Guns don't kill people - DPChallenge Forums

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

02/23/2012 12:32:58 AM · #52

Originally posted by mcaldo:

Originally posted by mcaldo:

Well, it's not matter of thinking. It's matter of knowing, as statistics are an objective description of reality, unless the source data or the analysis is bogus.

Originally posted by Spork99:

UK,home of the strictest of gun laws

See above.
If I can give you a suggestion, out of experience, I would be wary of articles in UK newspapers opening with phrases such as "since the labour/conservatives have been in power", the press have a pretty obvious agenda at times.
and cherry picking is the favourite sport of many journalist. Criminality statistics are normally referred to the whole of the population and crime rates on a national basis.
Here they are comparing the criminality rate for a large city with the overall criminality rate of other nations..
A Los Angeles/London or New York/London comparison might show a pretty different outcome.

The UN Human Development Report and similar publications are normally deemed reliable as for methods and sources.

The other fact is that crime in the UK was lower than the US before the UK enacted their gun laws...

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

02/23/2012 12:39:10 AM · #53

Like all debates its probably best to try and see things from the others point of veiw, having never lived in America I can't say how I would feel, I can however say over here we feel very secure without guns. Statistically speaking one would have to have blinkers on not to see the difference but blinkers are probably necessary when we are attached to something.

docpjv

Fujifilm X-E1

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

02/23/2012 01:51:08 AM · #54

Originally posted by tnun:

Actually, most of us are idiots.

Meaning, Actually most of US are idiots? ;-)

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/23/2012 03:13:16 AM · #55

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Of coure :)

Writing at 6am. by iPhone didn't help me :)

smardaz

02/23/2012 04:26:25 AM · #56

God Bless America

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/23/2012 06:35:55 AM · #57

just remember if someone breaks into your house, shoot them in the head. they cant sue you if they are dead.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/23/2012 07:11:40 AM · #58

Originally posted by Spork99:

No. Guns are designed for many purposes. One of which is to level the playing field between two otherwise mismatched opponents. Like a young mom with an infant whose home is broken into by two knife wielding assailants looking for money.

Yes, I have to agree with Dan here (whats the world coming to...?)

The best way to get hurt in a fight is to get into a fight. You dont want your close combat weapons taken and used against you by a bigger stronger opponent, you need a weapon that lets you stay at a distance.

When defending yourself or your family the best approach is to avoid the conflict and if you cant, end it quickly from afar.

Message edited by author 2012-02-23 07:12:17.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

02/23/2012 07:24:56 AM · #59

I personally like my guns....In fact, I want more. I feel sorry for the person that breaks into my house...I have a 7.62mm with his name on it.

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

02/23/2012 07:34:55 AM · #60

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

No. Guns are designed for many purposes. One of which is to level the playing field between two otherwise mismatched opponents. Like a young mom with an infant whose home is broken into by two knife wielding assailants looking for money.

Yes, I have to agree with Dan here (whats the world coming to...?)

The best way to get hurt in a fight is to get into a fight. You dont want your close combat weapons taken and used against you by a bigger stronger opponent, you need a weapon that lets you stay at a distance.

When defending yourself or your family the best approach is to avoid the conflict and if you cant, end it quickly from afar.

The only problem is that anyone can get a gun and often without a background check.. So instead of "leveling the playing field" it purely makes the assailants more dangerous.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/23/2012 07:46:20 AM · #61

Originally posted by ozmaster:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

No. Guns are designed for many purposes. One of which is to level the playing field between two otherwise mismatched opponents. Like a young mom with an infant whose home is broken into by two knife wielding assailants looking for money.

Yes, I have to agree with Dan here (whats the world coming to...?)

The best way to get hurt in a fight is to get into a fight. You dont want your close combat weapons taken and used against you by a bigger stronger opponent, you need a weapon that lets you stay at a distance.

When defending yourself or your family the best approach is to avoid the conflict and if you cant, end it quickly from afar.

