You quote yourself to death with pro-gun "good society" propeganda, but that fact is, the proof is in the pudding.
Statistics show that you're not less likely to be attacked because you live in a country with guns, and in a country with guns (eg US), you're far more likely to die than in one without guns if you are attacked.
I personally think less things should be banned, including guns, but saying little tidbits about guns reducing crime is simply wrong.
I actually did a sociology research essay on this topic, we compared the US to Japan (extremely strict), Canada (pretty strict), and Australia (pretty strict, but not as strict as Canada). From looking at all the data we found from other statistical surveys we saw that the Gun laws did not have much of an effect on the homicide rate, instead it is more how the society perceives the ownership of guns.
It seems cliche but in Japan you are actually more likely to be attacked with a sharp object, like a knife than a gun because they see guns as a cheap way out, also the entire family network over there means they are more self policing.
Another thing we found is that there are A TON of conflicting studies on the subject, you could say pretty much whatever you want and find a study to back it up.
A good point, and probably true. I was going to include statistics in my comment, but from a google search they varied so much that I including one (eg from an anti gun website) would be an open invitation to include others from the NRA that contradict that.
However, all the statistics showed that the US is certainly no safer than any other modern European or Asian country with strict gun laws, so the "guns make me safer" argument just cannot stand.
"It seems cliche but in Japan you are actually more likely to be attacked with a sharp object, like a knife than a gun because they see guns as a cheap way out,"
You're conveniently omitting the fact that you also have about 1/7 the risk of being attacked with *anything*.
Obviously, if guns are not available, you have removed one method of attacking someone. The issue is, that's a method that's responsible for 10,000 deaths per year in the United States. Japan has approximately 20 deaths per year from firearms, and those deaths are not "made up" through other means - they just have fewer violent deaths and injuries.
Fewer guns means less violence. It is just that simple. It doesn't take a "study" to figure that out, just a cursory glance at the crime stats.
Check out Switzerland, and how the fact that everybody has a rifle deters criminals from using theirs. Whereas the British ban of guns increased crime rate.
Reason being... in Switzerland the victims get a gun (as well as the criminals)... but in Britain only the criminals get guns. Its because the criminals do not obey the law... imagine that O RLY?!?!
So summarized.... when you ban weapons it benefits criminals (gives them the one up).
The chances of that are very remote. Furthermore, making certain things available will always increase risk, but can also decrease risks of other things. An example would be cars... Its kinda hard to combat stupid, especially in hypothetical situations. Ill use the car example you just said...
A smallish car collision. The two guys blame each other, ends up in a fight, people standing by end up separating them, they both end with black eyes.
Same situation, except one of them is stupid and decides to use his car as a weapon (and run over the guy or anyone around). Yes, I know its crazy to think that a vehicle is a weapon... but it can be used as one. Point in case being the WHAT IF OMGZORS doesn't produce statistics...
I struggled through all of this. I found that people who like guns want guns and the people who don't like guns don't. The people who like guns then they and everyone else is safer because they have them. On this basis thermonuclear weapons should be compulsory for everyone.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'd rather live in a country where everyone carries portable vending machine disguises, than one where they all carry guns.
then leave.
I'm glad I live in a country where law-abiding citizens can defend themselves, instead of resorting to absurd tactics like this.
When law-abiding citizens carry guns, crime goes down. Who would you rob, someone with a gun, or someone without a gun?
"An armed society is a polite society."
You quote yourself to death with pro-gun "good society" propeganda, but that fact is, the proof is in the pudding.
Statistics show that you're not less likely to be attacked because you live in a country with guns, and in a country with guns (eg US), you're far more likely to die than in one without guns if you are attacked.
I personally think less things should be banned, including guns, but saying little tidbits about guns reducing crime is simply wrong.
I actually did a sociology research essay on this topic, we compared the US to Japan (extremely strict), Canada (pretty strict), and Australia (pretty strict, but not as strict as Canada). From looking at all the data we found from other statistical surveys we saw that the Gun laws did not have much of an effect on the homicide rate, instead it is more how the society perceives the ownership of guns.
It seems cliche but in Japan you are actually more likely to be attacked with a sharp object, like a knife than a gun because they see guns as a cheap way out, also the entire family network over there means they are more self policing.
Another thing we found is that there are A TON of conflicting studies on the subject, you could say pretty much whatever you want and find a study to back it up.
A good point, and probably true. I was going to include statistics in my comment, but from a google search they varied so much that I including one (eg from an anti gun website) would be an open invitation to include others from the NRA that contradict that.
However, all the statistics showed that the US is certainly no safer than any other modern European or Asian country with strict gun laws, so the "guns make me safer" argument just cannot stand.
"It seems cliche but in Japan you are actually more likely to be attacked with a sharp object, like a knife than a gun because they see guns as a cheap way out,"
You're conveniently omitting the fact that you also have about 1/7 the risk of being attacked with *anything*.
Obviously, if guns are not available, you have removed one method of attacking someone. The issue is, that's a method that's responsible for 10,000 deaths per year in the United States. Japan has approximately 20 deaths per year from firearms, and those deaths are not "made up" through other means - they just have fewer violent deaths and injuries.
Fewer guns means less violence. It is just that simple. It doesn't take a "study" to figure that out, just a cursory glance at the crime stats.
Guns don't kill people.
People dressed as Coke machines kill people.
Thats actually kind of funny....
Check out Switzerland, and how the fact that everybody has a rifle deters criminals from using theirs. Whereas the British ban of guns increased crime rate.
Reason being... in Switzerland the victims get a gun (as well as the criminals)... but in Britain only the criminals get guns. Its because the criminals do not obey the law... imagine that
O RLY?!?!
So summarized.... when you ban weapons it benefits criminals (gives them the one up).
Good Game
A smallish car collision. The two guys blame each other, ends up in a fight, people standing by end up separating them, they both end with black eyes.
Same situation, one of them having a gun.
The problem with having a gun available, is that you risk doing something very dangerous very easily.
The chances of that are very remote. Furthermore, making certain things available will always increase risk, but can also decrease risks of other things. An example would be cars... Its kinda hard to combat stupid, especially in hypothetical situations. Ill use the car example you just said...
A smallish car collision. The two guys blame each other, ends up in a fight, people standing by end up separating them, they both end with black eyes.
Same situation, except one of them is stupid and decides to use his car as a weapon (and run over the guy or anyone around). Yes, I know its crazy to think that a vehicle is a weapon... but it can be used as one. Point in case being the WHAT IF OMGZORS doesn't produce statistics...
I struggled through all of this. I found that people who like guns want guns and the people who don't like guns don't. The people who like guns then they and everyone else is safer because they have them. On this basis thermonuclear weapons should be compulsory for everyone.