http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html
Utah allows the carrying of concealed weapons -- this includes school also.
Your thoughts about it?
There is a handful of students that say this is a good idea because it allows them to protect themselves, however I personally think this is bad news waiting to happen.
edit: typos
Last edited by Liu on Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total It is ridiculous. The notion (largely, from what I see, perpetrated by the NRA and similar bodies) that possession of a firearm is some protection against harm is completely refuted by observable reality.
Examine the statistics for firearm related deaths for the US and the stupidity of this argument is highlighted.
If you allow firearms in ANY place you have a bigger chance that people are killed by... guns. So more guns in schools will most likelt result in more deaths. example:
Jack takes a gun to school. Jack and Barry get in a fight Jack gets really really pissed and draws his gun and tries to shoot Barry. Unfortunatly he is not good in shooting and also accidently kills 3 by standers.
The best way to stop such violence is to ban guns. But some people dont want that because they want to make money so they don't forbid it.
Anyway allowing guns into school won't help it will only increase the shootings.
Only one thing should be said about this. It's completely absurd and stupid.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
If you allow firearms in ANY place you have a bigger chance that people are killed by... guns. So more guns in schools will most likelt result in more deaths. example:
Jack takes a gun to school. Jack and Barry get in a fight Jack gets really really pissed and draws his gun and tries to shoot Barry. Unfortunatly he is not good in shooting and also accidently kills 3 by standers.
The best way to stop such violence is to ban guns. But some people dont want that because they want to make money so they don't forbid it.
Anyway allowing guns into school won't help it will only increase the shootings. |
The vast majority of guns used in firearm related crimes are illegally obtained. Wow, stupidity abounds in some places. Why would they be so stupid as to allow that?
As much as legal guns can help maintain order, you just have to look to indigenous tribes that Europeans encountered on their many expeditions for conquest. From what I've read, the rate of war, as well as the obvious rise in the death toll, had a great increase, with the introduction of more powerful weapons, such as firearms.
If we're edgy about letting adults carry guns everywhere, why would we even think about giving it to students?
You people have issues. Take any of the school shootings in the passed few years, and put one person with a concealed weapon in the room where the shooting happened, and I can tell you right now there would have been a lot less deaths then there was.
I know there are some nut jobs out there that have angry issues, and other "head" problems. Obviously these people shouldn't be able to carry concealed or purchase handguns at all. I believe there should be a few more restrictions to obtaining a concealed permit. A background check, which is already required, 5 hours of shooting training, and a psychological evaluation.
At my college we are allowed to have guns on campus. We are a very rural campus, and have many hunters. The ability to bring guns to campus is in my opinion one of the biggest attractions my school has. We have never had any problems, and probably won't in the future.
People that use guns in crimes do so because other people don't have guns. If a criminal knows that someone is armed what are the chances of them going after them.
LOL. So presumably by this argument you need to ramp-up everytime a potential offender has a better weapon? Why stop at hand-guns? After all, a hand-gun is not much use against several attackers, you would be much better off with a machine-pistol. There again, what happens if it is multiple-attackers armed with uzis? Presumably the best defence then would be to have a grenade-launcher and an uzi?
The argument that possessing weapons is defence against attack is a myth. Simply look at US crime statistics and compare them with any other country you care to choose - Japan, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain - take your pick. Compare deaths via weapons in any of these countries with the US - I can tell you that they are way less (and I mean way way way less).
I invite you to do your own comparisons...here are some sites which may help
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm
In case you cannot be bothered, then here are the best stats I can come up with for gun related deaths - ie deaths attributable to firearms:
(per 100,000 population, per annum):
Japan 0.07, Singapore 0.24, Taiwan 0.27, Kuwait 0.37, England/ Wales 0.4, Scotland 0.49, Netherlands 0.55, Spain 0.74, Ireland 1.24, Germany 1.44, Italy 2.27, Sweden 2.27, Denmark 2.48, Israel 2.56, New Zealand 2.67, Australia 2.94, Belgium 3.32, Canada 3.95, Norway 4.23, Austria 4.48, Northern Ireland 4.72, France 5.48, Switzerland 6.2, Finland 6.65
USA 13.47
You might like to do some research of your own and look into gun ownership in those countries and correlate gun ownership numbers with deaths by firearms. I haven't done it because it seems to me that the relationship is obvious - but feel free to contradict this personal opinion (I am always open to persuasion by the facts). | coolclay wrote: |
You people have issues. Take any of the school shootings in the passed few years, and put one person with a concealed weapon in the room where the shooting happened, and I can tell you right now there would have been a lot less deaths then there was.
