If Guns Kill People...

[JoeB131]

It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

Yes, we've seen the numbers. They have few murders and we have lots of murders.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

Yes, we've seen the numbers. They have few murders and we have lots of murders.

Here we go again.

You assume the one and only variable is guns.

Look at the murder rates of individual countries pre and post gun laws and you will see that the murder rates of those countries did not drop below the levels before gun laws were passed

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not being contradictory at all.

One man can have 100 guns. That doesn't increase the chances of someone being killed by 100 times.

But when criminals know they can use their gun, throw it away, lose it, whatever, and then easily get their hands on another gun because there is easy availability of guns, then you have more problems.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your view of the world, but the truth is the truth.

I'm not even saying that decreasing the availability of guns will reduce crime. Just that if implemented right, if guns are prevented from getting into the country, if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced.

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to fuck around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

 

[JoeB131]

Here we go again.

You assume the one and only variable is guns.

Look at the murder rates of individual countries pre and post gun laws and you will see that the murder rates of those countries did not drop below the levels before gun laws were passed

We are the only advanced country that makes guns this accessable.

We are the only advanced country that has these kinds of crime rates.

someone needed to introduce you to the concept of Occam's Razor at an early age.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You said the number of guns does not increase crime. It doesn't nor does it decrease crime.

Now if there are a lot of guns in society obviously the availability of guns is high.

Then you say we need to greatly reduce the number of guns so as to reduce availability so as to reduce crime?

And you sum up by saying

if the number of guns dries up, then the number of gun related crimes will be reduced

And you don't see the contradiction?

Your entire argument is that if there are fewer guns there will be less crime and yet you deny it.

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to fuck around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here we go again.

You assume the one and only variable is guns.

Look at the murder rates of individual countries pre and post gun laws and you will see that the murder rates of those countries did not drop below the levels before gun laws were passed

We are the only advanced country that makes guns this accessable.

We are the only advanced country that has these kinds of crime rates.

someone needed to introduce you to the concept of Occam's Razor at an early age.

Look back in history.

Guns have been accessible in other countries as well.

And Occam's razor is great when comparing some things but it doesn't explain everything.

Saying that guns and only guns are responsible for our murder rate and crime rates is naive at best

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes. You could have one person with 1 million guns, and everyone else doesn't have guns, and you'd have low gun murder rates. Why? Because criminals would find it hard to get hold of guns. If this is the case then they can't use guns to kill people, which makes their chances of killing people go down drastically. The number of guns here isn't important.

Again, it's the availability of guns. This would be the ease of which it is for criminals to get hold of a gun. In the US it's quite easy. Many criminals have guns, and if they lose their gun, they don't care. They can get another one. In the UK if you lose your gun, you might have to pay a lot of money to get another one, or just not get another one.

Also, less crime? Not necessarily. Crime would still happen. However it would be crime without a gun. It would be less murders.

The US seems 69% of murders with guns. Why? Why do people kill more with guns than any other weapon? They can kill with their hands, their feet, with knifes, with TVs, but the vast majority of murders happen with GUNS. Why?

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to fuck around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have shown you that gun laws do not lower murder rates or crime rates.
You said yourself gun laws don't lower crime now you say gun laws will lower the murder rate

It doesn't matter to you that countries that have enacted the type of laws you are calling for saw no reduction in their murder rates.

It seems to me that you think a person killed by a gun is somehow a worse crime than a person getting killed with a knife

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to fuck around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, a piece of paper with a signature on the bottom doesn't reduce murder rates. I'm very aware of that fact.

What you seem to be trying to wriggle out of is that cutting off the supply of guns to criminals can help to reduce murders.

You keep twisting everything and I'm not sure whether you're doing it to fuck around or whether you're really being quite dense. Which is it?

I'm not playing these games.

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Guns don't kill people! Toddlers kill people!

 

[Skull Pilot]

It doesn't.
It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers

So what evidence to you have that enacting all your gun laws will reduce the murder rate?

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

 

[frigidweirdo]

That would depend on whether you want to include third world countries with a whole host of problems. You could say the US shares some of those problems, but it shouldn't.

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

The problem is, your argument is that if you look at statistics badly, you'll see whatever you want to see.

That's the problem here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

The problem is, your argument is that if you look at statistics badly, you'll see whatever you want to see.

