Swiss gun ownership. NRA arguments seem to ring hollow

[Mr_Logic]

Oh Aris - various people have quoted various statistics regarding incidents of crime in largely gun-owning areas in the USA - guns everywhere and you have low crime. I would argue, though, that this is simply reflecting a society which is relatively law-abiding anyway. i do not believe there is a causal link between guns and crime. Gun crime merely reflects the level of lawlessness of the society as a whole.

[aris]

There is a link between gun ownership and gun related deaths though. I agree with your assertion though that gun crime reflects the level of lawlessness as a whole. The question is though, does owning a gun yourself make you any safer? In the context of the UK, would a higher proportion of homeowners being armed (and assuming they were legally able to protect themselves using that firearm), result in lower crime, or just criminals upping the ante? I think the latter.

[aris]

By the way - i'm not anti gun. I am in favour of sensible gun laws though.

[gazzthompson]

http://news.bbcimg.c...ences_624gr.gif

 

We know when the two major bans happened.

 

firearm Crime rose. Firearm crime has fallen since 2005/2006. Yet more guns are issued now, than ever before!

 

http://www.guardian....ms-certificates

 

How can firearm crime fall, yet ownership rise? Because the two are not linked? (The same trends IIRC are happening in the US)

Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson

[aris]

I see your ownership statistics, and raise you worldwide gun-homicide statistics:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

Check out the % homicides by firearm on the interactive map.

 

As I said - i'm not a anti-gun - i'm pro sensible licensing laws.

 

As an aside, I had a look at the licensing laws in South Africa - they have changed considerably since got my license there 20 years ago:

 

http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eng/directories/services/11462/9640

 

Again, they seem sensible to me.

[Steppenwolf]

In the context of the UK, would a higher proportion of homeowners being armed (and assuming they were legally able to protect themselves using that firearm), result in lower crime, or just criminals upping the ante? I think the latter.

 

The criminal can't up the ante if everybody already has the ability to be armed. How could they do this? It is not supported by evidence, so seems weird. In America for example DC because of its gun ban used to be high in crime and murder. Since Supreme Court Vs Heller 2006 (The reintroduction of lawful handgun ownership for defence in the Capital) even though DC is an urban area the crime figures have been reduced.

 

Surely we should be seeking a spike in gun crime and murder since criminals would be "upping the ante" now that handguns are freely available.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Steppenwolf

[gazzthompson]

I see your ownership statistics, and raise you worldwide gun-homicide statistics:

 

http://www.guardian....ship-world-list

 

Check out the % homicides by firearm on the interactive map.

 

As I said - i'm not a anti-gun - i'm pro sensible licensing laws.

 

As an aside, I had a look at the licensing laws in South Africa - they have changed considerably since got my license there 20 years ago:

 

http://www.westernca...ices/11462/9640

 

Again, they seem sensible to me.

 

Don't really care for world stats, far to many variables. we have our own stats in this country to use.

Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson

[aris]

Several ways they can up the ante - bring some friends with and out number and out gun you for one. As I have said before - i'm not for a banning all guns - just sensible licensing laws suitable for the country and its culture.

[gazzthompson]

They can do exactly that now, and you have roughly 0 chance. The arms race is happening, you just lose most of the time as the state does not allow you to take part.

 

if somebody has a firearm they are at the top (or near) of this "arms race" . Currently we are all state enforced to the bottom.

Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson

[Steppenwolf]

Several ways they can up the ante - bring some friends with and out number and out gun you for one. As I have said before - i'm not for a banning all guns - just sensible licensing laws suitable for the country and its culture.

 

As gazz thompson said they can do that now. What is to stop me from doing that as well? Contact my neighbours that have been robbed and we make our own armed neighbourhood watch. This is actually what happened in South Africa, you should know. There was a program about armed neighbourhood watch in South Africa and they were having some impact on the local organised crime. Look at what is happening in Mexico, the gun and organised crime there in some states is so bad, and police won't/can't help that local people have started arming themselves and banding together to protect their community:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10864385

[aris]

They can do exactly that now, and you have roughly 0 chance. The arms race is happening, you just lose most of the time as the state does not allow you to take part.

 

if somebody has a firearm they are at the top (or near) of this "arms race" . Currently we are all state enforced to the bottom.

 

Sure they can - but they don't. And that's the point.

[Steppenwolf]

They do if they are trying to rob high value targets, say a millionaire's ouse or a footballers house. A bit like how youu said that car jackings in South Africa are very organised and the assailants well armed, because there is probably a lot of money to be involved from a high end car so they come equipped, same in the UK. I am sure if you have a beatup old banger of a car your chance of being car jacked in south africa diminish.

[gazzthompson]

Sure they can - but they don't. And that's the point.

 

Of course they do. Hence knife crime.

 

Why would a would be mugger choose a target they are likley to lose against? makes no sense.

Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson

[aris]

They do if they are trying to rob high value targets, say a millionaire's ouse or a footballers house. A bit like how youu said that car jackings in South Africa are very organised and the assailants well armed, because there is probably a lot of money to be involved from a high end car so they come equipped, same in the UK. I am sure if you have a beatup old banger of a car your chance of being car jacked in south africa diminish.

 

Actually the hijackers in SA make very little - it is the middle men who make the big money. They just steal to order.

 

With regards to robbery on individuals or private homes In the UK - it's the exception rather than the rule for a firearm to be in use. Do you personally know anyone who has been robbed or had a home invasion where a firearm was involved?

 

BTW - this argument is getting tiring.