I know there are some nut jobs out there that have angry issues, and other "head" problems. Obviously these people shouldn't be able to carry concealed or purchase handguns at all. I believe there should be a few more restrictions to obtaining a concealed permit. A background check, which is already required, 5 hours of shooting training, and a psychological evaluation.
At my college we are allowed to have guns on campus. We are a very rural campus, and have many hunters. The ability to bring guns to campus is in my opinion one of the biggest attractions my school has. We have never had any problems, and probably won't in the future.
People that use guns in crimes do so because other people don't have guns. If a criminal knows that someone is armed what are the chances of them going after them. |
So what happens when a criminal comes up to you with the intentions to rob you, but not really harm you? What happens when a criminal goes in to rob a gas station with the intentions of getting money, but not harming anyone? You pull out a gun (or the person behind the counter does) and you suddenly put the criminal in a corner, with no real choice but to shoot/be shot/get caught. Now, the person getting robbed will most likely be shot in a situation where they weren't going to be shot had they simply given what the criminal wanted.
The idea that having a gun somehow makes you safer is primitive thinking. I would argue it makes you less safe in a case where it's an average person with a gun versus a criminal with a gun. The average person doesn't want to shoot somebody regardless, but the criminal has many more risk factors if he/she doesn't shoot and gets caught by the police and so they're more likely to pull the trigger.
I also find it shocking, maybe even laughable, that you would make the assessment you did on the school shootings. What you're saying is had someone in, say Columbine, had a gun, the situation would have turned out better? Or Virginia Tech? I'm sorry, that's completely false. The people who carried out those shootings obviously wanted to die (or didn't care if they died). One way or the other, they were going to carry out the same actions. They obviously weren't scared of people fighting back.
What you're proposing or supporting is that every mentally stable person in a high school and on college campuses should be allowed to carry a gun? That's completely absurd and, no offense, but flat out stupid.
To Bikerman: I agree to an extent with the availability of guns here having a role in these rates. However, I must say there are many, many other reasons as well that must be taken into account when comparing country to country (culture, gaps between classes, social values, family values, etc.). | liljp617 wrote: |
| To Bikerman: I agree to an extent with the availability of guns here having a role in these rates. However, I must say there are many, many other reasons as well that must be taken into account when comparing country to country (culture, gaps between classes, social values, family values, etc.). |
I have no doubt that this is true. The basic point, however, remains - availability of guns is correlated with death by guns (IMHO)*. The argument that increased availablilty of firearms would, in some way, prevent gun killings is fundamentally flawed and this is surely supported by the statistics provided.
*Having said that, I freely admit that I have not correlated gun ownership with gun-related homicide, and there is an opportunity for someone to make a counter-case...Firearms are made TO KILL not to DEFEND!
The only way to end this dispute over firearms possession is to make weapons that subdue a criminal/attacker not kill him.
But the first step would be less availability for the public:
- clean criminal record
- full mental examination
- only one weapon of small caliber and few bullets
coupled with heavy sentences for illegal gun distribution.
The next step would be more research on less-lethal/non-lethal weapons.
After these new weapons become available firearms should be allowed only for the military and possibly police.
| smarter wrote: |
After these new weapons become available firearms should be allowed only for the military and possibly police. |
It's hard to hunt with a stun gun.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| smarter wrote: |
After these new weapons become available firearms should be allowed only for the military and possibly police. |
It's hard to hunt with a stun gun.
Respectfully,
M |
Well that's tough luck for people to be honest. I'd rather be able to go to school, go to the mall, walk out in the street and feel at least a bit safe rather than worry about people shooting deer for fun.I totally agree with Bikerman; children, even older teenagers, can not be trusted with guns. I remember many times in my school life where, if I had had a gun on me, I would have surely popped my English teacher's leg out (we had...problems). This is coming from me, someone who never really had any problems with bullying, abuse, etc.
