Most, if not all of whom were already better off in terms of crime rates than America before banning guns, and many of them have fared worse (in some cases, significantly worse) in terms of violent crime (notice that’s “violent crime”, not the weasel term “gun crime”) since.
It’s critical to look at a) violent crime rates as a whole (for reasons I’ve pointed out), b) said violent crime rates over a long period of time versus America’s (which is trending down, by the way) over the same period, c) the trend of culture in the nations you’re observing (including factors like war, political upheaval, famine, etc), and d) nations beyond the usual cherry picked lists thrown about by the DNC, Bloomberg, Piers Morgan, etc.
An excerpt, since most people are too lazy to click on a link and read:
"Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries — and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.
In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London. "
Odd that you would make the correct analysis of private property rights here while endorsing (or at least being passive towards the idea of) a firearms ban.
An Amendment can be changed. Just because it’s written on a piece of paper doesn’t mean it’s meant to be there forever. If the majority of people want it changed, it should be.
public private. If I’m saying folks shouldn’t rifle calibur firearms in public, then why would they get a pass in private property?
Also banning firearms is hit an miss, and all dependent on the level of education of that country, the standard of living, and overall levels of corruption. Japan vs Switzerland is the only comparison that should be studied or cited because both Australia and the UK a lot of violent crimes still, even without guns. Their statistics went from firearms related deaths and crimes to violent death and crimes involving knives.
That said, just because those nanny bullshit states did it, doesn’t mean we should look to them to solve our issue with firearm problems.
From a statistical standpoint, the percentage of firearms used in violent crimes relative to the total number of known firearms ( [used in crime/total number of firearms]*100 ) is less than the UK.
It depends on where you live. In some states/counties, they don’t care if you’re carrying around a gun. Those places tend to be rural, though. Why the fuck would you need to carry a gun in the city is beyond me.
By the way it’s private. Someone owns that property. Your taxes don’t go to maintain it nor do you pay rent there. It’s a commercial space but it’s still owned by someone.
The natural implications of self ownership and private property rights logically go beyond legislation and democracy- if you accept that Chipotle has the right to ban firearms on its property then you must logically accept that an individual has the right to defend their life (the ultimate private property) with lethal force if theirs is threatened. Democracy, particularly the sort of unrestrained democracy the above statement advocates, is simply mob rule, wherein 51% of the voting population can tyrannize the other 49%. Furthermore, even accepting your premise (which I most certainly do not), the majority of Americans do not want gun control, especially not a gun ban, despite the best efforts of the media, the public education system, and Hollywood hypocrites. Maybe after another 20 years of propaganda and zero tolerance P.C. pussification, but definitely not now.
Statistically speaking, the city, particularly urban areas, is where you’re most likely to be a victim of violent crime. Thugs and crackheads/junkies regularly commit crimes in my neighborhood- mugging, home invasions, store robberies, shootings, stabbings, etc. I’ve had drug sealers shoot each other behind my house, next door neighbors on both sides of me robbed, a neighbor mugged 30 feet from my back door. How many of the fucks committing those crimes do you think weren’t already owning/carrying them illegally while committing their (illegal) violent crimes?
I carry concealed everywhere I’m able to, and I open carry a .45 while working in my yard- the shitheads have yet to bother me, most likely because a) they don’t want to be shot, b) I don’t associate with any of them, and c) I don’t patronize bums.
Bah, I suppose I would do well to remember this board is a place where someone recently said “European countries with anti-hate speech laws have free speech” without being laughed out of here.
No one is saying you can’t defend your life, but you don’t need a gun to do it. If a gun weren’t available, you would find a brick, a shovel, a knife, etc. to defend yourself with. The difference? They all have other uses besides defending yourself. A gun only has one purpose and that is to kill. No matter how you dress it up, a gun’s only use is to take the life away of someone else. That’s the sole reason it was invented!
As far as democracy goes, the U.S. was never that. It’s a republic. Your representatives don’t vote based on your wants. They vote based on their opinion. Anyway, our democracy works the EXACT way you just described it. If 51% of people want something, the other 49% get nothing. I don’t know what made you think otherwise.
You’re wrong about the gun control issue, although technically. The plurality of Americans certainly want gun control. It’s always near 50%. The ones who don’t want it have been around the low 40%-high 30% range, with some people there who don’t give a fuck. Here are the numbers. Please take the time to read all of this data before making anymore assumptions.
I do find it hilarious that you tie your masculinity to owning a firearm. This whole, “If you don’t want guns you’re a pussy” schtick isn’t going to work here, or on anyone educated, because we know better than to be baited into a dick-measuring contest. If you want to convince someone that banning guns is not the way to go, come up with measurable facts, not trying to insult them into seeing shit your way.
You ever see that Simpsons episode where the bear is found in Springfield so they set up a bear patrol to make sure it doesn’t happen again? In the episode, Lisa questions the necessity of such a group and Homer says to her that since they’ve been established no more bears have been seen. Lisa points out the fallacy in his argument by picking up a rock and saying, “By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer, dimwittedly, answers, “Lisa, I want to buy your rock.”
It’s called spacious reasoning. That’s what you’re doing right here.
Btw, I didn’t quote the rest of your post because it’s common sense that where there are more people there is more crime because THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE. It’s like saying fires are more likely to happen in a forest than in a desert.
Some view free speech differently. America is quickly becoming a country where you’re not allowed to offend anyone. We self-censor language all the time. Try calling someone a midget these days and see how far that gets you.
That said, I can’t blame Germany for anti-hate speech laws. I mean, the last time they let some dude go nuts on his soapbox he made quite a mess of things.
Did I say crime disappeared around me when I started carrying? I can assure you it still happens regularly around here, despite a heavy police presence. All I said was I haven’t been fucked with, and it seems pretty common sense to assume that someone looking for a robbery/mugging target is likely to reconsider going after someone they know is armed.
Also, it looks like someone doesn’t understand what “per capita” means.
I never said crime stopped the moment you strapped a gun to your side. You just made that assumption after reading my post which I don’t even understand.
Per capita means each person, but why the fuck are you even asking me about that for the post you quoted?
Don’t bother responding to me anymore. I’ve wasted enough time on this and I’ll probably be stuck in the office later than I wanted to because of it. You won’t change your mind and I don’t have an opinion to change, I’m just spouting numbers and arguments at you in the hopes you’ll see where the weaknesses in your stance lie. But you won’t so fuck you, I don’t care to continue.
This is a public forum, you and I are not the only people reading this. I will respond after work, as refuting your deluge of poor logic will require more typing than I care to do on a touch screen phone.