Summations Only

And hunters and farmers and recreational shooters and groundskeepers and pest exterminators and collectors...Of course, since basically nobody carries firearms around with them, almost all criminals don't either as they are usually unnecessary and there is a high risk if caught with one. Of course, there are still plenty of guns in criminal use here in Britain but

quote:

---

In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants

---

Guns simply aren't the weapon of choice for murder here, so there's less incentive to arm one's self with one. In the US, for comparison, the value was 3.0 per 100,000.

Having heard military types talking about combat, that's exactly what happens. From this news article:

quote:

---

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

​

...

​

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year.

---

I couldn't find the GAO report it was talking about, unfortunately.

No it isn't. A police state:

quote:

---

...is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

---

Just prohibiting weapons doesn't constitute a Police State. A nanny state, maybe. Heh. That's quite funny.You know, he tried to acquire weapons illegally, but failed. Then he tried to acquire weapons legally, and succeeded. It was Norway's permissive gun laws that allowed him to acquire the semi-automatic 9mm Glock 17 pistol and the semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14. source.So maybe you're right - and the gun laws amounted to nothing - but I don't think you meant it quite like that.There are about 30 guns to 100 people in Norway. It is number 11 in the world for gun ownership rate. Source.In 2009 the gun death rate was 2.2 per 100,000. In comparison with say Romania with much tougher gun laws where it is 0.17 per 100,000.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not persuaded that the possession of guns would stop this happening. In order for a police state to succeed one usually needs to have gained the support of the military and the police. When you have that level of support, you probably have lots of power and influence in other areas with plenty of support (implicit or explicit) coming from the people.I guess its possible that an armed populace may be able to sufficiently and quickly react to a growing police state, but I don't see that as being necessarily true.

Unless of course, someone were to make the claim that gun restrictions don't prevent gun crime as criminals will still have guns - or similar claims. Then its quite pertinent to gun control discussion.

If there is a market for guerilla warfare, there will almost certainly be willing weapons salesman. But I don't think the people of China want to overthrow their government. That's hardly the only way to acquire weapons. One could simply bribe, persuade or otherwise coerce the inspectors, or use methods that circumvent legitimate import channels entirely - such as smuggling or secret air drops. Killing basically innocent government employees should be last resort, not the first option.

Well if we're talking about an overthrowing an established police state - I'd expect many of the salesman would stay on the outside. But black markets do exist in police states. Do you have any support for this? The black market and bribery did exist in the USSR. Are you saying that the USSR, with all of its multiple failings, managed to somehow defeat smuggling?And if we're talking about a state that is so absolutely powerful that bribery, persuasion and coercion could not work - how on earth is a frontal assault on the border police or customs officials going to work? You can't do it on your own - and organising a sufficiently strong force of armed fighters will be 'snuffed out before it got started'. and 'millions will get executed' (your hyperbole, not mine).And what the heck are you going to do next? In an absolute police state, you can't keep an organised militia hidden for too long - there is always the strong risk that someone is going to betray you.But such absolute police states simply don't exist. See: The French Resistance, the Forest Brothers, the Lithuanian partisans, the Cursed soldiers, the armed Jewish Resistance...Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

America has some big wealth disparity issues, as well as some pretty entrenched and lethally violent gang cultures. According to this

quote:

---

Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[35] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[12][36] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It's good to see your gainsaying skills are as sharp as ever.Should I anticipate you addressing what I said, though?

