Anti-gun crowd: XYZ stats show #### deaths from firearms each year.
Pro-gun crowd: But drinking, driving or eating fatty food kills 100x more people each year.
Anti-gun crowd: I don't understand your logic.
Anti-gun crowd: You don't NEED guns.
Pro-gun crowd: I don't NEED a lot of things. I WANT it.
Anti-gun crowd: I don't care what you want.
Anti-gun crowd: Murderer!
Pro-gun crowd: I haven't murdered anybody.
Anti-gun crowd: Liar! Anybody who wants guns is getting it to murder someone.
Anti-gun crowd: I am for Gun Control. Ban all guns!
Pro-gun crowd: I really do want a reasonable way to make sure guns don't end up in the hands of insane murderers.
Anti-gun crowd: Murderer!
There are many differences, cars and alcohol have not been designed to kill for a start. The rate of accident vs the amount of car users is also much lower than with guns.
As for alcohol, it is a huge problem in the US and more needs to be done to curb the problem. And mixing the alcohol with the number of gun owners and it makes it even worse...
But following your rationale, I guess you should be allowed to drive a tank on the road so that you would feel safer...
Anyway, few countries have outright bans, better control is what is necessary. The Supreme Court just made that much more difficult...
What's interesting is that the vast majority of firearm related deaths in the US are suicides. Again, guns aren't the issue. It's the mentality of many of the American people that is the problem.
The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > An Accounting of Daily Gun Deaths
Also, in 2005, New York State alone had over 1,463 deaths from vehicular accidents. Vehicles, which as you stated are not designed to kill, are far more lethal than firearms if you extrapolate this data across the country.
Yes, the US has an alcohol problem, but the UK's is far worse. I recently read an article which stated alcohol is now a worse problem than tobacco is in the UK. Again, the issue is software-related. Hardware just does what it is instructed to. We need software upgrades, not hardware bans.
Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."
Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England's more restrictive policy was established in 1967.
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
Great article. Reason Magazine - Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
The issue is the bizarre nature of the craving for guns of some 25% of the American people. More guns in homes makes everyone less safe. When the police in the USA answer an emergency call in a home they have to be more cautious than in non gun countries as home owners with guns who are in a panic are dangerous.
I have known police with guns under their pillows in Canada who were broken into in the night and their training and knowledge of the law led them to lay there and let the prowlers steal their stuff and not get them or their wives killed or themselves charged with murder. Yes, these two guys were awake and just let the cat burglars escape before taking action!!! To do a lawful kill in Canada would have meant that their lives or the lives of others had to be in danger which meant they would have to issue a warning in the dark before firing blindly. Secondly, who wants a dead guy in their bedroom versus losing their wallet??
It is a myth that you will wake up and defend yourself. One story that stuck in my mind from the USA was the college student in her 20s who wanted to surprise her parents by coming home in the middle of the night unexpectedly. While dad shot her dead as he was in fear of who was in the house and he shot first and asked questions later.
If you know anyone as I do from my policing days who have shot and killed anyone you will know that this is one of the most traumatic events they will ever have to face. I have met just one policeman who enjoyed it but he was a Vietnam veteran.
Why road safety the world over is a problem is this from the USA where they have done much to reduce deaths on roads but... they aren't there yet....
Some excerpts of key reports:
In 2005, motor vehicle traffic crashes were the leading cause of death for every age 3 through 6 and 8 through 34. Because of the young lives consumed, motor vehicle traffic crashes ranked third overall in terms of the years of life lost, i.e., the number of remaining years that the person is expected to live had they not died, behind only cancer and diseases of the heart.
In 1966, traffic crashes resulted in over 50,000 fatalities and the fatality rate was three times as high as it is today. Congress recognized this public health crisis and created the Department of Transportation and the National Highway Safety Bureau. That momentous event was a crossroad in our nation's efforts to address this crisis. If the extraordinary progress in improving highway safety had not been made since that time, over 120,000 people would have died last year and hundreds of thousands more would have suffered traumatic injury.
Death and injury from traffic crashes continue to be among the most serious public health problems facing our country. Motor vehicle injuries constitute 99% of non-fatal transportation injuries and 94% of transportation deaths. The statistics for 1996 alone offer a grim reality: there were over 6.8 million crashes, in which over 41,000 were killed and another 3.5 million were injured. With yearly increases in travel and no improvement over our current safety performance, fatalities and injuries could increase by 50 percent by 2020. This is simply unacceptable.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, you total hypocrite!
I said the exact same thing in the steroids thread and you still continued to disagree with me. Now you're using my exact argument word for word (not that I disagree here).
Also, seems the pro-gun people here in this thread are saying "we want guns, we just want regulations and restrictions on them", whilst the anti-gun people are disagreeing and using countries where guns are highly regulated and restricted as examples... You both seem to be agreeing in a way.
You're using the UK as an example of a country where guns are banned... except they're not. It's perfectly legal to own a rifle or shotgun if you have a license and keep it securely within your home.
Also, violent crime is pretty bad in many European cities where people don't carry guns anyway. Thugs just use knives instead. It was less than a month ago that one of the Harry Potter actors got stabbed to death in London.
I'm not saying give everyone hand guns or anything, just that much of the murder and suicide that happens with guns, would happen still without guns.
Ironically, Switzerland which has one one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (3 million guns among 7.5 million people) has one of the lowest crime and violent gun crime rates in the world...
So - oh, and this is another classic that Gilleshk earlier insisted was crap - guns don't kill people, people do.