NRA Publicity Fiasco

[Dunno]

Here we go again - the classic battle between the "Gun Nuts" and the "Liberal Gun Haters" So I just want to know what is the problem we are trying to solve here because I don't know. I am growing tired of the same old arguments on both sides. So would banning guns reduce crime, Let's consider some facts:
According to the FBI uniform crime reports (a non-political body) non violent crime in the US is down from 757 per 100k (in 1992) to 386 per 100k in 2011, that's a decrease of about 50%. Furthermore, the murder rate per 100,000 is down from 9.3 to 4.7 in the same time period thats a decrease of 50%. And for the Brit lovers who say "ah ha I got you now!" England only has 1.3 murders per 100k therefore America is much more violent. You would be- in fact- wrong! The truth is England is about 3 times more violent than the USA. Using 2011 numbers you will find that the United States had 821,939 reported violent crimes and England had 762,515 violent reported crimes. The big difference is the US has a population of about 311,000,000 and England has only about 56,000,000 so you do the math.
I point this out because because you don't hear this from anyone in Washington or the media because it does not support their argument. It disgusts me that we -the public- are treated like we are idiots and more importantly this has become a big game for many in DC.
I own guns , I am Patriot, and a Father of 4. I am not a gun nut, I don' carry a weapon daily (albeit i have a permit to do so) and I hunt and shoot maybe 20 times per year. I don't need to have 100 guns or even 20 but this issue is more about the manipulation of our rights by elected official with their own agenda rather than our safety. Banning any weapon simply does not have a direct correlation with reduced crime.

[diamondlady]

Originally Posted by Dunno

Here we go again - the classic battle between the "Gun Nuts" and the "Liberal Gun Haters" So I just want to know what is the problem we are trying to solve here because I don't know. I am growing tired of the same old arguments on both sides. So would banning guns reduce crime, Let's consider some facts:
According to the FBI uniform crime reports (a non-political body) non violent crime in the US is down from 757 per 100k (in 1992) to 386 per 100k in 2011, that's a decrease of about 50%. Furthermore, the murder rate per 100,000 is down from 9.3 to 4.7 in the same time period thats a decrease of 50%. And for the Brit lovers who say "ah ha I got you now!" England only has 1.3 murders per 100k therefore America is much more violent. You would be- in fact- wrong! The truth is England is about 3 times more violent than the USA. Using 2011 numbers you will find that the United States had 821,939 reported violent crimes and England had 762,515 violent reported crimes. The big difference is the US has a population of about 311,000,000 and England has only about 56,000,000 so you do the math.
I point this out because because you don't hear this from anyone in Washington or the media because it does not support their argument. It disgusts me that we -the public- are treated like we are idiots and more importantly this has become a big game for many in DC.
I own guns , I am Patriot, and a Father of 4. I am not a gun nut, I don' carry a weapon daily (albeit i have a permit to do so) and I hunt and shoot maybe 20 times per year. I don't need to have 100 guns or even 20 but this issue is more about the manipulation of our rights by elected official with their own agenda rather than our safety. Banning any weapon simply does not have a direct correlation with reduced crime.

THANK YOU for talking sense! Much appreciated!

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Dunno

Here we go again - the classic battle between the "Gun Nuts" and the "Liberal Gun Haters" So I just want to know what is the problem we are trying to solve here because I don't know. I am growing tired of the same old arguments on both sides. So would banning guns reduce crime, Let's consider some facts:
According to the FBI uniform crime reports (a non-political body) non violent crime in the US is down from 757 per 100k (in 1992) to 386 per 100k in 2011, that's a decrease of about 50%. Furthermore, the murder rate per 100,000 is down from 9.3 to 4.7 in the same time period thats a decrease of 50%. And for the Brit lovers who say "ah ha I got you now!" England only has 1.3 murders per 100k therefore America is much more violent. You would be- in fact- wrong! The truth is England is about 3 times more violent than the USA. Using 2011 numbers you will find that the United States had 821,939 reported violent crimes and England had 762,515 violent reported crimes. The big difference is the US has a population of about 311,000,000 and England has only about 56,000,000 so you do the math.
I point this out because because you don't hear this from anyone in Washington or the media because it does not support their argument. It disgusts me that we -the public- are treated like we are idiots and more importantly this has become a big game for many in DC.
I own guns , I am Patriot, and a Father of 4. I am not a gun nut, I don' carry a weapon daily (albeit i have a permit to do so) and I hunt and shoot maybe 20 times per year. I don't need to have 100 guns or even 20 but this issue is more about the manipulation of our rights by elected official with their own agenda rather than our safety. Banning any weapon simply does not have a direct correlation with reduced crime.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the numbers on gun violence and deaths as opposed to "violent crime" tell a different story. The UK is WAY below the USA on gun deaths per capita.

With that said, Sandy Hook would not have happened, or had the body count without assault weapons accessibility, or any weapon accessibility by the those that should never have their hands on any weapon.

I agree with a lot of my pro-gun friends that an assault weapon ban would not make much of a dent in overall gun violence... but there is a good chance that it would have prevented Aurora or Newtown. I don't care that much if a gangbanger meets his maker via gun violence, it's entirely another thing when innocents die... especially a first grader.

[Dunno]

Originally Posted by madmax

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the numbers on gun violence and deaths as opposed to "violent crime" tell a different story. The UK is WAY below the USA on gun deaths per capita.