Now imagine kids/students with mental disorders, or who are bullied, have problems with teachers, and happen to have a gun in their bag. Hmm...
| Moonspider wrote: |
| It's hard to hunt with a stun gun. |
In the UK firearms strictly regulated. You can own a shotgun for pest control or target shooting. Hand-guns are different - they were never designed for hunting - their primary purpose is to kill other humans. | coolclay wrote: |
| The ability to bring guns to campus is in my opinion one of the biggest attractions my school has. We have never had any problems, and probably won't in the future. |
I think the fact that people can argue with a straight face that it is necessary for students to carry guns on campus for their own safety is very scary. If it's true, you've already lost the battle. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | It's hard to hunt with a stun gun. |
In the UK firearms strictly regulated. You can own a shotgun for pest control or target shooting. Hand-guns are different - they were never designed for hunting - their primary purpose is to kill other humans. |
I won't stray from the thread. I disagree with the idea of students carrying sidearms to school. However I don't have a problem with people legally owning firearms, including pistols.
Here in the states, pistols are used for hunting as well (e.g. wild boar). And I think a pistol to be a logical weapon of self-protection when in the wild, even if carrying a rifle or shotgun for hunting.
But even if not used for hunting, I don't have a problem with people owning pistols within the bounds of the law. I'd be a hypocrite if I did! I find pistol shooting to be a very relaxing endeavor. Nor would I want to infringe upon anyone (including myself 
)who'd like to collect firearms. Expensive hobby though it may be.
Of course, I grew up with them and so what may seem logical to others feels like a dramatic infringement and limitation upon the personal freedom that I've always known.
Respectfully,
MWell, things are different in the UK so different rules apply. It's hard to imagine hunting game in Birmingham or London 
Personally I'm quite happy to live in a society where we have forgone the right to own weapons. I have, in the past, owned and shot a variety of guns. When I was younger I owned several air rifles (quality German-made .22s) which I used to go hunting rats with along the canal-side. When I was 15 I got a 12 gauge shotgun which I was allowed to use under supervision from my Grandfather. I've actually got a couple of medals for clay-shooting somewhere in a cupboard. I no longer have any guns, of course, since owning them is now illegal (except under specific and rigorous conditions) and I'm quite happy with that.
I appreciate that the US is a different case - much more wilderness, for one thing, and a culture where gun owning is embedded deeply in the pysche. I do, however, find the argument that owning a gun is more likely to deter attackers rather stupid - since the opposite is clearly the case. That was my only real point in this debate. bringing guns to school just for the sake of your own protection is as stupid as lettin people bring drugs to school because that wouldnt "make it worth it" for people to deal drugs there, since everyone already has drugs anways.
preventing something bad by having everyone else doing the same bad thing too is usually not a good idea.
| liljp617 wrote: |
Only one thing should be said about this. It's completely absurd and stupid.
| Klaw 2 wrote: | If you allow firearms in ANY place you have a bigger chance that people are killed by... guns. So more guns in schools will most likelt result in more deaths. example:
Jack takes a gun to school. Jack and Barry get in a fight Jack gets really really pissed and draws his gun and tries to shoot Barry. Unfortunatly he is not good in shooting and also accidently kills 3 by standers.
The best way to stop such violence is to ban guns. But some people dont want that because they want to make money so they don't forbid it.
Anyway allowing guns into school won't help it will only increase the shootings. |
The vast majority of guns used in firearm related crimes are illegally obtained. |
Even so why are there so many gun deaths in the US and not in the EU. And buying ammo is really easy you go to wall mart and find it between the dog food and the sweets. And in the Colombine shooting they bought their ammo and weapons in a shop and not in an illegal way such as some crime boss. Further illegal guns are only used by real criminal who go rob some bank with it. No a lot of peps with some illegal gun will do and shoot some kids at a school.
| coolclay wrote: |
You people have issues. Take any of the school shootings in the passed few years, and put one person with a concealed weapon in the room where the shooting happened, and I can tell you right now there would have been a lot less deaths then there was.
I know there are some nut jobs out there that have angry issues, and other "head" problems. Obviously these people shouldn't be able to carry concealed or purchase handguns at all. I believe there should be a few more restrictions to obtaining a concealed permit. A background check, which is already required, 5 hours of shooting training, and a psychological evaluation.
At my college we are allowed to have guns on campus. We are a very rural campus, and have many hunters. The ability to bring guns to campus is in my opinion one of the biggest attractions my school has. We have never had any problems, and probably won't in the future.
People that use guns in crimes do so because other people don't have guns. If a criminal knows that someone is armed what are the chances of them going after them. |
No you have an issue if you would take guns away enterily you will prevent a lot of killing by guns simple logic aint it?
