Guest shiloh357 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 It is probably a faulty assumption that gun laws in Aus or Europe will have the same effect as they do in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnythingIsPossible Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 150 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 143 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/17/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 2, 2015 It is probably a faulty assumption that gun laws in Aus or Europe will have the same effect as they do in the US. Yes I think I can agree with that not only is there a very profound cultural difference at least concerning gun ownership, I think there may as well be a critical mass of ownership as it were that once passed makes gun laws unenforceable even undesirable. To truly have an American perspective I would have had to have grown up there. Here we don't understand why anyone would want to keep a gun in the house, to the average American however it's a right written into their very DNA, very different perspectives. It may surprise you to know that I actually support the right for what's it's worth as a non U.S. citizen for a U.S. Citizen to bear arms, and I understand how it came about. Peace Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,709 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,523 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I agree that there are other factors-but its not unreasonable to draw some comparisons. But what's more important is not who necessary who has more violence but that guns arnt the cause of it-and taking them away won't solve the issue. Even in the UK. Notice you haven't commented on either of the mass killings that took place in the UK after the gun ban that I listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,709 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,523 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I agree that there are other factors-but its not unreasonable to draw some comparisons. But what's more important is not who necessary who has more violence but that guns arnt the cause of it-and taking them away won't solve the issue. Even in the UK. Notice you haven't commented on either of the mass killings that took place in the UK after the gun ban that I listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnythingIsPossible Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 150 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 143 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/17/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) I agree that there are other factors-but its not unreasonable to draw some comparisons. But what's more important is not who necessary who has more violence but that guns arnt the cause of it-and taking them away won't solve the issue. Even in the UK. Notice you haven't commented on either of the mass killings that took place in the UK after the gun ban that I listed. Okay here's what you said in your post You say UK doesn't have mass shootings what I actually said was... But the U.K. too has had people who intend harm to others, but do not have the number of mass killings you have because the tools generally are not available. italics & bold added I was not claiming the U.K. didn't have gun crime, so far as the incident itself is concerned you seem to be making my point not yours, if he didn't have access to a gun then he wouldn't have been able to shoot those people period. the most honest thing to say is we don't know what would have happened had he not had a gun available, to surmise that he would have just used a bomb or Poisonous gas or something else is venturing into the unknown, the man was very ill mentality, he could just as easily committed suicide (which he did at the end) very unpredictable. Truth is we have no idea. As to your second point, yes people do use bombs but to say they used a bomb because they couldn't get a gun is pure fanciful thought the two need not be related at all,a link to any gun laws or none is redundant. I agree Gun laws as of themselves change little after all people already break the law, you don't have to be Einstein to get that one. It was only after the U.K. had its gun amnesty (a surprising amount of guns were given in) and Australia had it's 'buy back' scheme that gun crime started dropping in the respective country's, Law and action have to work together. Peace Andy Edited July 2, 2015 by AnythingIsPossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted July 2, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,709 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,523 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted July 2, 2015 UK also doesn't have the population, and like I also pointed out it doesn't have neighboring nations. The only way gun control were to work is if you took the guns out of everyone's hands-including the bad guys. Which puts everyone on equal grounds, barring them finding other weapons of course. A country like england or Australia can handle this far better then a landlocked country where its virtually impossible to keep the bad guys getting guns Guns do play a part. What most people don't realize though is economy plays a bigger part. The better the economy the less the violent crime rate. Even in the US and england the highest violent crime rates are in the major cities with a low economy. Take countries like Mexico and Brazil. When the economy is struggling and there's a lack of legitimate business, then illegitimate business comes in-drugs, gangs, and the like. The bad guys become filthy rich, can afford guns and other drugs, while the average populace cant afford anyway to defend themselves, or are not allowed to by their respective governments. It creates unequal standing. To decrease violent crime one needs to decrease poverty, and increase equal standing. Best way to do both is teach the people Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted July 3, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Yes I think I can agree with that not only is there a very profound cultural difference at least concerning gun ownership, I think there may as well be a critical mass of ownership as it were that once passed makes gun laws unenforceable even undesirable. To truly have an American perspective I would have had to have grown up there. Here we don't understand why anyone would want to keep a gun in the house, to the average American however it's a right written into their very DNA, very different perspectives. It may surprise you to know that I actually support the right for what's it's worth as a non U.S. citizen for a U.S. Citizen to bear arms, and I understand how it came about. Peace Andy Well Andy, I grew up in a home, where a loaded revolver was always on the headboard of my father's bed.. In hindsight, I think that was a foolish idea, but to me it was just normal. I was taught to shoot by the time I was six I think, I was given my own rifle (which I still have) on my 7th birthday. Again, it did not strike me as novel, and guns were not something I was curious about,there were rifles hanging on the wall of the living room. I am not sure trigger locks had even been invented yet. Guns were just were just normal, household items, more common that toasters and tea kettles. For certain, my mentality and attitude about guns, will be different than for people who grew up in a different culture. I do not see that as bad or good, just different. Mentally doing an inventory of the guns I now own, I am coming up with the number 9. I have considered getting rid of all of them, as I doubt I will every use them again - maybe I will keep one for home protection, maybe not. I turned in 7 handguns to the police some years ago, because I just did not need them, and I did not want the responsibility or worrying about how they would be used after they were no longer under my control. In hindsight, I sort of regret that decision, because I realize that 6 of those 7, were probably very collectible, and worth a fair amount of money. At the time I turned them in, I figured they would be melted down or dropped into deep ocean., but I suspect that they ended up in the personal collection of some cops, lol. Having fun with guns (target shooting), was something I got fairly good at, especially handguns, and recreational shooting was the main reason I held on to as many guns as I did. However, the cost of ammunition, even home reloaded ammo, is too high - even .22 caliber ammo is too pricey to play with. All of the above is just to give you perspective on how comfortable I am with guns around my home, and my neighborhood. Since I have never been at home (except that one time when a burglar took things out of a room I was sleeping in, lol) in my 63 years of life, I am not overly concerned about having to protect myself at home, and I only have one family member living at home now as well, so not all that worried. I suspect a motion detector that turned on a recording of the sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun racking a round into the chamber, might be better home defense that a firearm, and that way, no one gets hurt. I do not want to hurt anyone. Nothing I own is worth endangering someone's life over. However, the way I see that, is that I largely feel comfortable, because I assume that most of the homes in my neighborhood, probably have at least one firearm in them. If it was public knowledge that those homes likely did not have firearms in them, I would not feel as safe. As one friend that I know said once: "I do not own a firearm, I have never owned a firearm, and I will likely never own a firearm. However, if not for my confidence that firearms are all around me, I might just go out and buy one. Knowing my neighbors have firearms, makes me feel much more secure". I think though, you might be missing a point that video was attempting to make, Sure he dis some cherry picking of date to illustrate, but when all date (U.S.) is considered, it is clear that areas where tight gun control is enforces, violent crimes go up, and where gun control is relaxes, it is lower. One might wonder which is the cause ans which is the effect for that correlation, if any. Might it be,m that areas that have tight controls, have them becuase they had hight crime, and this is a reaction to that? That seems like a possibility. However, there are other stats that show (I am not going to look them up, you can believe it or not as you choose) that violent crime drops when gun ownership becomes easier, and it goes up, when it becomes harder - sometimes though it is not a matter of up or down, sometimes it is a change in the violent crime trends (I.E., the rise or fall of crime growth or decline). Other things of course affect these things, like prosecutions and imprisonments, economics, etc. However, finding other reasons that can explain some of the trends, to not make gun ownership and availability not a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts