2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue

Last edited:
UNLoVedRebel said:
Your city has more than 2.5x the homicide rate of my city. Citizens being armed in my city is probably a good reason why.

"Nottingham also had the highest murder rate - with 5.21 crimes for every 100,000 population"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5006852.stm

Henderson, NV -- only 2 for every 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Click to expand...


You've admitted you are only trolling. Pity you're not very good at it. Cherry picking data from individual cities proves nothing. The homicide rate by firearms is far greater in the US than the UK.

Now you might try to explain the lack of multiple firearm murders in Australia after firearms were restricted.
 
lionking said:
You've admitted you are only trolling. Pity you're not very good at it. Cherry picking data from individual cities proves nothing. The homicide rate by firearms is far greater in the US than the UK.

Now you might try to explain the lack of multiple firearm murders in Australia after firearms were restricted.
Click to expand...

This might be relevant: when discussing the reasons for the mortality gap between the US and other OECD countries, Jerome da Gnome had asked the question as to whether the US war on drugs caused this.
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Do those statistics account for the gun deaths caused by the drug war in America? You do know that those people die at quite a young age which will skew the results down.
Click to expand...

Firearm ownership does seem to account for some (25%) of this life expectancy gap

jimbob said:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
jimbob said:
I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.
Click to expand...

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.



Keep in mind that this is only one factor to be considered.
Click to expand...

"These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States."

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.


In fact I am surprised at the magnitude of the effect, but it still leaves 74% unexplained by gun-deaths.
Click to expand...
 
DC said:
Less guns doesn't mean less crimes.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Click to expand...
Who said that in this thread?

As for your chart, some of the figures are 20 years out of date. Of course I'm aware that Switzerland has high firearm ownership and the reasons for this.

Now, could you explain why there has been a lack of multiple homicides by firearm since Australia severely restricted firearm ownership? Nothing else has changed except a population increase. Co-incidence?
 
lionking said:
Who said that in this thread?

As for your chart, some of the figures are 20 years out of date. Of course I'm aware that Switzerland has high firearm ownership and the reasons for this.

Now, could you explain why there has been a lack of multiple homicides by firearm since Australia severely restricted firearm ownership? Nothing else has changed except a population increase. Co-incidence?
Click to expand...

how many of those incidents happened before the new gunownership laws?

and how long were those laws in effect before?

what was the crime rate for armed murder before the law change and how are they after the law change?

"Correlation does not imply causation"
 
DC said:
how many of those incidents happened before the new gunownership laws?

and how long were those laws in effect before?

what was the crime rate for armed murder before the law change and how are they after the law change?

"Correlation does not imply causation"
Click to expand...

A heap of multiple murders occurred before, culminating in Port Arthur, and none after (and yes there have been homicides since). And your quote about correlation is gratuitous.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
A heap of multiple murders occurred before, culminating in Port Arthur, and none after (and yes there have been homicides since). And your quote is gratuitous.
Click to expand...

numbers? I don't say you are wrong, but just bringing up one example over and over again without proving its correlation doesn't help the debate.
 
DC said:
numbers? I don't say you are wrong, but just bringing up one example over and over again without proving its correlation doesn't help the debate.
Click to expand...
You could look it up yourself you know. There were something like 13 mass murders involving firearms in the decade up to firearm restriction laws in the mid 1990s, and none since. I'm not going to pretend that the whole issue isn't complicated, and the only way to prove things with any confidence would be to have a control group without restrictions to firearm ownership and an experimental group with restrictions, which is obviously ridiculous.

The lack of mass killings is good enough for me, and I (and I believe the vast majority of Australians) am happy with restrictions to firearm ownership.
 
lionking said:
You could look it up yourself you know. There were something like 13 mass murders involving firearms in the decade up to firearm restriction laws in the mid 1990s, and none since. I'm not going to pretend that the whole issue isn't complicated, and the only way to prove things with any confidence would be to have a control group without restrictions to firearm ownership and an experimental group with restrictions, which is obviously ridiculous.

The lack of mass killings is good enough for me, and I (and I believe the vast majority of Australians) am happy with restrictions to firearm ownership.
Click to expand...

your one example isn't very helpfull, as only one incident could destroy your case.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

this makes a much better case for your position than your one example.
 
DC said:
your one example isn't very helpfull, as only one incident could destroy your case.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

this makes a much better case for your position than your one example.
Click to expand...
This link says nothing whatsoever about the impact of firearm restriction legislation as it shows a decline in firearm homicides from the 1960s.

As I said, the only certain way to be sure is to conduct an impossible social experiment. In the absense of certainty I'm happy to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the restriction of firearms has made Australia a safer place.
 
lionking said:
This link says nothing whatsoever about the impact of firearm restriction legislation as it shows a decline in firearm homicides from the 1960s.

As I said, the only certain way to be sure is to conduct an impossible social experiment. In the absense of certainty I'm happy to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the restriction of firearms has made Australia a safer place.
Click to expand...

Well i think Australia has become more saver indeed, but is that doe to the new laws?
I think the role of the 96/97 gun law is overestimated.

http://abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf...8f1f383829ef039fca2570ec001b2fc4!OpenDocument

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
 
Last edited:
My questions seems to have gone unanswered:

UNLoVedRebel said:
Much like oral hygiene, the Brits haven't got a clue about gun rights. After that crazy taxi cab mother ****er shot a bunch of unarmed civilians, it's about time the U.K. thought about adopting its own 2nd Amendment-type gun rights legislation. How many more people have to die before the Brits start carrying guns?
Click to expand...

How many people would not be killed if we had gun control laws such as the USA has in many of its states compared to the rate we currently have?
 
Darat said:
My questions seems to have gone unanswered:



How many people would not be killed if we had gun control laws such as the USA has in many of its states compared to the rate we currently have?
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were serious. That's analogous to asking how many people would not be killed in car accidents if we had a speed limit of 25 mph.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
I didn't think you were serious. That's analogous to asking how many people would not be killed in car accidents if we had a speed limit of 25 mph.
Click to expand...

That's right it is. So what is your response to my question "How many people would not be killed if we had gun control laws such as the USA has in many of its states compared to the rate we currently have?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom