Australia would have less crime per capita, guns or not.
Canada has lots of guns but little crime.
It's not the guns. It's the murderers.
8 Killed in mall shooting
- Thread starter Westy
- Start date
Canada has lots of guns but little crime.
It's not the guns. It's the murderers.
So what you're saying is that Americans are just a-holes?
How much do you want to bet that the gun in question was purchased legally at some point? Most guns used in crimes (at least in NY) aren't imported in huge shipping containers by Nicholas Cage, they're bought legally, usually in gun-friendly states and sold to criminals up north. Not sure what the case with this gun is, since I heard it was an AK (which was illegal for the past 10 years?) but I wouldn't be surprised if it was purchased legally and stolen by this kid...
Hence my point earlier:
"The one salient point about gun control is that allowing gun ownership (which is a right not granted by the US Constitution, but rather protected by it...it's assumed to exist a priori as a natural right as the Bill of Rights is worded) does indeed allow a larger pool of guns available for illegal use. Through theft, fraudulent purchase, or (rarely) legal purchase, criminals obtain guns for use in crime. But preventing citizens from buying or carrying guns will not reduce the amount of guns in circulation available to criminals by any significant number...plus, the US has a large and open border with Mexico and Canada, which would allow an illicit arms trade to flourish if criminal demand remained in the theoretical absence of guns (which wouldn't happen anyhow)."
To expand on that, by fraudulent purchase, I meant the practice known as a straw purchase, which you describe. Someone buys guns legally, then moves them (or not) and resells them to people not legally able to own or carry a gun.
However, AKs have not been illegal for the past 10 years, and the assault weapons ban has expired anyhow.
And the freak who shot up the mall apparently stole the gun from his grandfather or something.
None of this means that it'd be harder for criminals to get guns in the US if they couldn't obtain them through straw purchases. Criminals get guns in Britain and Australia in spite of near-total bans. The reasons they see fewer gun-related murders are due to there being less crime in these countries, not because they supposedly have fewer guns.
huh? so you're saying that if the kid didn't have access to a (legally purchased) gun in his house, he would have found out some way to get one anyway? how? take the legal purchases out of the equation, and the few that would be smuggled across the border (right now the smuggling actually goes the opposite way, with guns from the US going to Mexico) would be so prohibitively expensive that a kid who got fired from McDonalds probably wouldn't have been able to afford one. why smuggle a 4lb AK47 (that's currently worth $500 at a WalMart near you) when you could smuggle 4lbs worth of Heroin/Cocaine at a FAR higher return. so if these guns couldn't be purchased legally, where exactly would the criminals get them? and the ammunition to use them?
BTW, AKs were illegal during the 1994-2004 assault rifle ban. Now they can be purchased for ~$500. And this is "progress"? I'd love to hear the history of the gun that was used in the shooting, want to make a bet that it was purchased legally??
BTW, AKs were illegal during the 1994-2004 assault rifle ban. Now they can be purchased for ~$500. And this is "progress"? I'd love to hear the history of the gun that was used in the shooting, want to make a bet that it was purchased legally??
I need some stats that back up that assertion...because I've lots of gun nuts making the opposite argument. Don't guns in the hands of the populace help reduce crime?
Because it seems to me that criminals, like everyone else, are going to use the tools that happen to be readily available.
Yeah. It was...
In Australia, since gun laws were tightened after the Port Arthur massacre, the number of gun deaths (homicides, suicides, accidents) has halved. Less guns, less dead people, the equation is pretty simple.
There's some fantastic logic in this thread;
More guns means less gun crime.
Fewer guns means more gun crime.
I'm clearly a fvckin' moron cos I'd just never have worked those particular equations out. I'm buying guns for christmas for everyone I know. Hell, I'm gonna start a charity to provide guns for all ('cept criminals, obvously).
More guns means less gun crime.
Fewer guns means more gun crime.
I'm clearly a fvckin' moron cos I'd just never have worked those particular equations out. I'm buying guns for christmas for everyone I know. Hell, I'm gonna start a charity to provide guns for all ('cept criminals, obvously).
Math doesn't apply to Americans....that's for the Chinamen...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
Or the BBC, apparently. Both sides of the gun control argument seem to love to use the UK as an example of their theories in practice. I never know what to make of that. I think people see what they want to. Per this article (yes, penned by an American), Britain's crime rates are growing at a staggering rate...Americans may have more murder, but more British citizens are being victimized overall.
(Showing how we're mixing debate between murder specifically and crime in general.)
Anyone know the state of the crime rates in Israel? Aside from terrorism, I wonder how the massively armed society is faring.
I think there's a middle ground between unrestricted libertarian free-for-alls and removing people's right to defend themselves.
Two church shootings over the weekend, by the way. Apparently an armed security guard shot the perpetrator. Why couldn't an armed citizen have done the same? Do you think the security guard was actually better-trained than most of the people who are licensed to carry a firearm in the states? (Not that I'd be opposed at ALL to greater training requirements to carry....)