[gazzthompson]

Don't really care if I'm robbed with a firearm, knife, screwdriver , bat or simply out numbered. If I'm unarmed and they decide to attack I'm reliant on my bodies ability to absorb punishment. Great. Firearms can defend against more than just other firearms.

Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson

[Steppenwolf]

No I don't know anyone that has been robbeed with a firearm. A few local shops have had attempted robberies with what was later identified as realistic imitation guns. I don't think that this makes my argument any less valid.

[JonathanL]

I agree with you here. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. Sensible people are willing to see a middle ground. I don't see the NRA in the US as sensible though.

 

By the way - i'm not an 'anti'. Some might see me that way but only because my views don't align 100% with theirs.

 

You have to appreciate their point of view though. 'Sensible' and 'reasonable' restrictions never stop at that; once you have accepted that one restriction is sensible then you cannot really accept the next one as not being so. Before too long you wonder where it all went wrong when you have nothing left.

 

The NRA and gun owners in general in the USA won't accept 'sensible' restrictions not because they are necessarily against sensible restrictions but because politicans are duplicitous, lying, scumbags whoin the long run, won't be happy with merely 'sensible' restrictions. If politicans actually had a bit of honesty about them then things would be a lot better than they are now. That isn't going to happen though which is why nothins is actually going to be banned any time soon in the USA.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

No - while there is a chance you will be killed, or kidnapped, most of these guys are pro's and they want the car with as little hassle as possible. If you co-operate, you will probably live. If you're armed, or lie to them about a gun or anything else, you may well be harmed. Of course avoiding a hijack is best - but not always possible. You will have no opportunity to use force when they have the advantage of surprise.

 

Not living in a country of which well over 50% of its population seems to be constituted of savage marauding scumbags with virtually no respect for human life would reduce your chances of being 'jacked to virtually nil.

 

Seriously, I do wonder why anyone with a modicum of common sense or sense of welfare for their family doesn't just nick off to somewhere safer and let the savages get on with killing, torturing and raping one another into oblivion.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

There is a link between gun ownership and gun related deaths though. I agree with your assertion though that gun crime reflects the level of lawlessness as a whole. The question is though, does owning a gun yourself make you any safer? In the context of the UK, would a higher proportion of homeowners being armed (and assuming they were legally able to protect themselves using that firearm), result in lower crime, or just criminals upping the ante? I think the latter.

 

Yes, there always will be. The point though is whether more people die who wouldn't have done if guns didn't exist or weren't available. More than 50% of shooting deaths in the USA are suicides. If you banned all firearms but the same number of people comitted suicide then the fact that they were done before the ban with guns is interesting but pretty meaningless. It's a 'link' between bun ownership and death by gun but nothing more.

 

J.

 

By the way - i'm not anti gun. I am in favour of sensible gun laws though.

 

So is everybody - even the US NRA. The problem is simply an agreement as to what constitutes 'sensible'.

 

j.

[aris]

 

Seriously, I do wonder why anyone with a modicum of common sense or sense of welfare for their family doesn't just nick off to somewhere safer and let the savages get on with killing, torturing and raping one another into oblivion.

 

J.

 

Why do you think there are so many saffers in the uk, oz, Canada, nz, etc.

 

I think I going to let this thread die a death now. It is slowly descending into a flame war - and I think that while we disagree, we have out points well known.

 

[Vince Green]

This case of the bladerunner in South Africa taken at face value is a good illustration of why liberal gun laws cause deaths. Either, as he says, he woke up and, half asleep, mistook his girlfriend for an intruder. Or, as the police appear to be saying, it was a domestic.

 

Either way, a totally senseless death of a type that occours all too often in the States but would almost never happen in Britain. It could happen here, of course it could, but in the US its literally a daily occourance somewhere or other.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Vince Green

[gazzthompson]

And peoples lives are saved when they shoot home intruders on a near daily basis. You're point? Hell a 12 year old shot once not long ago : http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/

 

 

Guns are equalisers, It means a single 65 year old lady has a chance against five armed guys... Sounds silly right? it happens :

Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

I think I going to let this thread die a death now. It is slowly descending into a flame war - and I think that while we disagree, we have out points well known.

 

Just because you lose an argument does not make it into a flame war. No one is insulting you or your intelligence we are just debating issues like civilised people here. Peace.

[Steppenwolf]

This case of the bladerunner in South Africa taken at face value is a good illustration of why liberal gun laws cause deaths. Either, as he says, he woke up and, half asleep, mistook his girlfriend for an intruder. Or, as the police appear to be saying, it was a domestic.

 

Either way, a totally senseless death of a type that occours all too often in the States but would almost never happen in Britain. It could happen here, of course it could, but in the US its literally a daily occourance somewhere or other.

 

Please don't equate a guy who clearly failed to identify a hostile target for a friendly one a case of "common occurence in the USA". Where is the evidence to back this up? If this really happened as often as you make it out to be the Uk anti-gun media would have a field day detailing the bumbling attitude of US gun owners on a daily basis. I haven't seen this happening so I call ********.

 

I really thought "The Vince" was better than this, you dissapoint me man. -10 points.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Steppenwolf

[Steppenwolf]

Cases where guns helped in subduing attackers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJte2qN_yKQ&list=UU02JJcAx3xXhXflFI_wgZ6g

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duVPOR4BKeU&list=UU02JJcAx3xXhXflFI_wgZ6g

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zZGe3f0mc&list=UU02JJcAx3xXhXflFI_wgZ6g

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wmy0Wybcd0&list=UU02JJcAx3xXhXflFI_wgZ6g

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sONdymdsPgs&list=UU02JJcAx3xXhXflFI_wgZ6g