O and Stun guns kill too but a lot less but those are still bad.
And about guns for hunting makes perfect sence to me. But why o why do you need full-automatic large caliber which have 60 rounds and fires them all in 10 seconds? If you are hunting deer with it you will only have a bloody pile of hole filled flesh. Rifle's make sence to me but uzi's?? | Bikerman wrote: |
Well, things are different in the UK so different rules apply. It's hard to imagine hunting game in Birmingham or London
Personally I'm quite happy to live in a society where we have forgone the right to own weapons. I have, in the past, owned and shot a variety of guns. When I was younger I owned several air rifles (quality German-made .22s) which I used to go hunting rats with along the canal-side. When I was 15 I got a 12 gauge shotgun which I was allowed to use under supervision from my Grandfather. I've actually got a couple of medals for clay-shooting somewhere in a cupboard. I no longer have any guns, of course, since owning them is now illegal (except under specific and rigorous conditions) and I'm quite happy with that.
I appreciate that the US is a different case - much more wilderness, for one thing, and a culture where gun owning is embedded deeply in the pysche. I do, however, find the argument that owning a gun is more likely to deter attackers rather stupid - since the opposite is clearly the case. That was my only real point in this debate. |
You’re right. Statistics show that owning a handgun or a shotgun (the latter much better for short range, in structure engagements) for home protection doesn’t justify it. It certainly isn’t a deterrent since a potential burglar would have to know that you are armed, ready, and capable of using it in a deadly manner without hesitation for it to be a deterrent. Furthermore, for a firearm to be any use in a home invasion/burglary scenario, it has to be near your person, fully loaded and ready to fire. Not a safe way to store a weapon day in and day out.
However, I would never support legislation that prevents a person from so arming themselves if they so desire.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
And about guns for hunting makes perfect sence to me. But why o why do you need full-automatic large caliber which have 60 rounds and fires them all in 10 seconds? If you are hunting deer with it you will only have a bloody pile of hole filled flesh. Rifle's make sence to me but uzi's?? |
Fully automatic weapons (which is what you are referring to) are illegal in the United States without a special license. Hunting rifles as well as "assault rifles" (e.g. AR-15s, AK-47s, M-14s) legally sold in the United States are only semi-automatic. Thus a civilian sports rifle, like an AR-15 or AK-47 (semi-auto only), fires no more rapidly than any other semi-automatic weapon. The "Assault Weapons" Ban banned rifles based soley on appearance (they looked menacing) and magazine capacity. Thus an M-14 was not banned, but an M-14 with a collapsible stock was banned, even though both had the same caliber, same rate of fire, and same magazine capacity.
Come to think of it. They could have just banned the high-capacity magazines (which they did). Thus, the rifles themselves were banned solely because of how they looked.
Nobody hunts with a fully automatic weapon. And I don't think I've heard of one used in a crime since the L.A. bank robbery shoot out back in the late '80s or early '90s, as I recall. (And those were illegal, by the way.)
Respectfully,
M
Last edited by Moonspider on Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:34 am; edited 1 time in total | coolclay wrote: |
| You people have issues. Take any of the school shootings in the passed few years, and put one person with a concealed weapon in the room where the shooting happened, and I can tell you right now there would have been a lot less deaths then there was. |
There was "one person with a concealed weapon in the room where the shooting happened": that's why the shooting happened.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I agree to an extent with the availability of guns here having a role in these rates. However, I must say there are many, many other reasons as well that must be taken into account when comparing country to country (culture, gaps between classes, social values, family values, etc.). |
In my opinion, these "many other reasons" are negligible compared with the availability and the legal status of gun ownership. Even if I was looking for arguments pro gun-ownership, I don't believe I would care to attribute the high firearms death rate in the US to any other reason. The thought that killing each other is somehow ingrained into the fiber of the culture, cemented in social or family values, would not really make me sleep better at night.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| It's hard to hunt with a stun gun. |
I would assume that most hunters (at least in 1st world, western nations) practice this as a sport and not to feed a family, so a stun-gun should make no difference, would it?
