Gun Related Deaths U.S/World.

[dwarven]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about preventing another mass shooting. Gun control is one solution, except its incredibly ineffective. Adam Lanza was under 21 and in a gun free zone. Gun control laws currently in place failed to stop him.

If you want to prevent mass shootings, either ban guns completely and go house to house confiscating them, or focus on mental health, because more gun control laws will fail miserably.

Agreed. The only way gun control laws will do anything is if you ban them outright, even for hunting and self-defense. And we all know that will never happen. At least not without a lot of resistance.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Agreed. The only way gun control laws will do anything is if you ban them outright, even for hunting and self-defense. And we all know that will never happen. At least not without a lot of resistance.

Pretty sure this is demonstrably false, but I'm too lazy to find the relevant statistics. Hopefully somebody will do it for me.

[dwarven]

Pretty sure this is demonstrably false, but I'm too lazy to find the relevant statistics. Hopefully somebody will do it for me.

Japan? The more you know.

Wikipedia faster homie.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Guns or not, the USA is still a firearm country. The gun culture there is very strong compared to most other developed countries.

Take them away? You will have people crying. I doubt anybody would have the courage to fight the government like they say they would.

Either way, I think it's too late to think of taking guns away as a solution for them.

However, what do I know? I'm just an outsider looking in.

[Themius]

you do realize that only 37% of those gun related deaths in the US are homicide??? 60% are Suicides..

Look at just the homicide column and there is a clear issue.

[Deadvolcanoes]

No, the issue is false dichotomies like that. Here's a question... do you support the idea of forcing people diagnosed with mental health issues to be medicated and/or confined?

We already do this, and from what I'm told by medical professionals it is necessary in some instances. So, yeah, sure.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 06:16 PM ----------

Agreed. The only way gun control laws will do anything is if you ban them outright, even for hunting and self-defense. And we all know that will never happen. At least not without a lot of resistance.

It won't happen because it can't. 300 million guns cannot be confiscated from a public unwilling to give them up. Nevertheless, I would be all for it.

[Catalept]

Agreed. The only way gun control laws will do anything is if you ban them outright, even for hunting and self-defense. And we all know that will never happen. At least not without a lot of resistance.

I disagree. The effectiveness of particular laws depends entirely on the buy-in at the community level. Gun-control laws in the US are ineffective precisely to the degree that people resent those laws, and don't take their intent seriously... I suspect that's the driving force behind the difference in international gun statistics, and not the details of the various countries' legislation.

That's why there are people with multiple DUI convictions, and people who leave guns and ammunition unsecured in their homes (I'm not saying that's what happened in the Lanza shooting, but the stats for accidental domestic shootings are bad enough). People have to stop seeing guns as 'Freedom Shooters' and 'Criminal Stoppers' and see them as lethal weapons that make it trivially easy to take the lives of anyone they happen to be pointed at.

[Jeleh]

Even with the statistics the gun advocates refuse to accept that the ease of acquiring a weapon is a significant part of the problem. Compare to other countries of a similar standard of living, UK/Germany for example (based on the wikipedia statistics) and the USA has roughly 60-90 times more homicides via firearms.

Advocates solution? "Give em more guns!"

Whilst I don't disagree someone trained with a firearm can close down these situations and limit them, examples of other developed nations in strictly controlling and limiting firearms shows you can remove a significant portion of incidents in the first place.

I understand it's an underpinning part of the constitution and what Americans see as one of their basic rights, but don't deny it's an issue when direct comparisons to other nations of similar economic and social development show that your system is enabling criminals.

[Strah]

You are looking at 3rd world countries where there are plenty of drug cartels and shootings are a common thing. I suppose the second 1st world country on that list is Canada, which has got more than twice as low death rate as the states. Go figure.

[dwarven]

I disagree. The effectiveness of particular laws depends entirely on the buy-in at the community level. Gun-control laws in the US are ineffective precisely to the degree that people resent those laws, and don't take their intent seriously... I suspect that's the driving force behind the difference in international gun statistics, and not the details of the various countries' legislation.

That's why there are people with multiple DUI convictions, and people who leave guns and ammunition unsecured in their homes (I'm not saying that's what happened in the Lanza shooting, but the stats for accidental domestic shootings are bad enough). People have to stop seeing guns as 'Freedom Shooters' and 'Criminal Stoppers' and see them as lethal weapons that make it trivially easy to take the lives of anyone they happen to be pointed at.

No. They depend on the ability of the government to enforce them.

[Rhyseh]

Here's some stats from 2011 for you:



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Gun control, if implemented correctly, will reduce these figures over time.

It's much harder for someone to perform mass killings with a single shot or a small capacity weapon. The lethality of the weapons is what needs to be regulated. As stated there is no justification for a military grade weapon to be in civilian hands.

[Draqson]

You are looking at 3rd world countries where there are plenty of drug cartels and shootings are a common thing. I suppose the second 1st world country on that list is Canada, which has got more than twice as low death rate as the states. Go figure.

and those are probably just americans on vacation... j/k

on another note, im surprised germany is so low... 6 out of 10.000.000; more than 16x people die by accidental shooting in georgia...
leaves me a bit suspicious about georgia...

