Here is a reason to own a gun

[Ali G. 37]

Forgot to add slim, such results are something that is quite common when comparing most other first world countries to the US. All good an well - your right actually - to beat on about rights or any other indoctrinated propaganda but a legitimate comparison is how you know (gauge) where you stand versus the rest of the first world.

[Ali G. 37]

If we have 5 times the population, then why do we only have 5 times the "overall" murder rate? Shouldn't it be a lot higher if we're killing 170 times more people with guns? You would think our per-capita murder rate would be somewhere nearer to 170 times that of the UK... not 5 times just like our population difference.

Or, could it be, quite possibly, that people in the UK kill each other with seatbelts or some other inanimate object that wasn't originally designed as a weapon? Have they found a way to still kill each other without guns? NO WAY! THAT CAN'T BE! It defies all logic!

Actually Slim, in 2008 there were 648 murders (in total) in the UK versus 14,180 here. Once again the UK has a significantly lower overall homicide rate. Also keep in mind they have 8 times the population density.

Pwnage aside, the overall homicide rate is not was is being discussed here. We are discussing whether a reduction in handguns results in a lower homicide rate, in particular, whether less people are killed by guns. Using the UK as an example, clearly it does.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[slim 1,530]

such results are something that is quite common when comparing most other first world countries to the US.

Yeah, our overall homicide rate per-capita doesn't add up, does it? You would think with all these guns there'd be a lot more homicides... but there just aren't. When you post it as 600 vs. 14,000 it looks pretty bad. I'll even agree with you. Gosh, that's a lot of homicides.

But when you look at it from a different angle - .014/1000 vs. .042/1000, it doesn't look so bad, does it? It's almost as if it grows right along our population difference. Another thing you're failing to account for is the crime rate. UK actually has a higher crime rate than the US. How can that be?

We have more murders but we have less crime. Are we simply more efficient?

Actually Slim, in 2008 there were 648 murders (in total) in the UK versus 14,180 here. Once again the UK has a significantly lower overall homicide rate. Also keep in mind they have 8 times the population density.

Do a quick google search of "per-capita" and see if you can use that college education of yours to grasp the meaning. I'm not arguing that we have significantly more gun deaths (never have argued that) what I've been consistently arguing is by your rationale it should be much higher and it's not. You still haven't supported why you think that is. I've posted on numerous occasions that humans are creative creatures by nature and find a way to kill each other. Disprove me and I'll shut up.

Pwnage aside, the overall homicide rate is not was is being discussed here. We are discussing whether a reduction in handguns results in a lower homicide rate, in particular, whether less people are killed by guns. Using the UK as an example, clearly it does.

Why are we not discussing that? Is it because it doesn't support your agenda? Say for instance we were to discuss it and say for instance I was right (even had data to back it up) would you be willing to post "slim was right. Handguns don't directly contribute to murder rates."? Could you do that?

You keep saying less people are killed by guns and you've always been right about that. However, what you keep failing to agree on is the fact that less people haven't died as a result of the handgun bans. Can we at least agree on that point?

[Peikko 1,575]

I do not need a gun to protect myself. I am far more likely to be killed by a careless driver while crossing the street than being shot by someone but I still cross the street.

I have no problem with people having guns as a hobby, that is great, have at it, but do not for one minute try to tell me that your hobby is special and is for the greater good. Bullcrap, It is not, and the idea that you are doing someone like me a favour by owning guns is ridiculous and delusional.

[Peikko 1,575]

The UK does not have more crime than the US, what an odd claim to make. I am sure it is some rubbish peddled by the NRA but you really need to start getting some first hand information, not propaganda from people who have a vested interest in selling guns and ammunition.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Where are you going with this? Yes, a gun is a weapon. Yes, it is designed to kill people in an efficient manner. I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

What is your point?

What is *your* point? Why are you trying to euphemise what a gun is?

Its a weapon. Calling it an "active engagement system" is BS. You're using doublespeak to avoid the pure meathook reality that a gun has a singular function - which is to maim and kill..

[slim 1,530]

I do not need a gun to protect myself. I am far more likely to be killed by a careless driver while crossing the street than being shot by someone but I still cross the street.

Still not answering my question, huh?

OK. Be that way.