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Here in the states, pistols are used for hunting as well (e.g. wild boar). And I think a pistol to be a logical weapon of self-protection when in the wild, even if carrying a rifle or shotgun for hunting. |
I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of hand-guns are used for hunting (non-human prey). It would surprise me if the value is more than minuscule, but if you have a source, I would be interested to hear of it.
| jeremyp wrote: |
| I think the fact that people can argue with a straight face that it is necessary for students to carry guns on campus for their own safety is very scary. If it's true, you've already lost the battle. |
I agree. In my opinion, this is exactly the point. If it is true, that students would objectively be safer if every single one was armed (and I'm far from believing this to be true, but for the sake of argument ...), then this statement alone is a bankruptcy declaration of the education system if not of society as a whole.
P.S.
Without meaning to be overly disrespectful or lacking in piety, I do hope some one has thought of prying the rifle out of Chuck Heston's cold, dead hand. | MaxStirner wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | It's hard to hunt with a stun gun. |
I would assume that most hunters (at least in 1st world, western nations) practice this as a sport and not to feed a family, so a stun-gun should make no difference, would it? |
Heavens no! People typically eat what they kill. I've never known a hunter that didn't, although there are some in the world who hunt trophy game. But that practice I think has fallen out of popularity.
| MaxStirner wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | Here in the states, pistols are used for hunting as well (e.g. wild boar). And I think a pistol to be a logical weapon of self-protection when in the wild, even if carrying a rifle or shotgun for hunting. |
I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of hand-guns are used for hunting (non-human prey). It would surprise me if the value is more than minuscule, but if you have a source, I would be interested to hear of it. |
I'm sure it's a small percentage. But what difference does that make? Do we deny people freedoms and liberties because they are part of only a small minority that exercise it?!
Besides, there are other reasons to own hand-guns, rifles, and shotguns besides hunting or self-defense. Firearms in and of themselves are a sport. I haven't hunted in twenty years but target shooting is a favorite and relaxing sport of mine.
Respectfully,
M
P.S. Adding a disclaimer to your statement doesn't make it any less disrespectful. You meant for it to be and so it is. No need to mock the dead. | Moonspider wrote: |
| MaxStirner wrote: | | Moonspider wrote: | | It's hard to hunt with a stun gun. |
I would assume that most hunters (at least in 1st world, western nations) practice this as a sport and not to feed a family, so a stun-gun should make no difference, would it? |
Heavens no! People typically eat what they kill. I've never known a hunter that didn't, although there are some in the world who hunt trophy game. But that practice I think has fallen out of popularity.
|
Even if (practically) all hunters do eat their prey (which remains to be proven), from wild boar to rodents (where hunting apparently demands the use of a handgun), it remains doubtful if (a) this can be backed up by facts / sources and (b) that all of those who sport antlers on their walls or bear skins in front of their fireplaces, have actually dismembered, cleaned, cooked and eaten these animals (or are even inclined or able to do so).
| Moonspider wrote: |
| MaxStirner wrote: | | Moonspider wrote: | | Here in the states, pistols are used for hunting as well (e.g. wild boar). And I think a pistol to be a logical weapon of self-protection when in the wild, even if carrying a rifle or shotgun for hunting. |
I haven't seen any statistics on what percentage of hand-guns are used for hunting (non-human prey). It would surprise me if the value is more than minuscule, but if you have a source, I would be interested to hear of it. |
I'm sure it's a small percentage. But what difference does that make? Do we deny people freedoms and liberties because they are part of only a small minority that exercise it?!
|
The only difference it makes is that it was used as an argument in favor of allowing the ownership of handguns ...
| Moonspider wrote: |
Here in the states, pistols are used for hunting as well (e.g. wild boar)
|
... and if it is "small percentage" as you admit, then it does not really constitute an argument at all.
| Moonspider wrote: |
P.S. Adding a disclaimer to your statement doesn't make it any less disrespectful. You meant for it to be and so it is. No need to mock the dead. |
It was intended as a disclaimer and that is what it is. I very much respected his work in "Touch of Evil" (1958) as well as (with some reservations) "55 Days in Peking" (1963) and "Khartoum" (1966). His later "appearances" though do not do him credit and ( I am assuming) should be attributed to his illness. In any case, if one alludes to possible events that will take place only after one's own death, then one will have to accept the fact (posthumously ) that others will take you by your word.
------
Getting back to the topic at hand: (I am assuming that) there is no meaningful amount of (edible) game to be shot on Utah campuses, at least not sufficient to warrant students the wearing of orange jackets, so any need for hunters attempting to find some nourishment for their families is surely not an issue.I'm all for it.
