freedomdwarf1
Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
And it is just a fluke that more crimes are stopped with guns than committed with them in this country.
I would not presume to tell you how to do things in your country, I just ask the same courtesy.
This site seems to disagree with you Bama -
http://themaindrift.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/guns-save-lives/
To quote some snippets....
"At first blush it seems plausible that guns might save lives. For instance, if an armed perpetrator entered your home intent on doing harm, it is reasonable to believe that if you had a gun, you could shoot the intruder before he got the chance to hurt anyone in your family. In this case, we see how guns could save lives."
"Another line of the argument rests on the notion that shots don’t have to be fired for guns to save lives. It’s a logic that goes like this: if a criminal feared that owners of the home he was about to invade were armed and might shoot him, he may be deterred from even trying to enter the house in the first place. This deterrence idea may be the biggest thrust behind the idea that guns save lives. Those who believe this feel that the more guns save more lives since the more people who are armed, the greater the overall deterrent effect"
"For example, in 2009 there were 9,146 murders in the U.S. committed with firearms. In the U.K. there were only 39. The US population is five times larger than the UK so that accounts for some of the variation. But the size of the population comes nowhere close to explaining the fact that the firearm homicide rate in the US is more than 230 times greater. If we adjusted the rate to reflect the UK’s smaller population, there would only have been about 200 murders by firearms in 2009."
"And a study from the Violence Policy Center found that the top five states in gun ownership had significantly higher firearm related homicides than the bottom five states. In fact the gun murder rates were four to ten times higher in states with the highest gun ownership compared to those with the lowest."
"Whether you are an avid hunter, a gun collector, or a staunch defender of the Second Amendment doesn’t change the fact that guns are more likely to take life than save it. Nor does it change the fact that one’s proximity to guns increases the chances that the lost life will be their own or that of someone close to them."
- And the clincher -
"This does not mean that a gun has never played a role in saving a life. Most certainly this has happened. But “Guns have saved a life” is not the claim being questioned. Those rare instances do not come close to offsetting the wide-spread and persistent pattern of lost life attributable to guns. Where there are more guns, there is almost always more gun-related death. The notion that guns save lives may be an article of faith for many, but it is not one based on fact."
And you advocate that gun control doesn't work??
Before you go off on another unrelated tangent, this thread is titled "Gun control in the U.K.", so a comparison on gun deaths is more relevant than other non-gun statistics.
ETA: Even the Washington post says "The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different state., Citations here."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 3/24/2014 5:11:45 AM >
|
RE: Gun control in the U.K. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread