Eh?
US gun campaigner shot
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Eh?
Sponsored Links
Let's suppose there are two countries, A and B, which in terms of social development, education, prosperity and crime control are comparable.
In both of them, the chance of homicide from all methods is one in 100,000 per year.
In country A, where guns are rare, the chances of homicide by firearm are 0.06, and in country B, where guns are less rare, is 0.21.
But since the total homicide rate is the same, you might reasonably say that potential murderers have simply chosen to use a gun because it was easy.
Now consider country C, where guns are very common and the chances of homicide in total, are 3.8 in a hundred thousand per year, and of homicide with a gun are 3.43.
In country C, you might reasonably say that some of the potential murderers have simply taken a gun as their weapon of choice, but the ready availability of guns is not only associated with an increase in the number of firearm homicides, but also an increase in the number of homicides. Whether this is because an attack with a gun is more likely to be fatal than an attack with a hammer or a knife, or because it is psychologically and physically easier to kill someone with a gun, we cannot tell.
B
Brigade77
I sort of get the gist. BUT . . .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564
Kinda pi$$es on your strawberry patch.
Does it? I am not familiar with social structures in Iceland.
"GunPolicy.org estimates there are approximately 90,000 guns in the country - in a country with just over 300,000 people.
The country ranks 15th in the world in terms of legal per capita gun ownership. However, acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test."
How does this compare with country "C"? (USA)
"Iceland's homicide rate between 1999-2009 never went above 1.8 per 100,000 population on any given year."
What is the UK's rate?
(clue: It is country "A")
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I seem to remember in the 80's Sweden had a zero rate of domestic burglary, which at the time was put down to decent homeowners having a handgun in their bedside cabinet.
I can see the logic.
I can see the logic.
So, do you honestly think, for example, if it was well known that a particular street was rife with handguns in bedside cabinets, THAT street would have the same appeal to burglars, rapists, nobends whatever..???
I don't know , but i'm guessing not.
I don't know , but i'm guessing not.
No, a sense of community in that street would mean too much agg for the burglar.
Think about it.
I fail to see the downside.
Think about it.
I fail to see the downside.
Ahh, I didn't say that.
Do you think a decent street would be safer with the common knowledge that all the residents had guns in their bedside cabinets.????
A simple yes.
Do you think a decent street would be safer with the common knowledge that all the residents had guns in their bedside cabinets.????
A simple yes.
No downside. There isn't one for my scenario. All decent residents should be handed one upon the purchase of their house.
Would you burgle that street ..yes or no????
Would you burgle that street ..yes or no????
Of course rules should be enforced, shiny barrels and walnut grips, that kind of thing.
I form my opinion on the basis that no man should have a monopoly of power over another. It's simple as that for me. There might be less gun crime in the UK because there are less guns and gun ownership is not in the British culture. The yanks have it deeply ingrained and that is not going to change any time soon and good on them. The right to bare arms was laid down by their founding fathers primarily as a way to stand against government tyranny. Let us not forget that violent crime of any nature is a complex and multifaceted problem within society. Our society supports the sorts of inequalities that create class division and encourage it to flourish. Perhaps in a future where society is classless we might find less violent crime, it's nothing to do with gun ownership. A person will find away to kill another person if they stand to gain materially, whether they use a gun or a knife or explosive it doesn't matter.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ - you might have less guns in circulation and less gun crime if you banned guns everywhere but you won't have less poverty and poverty is what fuels crime all over the world. You would see the weapon of choice change to a knife if you banned guns, such as in the UK where stabbings are frequent. The cause of crime is still there, it won't go away because guns were banned, so there is no point in banning them. Why not examine and focus on wealth inequality? Gun crime is a byproduct of our society, it doesn't exist as and of itself like some kind of roaming monster.
Sponsored Links