That's the problem here.

I'm not twisting stats at all.

You are qualifying my arguments to suit yours. For one I never said I expected "murder to drastically drop" after gun laws were passed. Those are your words. All I ever said was that murders did not drop after the enactment of gun laws. And I challenge you to quote me saying otherwise.

And it seems to me you are seeing what you want to see since somehow the gun laws that neither reduced the murder rates at all nor did they stop murder rates from rising, yet you insist the very same gun laws would reduce both the murder and crime rates here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

The problem is, your argument is that if you look at statistics badly, you'll see whatever you want to see.

That's the problem here.

I'm not twisting stats at all.

You are qualifying my arguments to suit yours. For one I never said I expected "murder to drastically drop" after gun laws were passed. Those are your words. All I ever said was that murders did not drop after the enactment of gun laws. And I challenge you to quote me saying otherwise.

And it seems to me you are seeing what you want to see since somehow the gun laws that neither reduced the murder rates at all nor did they stop murder rates from rising, yet you insist the very same gun laws would reduce both the murder and crime rates here.

No, you're not twisting stats, I didn't say you were twisting them. What you're doing is misusing them. That's different to twisting them.

I didn't say I expected murders to "drastically drop" after gun laws were passed either. I've even gone and type in the very "quote" you just made up about me on the search, and came up with nothing. So how they're my words, I don't know.

What you've posted is a website which takes one gun law from a place, without really knowing anything about the gun law, then putting it on a chart and showing that murders didn't drop straight after. That's bullshit and I've told you it's bullshit and you haven't defended this bullshit. You've simply ignored it all, and then carried on with the same argument.

What's the point in discussing individual things if you simply just ignore it and the plough on like it never was never said?

 

[iceberg]

Not much of one. Third world governments are notoriously corrupt and make our corrupt politicians look like second graders And I never used any third world countries in any comparison.

No, the difference in corruption in the US is that they've legitimized it, made everyone think it's okay. In Africa they really don't bother with the pretense.

So, which first world countries are you looking at that have murder rates anywhere near the US's rate?

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

The problem is, your argument is that if you look at statistics badly, you'll see whatever you want to see.

That's the problem here.

yea, but the only think worse is when you think only the OTHER side does that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

For one I never said any first world country had the same murder rates as we do.

Where have you been ?

I said that the gun laws of Europe that you love so much did not reduce the murder rates after they were enacted.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes a country might have started at a lower murder rate than the US but their gun laws did not lower the murder rates

It is a valid question as to why our murder rates are higher than other countries but as I have said there are many more variables than just guns.

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

The problem is, your argument is that if you look at statistics badly, you'll see whatever you want to see.

That's the problem here.

I'm not twisting stats at all.

You are qualifying my arguments to suit yours. For one I never said I expected "murder to drastically drop" after gun laws were passed. Those are your words. All I ever said was that murders did not drop after the enactment of gun laws. And I challenge you to quote me saying otherwise.

And it seems to me you are seeing what you want to see since somehow the gun laws that neither reduced the murder rates at all nor did they stop murder rates from rising, yet you insist the very same gun laws would reduce both the murder and crime rates here.

No, you're not twisting stats, I didn't say you were twisting them. What you're doing is misusing them. That's different to twisting them.

I didn't say I expected murders to "drastically drop" after gun laws were passed either. I've even gone and type in the very "quote" you just made up about me on the search, and came up with nothing. So how they're my words, I don't know.

What you've posted is a website which takes one gun law from a place, without really knowing anything about the gun law, then putting it on a chart and showing that murders didn't drop straight after. That's bullshit and I've told you it's bullshit and you haven't defended this bullshit. You've simply ignored it all, and then carried on with the same argument.

What's the point in discussing individual things if you simply just ignore it and the plough on like it never was never said?

You tell me where I said I expected murders to drastically drop after gun laws were passed here is where you said those very words to me

If Guns Kill People...

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban

These are YOUR words not mine. I have never said anything about a "drastic" drop in murder rates after a gun law was passed

I have said all along it's not just guns yet you cling to the idea that gun laws gun bans and gun confiscations as enacted in Europe will reduce the number of guns in our society and thereby reduce crime

I say that's bullshit and you haven't proven it isn't bullshit

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well I'm finding this a little difficult.

