"Armed Resistence to Gun Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self Defence with a Gun" Journal of criminal law and psychology North-Western university of law Gary Kletch and Marc Gertz Annual gun-crime cases Defence against attack: 2,500,000 Attacking a victim: 41,666 Criminals shot and killed annually By police: 303 By armed civilians: 2,819 In 2009, Vermont had zero gun related murders and New Hampshire had one, compared to California, Illinois and Michigan which have much more strict gun control: 1,360 (CA), 386 (IL) 437 (MI). The states with the highest gun-murders. 'nuff said. It would seem that in the US guns save sixty times more people than they don't. Look at Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah and Switzerland. The more open firearms are, the freer the people. Fear has blinded you.
LoL, Fear has blinded me? In reality I fear nothing so that's an incorrect conclusion, for sure. I think it's Fear that drives people WANTING guns. No source on your figues I see.
What do you mean no source? Use a search engine you lazy git. I like the way you completely avoid debating the figures and go straight to metadata. Here's the source for the unsourced data I forgot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state Typical. Forget the other uses such as sporting and hunting. What do the Swiss fear eh?
Fuck the hunters, kill them ALL!! - Sports? what a joke. That's just an excuse to practise hunting skills. They can take up skateboarding. Figures ARE BULLSHIT. NO guns means NO GUN CRIME. PERIOD. no matter how you fudge statistics to suit your argument, VIOLENCE begets VIOLENCE.
Yay! Now we see your true colours! You are one sick person. Figures are bullshit to those who realise their arguments don't have any base. These stats. aren't fudged, do some reading. Thanks for a good laugh, it made my night. There are "no guns" here in the UK while I turn on the news last night I see that someone was shot and killed. Raul Moat also agrees with you, the fewer the people with guns the better. Only in fantasy land do criminals obey the law. This attitude worked well for Jews in Nazi Germany, right? Maybe they should have laid their weapons down and trusted their superiors, oh wait, they did... I'll remember this one the next time someone attempts to break into my home. "How dare you home invade! Get out! Don't you know violence begets violence!?" I can tell you must one hell of a sheltered life. Did you know you have a lot in common with Hitler, Stalin and Mao? They all agree that gun control works! Lol you total pussy. I can't believe there are "men" like you still around...
Yet if you were in the USA you would see more than 40 killed each day. See the difference? And how often did you get invaded exactly? You need a gun yet i'm the scared one? - great argument and logic there. So you fail to fathom it is YOUR breed that is dying out, not mine? Fair enough but look around - as you say - do some research. Namecalling witheld.
.. and how many would be criminals? How many were defending themselves? That's irrelevant. People like you would rather see women raped and men killed than have them defend themselves with firearms - great logic there.
What a RIDICULOUS assertion! That's a Bush statement - "You're with us or you're with the terrorists"! I give up. You sir, are an extremist.
Then tell me I'm wrong! Tell me that you actually would want men and women to own weapons to defend themselves, otherwise my statement is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE. See, I can use caps lock too! Give up on what? Losing? Lol at the irony of "extremists". Nice use of marginalising with labels, just like Bush & Co. did. I want law abiding citizens to have a level playing field against armed assailants, if that makes me an "extremist" then so be it.
And I want to disarm the assailants. You then turn that into wanting women raped and men killed and i'm a Nazi somehow. "If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" (Kipling).
OK then let's just agree to disagree, there's no point going on arguing instead of debating. I've provided statistics so take from it what you will.
Hey Bush you might want to use your brain and read this : http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
Are you supporting my argument, did you even read that? Note the bold. Point made? It fails to mention here that NOBODY could afford guns back than except the people that truly needed them. Well Duh! Note the bold and then their 'fudging' of figures? 1.4 people murdered per 100,000 but only 9% were firearms so let's bring the decimal point to where it belongs. That would be .14 people per 100,000 people are murdered by gun in the UK. So those figures actually say 1/700,000 are killed by guns each year in the UK compared with 1/10,000 people in the US. Here it changes from percentages to numbers (possibly to confuse readers like you) but it saying there were 91 gun related murders from a population of 7 million. With that rate of 1.2 murders per 100,000, it is still 7 times worse than the UK figure. Further researched: The Wikipedia article suggests 1/250,000 which is still worse than 1/700,000. Bottom line is they don't make you safer and nothing you posted there disagrees with my point of view.
You've made an error the comparing America as a whole, which comprises of 50 states each with their own degree of gun control, with the UK which has more or less uniform gun control throughout all 4 constituents. To be more accurate it would be more appropriate to compare each state with the UK, especially considering most states are larger than the entire UK. When comparing the most liberally (lax) gun control states, such as NH, VT, UT and AK with the UK the difference in favour of firearms is startling. No one can deny that the smaller the population sample the more effective idealistic policies are. For instance, during the Spanish Civil war Anarchists were able to implement lack of establishment and law. This was very successful, due to their comparatively small numbers, until Fraco's fascists crushed them. Saying this, this is an issue of freedom as much as it is crime reduction. Even if there we no firearm crimes here in the UK I would be just as opposed to the idea of gun control as it strips freedom from law abiding citizens, which is an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. Lastly, it is an oversimplification to claim that no-one could afford to own firearms in England during the turn of the century. Gun ownership rife amongst all classes due to the fact that prices were lower than you think and the ease of self manufacturing. Furthermore, the fact that it took as long as 1903 for Britain to pass the first ever gun control law shows how much of a non-issue gun crime was. God bless law abiding gun owners of the world.
To me that's the only real argument you have, as evidence says the crime reduction argument is simply untrue. Just as many think prison is a deterrent when it really increases crime dramatically instead. I think they're mainly derived from our demand for justice but from all the evidence I have seen it increases violent crime and gives undeserved power to absolute lunatics. Saying that, I've previously stated I love Australia's gun laws only because it puts checks and balances into the system. It doesn't ban guns outright, all it does is double-check you want it for good reasons. If you can show you have a reason to have a gun then you are, albeit subject to certain conditions, allowed to have one. If there's a reason in your past that stops that then I think it's fantastic that there are rules in place making sure you can't have one. If there's no evidence of misuse or mental impairness then here (and Norway), you can definately have a gun. I would think it was the same there?
I as well as others have used statistics and multiple sources to back up our arguments. If you're going to make bold claims about that at least give us something independent to read besides your opinion. Interesting, considering all the evidence I've seen - and actually presented here - has depicted the opposite. What about the majority who are sane? You're dwelling on the criminals and completely ignoring the other balance. Don't forget it's only the tiny minority who would have unlawful intentions with guns. Outlawing guns completely like here puts undeserved power to criminals as they're the only group able to get hold of them.
Fair cop but I have responded to both people's points. Are you reading every second line of my posts? I gave you the overall statistics from the other persons link which gave overall numbers AND presented a Wikipedia link as well. Your post gives individual states numbers (along with an excuse) but that doesn't detract from the overall much higher figures in the US. To start with because of the ease of smuggling weapons between each state. When one state has lax gun laws yet 50 have tight gun laws gun control could never work properly. It's like porn here, though they tried to ban it, it is freely available in ACT so everyone travels there to get it. Here, i'll repeat my post and bold the important bit for you.
OK that's good you don't support outright prohibition of guns. You should agree with overturning much of the incredibly strict laws here. That's because as the stats. show the overwhelming majority of gun crime comes from the states with the strict gun control, which make the overall high figures in the US.
There was a riot last night in London, I would imagine that the violence would be much worse with people having guns. Nevertheless owning a gun is not a bad thing, as they say "guns don't kill people, people kill people".