows that a lack of guns is lowering their homicide rates, and since their culture and socioeconomic standing is much more similar to our own.

So, what age would all those babies that were aborted in the 70's & 80's have been in the late 90's? Late teen's & early 20's? Right about the age when criminal activities start?

To Montana, just a neutral point as to one reason the crime rate declined in the mid-90's. Since some want to look at all the reasons that things happen, not just their agenda's.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

That's a factor the guys that wrote Freakonomics directly attribute to the drop in crime in the '90s. The whole book, and its sequel SuperFreakonomics, is a very good read. They approach data from the standpoint that the obvious correlation that most take as cause-effect, may not be.

In short, it's much more environment (poverty, violence around upbringing, low education, etc.) than it is per capita guns. Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, for example, all have very high per capita gun levels, but rank very low in per capita violent crime. This isn't to say they have far fewer violent populations than average, but that they have few areas which suffer from those socio-economic problems that cause the majority of gun violence. And that's the reason many say the removal of guns from an equation of violence won't make a damned bit of difference, because we're addressing the tool used, and not the issue of violence/murder, etc., itself.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/he ... rship.html

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Maybe we should start doing mandatory abortions for poor people.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I honestly believe Americans would do this before giving up their guns.

As long as we have our guns I'm sure they won't be forcing abortions on anyone

Are people still using this as an argument? UK's homicide rate was lower than the United States' and continuing to trend downward BEFORE they banned guns. When considering that, I don't see how people can think banning guns had anything to do with that.

Also, like I said before, you can find countries with strict gun control that have lower murder rates and countries that have strict gun control with higher murder rates. The only thing that should tell us is that gun control has little effect either way on violent crimes and homicides.