Instead of hearing a news report saying "34 people were killed today by a shooter at ________ school"
you would hear "A shooter at _________ school killed 5 before being gunned down by a fellow student."
Some stats (just for info).
(source : http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm ) ^From the source you got the graphs from:
| Quote: |
| Although cultural and economic factors may contribute to the homicide rate, the association between the number of weapons and the number of homicides caused by these weapons seems inescapable. |
(Emphasis mine)
Is it possible that it is the homicide rate that drives up gun ownership, rather than the reverse? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Is it possible that it is the homicide rate that drives up gun ownership, rather than the reverse? |
That would not seem to fit with the rest of the statistics - for example, a minority of gun owners say they own a gun for defence/crime reasons, the majority cite other reasons - hunting etc...In a little more time, we will be disarmed, and whatever we know as true defense will be transformed into tyranny.
FACT: The power in human hands corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You Brits just hate guns because our gun ownership created our country, and you lost a lot of land. Get over it, Americans like guns. Owning weapons and the right to carry them is an America right, and I'd hate to be the first person that tries to take that right away from the American people.
I didn't say that carrying guns would have stopped any school shootings but like Ocalhoun stated | Quote: |
| A shooter at _________ school killed 5 before being gunned down by a fellow student |
| coolclay wrote: |
| You Brits just hate guns because our gun ownership created our country, and you lost a lot of land. Get over it, Americans like guns. Owning weapons and the right to carry them is an America right, and I'd hate to be the first person that tries to take that right away from the American people. |
LOL...you might live in the past but I assure you that I don't. Americans can do what they like - I don't give a hoot. In this country we have chosen (with massive public support) not to have guns. I like it this way and am quite happy with that decision. You in the US have taken a different decision - that's entirely up to you. The idea that someone is going to try and 'take away that right' is paranoid nonsense. My only contributions have been to supply facts where they were required. | coolclay wrote: |
You Brits just hate guns because our gun ownership created our country, and you lost a lot of land. Get over it, Americans like guns. Owning weapons and the right to carry them is an America right, and I'd hate to be the first person that tries to take that right away from the American people.
I didn't say that carrying guns would have stopped any school shootings but like Ocalhoun stated | Quote: | | A shooter at _________ school killed 5 before being gunned down by a fellow student |
|
That's close to the worst argument I've read in a long, long time.how about: A person at _______ school tried to kill as much people as he could, but since he didnt have a gun, he only managed to stab two persons before other people quickly overmanned him. The victims of the stabbing were not seriously injured.
Sounds better to me!
I think I'll just go with this.
With guns comes danger.
Ergo, students bringing guns to class also bring danger.
Protection from what? Your bad-breath teacher?
| Quote: |
coolclay wrote:
You Brits just hate guns because our gun ownership created our country, and you lost a lot of land. Get over it, Americans like guns. Owning weapons and the right to carry them is an America right, and I'd hate to be the first person that tries to take that right away from the American people.
I didn't say that carrying guns would have stopped any school shootings but like Ocalhoun stated
Quote:
A shooter at _________ school killed 5 before being gunned down by a fellow student
That's close to the worst argument I've read in a long, long time. |
It was meant to be, about as bad the anti-weapon argument. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Some stats (just for info). |
But would we not see similar results if we compared say, automobile deaths to automobile ownership, or lawnmower accidents to lawnmower ownership?
It is only logical that accident or death (or homicide) rates with any given, potentially dangerous item will be proportional to ownership of that item. No?
Rather than comparing gun ownership to murders committed with guns, I'd prefer to see a study comparing gun ownership to total murder rates. Do murder go rates go up if gun ownership goes up and down as gun ownership goes down? What about other, violent crimes? I don't know.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Some stats (just for info). |
But would we not see similar results if we compared say, automobile deaths to automobile ownership, or lawnmower accidents to lawnmower ownership?
It is only logical that accident or death (or homicide) rates with any given, potentially dangerous item will be proportional to ownership of that item. No?
Rather than comparing gun ownership to murders committed with guns, I'd prefer to see a study comparing gun ownership to total murder rates. Do murder go rates go up if gun ownership goes up and down as gun ownership goes down? What about other, violent crimes? I don't know.
Respectfully,
M |
Bold = No. There are plenty of countries where pretty much every household has a firearm and their homicide/gun related crimes are no where near a country like the US's. | Moonspider wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Some stats (just for info). |
But would we not see similar results if we compared say, automobile deaths to automobile ownership, or lawnmower accidents to lawnmower ownership?