With that said, Sandy Hook would not have happened, or had the body count without assault weapons accessibility, or any weapon accessibility by the those that should never have their hands on any weapon.

I agree with a lot of my pro-gun friends that an assault weapon ban would not make much of a dent in overall gun violence... but there is a good chance that it would have prevented Aurora or Newtown. I don't care that much if a gangbanger meets his maker via gun violence, it's entirely another thing when innocents die... especially a first grader.

Max I think you are missing my point or maybe I am not doing a good job of making it. My point is its not about the weapons or choice thereof. It's about the crime and more importantly violent crime. Do we really want a society that has more violent crime, no. I think we can all agree on that but is banning guns the solution? I agree that the US has more gun murders but don't believe that the guns are the reason for that. Most all these gun deaths take place in large cities with a population over 250,000 and I would argue the gun- is not the cause. In fact, if you look at the number of gun deaths with a rifle semi auto or not you would be surprised how little it is. So once again we have the folks in Washington saving us from what? If they really had some balls or brains they would ask why so many young kids are killing each other in the large cities across then usa, but that would be a very difficult problem to solve. Much easier to ban AR15s and 30 round mags and declare victory but the joke is on all of us because it will not change a thing not even the murder by gun rate

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Dunno

Max I think you are missing my point or maybe I am not doing a good job of making it. My point is its not about the weapons or choice thereof. It's about the crime and more importantly violent crime. Do we really want a society that has more violent crime, no. I think we can all agree on that but is banning guns the solution? I agree that the US has more gun murders but don't believe that the guns are the reason for that. Most all these gun deaths take place in large cities with a population over 250,000 and I would argue the gun- is not the cause. In fact, if you look at the number of gun deaths with a rifle semi auto or not you would be surprised how little it is. So once again we have the folks in Washington saving us from what? If they really had some balls or brains they would ask why so many young kids are killing each other in the large cities across then usa, but that would be a very difficult problem to solve. Much easier to ban AR15s and 30 round mags and declare victory but the joke is on all of us because it will not change a thing not even the murder by gun rate

Well, again, I agree with the bulk of your points.
Perhaps the overall gun death statistic is a different animal. Kind of goes back to my statement about gangbangers and other cretins killing each other with guns. But the stuff like Aurora, Newtown, and Tucson are different. And we have to take an honest look at the mass killing of innocents, and the patterns that have become prevalent.
I'm not going to bite on the "the folks in Washington saving us from what?" question too deep. But we elect these people to deal with these issues when they arise. Some people are pleading for some action... some of these pleading lost children or loved ones and have an acute perspective.
I'm a bit torn because I understand both sides of the argument. But if I lost my daughter at Newtown I would be clamoring for some control of these weapons. Maybe not a ban, but something to help keep them out of dangerous hands.
Like Franco, I have no personal "need" for these weapons. I can't see why anyone would have a "need".

[evileye]

Originally Posted by madmax

The question remains - who has needed their gun? On here I'll bet that is nobody.

Do you mean used it to save your own life? Have you ever been attacked by wild hogs?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by madmax

Like Franco, I have no personal "need" for these weapons. I can't see why anyone would have a "need".

I think this is that crux of the matter. Does one need a gun or is one just a 'wanabee Rambo'? You are correct on the 'gun crime' V 'gun death' aspect. The UK and USA figures are 'chalk and cheese'.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by evileye

Do you mean used it to save your own life? Have you ever been attacked by wild hogs?

Odd isn't it! We have wild hogs here and they just stay up in the mountains and hide. Are USA wild hogs different to European wild hogs in the same way that American people are different to European people... in that they have a propensity to violence????

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Dunno

The truth is England is about 3 times more violent than the USA. Using 2011 numbers you will find that the United States had 821,939 reported violent crimes and England had 762,515 violent reported crimes. The big difference is the US has a population of about 311,000,000 and England has only about 56,000,000 so you do the math.

Unfortunately mate, your maths don't work. I don't know where you are cooking these figures up from (other than perhaps some 'I love my gun' website that is deliberately passing misinformation in order to make out that countries that don't have guns are more violent than 'good ol' can't live without my gun USA'. First, you have to look at what constitutes 'violent crime'. For example, if some bonehead yob smashes a car window and steals a car in the UK, THAT constitutes a 'violent crime' because violence was used to break into the car. If you look at 'violence against the person', which is a true crime of violence, you will see that the figures are quite different.

Look at the chart at the bottom of this page
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-england-wales

... and note the figures where violence against the person was used.
2010 - 2011 = 2217
2011 - 2012 = 1960

Now if you are going to include bicycle theft as a 'violent crime', which your source probably has done to massage the figures then sure you are going to get high figures ...but it's not what most people with a working brain cell would consider a 'violent crime.

So why don't you put up the number of violent crime (violent crimes against the person) from the USA and let's compare.

As for the murder rate...well you score 4.8 compared with 1.2 in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
Nuff said!

[evileye]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Odd isn't it! We have wild hogs here and they just stay up in the mountains and hide. Are USA wild hogs different to European wild hogs in the same way that American people are different to European people... in that they have a propensity to violence????

Well I guess where you live wild hogs do not come into your yard at night, and you do not live with woods surounding your home. If you lived in an area like I used to live you would know more about how aggressive hogs can be.