First you said "It hasn't in all those other countries with gun laws that you admire. You've seen the numbers"

Now, the countries I "admire", the countries I talk about, are FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. I made some comment about third world countries and you said you weren't talking about third world countries. But now you said First World countries weren't the countries you were talking about in the above quote.

So what the fuck were you talking about?

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban, because... because... why exactly? Could it be that you don't understand the circumstances of those countries? Probably.

Okay, it talks about the UK. The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership before the ban. The ban came in as a result of some guy shooting up a buch of kids (at the school Andy Murray was in at the time). The UK ban basically banned handguns. This meant that 57,000 people handed in their handguns.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

The estimates for the number of guns in the UK in civilian hands are 2.3 million.

So, a ban of guns which saw 162,000 pistols/handguns etc but still there are 2.3 million guns is not actually that great a drop in the number of guns. Probably about 1 in 12 of guns. However according to that site it estimates there are still 14,000 handguns in civilian possession. So that's 1 in 13 of the guns were actually banned.

So, what did the gun ban do? It didn't ban all guns, it didn't even ban 8% of guns.

Now, you expect a law which bans 7.5% of guns to have a massive impact on the number of gun murders. Why?

As I've said, it's about the availability of guns. If there are 14,000 handguns in a population of 65 million people, what are the chances that criminals are going to get their hands on them? Very small. What are the chances that criminals are going to get guns by doing dodgy deals, or whatever? Very small.

Now, what the gun ban DOESN'T do is prevent guns coming into the country illegally. What the chart showing firearm homicides in the UK tells us is that gun murders increased massively after the gun ban. Why? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the gun ban? No, not at all. The guns were coming in from places like Jamaica with the Yardies pumping things up. Did banning guns prevent individuals from protecting themselves from armed gangs? No. Most of the murders were gang related.

The most interesting thing is that the murder rate with firearms then dropped as drastically as it had risen. Why? By 2009 gun murders were LOWER than they had been before the gun ban. The reality here is that the UK government, the people in charge of borders, the police forces of the UK, especially places like London, Nottingham (Shottingham as it was know at the time) etc were dealing with the problem and they had the tools to deal with the problem, and they were proactive about the problem.

Did the gun ban on handguns help them? I don't know. What I do know is that the lack of availability of firearms meant that any firearm that was lost by the criminals was difficult to replace. So targeting criminals's guns meant that the problem was solved over a short period of time.

The Ireland chart shows MURDERS increasing, not gun murders. The same for the Jamaica chart.

It also makes the assumption that all gun control laws are the same. Which is bullshit. As I showed you about the UK gun control law in 1997, it didn't ban most guns. It banned 7.5% of guns. It's gun control. But it's not total gun control.

So, taking a chart about homicides rising, then saying this is when a gun ban of unknown content came in, is complete bullshit of an argument designed to make people think something, with minimum effort that is probably not the reality anyway.

For example, Ireland saw some kind of gun control in 1972 and over a period of time homicides increased double. In the US homicides when from about 5 to about 9 or 10 over the same period of time. So, it was a time when homicides were increasing in first world countries.

Now the reality of the bullshit website you presented is that Ireland introduced gun control in 1924, 1925, 1964, 1968, 1971, 1990, 1998, 2000, 2006.

Did they all do the same thing? No.

Now, the 1971 act which your site is stating as THE gun control which is most convenient for them was the the Firearms Act, 1971.

Firearms Act, 1971

Firearms Act, 1971, Section 5

"5.—(1) Nothing in section 10 of the Principal Act shall make it unlawful for a person to sell a part of a firearm, being a replacement, spare or extra part for use solely as part of such firearm, to a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) who is the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of such firearm or who is entitled by virtue of the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1971, to have possession of such firearm without having a firearm certificate therefor and no separate authorisation shall be required for the possession and carriage of such part by the purchaser."

"
6.—(1) Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (7) of the following subsections:


“(8) Registration (including registration in pursuance of a renewal of a previous registration) of a person in the register of firearms dealers may, at the discretion of the Minister, be made subject to the condition that the person shall not deal in firearms or deal in ammunition otherwise than by the sale and purchase of ammunition for shotguns, for unrifled airguns and for rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches, and a person whose registration in the register of firearms dealers is made subject to the condition aforesaid and who fails to comply with it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 (1) of this Act, be guilty of an offence under this Act.