The only problem is that anyone can get a gun and often without a background check.. So instead of "leveling the playing field" it purely makes the assailants more dangerous.

i'm not disagreeing that the gun laws need to be tightened, more importantly penalties for murdering someone or committing a crime a by gun needs to be stricter. taking away all guns is the wrong approach, guns should be allowed to PROTECT you and your property.

Message edited by author 2012-02-23 07:46:52.

meow

Nikon D7100

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO DG Macro HSM for Nikon

02/23/2012 08:23:46 AM · #62

criminals are going to get guns no matter what.

chazoe

Nikon Z7 FX

Nikon MF Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D PC

02/23/2012 08:45:26 AM · #63

Originally posted by meow:

criminals are going to get guns no matter what.

And we have a winner.

This is the exact reason why gun laws are ridiculous. Criminals will get guns and they seldom do it through the legal channels that I and most other gun enthusiasts do. Murder is illegal, murderers still do it. Stealing is illegal, thiefs still do it. All gun laws do is disarm law abiding citizens.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

02/23/2012 08:48:54 AM · #64

Gun laws mainly effect law abiding citizens

LN13

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM

02/23/2012 08:50:41 AM · #65

Originally posted by meow:

criminals are going to get guns no matter what.

As my daddy used to say...."When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

tjbel05

Nikon Z9

Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S

02/23/2012 09:10:44 AM · #66

Originally posted by ambaker:

Guns are machines, neither good nor evil.

Automobiles are also machines. Both are very dangerous if in the wrong hands. If the 9 year old had taken his parents car the would be less hew and cry, but she would be just as injured. Our society looks to do everything except accept responsibility. The parents are responsible for not properly securing their gun and ammunition. I'm no lawyer, but I would vote for criminal negligemce and child endangerment, in this case. I'd also suggest CPS look at taking the child out of the home. Leaving gums and ammo where a child can get them is a recipe for disaster.

I do not see rights as absolute. If you are a convicted felon, you lose your right to vote, and possess weapons, among other things. The parents should never be allowed to own guns again. They have demonstrated their inability to properly secure the gums in their possession.

+1

We have several firearms in our house. We have had them since our kids were babies. They were taught at an early age how to use them to take away the curiosity factor. With that being said, they have ALWAYS been under LOCK and Key. They are kept in a gun safe. When they are transported they have trigger locks on them. My husband is a member of the local fish and game and give firearms orientations to people who wish to use the gun range. Safety above all is our motto.

I do believe in my right as an American to own a gun. I also believe that people who do not act responsible with their guns should lose this right. I also think just like you have to take a classroom course and then a written test to be able to drive a car(which can be just as deadly), There should also be a mandatory classroom instruction and written test to own a firearm.

The parents of the boy who got his hands on that gun should be charged, not the boy. It was their DUTY as a parent to keep their child safe and keep the gun locked up.

As a responsible gun owner this is just my two cents.

sinistral_leo

Nikon D5100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/23/2012 09:17:43 AM · #67

I love killing me some paper targets...

nickyb

Apple iPhone 5

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/23/2012 09:21:43 AM · #68

Originally posted by sinistral_leo:

I love killing me some paper targets...

can you shoot my spanish homework? i realllyyyy dont feel like doing it :/

eta: that looks like an M4OA3... you could probably get the homework if i put it outside if you're in connecticut... hold on lemme put it outside ;)

Message edited by author 2012-02-23 09:28:31.

02/23/2012 09:22:19 AM · #69

Originally posted by tjbel05:

Originally posted by ambaker:
Guns are machines, neither good nor evil.

Automobiles are also machines. Both are very dangerous if in the wrong hands. If the 9 year old had taken his parents car the would be less hew and cry, but she would be just as injured. Our society looks to do everything except accept responsibility. The parents are responsible for not properly securing their gun and ammunition. I'm no lawyer, but I would vote for criminal negligemce and child endangerment, in this case. I'd also suggest CPS look at taking the child out of the home. Leaving gums and ammo where a child can get them is a recipe for disaster.

I do not see rights as absolute. If you are a convicted felon, you lose your right to vote, and possess weapons, among other things. The parents should never be allowed to own guns again. They have demonstrated their inability to properly secure the gums in their possession.

