Americans and their guns

[Penelope]

Once again we get the knee jerk reaction of blaming the guns rather than the people.

As usual no one asks "why?"

For instance, why is it that Switzerland has a gun ownership rate not too far behind the US (largely military weapons to boot) yet has a gun related homicide approx 10% of that of the US.

Surely if the problem was simply access to weapons, then Switzerland's gun related homicide rate would be on par that of the US?

also, FWIW there have been 354 people killed by police in the US this year.

As Dooks said, Switz is still a fair way behind. If you don't include their military weapons that its something like 27 per 100. Also cutting off the thing that allows these people to cause mass murder in a matter of minutes is a lot quicker and more likely to have an effect. Yeah some people might still go and illegally get one, or use home made weapons etc. but a good start would be to take away how easy it is for them to get access to these weapons

Take away the guns, then work on the people.

why not include the military weapons? guns are guns
the illegal guns are a furphy because they are , well illegal, already outside the law. changing the law does not change this.

so the yanks have gun ownership rate just under double that of the swiss yet a gun related homicide rate of ten times the swiss.

yeah, sure the problem is the guns

[🏅Dooks]

Once again we get the knee jerk reaction of blaming the guns rather than the people.

As usual no one asks "why?"

For instance, why is it that Switzerland has a gun ownership rate not too far behind the US (largely military weapons to boot) yet has a gun related homicide approx 10% of that of the US.

Surely if the problem was simply access to weapons, then Switzerland's gun related homicide rate would be on par that of the US?

also, FWIW there have been 354 people killed by police in the US this year.

As Dooks said, Switz is still a fair way behind. If you don't include their military weapons that its something like 27 per 100. Also cutting off the thing that allows these people to cause mass murder in a matter of minutes is a lot quicker and more likely to have an effect. Yeah some people might still go and illegally get one, or use home made weapons etc. but a good start would be to take away how easy it is for them to get access to these weapons

Take away the guns, then work on the people.

why not include the military weapons? guns are guns
the illegal guns are a furphy because they are , well illegal, already outside the law. changing the law does not change this.

so the yanks have gun ownership rate just under double that of the swiss yet a gun related homicide rate of ten times the swiss.

yeah, sure the problem is the guns

You've chosen Switzerland as an example because the murder to gun ownership rate is the exception to the rule.

[Penelope]

who wrote the rules?
just love it when when people choose to ignore evidence that doesnt fit in with their views.

maybe, just maybe, there is something about the swiss culture we could learn from rather than blindly following the yanks and passively accepting the way their culture is taking over our own?

[Yeahright]

Once again we get the knee jerk reaction of blaming the guns rather than the people.

As usual no one asks "why?"

For instance, why is it that Switzerland has a gun ownership rate not too far behind the US (largely military weapons to boot) yet has a gun related homicide approx 10% of that of the US.

Surely if the problem was simply access to weapons, then Switzerland's gun related homicide rate would be on par that of the US?

also, FWIW there have been 354 people killed by police in the US this year.

As Dooks said, Switz is still a fair way behind. If you don't include their military weapons that its something like 27 per 100. Also cutting off the thing that allows these people to cause mass murder in a matter of minutes is a lot quicker and more likely to have an effect. Yeah some people might still go and illegally get one, or use home made weapons etc. but a good start would be to take away how easy it is for them to get access to these weapons

Take away the guns, then work on the people.

why not include the military weapons? guns are guns
the illegal guns are a furphy because they are , well illegal, already outside the law. changing the law does not change this.

so the yanks have gun ownership rate just under double that of the swiss yet a gun related homicide rate of ten times the swiss.

yeah, sure the problem is the guns

Include them if you want, I don't care. Was more of a side bar. One would think changing the law would increase the amount of illegal guns would it not?

So what would your solution be? Let everyone keep there guns but hope to change the mindset of these sociopaths? Or what else because you give the impression that you don't think taking away the guns would do anything.

[Penelope]

i think that changing the gun laws does not address the root cause of the problem.

