This is a matter of changing our culture, not our gun laws

[TemplarKormac]

Being of sound mind and body, I have chosen to incite... a little controversy. I have the ladle in hand, ready to stir this big giant boiling pot of sh....spaghetti. The website cited below belongs to some fringe libertarians that I don't really agree with... but in this one rare instance, this article makes an interesting case. But I digress.

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Umpqua... all of the more notable mass shootings in the past decade or so, were followed by pleas to enact gun control legislation, and runs by aspiring gun owners on the nearest licensed gun dealer they could find. And inevitably these tragedies were also overtly politicized before the corpses got cold or the blood dried.

On one end they say, well, gun control laws will help reduce murder. The other says that good guys with guns will invariably stop bad guys with guns and that gun bans result in crimes like murder. And then there's the purported reality. None of that is true. Neither assertion is based in fact.

This purported reality says that since the overall murder rate has declined over the years, whether or not you have a gun or a gun free zone is moot. The statistics will bear out something different. Not owning a gun, nor owning a gun has borne any influence on murder rates with or without guns.

See below:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

The facts that neither side wants to admit about gun control


Then again, if this purported reality is true, being armed will have a varying if any impact on gun homicides. In fact, this purported reality states, poverty can be directly correlated to most of the violence happening thus far. Enacting policy suggestions from either side would practically pointless, as the statistics supposedly bear out, because the murder rate will slowly return to what it was before.

The moral of that article was this: stop trying to change our gun laws and try working on society as a whole. Stop taking away Second Amendment rights, and start helping people out of poverty, that of which will inevitably will lead to societal change.

On a completely irrelevant note, here's a little red meat for the pro gun folks:

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/...s-happened-where-guns-are-permitted-only-two/

 

[Searcher44]

Being of sound mind and body, I have chosen to incite... a little controversy. I have the ladle in hand, ready to stir this big giant boiling pot of sh....spaghetti. The website cited below belongs to some fringe libertarians that I don't really agree with... but in this one rare instance, this article makes an interesting case. But I digress.

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Umpqua... all of the more notable mass shootings in the past decade or so, were followed by pleas to enact gun control legislation, and runs by aspiring gun owners on the nearest licensed gun dealer they could find. And inevitably these tragedies were also overtly politicized before the corpses got cold or the blood dried.

On one end they say, well, gun control laws will help reduce murder. The other says that good guys with guns will invariably stop bad guys with guns and that gun bans result in crimes like murder. And then there's the purported reality. None of that is true. Neither assertion is based in fact.

This purported reality says that since the overall murder rate has declined over the years, whether or not you have a gun or a gun free zone is moot. The statistics will bear out something different. Not owning a gun, nor owning a gun has borne any influence on murder rates with or without guns.

See below:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

The facts that neither side wants to admit about gun control


Then again, if this purported reality is true, being armed will have a varying if any impact on gun homicides. In fact, this purported reality states, poverty can be directly correlated to most of the violence happening thus far. Enacting policy suggestions from either side would practically pointless, as the statistics supposedly bear out, because the murder rate will slowly return to what it was before.

The moral of that article was this: stop trying to change our gun laws and try working on society as a whole. Stop taking away Second Amendment rights, and start helping people out of poverty, that of which will inevitably will lead to societal change.

On a completely irrelevant note, here's a little red meat for the pro gun folks:

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/...s-happened-where-guns-are-permitted-only-two/

Well the U.S. isn't #1 in the Number of Mass Shooting Deaths per 1000,000 population but the ratio is skewed by small populations and larger death tolls that took place in the European shootings. You see that up here in Canada where we don't have so much of a love for "gun rights" our rate is 15 times lower than yours. If your title is what you believe I think you would have to model the "culture" surrounding guns to something more close to our or other nations with lower numbers. As a matter of fact I think you would have to make such drastic changes to many more facets of your culture that it approaches an impossible dream. I really think the best you can hope for is to keep as many guns out of the hands of as many "crazies" as possible. That seems like such a hard problem that you all seem to have thrown up your hands in resignation. Or completely surrendered to the NRA But you guys have solved hard problems before. Obviously doing nothing is not an option if you really want to reduce your lead in total mass shootings. The article I found that chart in is here in the Wall Street Journal.


gun

 

[Rustic]

Gun control has never worked... The key word control.

Buy more guns and ammo...