(9) In any proceedings a certificate under the seal of the Minister stating that the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers was subject, on a specified day or during a specified period, to the condition referred to in subsection (8) of this section shall be evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved.”.


(2) Section 10 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following subsection:


“(7) The references in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a registered firearms dealer shall, in relation to a sale of any firearm or ammunition, be construed as references to a registered firearms dealer for whom it is lawful to purchase that firearm or ammunition by way of trade or business.”.


(3) Section 11 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:


“(2A) If and when the Minister is satisfied that any person who is registered in the register of firearms dealers and whose registration is subject to the condition referred to in section 9 (8) of this Act has failed to comply with the condition, the Minister may remove the name of such person from the register aforesaid.”.

"

Doesn't seem to do much, hey?

Your entire argument is on gun laws to "drastically reduce the number of guns" so as to reduce the murder rate

Gun laws, gun bans and confiscations as done in all those European countries did not lower their murder rates yet you think those very same gun laws will reduce the murder rate here

And now you give evidence using Ireland that gun laws did not stop murder rates from increasing as well.

So if gun laws don't reduce murder rate or stop murder rates from increasing why are you so sure that more gun laws will reduce the murder rate in the US

The problem is, your argument is that if you look at statistics badly, you'll see whatever you want to see.

That's the problem here.

I'm not twisting stats at all.

You are qualifying my arguments to suit yours. For one I never said I expected "murder to drastically drop" after gun laws were passed. Those are your words. All I ever said was that murders did not drop after the enactment of gun laws. And I challenge you to quote me saying otherwise.

And it seems to me you are seeing what you want to see since somehow the gun laws that neither reduced the murder rates at all nor did they stop murder rates from rising, yet you insist the very same gun laws would reduce both the murder and crime rates here.

No, you're not twisting stats, I didn't say you were twisting them. What you're doing is misusing them. That's different to twisting them.

I didn't say I expected murders to "drastically drop" after gun laws were passed either. I've even gone and type in the very "quote" you just made up about me on the search, and came up with nothing. So how they're my words, I don't know.

What you've posted is a website which takes one gun law from a place, without really knowing anything about the gun law, then putting it on a chart and showing that murders didn't drop straight after. That's bullshit and I've told you it's bullshit and you haven't defended this bullshit. You've simply ignored it all, and then carried on with the same argument.

What's the point in discussing individual things if you simply just ignore it and the plough on like it never was never said?

You tell me where I said I expected murders to drastically drop after gun laws were passed here is where you said those very words to me

If Guns Kill People...

Oh, right, so what you're talking about is the fact that you think that gun murders should drop drastically after a gun ban

These are YOUR words not mine. I have never said anything about a "drastic" drop in murder rates after a gun law was passed

I have said all along it's not just guns yet you cling to the idea that gun laws gun bans and gun confiscations as enacted in Europe will reduce the number of guns in our society and thereby reduce crime

I say that's bullshit and you haven't proven it isn't bullshit

To be honest, this is just you playing games again. I'm not interested in this nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

...Then how in the HELL does anyone leave a gun show alive? Hmm? Can any of you liberal gungrabbers explain this?

I left my loaded rifle by the front door. UPS, mailman and even a Mormon came to the front door and nothing happened.
I have the laziest rifle on earth.

It must be, all show and no go, when you are not there.

 

[danielpalos]

Stricter laws may not work; but, more guns does seem to equal, more violence.

No it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

then great. show me the unbiased studies out there that can correlate between specific laws being passed or controls enacted that reduced deaths by guns.

i'll wait.

for a long long time.

over there. >>>>>>>

The commanders in chief of State militias are to blame for any security problems within our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. But it would also be rather naive to think that guns don't exacerbate bad situations.

They don't really.

The guy that will shoot his wife over a burnt dinner is just as likely to strangle, beat, stab or kill his wife in a hundred different ways if he doesn't have a gun. Saying the gun exacerbated that is ridiculous

And AGAIN.

We're not talking about stopping murders, but reducing murders.

What make you think gun laws reduce murders?

They don't.

So, the gun laws in the UK don't keep murder rates lower?

There is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Should we audit the methodology instead of the Fed?