-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There are many cases of active shooters stopped by a civilian with a gun and the active shooter was wounded, not killed. Does that mean all guns designed for "killing humans" are faulty?
Stop and frisk has confiscated more guns than any other legislation in the history of the USA, and the NRA wasn't even the ones to remove that ban.
So how about the data on the offensive gun uses per year so that we can compare the two?
Does the same link have that data if not don't you think it is problem that you brought up a link that doesn't even compare the two instead only talks about defensive gun uses per year?
Meaning your own source can't be used for evidence given they missed out this important data and instead gave data that would suit their narrative. If it wasn't clear this site is heavily biased, it is literally marketing pro-gun books on the site. This is not an independent site more so fueled by an audience of pro-gun advocates. Both of these easily point to this site can't be trusted for giving reliable data given they are profiting on pro-gun advertising and missing really key data. If this was an objective source it would've shown the information about how long the firearms acts occurred.
Basically these laws take time to implement. 2005 was when this wiki stops talking about this would likely be the end of the firearms act of 1997. If we look at the graph you gave it was on the decrease after the law. We can see this by simply adding a dot to 2005 and ending it where your graph ends. If we use a ruler to draw a line in between the dots we see a negative trend. This can be caused by external factors that weren't the firearms act which your site claims here "The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004."
I don't really know what this is referring to so I'll ignore it. If you really want me to argue against it I will.
Don't you understand the laws have changes and people have changed during that time in the UK as well? Meaning your claim that we can't compare America to the UK is not really good because the UK has radically changed as well?
Isn't the idea of comparisons to compare similar things? American gun deaths vs UK gun deaths. The two things don't have to be the same in order to have a comparison. You can still compare without something being exactly the same.
Who gives a flying fuck about crime?If your goal was to remove and destroy guns, stop and fisk did the job better than any program or ban in the history of America.
A 30 round mag has no purpose other than to kill people. It is completely unnecessary.
If you don't need a 30 round mag to shoot at anything in the real world, then why would you need one in a "sporting" environment?
as for self defense, we are right back to the primary purpose of the mag, killing people. but your point is kind of dumb. If the assailants have guns and the person engaging in self defense have guns, you get a blood bath.
Everyone is much, much safer and better off guns are not part of the equation at all.
They are designed for shooting people.
Whether the shooter is military or civilian is irrelevant for the people designing the gun. They just want to sell their guns.
Not true. A many guns are designed for hunting and that is perfectly fine.
But a handgun, an AR15 etc are exclusively designed for killing people.
What there is a problem with is the millions of killing machines being sold and used in america under the guise of "self defense" when the majority of them never, ever get used for that purpose. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.
Would she? Statistically, if she has a gun she is much more likely to be killed.
She would be much better off if neither she, nor the criminals had easy access to guns.
Semi automatic weapons have the ability to kill a large number of people in rapid succession if they can fire 30 round mags. I mean they can fire a significant number of bullets in a matter of seconds. If they only had, for example, 5 round mags, then their ability to kill people would be drastically reduced by the added need to reload.
If the media was honest, a firearm's capability would indeed be more relevant. However, the media persists in calling firearms such as the AR-15 assault rifles even though they're not, inventing made-up categories like "assault weapons" to demonize guns for the sole reason that they look scary, and falsely claims that various guns were designed to kill people, even though that isn't the case. The point of arguing against such things is to expose it for the fearmongering it is. In the OP, I linked to a video showing the results of legislation based on such propaganda. I'm aware that this sort of argument is almost totally disconnected from what the guns actually do. However, so is the propaganda, and that is the point I was trying to make with this thread.Why do you think it is at all relevant what a weapon is designed for? Don't you think that what a weapon is capable of should be more relevant? That is what you seem to imply in the OP but the quote above appears to contradict this.
I couldn't find a source that listed the total number of crimes committed with a gun. All of the ones I found said how many crimes of specific categories were committed with guns. From what I gathered, it was at least 300,000-400,000, likely more.
If you're concerned about bias, 538 is owned by ABC and rated as center left by Media Bias Fact Check. I highly recommend you read the whole article. It provides clear evidence showing that gun bans don't reduce murder rates.
That's a valid point, but it can't explain the increase in murder rate following the ban. The fact that the guns didn't go out of circulation immediately can only explain why the murder rate didn't immediately drop. It can't explain why the murder rate rose after the ban, so that point is still unaddressed.
I only linked it because I found it vaguely funny that HuffPo would even acknowledge that there was a gun control policy that didn't work.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, the differences between the past and present UK are still much smaller than the differences between the UK and the US.
Yes, but that is exactly the problem. They aren't similar. The murder rate in the UK was lower than the US murder rate before they banned guns. That's why it's useless to compare them. Yes, their murder rate is lower than ours, but that can't be linked to their gun bans because it was lower to begin with.
"Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such tragedies. All these events occur in the context of a civil society that has millions of guns lawfully owned by citizens who use them for protection, hunting, sport, or work. There are also an unknown number of guns in the hands of criminals and others who are prohibited by law from possessing them."
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"
"The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
Off-topic but you did bring it up. Leah is former atheist turned catholic and doesn't have a wiki. Carl is well I don't have enough information. To this I say Fox having Shepard Smith is an outlier to the right leaning organisation. Leah alone discredits this being a left leaning authored read so I reject it.
Read the first quote that I gave earlier and do tell me how this person doesn't lack nuance.
If we look at this link we find out the last mass shooting was in 1996. Now this might not mean firearms act worked but something did for the UK to literally have no mass shooting in 24 years when the US had one in December 10 2019.
Literally no one uses a counter-factual because no one can test it.The more I read the more it looks like this person doesn't know what she is talking about.
All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities.
According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact, as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.
Muted results? Here is a quote from the link: "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated." 13 to 0 is a big decrease because mass shootings are small plus there has been no mass shootings. That is not muted results.
A medication might not work but it doesn't mean we throw out medication entirely. We just need to find one that works.
You can still compare. You can compare apples and oranges as both fruits with different tastes like how you can compare UK and US are both developed countries with different gun-related deaths.So we can only compare things if they are exactly the same?
requiring a license to own a gun
There are plenty of measures that can still keep guns in the hands of law-abiding owners while drastically reducing gun deaths.
then it's not a right, if you have to be granted permission from the government, that's not a right, that which is granted can also be denied or taken away.
guns have to be sold with trigger locks
how about police departments must offer no cost gun training to anyone who wants it?
The right to free speech is limited by copyright laws and libel laws, for example.
And they should have to be stored with such too.
Should driving licenses be handed out to anyone who wants them
and? you think a law will make that happen?
approving or denying based on a criminal or other prohibition is NOT the same as requiring everyone have a license.
Yes. Even if 10% of people complied with the law, that would be a net benefit.
Prove it. Both limit the constitutional right to a gun, a right that criminals possess also.
I find this argument hilarious. An AR15 will not stop a drone from bombing you. It want stop an abrams tank, or fighter jet. If the US government became tyrannical, either the military backs the government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world won't save you, or they don't back the tyrannical government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world are completely irrelevant.Your guns are meaningless in terms of fighting the government. However, if you hold onto that right to have all those guns countless people will die. Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people?
It is impossible to know who will commit a crime with an assault weapon. If no one has any assault weapons, then it is extremely easy to know. No one will.