I would rather see the per capita rate of murders in the population, regardless of weapon, in the UK. Of course the rate of firearms murders will be lower per capita, there's less guns to people. However, what is the ratio of how many people are murdered in general? Perhaps taking away guns has just forced people to use other implements.
England is pretty low for overall homicide,
but they appear to be unusually high for everything else.
IIRC their violent crime rate is almost four times higher than ours.
![]()
Well, that's a given. That's pretty much the equivalent of saying, "Someone with regular access to high-quality food that is also quite nutritious is likely to live longer."
Unsuccessful killings, perhaps?
edited 6th Apr '12 8:11:34 PM by 0dd1
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
Agreed. I was actually thinking I should edit something like that into my post before you came along and said it for me
Well I zipped through the thread and I have to say that I would side largely with people who say that it doesn't make you any more likely to be a killer.
That being said, it allows those who are killers to be much more successful at their rampages.
As well, for those suggesting the lives "saved" by gun ownership, what about lives lost due to gun accidents?
Personally, I'd be more inclined to connect the higher murder rate in the US to other things. For instance, Italy and Sweden have even lower homicide rates than the UK, yet appear to have far looser gun laws.
In the US, I'd mention that a huge amount of the gun violence that happens is in either very dense cities, or areas with high racial tensions — most of the middle-size areas are relatively peaceful. I'm not sure how serious poverty, gang, and drug problems that addle our denser cities are in the UK (I seem to recall we have a considerably higher incidence of meth and heroin at least), but I get the feeling racism isn't nearly as much of a thing on that end.
edited 6th Apr '12 8:31:59 PM by Pykrete
From the statistics I've seen bandied about, it appears that owning a gun does not make you likelier to kill someone, but it does make you likelier to get killed by one. It makes a twisted sort of sense, alas. Most of the situations in which someone will confront another with a gun occur indoors at very short distances; someone without significant training or experience is likely to end up struggling for control of the weapon.
Which illustrates one of the points I've long been harsh about: regardless of your stance on the issue of owning a gun, the existing licensing system in the US was based on a time where everybody actually knew how this crap worked. This is no longer the case and some kind of educational effort should be necessary to own one.
As already noted, there are places with considerably laxer gun laws than the US (say, where everybody who's male and over the age of 18 has an assault rifle in his closet and fifty rounds of ammo; Switzerland) and have significantly lower amount of people dying by gunshot than the US or the UK. This, I would suspect, is the result of the fact that the weapons are available due to their compulsory military service; this eliminates or greatly reduces the number of people who shoot Marvin in the face or regard a gun as a magic wand of some sort, rather than a tool with limitations.
edited 7th Apr '12 2:48:17 AM by Night
Nous restons ici.The crime of affray is seen as a violent crime in the UK whereas in the USA and other countries it isn't so this might have inflated the figure for violent crime in the UK.
edit:
Switzerland has the highest rate of gun suicides in Europe though and the USA has the highest rate in the world
edited 7th Apr '12 3:02:49 AM by whaleofyournightmare
Dutch LesbianYou have to keep a gun at home if you are a member of the Swiss militia, who are basically the equivalent of the US National Guard or the UK Territorial Army — part-time soldiers. It's owned by the Swiss army, not the individual, and can't be used for personal purposes as far as I know. It's mostly a draft, as far as I know.
A brighter future for a darker age.![]()
![]()
Conscripts have to keep their gun at home while being in the reserve (until 30), with a sealed pack of ammunition that gets inspected regularly (intended for use when fighting your way to the barracks). In 2007 ammo distribution was stopped, so those guys only have their weapon without ammo at home. In general, their is a correlation with gun ownership and homicide rate, though I currently tend to believe that both parameters are merely * a reflection of society.
edited 7th Apr '12 7:32:07 AM by Uchuujinsan
Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/The same can be said of anything, not just guns.
I don't have any training on how to kill someone with a fork, but I do have training on how to fight somebody aggressively in hand to hand combat, this makes me more likely to kill someone with a fork than the average citizen, despite the fact that it is just, in fact, a fork.
Then again, an MMA fighter has experience and the tools to more efficiently kill someone than an office worker. The only difference between any of these is the degree of their effectiveness.
Fork stabbings, MMA freakouts, and firearms don't get used that often by innocent people who snap and kill someone. Bad people do bad things, with whatever they can get their hands on, guns or no.
As it should be... Since that's essentially assault and battery 9/10 times.
edited 7th Apr '12 6:18:41 PM by Barkey
That's the thing. Anybody with a working trigger finger can pick up a gun and immediately be a threat to the lives of others in the area.
In order to kill somebody with your bare hands or a melee weapon, you need training, experience, a general level of physical fitness, and/or a much more violent disposition.
Guns don't make people shoot people, but they sure make it possible. So to answer the first question, I think the answer is literally "yes". If you don't own a gun, or have access to a gun, a person is less likely to be a killer than an attempted killer.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.A knife can be outran and doesn't kill as quickly.
Who do you think will kill more people inside a group in a 10 second window? A guy with a gun or a guy with a knife?
However I think guns are simply too ingrained into American culture and life where taking them away would do absolutely nothing. Its probably why there hasn't been much of a movement to do gun control lately.
However I am against the belief that EVERYONE should have guns. Last thing America needs is everyone with guns like in the old west who pulls out a gun over the slighest provocation and then if someone fires, everyone else fires, and then a crapton of people are dead.
I kind of hope we eventually can make non lethal firearms that are as easy to use as guns, but can avoid killing.
edited 9th Apr '12 9:17:18 AM by Thorn14
There is a website for that. http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html
Unfortunately, for some reason, the relevant section dealing with traumatic weapons does not have an on-site English translation.
![]()
The only thing you really need to kill someone with your bare hands is bad luck. Because even lacking any of the things you referred to, Lawyerdude, having that could be your downfall. Cases come to trial with charges of murder in Britain because of that one factor every year with depressing regularity.
edited 9th Apr '12 10:20:30 AM by TamH70
How many guns are in the US? Something like 68 million, I believe.
Nope, gun control will never work. Not that I want it to, anyway. You can't hunt down and confiscate or destroy 68 million guns in this country. I guess some places, the citizens don't have that whole "live free or die" mentality and would give them up for some illusion of safety. Not here, though.
Really, a mass gun grab would be a great way to start some kind of revolution.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
What about the number of people who have protected themselves with firearms? Or do those saved lives not count?
I'm baaaaaaack