+1

We have several firearms in our house. We have had them since our kids were babies. They were taught at an early age how to use them to take away the curiosity factor. With that being said, they have ALWAYS been under LOCK and Key. They are kept in a gun safe. When they are transported they have trigger locks on them. My husband is a member of the local fish and game and give firearms orientations to people who wish to use the gun range. Safety above all is our motto.

I do believe in my right as an American to own a gun. I also believe that people who do not act responsible with their guns should lose this right. I also think just like you have to take a classroom course and then a written test to be able to drive a car(which can be just as deadly), There should also be a mandatory classroom instruction and written test to own a firearm.

The parents of the boy who got his hands on that gun should be charged, not the boy. It was their DUTY as a parent to keep their child safe and keep the gun locked up.

As a responsible gun owner this is just my two cents.

HawkinsT

Olympus G-Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f/1.2

02/23/2012 09:27:50 AM · #70

Originally posted by MargaretN:

We had these discussions before. The bottom line is that Americans have been brought up with certain ideas about freedom that the rest of the world just does not relate it. It is always weird for me to read about the "right to bear arms" notion when so many lunatics are walking around and using this right. How can you blame a mentally sick person for shooting to death 80 people? It must have been the fault of the shop that sold the guns to him! I just cannot understand nor believe this aspect of the American culture!

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Less gun murders, perhaps. Countries with stricter gun laws tend to have higher overall crime rates.

Not only less gun murders. Here in Italy, not the safest place in the world compared with Finland, Sweden, Norway or Iceland, there are not so many murders. I would be scared at living in a place where everyone has a gun...

You should be more scared in the UK.

To add to what Alex said:

In 2010 (latest available figures) the homicide rate in the US was 4.8 per 100k, in the UK (one of the most dangerous countries in Europe according to your source) was 1.23 per 100k people, or roughly 1/4 that of the US. No matter what argument you use for the right to bear arms, the fact of the matter is statistics will always prove you wrong. Bottom line is, 'guns are cool', people like owning guns, and so no matter what evidence you put forward to the contrary they will continue to argue against it.

And you keep talking about the UK being safer before gun control acts came in - but you site no sources. Here are some sources:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom - The first 'proper' gun control act came in after the first world war due to the fear of the increased ease at acquiring firearms... before then, while gun control didn't exist outside of a weak licensing system, the number of people to actually own guns was very low.

//www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf - Between the first gun control act of 1903 being introduce and 30 years on, there was a 2.1 (per-million) decrease in homicide. Between the first thorough gun control act of 1920 and 10 years on, there was a 0.8 (per million) decrease in homicide rate. Since then the homicide rate in the UK has increased by about a half, where as the crime rate has increased to over 20 times its 1900 level so as a proportion of all crime homicide is massively down.

//www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf - In 2001 there were 112 homicides committed with a gun in the uk, and in 2002 there were 14 homicides committed with a gun in the UK. That's 0.19 and 0.02 per 100k. The US during the same two years had a gun-homicide rate of 3.12 and 3.15 per 100k. In the UK total homicides in these two years were 1.76 and 2.03 per 100k, in the US it was 5.6 per 100k in each. Countries with tighter gun control laws are just safer place to be; fact.

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

02/23/2012 09:30:36 AM · #71

Originally posted by sinistral_leo:

I love killing me some paper targets...

I have a .22 pump action like the one in your pic. It was my grandfather's, he bought it when he was a boy, probably 1910 or so. It put a lot of food on the table.

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

02/23/2012 09:45:12 AM · #72

God help us all.

02/23/2012 09:48:16 AM · #73

Originally posted by HawkinsT:

Countries with tighter gun control laws are just safer place to be; fact.

Many countries in South America have very strict gun laws, yet crime is quite high. In Brazil, the lowest rates of gun crime are found in the areas with the highest rates of gun ownership.

Then there's Mexico, which has very strict gun laws, yet there are armed drug gangs running around having shootouts with the police, army along with torturing and killing anyone they please.

If you really believe that, you could go to someplace like Jaurez, Mexico and take a few midnight walks around the city

Message edited by author 2012-02-23 09:51:09.