OK, Let's do it again. Why do you Brits have such retarded, faggotty gun laws?

[FourAceDeal]

Looks like the pro-gun side won this one. 

And you win first prize, which is 40,000 gun casualties in 2015 alone.

The majority of which are suicides. 

So how does it feel to have a murder so very much higher than other western countries?  Please describe how superior it makes you feel?  I would very much like to understand your thinking.

Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.

I can see the Us figures for 2015.  I can see the UK figures for 2015.  I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics.  Why can't I compare them? 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I can see the Us figures for 2015.  I can see the UK figures for 2015.  I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics.  Why can't I compare them?

Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.

The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. 

[Jack]

The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. 

The sociological factors are very interesting to consider. US homicide rates differ dramatically by age, with the highest rates among ages 20-30. Homicide drops dramatically at age 40, and at that same age suicide rates begin to take over, with adults 45-60 equally suicidal as the young are murderous. While homicide has dramatically decreased to less than half the rates in 1990, US suicide rates have seen similar dramatic increase over the past two decades. When considering age, one could contemplate the young adult generation after then end of the Vietnam war and the age they are now today, and conclude the baby boomers are a sociologically damaged generation.

[Jack]

The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. 

The sociological factors are very interesting to consider. US homicide rates differ dramatically by age, with the highest rates among ages 20-30. Homicide drops dramatically at age 40, and at that same age suicide rates begin to take over, with adults 45-60 equally suicidal as the young are murderous. While homicide has dramatically decreased to less than half the rates in 1990, US suicide rates have seen similar dramatic increase over the past two decades. When considering age, one could contemplate the young adult generation after then end of the Vietnam war and the age they are now today, and conclude the baby boomers are a sociologically damaged generation.

It's easy to look at US homicide rates over time, and wonder what happened from 1970 to 1990, and easy to look at suicide rates for the last fifteen years and wonder what is happening now. It's doesn't seem so difficult to understand when one considers who are these people.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. 

The sociological factors are very interesting to consider.

I wonder if there's a difference in the homicide rates for African immigrants and "native" blacks.

[Jack]

Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.

Still not sure about this stance. The US is so historically and culturally different, one would have to claim the US can't be compared to any country at all, and that's not helpful. Though it is fair to say it's equally acceptable to compare western countries to other regions, as it is to only compare the western world to itself.

I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics.

Interesting since the mathematics of UK homicide rates, gun related homicides, and gun crime in general don't support your claims. You also seem to be suggesting a weapon can somehow change a person into a murderer.

[Jack]

The raw numbers don't explain the sociological factors behind them, FFS. 

The sociological factors are very interesting to consider.

I wonder if there's a difference in the homicide rates for African immigrants and "native" blacks.

Not sure if race matters, much less immigrant race compared to native born of the same race. Crime analysis considering only race is easily discredited when economics is entered into the equation. Government violent crime stats by income show poor whites and poor black rates are so statistically close to be considered equal, and poor Hispanics are the less violent. There are no government stats specific to only Homicide which analyze both income and race. Though violent crime rates and homicide rates tend to mirror each other, so not sure if much difference can be assumed from that lack of study.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Government violent crime stats by income show poor whites and poor black rates are so statistically close to be considered equal, and poor Hispanics are the less violent.

Links??

[Jack]

Government violent crime stats by income show poor whites and poor black rates are so statistically close to be considered equal, and poor Hispanics are the less violent.

Links??

Sure. Underneath the highlights, there's a .pdf link for the full report.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

For the period 2008–12—
Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

[Jack]

Before you criticize it, already know the flaws, but it's the only government sourced study. There's lots of independent studies for sociological correlations to crime rates, education levels, religion, climate, race, religion, substance abuse; pick a reason. Not saying any one is correct. The only single factor which stands out above and beyond any other factor, is gender, and that can be consistently applied on a global scale. That could definitely be sociological. If wanting to stick to the race topic and consider genetics, studies for testosterone levels have also been correlated to crime for both males and females.