I am not claiming i know what the root cause is, (therefore I dont know what the solution is) but i do know that changing laws is only a superficial, band aid solution.

Has prohibition ever solved any problem?

[Yeahright]

i think that changing the gun laws does not address the root cause of the problem.

I am not claiming i know what the root cause is, (therefore I dont know what the solution is) but i do know that changing laws is only a superficial, band aid solution.

Has prohibition ever solved any problem?

I agree with pretty much all that but I am not sure how that could lead to the conclusion that tightening the gun laws is a poor solution. Surely any decrease in unnessary deaths is a good thing, no matter how superficial the solution was.

I don't know, you tell me?

[Penelope]

beacuse i dont believe that gun control actually leads to less deaths.
there is a caveat to this though.

i dont think that guns should be sold to any one without any checks and balances, there needs to be some sensability to this. The cooling off period we have in this country is a good measure, for instance.

but if you look through this data, looking at all of it, you will see that there is no correlation between rate of gun ownership and gun related homicide.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

The root of the problem lies elsewhere.

If the data showed a direct correlation between gun ownership and and gun related homicide then i would be all for  actively reducing gun ownership rates.

Unfortunately the solution is not that simple, and while the debate rages about gun control, no one is asking the right questions, therefore not coming up with the right answers.

[Stalin]

 

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

As much as I agree with the sentiment of Gun control measures not being a strongest preventative measure, its still A preventative measure.

Only 3% of homicides in the US are a result of registered weapons. THAT'S STILL PEOPLES LIVES YOUR SAVING! Its not a policy based on opportunity cost, i.e if we change the rules to THIS instead of THAT then these people get more but these get less. Its black and white kids, introduce tougher gun ownership laws and you save SOME lives, not all, its not the root of the problem, but it still stops some people from being horribly murdered.

If anyone has seen 'Bowling for Columbine', Michael Moore suggests that the gun loving culture stems from a 'fear of the black man' and the ubiquity of guns sit in society. In movies for example, guns are often the strongest solution to any problems. Zombie movies are so popular because, with Zombies, all you have to do is shoot your problems away. Hero's require guns to be heroic.

Whilst I agree we absorb so much of american culture, there's still a massive cultural shock when you go to the states and walk passed every shop and some security bloke is standing there with a gleaming 12 gauge.

[Penelope]

michael moore is a puppet.

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

michael moore is a puppet.

So is Kermit the Frog. They still make very good points. Although Im still yet to actually find the rainbow connection.

[Penelope]

but the points they make are on behalf of someone with a hand up their arse

[Diocletian]

Dougey & Bent Judge Joe....

[Loui Tufga]

As much as I agree with the sentiment of Gun control measures not being a strongest preventative measure, its still A preventative measure.

Only 3% of homicides in the US are a result of registered weapons. THAT'S STILL PEOPLES LIVES YOUR SAVING! Its not a policy based on opportunity cost, i.e if we change the rules to THIS instead of THAT then these people get more but these get less. Its black and white kids, introduce tougher gun ownership laws and you save SOME lives, not all, its not the root of the problem, but it still stops some people from being horribly murdered.

Ok why should gun owners be discriminated against?
Why not go the whole hog here and start saving SOME lives in other areas, here are a few ideas that will save more than 3% of lives in other pastimes that are un gun related yet kill plenty of people each year.

1) Reduce the national speed limit to 80kph on open roads and 40kph in suburbia.
2)Make it mandatory to wear life jackets at all times while boating on any waterway.
3)Make it illegal to use a ladder around the home.
4)Remove cyclists from public roads.
5)Restrict the sale of alcohol to one hour a day.

All of the above ideas will save 3% or more deaths or deaths related to the above activists.
The list doesn't stop there there are 1000 other restrictions we can put on thousands of other activitys to save a few lives so please explain to me why should firearm owners be discriminated against? After all it is legal in Australia just like it is to own a car, drive a boat, climb a ladder and walk into a pub nearly anytime of the day and drink yourself stupid.

[Yeahright]

You realise legit gun owners can still keep there guns? Oh and the fact none of them are the direct cause of mass killings