In an America with strict gun control....

[MongGrel]

Isn't Texas pretty much a haven for gun owners? Yet Houston's violent crime rate is up 50%. Explain how that happened.

Can I drive now daddy ?

 

[MagickMan]

Isn't Texas pretty much a haven for gun owners? Yet Houston's violent crime rate is up 50%. Explain how that happened.

Link to article/evidence?

 

[ivwshane]

Link to article/evidence?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/53345/states-with-most-gun-laws-see-fewest-gun-related-deaths

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

[Venix]

Isn't Texas pretty much a haven for gun owners? Yet Houston's violent crime rate is up 50%. Explain how that happened.

What are you talking about? Houston's violent crime rate reached a historic low last year, and serious crimes dropped a further 6.2% in the first half of this year.

 

[soundforbjt]

What are you talking about? Houston's violent crime rate reached a historic low last year, and serious crimes dropped a further 6.2% in the first half of this year.

In Houston, murders are up nearly 50% so far this year

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32995911 Another link says up 59% in the first quarter of 2015 :http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/04/05/hold-houston-homicides-up-59-in-first-quarter-of-2015/

Guess I should've said murders.

 

[MagickMan]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/53345/states-with-most-gun-laws-see-fewest-gun-related-deaths

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Based on population the statistical mean is about the same, within .2 /100k (within the margin of error for the study).

 

[blankslate]

I will trivialize it

Based on your frequent posts elsewhere I expected nothing more from you.


.....

 

[blankslate]

I could be mistaken, but Hitler himself never actually killed anybody. Those words though...

Ah yes, who'd have thunk you'd jump at the chance to be a shining avatar of Godwin's law.

Some words are dangerous but unlike firearms where the more there are more in an area there tends to be more instances of people shot...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

....more words in opposition to a crazy person speech? Not likely to do more harm and can be helpful.

Almost like that cautionary poem by Marin Niemöller admonishes.


but hey if you want to be the Godwin's Law example....


.....

 

[blankslate]

an FBI study showed that the 1994 AWB had little to no effect on violent crime.

in the last 20 years, 10 of which the 1994 AWB was present, and 10 where it has not been present, violent crime has decreased.

media coverage of events as increased, leading to a perceived dramatic increase in violent crime rates when, ironically, we've never been safer.

Sure violent crime has decreased but the U.S. still has more firearms violence by far compared to other countries.

Addtionally
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” That report was the final of three studies of the ban, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

So yeah I think it's debatable.

Even leaving out the AWB. There was the option of increased background checks which had huge support across a wide demographic when people were talking about that.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...un-owners-support-universal-background-checks

Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.

The results indicate that, while the proposed shift to universal background checks has stirred intense partisan bickering inside the Beltway, it's not nearly as controversial throughout the rest of the country.

All of the above aside, without getting into the weeds, my view on the topic presented by the OP is still pretty much this.

....the U.S. would have about as many firearms related deaths as Switzerland or Australia per capita. However, we also probably all recognize that won't happen so the point is rather moot.

.....

 

[Art&Science]

He heard the LIE that Obama told. I would venture to say Chicago has more gun laws and more deaths than can be comprehended.

http://heyjackass.com/

Strictest gun laws in the country.

 

[BoberFett]

Ah yes, who'd have thunk you'd jump at the chance to be a shining avatar of Godwin's law.

There's no Godwin's Law here. Read your own link, imbecile. I didn't compare anything to Hitler. I pointed out that words can be dangerous.

 

[blankslate]

There's no Godwin's Law here. Read your own link, imbecile. I didn't compare anything to Hitler. I pointed out that words can be dangerous.

Fuck off. You went straight to Hitler for dangerous words. There were obviously examples you could have mentioned first before resorting to that ass.

In fact I mentioned one in the post to which you replied to by bringing up Hitler. But I guess it was too much effort on your part to try and mention other examples. And the point still stands his words worked because other people did not speak out enough against his words.



....

 

[Fern]

how many Americans would be killed in the conflict that would ensue from trying to actually enforce new gun restrictions?

"Pry it from my cold, dead hands" is something that has been thrown out a lot re: guns. If the Government actually decided to enact some kind of strict law that would literally require people to turn in/have confiscated their guns, what does the ensuing conflict look like?

Obama's comments got me thinking. Not sure if this should be P&N or Off Topic, mods please move if appropriate.

My apologies if this has been mentioned before (this thread is now too large to review all responses).

You think there are way too many people in prison for (non-violent) drug laws? Try putting all those (otherwise law abiding) people in prison who won't give up their guns to the govt.

(Note: Current law generally mandates strict penalties and prison time for those using a gun illegally. All this law would do is sweep up the otherwise law abiding citizen.)

Fern

 

[MagickMan]

Based on your frequent posts elsewhere I expected nothing more from you.


.....

Ditto. Your collective has told what to think for so long, you no longer can do it for yourself (if you ever could).

 

[MagickMan]

Fuck off.

hahahahahaha!! :awe:

 

[MagickMan]

Sure violent crime has decreased but the U.S. still has more firearms violence by far compared to other countries.

So? But we're way, way down on the list of stabbings, and assaults in general. I will admit, if Europeans had as many guns, there would be 10s of thousands of murders /day. They're like raging little children.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's funny looking at the figure posted above by blankslate, showing Switzerland ahead of other European countries with more strict gun laws, but neglecting that their overall murder rate is actually below the European average.

 

[blankslate]

Ditto. Your collective has told what to think for so long, you no longer can do it for yourself (if you ever could).

AHHH HAHAHA. The irony...

It's funny looking at the figure posted above by blankslate, showing Switzerland ahead of other European countries with more strict gun laws, but neglecting that their overall murder rate is actually below the European average.

True enough the chart only specifically mentions murders by firearms.
The murder rate including all imaginable methods would probably be an interesting discussion by itself but the topic of this particular thread is

In an America with strict gun control....

My post in here specifically relating to the topic was (and still is)

....the U.S. would have about as many firearms related deaths as Switzerland or Australia per capita. However, we also probably all recognize that won't happen so the point is rather moot.

Sure you may disagree with that statement but I don't think that it's an unreasonable hypothesis.


.....

 

[MagickMan]

AHHH HAHAHA. The irony...

AHAHAHA! The cliche.

You're the collectivist, I'm just calling a spade a spade. :\

 

[blankslate]

AHAHAHA! The cliche.

You're the collectivist, I'm just calling a spade a spade. :\

Ah the Rebel without a clue. Resorting to pithy name calling in lieu of actually debating the point.



....

 

[OverVolt]

Crime statistics are collected differently in different countries. Crimes are categorized differently. Japan is probably the worst when it comes to labeling unsolvable homicides as suicides because of the massive pressure to produce a 90%+ conviction rate. They have the Yakuza afterall.

There will be more homicides with guns if there are more guns. Thats missing the point entirely. There will always be a criminal element in society. What people are killed with is moot, IMO. They were going to do it anyway. We don't live in a perfect world. I don't think guns directly impact the undesirable elements in society. What DOES have a large impact on crime rates is having strong institutions in society so that people don't fall through the cracks.

We share a border with Mexico and the first 100 miles are practically a war zone meanwhile Great Britain is its own island near France, Germany, etc. These things matter when it comes to crime. You couldn't find a more criminally isolated place other than Great Britain. And yet you still aren't perfectly safe there.

The info graphic is so misleading it irks me. You'd think we have 15x the murder rate. We do not. And some ding dong reposted it thinking he was clever.