As far as I can tell it isn't that guns make more people want to kill. It's that guns, making killing easier, mean that people who want to kill someone can do so with less effort.If we make something easier to do, we tend to find more people do it, if there is a group of people that would have killed had it not been for whatever impediment there was.The principle probably rests on the notion that it is easier to get a gun and pull the trigger several times in the heat of the moment than it is to get a knife and plunge it into someone several times (or beat someone brutally several times). Plus, gunshot wounds may in fact be more lethal than knife wounds (I've seen mixed evidence on this, probably based on varying degrees of experience in different locations (I'd rather go to an American hospital with a gunshot wound than a British one)).Add to that, that guns can kill people in circumstances where knives or clubs cannot.There may well be an effect in respect of 'he might have a gun, therefore I should shoot at the first hint of a weapon' which might result in more deaths and injury too.But I'm not arguing those are in play, but I believe those are some of the general ideas people are talking about. It's not necessarily an increased motive (though that might be there), it's about increased opportunity. Its a lot easier, quicker and more guaranteed way of killing yourself than many others. I've felt suicidal, and if I could have pushed a button to end it all, I would. But I wasn't motivated enough to risk cutting myself, or poison myself or even hanging (the risk being ending up alive but scarred, or chronically ill with social penalties on top).Again, I'm not saying its generally true, but it's likely to be true for more people than just me.

quote:

---

Unless of course, someone were to make the claim that gun restrictions don't prevent gun crime as criminals will still have guns - or similar claims.

---

If you aren't sure what part of that is not relevant to a gun control topic I'm not sure I have the capacity to help you. Hint: Gun restrictions is another way of saying 'gun control'. And the argument 'gun control does not prevent gun crime as criminals would still have guns' is an argument against gun controls. It would be relevant in that case to point out that gun crime does in fact go up as proliferation rises.

Unfortunately, its difficult/unethical to test what would happen specifically in the USA if guns were suddenly highly restricted or in the UK if there was sudden proliferation. And its also unethical to run individual trials that induce murderous rage.The thing with the gun debate, is that there is actually supporting datum on both sides. Take these studies: Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988—1997

quote:

---

n region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

​

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

---

The Social Cost of Gun Ownership

quote:

---

Our empirical analysis of county- and state-level data finds that gun prevalence is positively related to overall homicide rates.

---

State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001—2003

quote:

---

. Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

---

You clearly misunderstand my point.I agree that purchasing a knife is easier than purchasing a gun in the US, and probably everywhere. Much cheaper too, I'd wager.What I was saying was easier was the pulling of the trigger versus the plunging a blade into a body. Obviously trying to purchase a firearm or a knife, while in a murderous rage is difficult. It is easier to go to where your gun is and point and click a few times than it is to go to where your knife is and swing it with sufficient force several times. Are you disputing the claim that guns can kill people in circumstances where a knife cannot?You also neglected to quote the bit where I accepted it was speculation being employed as a means to explain to crash what kinds of things people are talking about when they postulate that more guns leads to more deaths.I'm deliberately not staking a particular position in this debate because it is my experience that people have a tendency to argue this matter unpleasantly or disrespectfully - as you have done with this attempt at clever snide or as you did earlier with your pointless gainsaying.

Well passion in the heat of the moment probably exists on a spectrum. It may well be the case that for some people the point at which they'd shoot someone is lower than the point at which they'd bash their brains in with a brick. The point at which they'll stab someone comes before being able to bash their heads in with a brick.If I'm holding a gun and I'm angry, all that my body needs make me do is squeeze a trigger. If I'm holding a knife, I have to get close and drive a blade into their flesh. If I want them dead, then that fact will probably not stop me - but if I'm just very angry and I think I want to kill them or I want to frighten them into thinking I want to kill them, it's much easier for them to end up dead if I have a gun.Rationally it might make no sense, killing someone is killing them. But I think psychologically there's a big difference between stabbing and shooting someone. It's like The Trolley Problem vs The Trolley Problem with the fat man. The outcome is the same (a man dies), but most people think that pushing a fat guy to his death is problematic where directing a trolley to hit someone else is fine.And of course - drive-by shooting. The ultimate in lazy murder. There aren't a great deal of drive-by stabbings are there?

What is it irrelevant to? I've already showed what it was relevant to (a discussion about gun control). If you're going to bother replying at least, you know, construct an argument or something. If you don't, you aren't participating in either a debate or a discussion. So what's it going to be? Another content-free and/or vague assertion? Or are you going to try this time?

I agree completely.But if someone were to make the specific claim that gun controls don't prevent gun crimes (as criminals will still have guns, say) then the total amount of murder would be irrelevant to that argument. What would be relevant is statistics about gun crimes (or deaths or whatever) specifically.