Cost of Gun Reform

Yep, guns in the home can be dangerous...for thugs.

1 dead after NC grandfather fires back at trio in attempted rape of teen granddaughter, sheriff says

 

Could it be that some on this forum are only real man once they carry a gun?
It crossed my mind lately, as the pro gun lobby speaks....
Cheerio

 

what about the women who own and carry? LGBT? Cheerio....

 

Women carrying guns is real perverseness.....
Anyway, cheerio

 

We cant have that, a woman needs to be put in her place.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...en-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

This is an interesting study.

 

I - ahem - shot my mouth off on this one. I should back it up.

The purpose of gun control is to regulate the lawful use/ownership of firearms. The objective of doing so is to minimise, as far as possible, accidental injury and death from the use of firearms.

Murder is a crime which can be carried out with just about any object you care to name. Firearms are but one, albeit efficient (since their primary purpose is to kill), method of carrying out a murder (which is by definition the unlawful killing of one human by another human).

One is an apple, the other is an orange.

 

Mass shootings are a pretty unique form of homicide, and they're what most gun regulations are aimed at minimizing.

 

Seriously BREITBART????

It is a conspiracy theory site. And that piece is a paid advertisement for the armaments industry. Earlier in this thread I linked to a piece that outlined all the misrepresentations that are evident in that OPINION PIECE - NOT a research paper

Oh! And if you had followed the link to the "study" (which was also an opinion piece) you would have found it was authored by Kates and Mauser and "published" in a STUDENT magazine - you know those hand photocopied "journals" that are handed out to anyone willing to take a printed page on open days.

 

Even discounting those (and the American pro-gun lobby would love to) the firearm injury rate in America is something like 10 times ours. The original question was - would you accept an American level of firearm injury/death for less gun restrictions?

 

Har har har! I knew it, that is always your first response, you never dispute the facts or statements or opinion, you just shoot the messenger straight up! So lets look a little closer;

The link takes us to law.harvard.edu didn't you hold Harvard up as a reliable source earlier?
The study the link takes you to has all its facts and statements properly referenced and draws on numerous research studies about gun ownership. The authors mostly draw together statements and conclusions from those other studies.
As for the authors who you casually dismiss;
Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer.
Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
But of course they are heretics and as such can and should be ignored because they don't tow the PC line of gun control!

 

That is very poorly constructed question. Before asking a question like that you must first prove your premise that less gun restrictions would result in an American level of firearm injury/death, otherwise the question is meaningless.

 

or

Hmmm,
I have seen women in your country as well as in mine, which would make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a school boy, apart from that your response was rather poor.
Regards

 

Ohhhhh, Women in the US make Arnold look like a school boy? Did you get beat up by an American woman? Did she put you in your place?

 

And I would rather 700 guns die (scrap heap) than 700 humans die.

Given the domestic violence in this country (2 women murdered every week in Australia), more guns would see those statistics rise.

Suicide numbers would increase too.

The private affairs of your fellow men? Suck it up, I guess. Or move to the USA.

 

There is no correlation of guns in the house to increased domestic violence or suicide. The one study done found that the suicide rate did not change. The only thing that changed was the ratio of what method was used. Someone that wants to kill themselves will, like my mother's aunt that tried to kill herself by drinking Drano. She failed and tried again with Drano 10 years later and succeeded.

 

In the heat of the moment... in the heat of despair...

they would gravitate to a gun over a knife or draino.

I've seen studies in Australia...

 

None of that supports your previous assertion. Also, they were dropping before the ban and all homicide, firearm or non-firearm were dropping. You are trying to find a correlation where there is none.

 

Pretty obvious what guns do. And their immediacy when used.

I don't care to argue with you. Be happy with your guns there. Here we have stricter gun laws. Thank Christ for that.

 

Christ has nothing to do with your fear of guns and government control of your freedoms.

 

Of course, force wins out in all cases - even this one. There's not really much I can do about it short of moving away, purchasing weapons legally under the current regulations (as I have), purchase prohibited weapons illegally (onerous), or deciding it's not worth the pain.

Long term I plan on having a place in the US, but not for a while yet; I'm still young.

 

Research suggests that there is no substitution effect

 

How many men? Oh right, those studies are sexist.

 

Pure BS.

 

I'll take you to the airport.