It is only logical that accident or death (or homicide) rates with any given, potentially dangerous item will be proportional to ownership of that item. No?
Rather than comparing gun ownership to murders committed with guns, I'd prefer to see a study comparing gun ownership to total murder rates. Do murder go rates go up if gun ownership goes up and down as gun ownership goes down? What about other, violent crimes? I don't know.
Respectfully,
M |
Such a comparison would require a nation (or at least a state or larger region) to implement and enforce strict gun laws (including a program to retrieve the formerly leagal weapons). Offhand I don't know of any nation that has done so recently (except Yemen, but although the crime and accident rate declined there, comparisons to the U.S. seem difficult). Perhaps someone has a suggestion of where this has been done in the last one or two decades?
Generally, I would assume (and perhaps there is some data out there to substantiate this), that at least in a number of scenarios, the death toll would fall.
It seems to me, that inner-family killings would drop noticeably, simply by the fact that knifing or bludgeoning someone to death takes more than would the pulling of a trigger in anger.
Crimes such as drive-by killings, armed robbery and the like will surely be candidates for reduction in the death toll. Even if one assumes that these crimes would mutate to some other form of revenge or robbery, the toll on innocent bystanders would surely decrease against zero, even if broadswords are used.
In any case, the accident rate would surely drop since I can't think of another item or tool (including any type of garden tool or machine) except a hand-gun where inadvertent misuse can so quickly cause a death.
Some posts (as well as some web-sites) suggest that the U.S: murder rate would not drop (significantly) if hand guns were not so readily available. Although I am not an American, I don't believe it would be in any way comforting knowing that one's society is more violent, blood-thirsty or prone to murder than others. | MaxStirner wrote: |
| Such a comparison would require a nation (or at least a state or larger region) to implement and enforce strict gun laws (including a program to retrieve the formerly leagal weapons). Offhand I don't know of any nation that has done so recently (except Yemen, but although the crime and accident rate declined there, comparisons to the U.S. seem difficult). Perhaps someone has a suggestion of where this has been done in the last one or two decades? |
Well, the UK has introduced very strict gun controls (1997) in that period and we now have the strictest gun control laws in the world (I think). But Gun ownership (and deaths from guns) was always pretty low here anyway (0.1% of the population owned guns before 1997).
The average homicide involving guns number is somewhere around 50-60 (per annum) for the country as a whole and hasn't changed much over the last decade. The number of crimes involving firearms has risen slightly over that period but that figure includes illegal gun ownership and use/possession of air rifles...I don't think weapons should be allowed at school, just like, if any other person does not want weapons in their homes, then you just have to respect it I would have to say that the article left me really stunned! There is so much debate going on over gun control in the USA, and on top of that, if a particular state allows concealed weapons (to a school, of all places), then I am not sure what the lawmakers were smoking at the time of passing the bill!
This type of law would only encourage already violent, misguided kids to brandish and utilize their weapons for the slightest displeasure, and in the process, creating a whole generation of individuals, completely unfit for society.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Some stats (just for info). |
But would we not see similar results if we compared say, automobile deaths to automobile ownership, or lawnmower accidents to lawnmower ownership?
It is only logical that accident or death (or homicide) rates with any given, potentially dangerous item will be proportional to ownership of that item. No?
Rather than comparing gun ownership to murders committed with guns, I'd prefer to see a study comparing gun ownership to total murder rates. Do murder go rates go up if gun ownership goes up and down as gun ownership goes down? What about other, violent crimes? I don't know.
Respectfully,
M |
Bold = No. There are plenty of countries where pretty much every household has a firearm and their homicide/gun related crimes are no where near a country like the US's. |
That's not what I said. I may still be wrong, but I'm talking about proportionality of ownership to accidents/crime rates with that weapon, not comparing one nation's rates to another. Do those countries have lower firearm homicide and accident rates in areas where they have higher firearm ownership?
Respectfully,
MSo people need to bring guns to school in case someone else brings a gun? For one thing, if bringing guns was illegal, no one (or at least less people) would bring a gun and therefore no one would bring a gun!
And what if someone brings a freakin tank to school? You guys in the US better make it legal to bring tanks to school so you can protect yourself against that! Dont forget fighter jets and aircraft carriers while you're at it!