[Healing Rain]

This statistic is meaningless considering it does not take into account all homicides and crime in general.

Also different countries are different.

[Rhyseh]

This statistic is meaningless considering it does not take into account all homicides and crime in general.

Also different countries are different.

The statistics aren't meaningless. They clearly indicate a strong link between easily obtainable firearms and firearm related deaths. All countries have crime. This isn't something that's exclusive to the US.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Japan? The more you know.

Wikipedia faster homie.

You didn't really link any relevant statistics, you just named a country. Also, I would be wary of using only one source anyway.

The statistics aren't meaningless. They clearly indicate a strong link between easily obtainable firearms and firearm related deaths. All countries have crime. This isn't something that's exclusive to the US.

Well, that's kinda like saying there is a strong link to cardiac arrest and death. Ok, not exactly the same, but of course the deaths involving guns will be higher if guns are more available, but that doesn't mean that guns being more available is responsible for all gun-related deaths. Find a country that has a comparable living style, cultural style and legal style with the US that has stricter gun control laws and let's compare the difference in deaths related to guns and deaths unrelated to guns from both countries.

[Svifnymr]

His mother did not however happen to have an unlocked truck in her cupboard, but a gun. And it's probably easier to get a gun in the US than a truck too.

You need a driver's license for either, though a car doesn't require a background check. The mental illness part of the background check has a ton of issues due to patients rights advocacy groups opposing the information being too widely available as a privacy concern. His mother complied with the licensing requirements of the state of Connecticut, which also has an assault weapons ban in place, if that matters.

Either way, most of the gun control crowd know nothing of the laws in place already, but want to draft more laws because "something needs to be done!". This board is dedicated to video games and would be up in arms if they started on the "ban video games" bandwagon again. A good portion of this board wants to legalize various drugs because banning them hasn't worked. The same folks that find it unconstitutional to want a valid ID to vote, want psychological exams before having a firearm in the house (because the MOTHER would have PASSED any of these tests you want to draft. So I assume you want them to test everyone in the household?).

The firearms debate comes down to letting emotion lead you to taking away the Rights of the many, because of a statistically insignificant number of problem people. I put the math in another such thread a few days ago, but of the new guns made/imported each year, if you completely ignored every gun already in place, it would still be less than .1% of guns involved in a death.

Folks also ignore what guns are most commonly used for in the USA, because they generally do not know anything about firearms at all.

Like cars, some folks collect various models with distinctions you could not tell apart if you were instructed in them. Like cars they have collectable natures due to time periods. Like cars, it's fun for some folks to work on them, polishing and tinkering. Shooting/ Driving is a sport, but unlike racing cars, gun competitions are much more common.

Ban magazines above a certain arbitrary amount, but the idea that cars be limited to 65 is anathema? Guns are required to be sold with a locking device, btw, I guess that's comparable to seat belt regulation. Firearms are designed to not accidentally discharge, similar to cars having airbags, neither is mandated, but it's a common industry standard.

Cars are NOT required, and are polluting the environment and keeping the USA using lots of oil, but they're a part of our culture and are here to stay.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 07:21 PM ----------

Well, that's kinda like saying there is a strong link to cardiac arrest and death. Ok, not exactly the same, but of course the deaths involving guns will be higher if guns are more available, but that doesn't mean that guns being more available is responsible for all gun-related deaths. Find a country that has a comparable living style, cultural style and legal style with the US that has stricter gun control laws and let's compare the difference in deaths related to guns and deaths unrelated to guns from both countries.

My assertion is that as you get further away from the Panama Canal, your crime lessons. It's true that not all evidence supports this assertion, but that's fine on the internet.

[dwarven]

You didn't really link any relevant statistics

I don't need to. It's a well known fact.

[Rhyseh]

You didn't really link any relevant statistics, you just named a country. Also, I would be wary of using only one source anyway.


Well, that's kinda like saying there is a strong link to cardiac arrest and death. Ok, not exactly the same, but of course the deaths involving guns will be higher if guns are more available, but that doesn't mean that guns being more available is responsible for all gun-related deaths. Find a country that has a comparable living style, cultural style and legal style with the US that has stricter gun control laws and let's compare the difference in deaths related to guns and deaths unrelated to guns from both countries.

The UK and Australia are probably the closest things you'll find. Not a perfect comparison, but certainly one that can be used.

A point to consider:

In 1996, 35 people were killed in the worst gun massacre in Australian history. But the next decade saw the firearm homicide rate fall by 59 per cent, and the firearm suicide rate fall by 65 per cent, without a corresponding rise in non-firearm deaths.

Consequently the massacre that is referenced here is what sparked the introduction of gun control. Don't you find it curious that the vast majority of people who live in countries that have gun control are advocates of the legislation?

EDIT: Also your comparison to cardiac arrest is a poorly thought out one. There's not as much that can be done to reduce the amount of cardiac arrests vs the amount of firearms in civilian hands. To turn it back on you if we reduced the amount of cardiac arrests wouldn't we also reduce the amount of cardiac arrest related deaths?

[Pendulous]

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...tion-in-the-US