[odeon]

Not going to watch any Michael Moore propaganda. 

Your choice, but your reasoning still reminds me of Charlton Heston's in that clip.

[odeon]

Apparently you had your fingers stuck in your ears when it was explained to you why you can't compare the US to western Europe.

Still not sure about this stance. The US is so historically and culturally different, one would have to claim the US can't be compared to any country at all, and that's not helpful. Though it is fair to say it's equally acceptable to compare western countries to other regions, as it is to only compare the western world to itself.

I'd say it's pretty much a bullshit claim, very effectively shot down by Michael Moore in the clip I linked to.

I am a reasoning adult capable of basic mathematics.

Interesting since the mathematics of UK homicide rates, gun related homicides, and gun crime in general don't support your claims. You also seem to be suggesting a weapon can somehow change a person into a murderer.

It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.

There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns.

[Jack]

It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.

Is it really a fact? If so, does harder prove less likely?

There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns

Do I really come across as blindly desperate in this conversation? Tend to find the most irritating comments about guns to be statements of fact which aren't actually facts. Am not denying facts, making up facts, or claiming things to be facts unsupported. Neither of the sociological suggestions made to explain US declining homicide are illogical, and don't believe that decline can be attributed to the 5% of the population roaming around with concealed guns. There is no middle road to take in a gun debate; am pro-gun simply due to not being anti-gun. Personally have no want for one. Crime studies are sociological studies and are they are still sociological studies when considering guns. See nothing desperate about discussing why people are killers; some people seem to believe weapons are why people are killers and it simply must be the guns; don't see them as desperate, but happen to disagree. One way the US does stand out above the world in homicide is serial killers, not only statistically but also documented cases greater than the rest of combined, and people don't mind viewing them as a sociological phenomenon of the US, maybe because serial killers don't predominantly use guns. Is it so far fetched to be called desperation, to consider it's more likely there's something cultural other than the presence of guns which makes US citizens more violent than other western nations, and what ever that might be it's changing dramatically? Even when the US is still more murderous and violent when omitting all instances of guns? Not saying I know the right answer, but other people can't seem to show me they know the right answer either, and it's not because am stubborn about it. Do believe guns are dangerous and gun safety is very important, but this discussion hasn't been about safety. If it were, some people might not appreciate my stance on personal safety laws either.

[Jack]

It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.

It's somewhat difficult, even only within the context of the US to prove gun control is effective for murder rates, because homicide rates are declining nation wide and gun homicide declining along with them. The US has very few national laws regulating guns, and individual states can vary with laws stricter than the national level. There have been instances when a single state enacted stricter gun control laws, and boast their homicide rates have amazingly decreased within a decade. However the US experienced the same decline on a national scale. Both sides of the topic are easy to argue, by not focusing on the weapon but rather with sociological reasonings, and it's disappointing no one in this conversation has offered sensible factual based arguments in favor of gun control. Anti-gun means supporting legislation which prevents sane law-abiding citizens from owning a gun, so that makes me pro-gun. Though pro-gun doesn't necessarily mean anti-gun control. Would you prefer if I instead argued in favor of US gun control, since no one else has effectively done it? The US has enacted federal gun control laws, not by focusing on the number of guns in the US but rather taking a sociological look at who is doing the killing. In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been highly effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control, the US has the gun control it needs, and it's effective because the facts show it's working, with national laws based in sociological reasoning and without denying the constitutional rights of the entire law abiding population. There's undeniable numbers to prove it, and it sounds really good right? Did I win? Personally have trouble agreeing with that analysis, because homicide rates and violent crime rates not related to guns have seen the same 50% decline and gun control can't explain that.

[benjimanbreeg]

There should be logical tests on people eligible to own guns, have pets and have children. 

We have people in the UK throwing thousands of knives away to stop knife crime, which is mentally retarded when they can go straight back and buy more from Waitrose.  People are the problem, it's time we realise that.