I have no problem with people having guns as a hobby, that is great, have at it, but do not for one minute try to tell me that your hobby is special and is for the greater good. Bullcrap, It is not, and the idea that you are doing someone like me a favour by owning guns is ridiculous and delusional.

You can thank me later. I hope you never have to, but for now, just take solace in the fact that my gun is here if you need it.

The UK does not have more crime than the US, what an odd claim to make.

I'll tell you like I tell Booyah!, google "per-capita" and see if you can understand what that means. I bet you can, you seem a lot more intelligent than Booyah!.

Of course the UK has less crimes in terms of number of crimes committed. That makes perfect sense, they have way less people. But, if you compare crimes per-capita, the UK has 85/1000 and the US has 80/1000. That means they have a higher crime rate.

I am sure it is some rubbish peddled by the NRA but you really need to start getting some first hand information, not propaganda from people who have a vested interest in selling guns and ammunition.

Once again, do a quick google search and find a generic website with no agenda to sell guns or ammunition and you'll see what I'm talking about. I just put in "crimes per capita by country." Some "nationmaster" site came up. I don't know their politics, or their connection to the NRA, but it seems to be legit. After all, they did post all that nasty business about the US having so many murders per-capita. You know, 5 times more than the UK.

[slim 1,530]

What is *your* point? Why are you trying to euphemise what a gun is?

Its a weapon. Calling it an "active engagement system" is BS. You're using doublespeak to avoid the pure meathook reality that a gun has a singular function - which is to maim and kill..

My point is, and remains to be, that a gun - regardless of the intent of it's design - is an inanimate object that does absolutely nothing without a person influencing it in some way.

Blaming a weapon (or any other inanimate object) for a human's choice to take action and end another human's life is a euphemism, not trying to relate one inanimate object to another.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The UK has less homicides, and far less gun related crimes.

We have more petty crimes in the UK (drunken assaults, burglaries etc.). The US has more murders and crimes involving the use of guns.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point is, and remains to be, that a gun - regardless of the intent of it's design - is an inanimate object that does absolutely nothing without a person influencing it in some way.

Blaming a weapon (or any other inanimate object) for a human's choice to take action and end another human's life is a euphemism, not trying to relate one inanimate object to another.

A euphemism is a linguistic device, nothing more.

Guns enable criminal behaviour. If that weren't the case, shouldn't the US have the lowest rates of gun crime rate in developed world? Or does the presence of guns create more problems than it solves?

Do you think the Virginia tech shooter would have gone on a rampage with a baseball bat if he didn't have access to a gun, or would he have just hanged himself in frustration?

These are questions that have no easy answers, but surely it should make you think. At least...

[slim 1,530]

The UK has less homicides, and far less gun related crimes.

We have more petty crimes in the UK (drunken assaults, burglaries etc.). The US has more murders and crimes involving the use of guns.

Did Booyah! just sneak into your house and post that?

Obviously it's OK with you guys to be victimized as long as it's only "petty." And you call us nutters.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't suggest that it was "ok", but clearly if you are going to be a victim of crime, the petty variety is preferable to the kind that puts your life in danger.

Short of that, you don't have the right to kill someone in "self defense". The law (at least where I am from), agrees with me on that.

[slim 1,530]

I didn't suggest that it was "ok", but clearly if you are going to be a victim of crime, the petty variety is preferable to the kind that puts your life in danger.

So you get to choose which kind of crime you're victimized in?

Short of that, you don't have the right to kill someone in "self defense". The law (at least where I am from), agrees with me on that.

I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US, you do. (For the record, you used to have that right in the UK as well.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you get to choose which kind of crime you're victimized in?

Errrrr... what?

Do you honestly think that it something a reasonable person would believe?

More semantic twisting of words. To be brutally honest with you, I really have no time for that guff.

I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US, you do. (For the record, you used to have that right in the UK as well.)

No, you don't. Courts assess these things on a case by case basis to ascertain whether the force used in the situation was appropriate to the "threat". You don't have carte blanche to blow anyone away.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

No, it isn't. It's a weapon - it is functionally and specifically designed to injure/kill living things. Whatever you or anyone else might use it for, doesn't change the fundamental essence of what it is.

actually, it's designed to fire a projectile, unless you want to claim target shooters are misusing their firearms....