JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Many gun ownership advocates make references to gun-related crimes/deaths in countries that have enacted stricter gun controls (e.g., Australia; UK; Finland: ...) and argue that citizens are now left unable to protect themselves against violent crimes. I have read here on UHH how gun-free zones are actually better target areas for criminals because their chances of being shot are lower, or how Brits can't even carry a pen knife in their pockets for protection.

There is an excellent article on CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us-gun-culture-world-comparison-intl-cmd/index.html) that debunks -- with facts -- many of the arguments used by gun zealots to justify gun ownership. [For those of you who question the source (CNN), do yourself a favour and open your mind to the statistics which are quite striking. And if you think the article is simply left-wing bias, I challenge you to present a similar factual reference that supports your stance on how more guns make your country safer.]

In reference to my opening paragraph, scroll through the article to the 5th graphic in the piece. This is an interactive graph where you can change the content by country using the arrow at the top-right. There is NO QUESTION that gun-related deaths have gone down after the introduction of stricter laws in these countries. Below is just one of the graphics for South Africa.

Hypothesis: Taking Away Guns Does Not Reduce Guns Deaths
Conclusion: DEBUNKED!

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Quoting CNN is NOT to be taken seriously, in any context. Citing that networks makes one as t***hful as they are, not very honest!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

How about reading the article before you disparage the source. The article is NOT an opinion piece. If you have a bone to pick with the facts you should take it up with the sources of the data, or provide counter arguments. Don't be so shallow.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Compare this chart of violent crime in the U.S. without such restricted gun laws during that exact period of time to your chart. See any correlation?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

First off John your entire article is a farce. Let's not forget figures don't lie but liars figure.

Second, let's put your argument into perspective. Let's say we do actually take firearms out of the equation completely. Not one firearm on the face of the planet. Of course there would be no more deaths from firearms. But what then? Since automobiles cause a tremendous amount of death, actually the drivers of those vehicles, just as it is not firearms that cause death but the users of those firearms that cause the death, NOT the firearms itself. Now that that is straightened out, let's take every vehicle off the road, ALL of them. Presto Chango!!! Not one more death by vehicles on the entire planet. Think of the millions of lives saved just by that one act alone. Actually that would save far more lives than taking firearms off the planet. Great idea, huh?

OK so what is next? What is next to guarantee you Liberals are working toward the Utopian World you feel you deserve? Knives maybe? How about baseball bats, frying pans, claw hammers, any other blunt instrument that. can be used to cause death? You anti gunners want to completely ban assault TYPE looking rifles. Why do that when more deaths are attributed to knives of all types than to rifles of all types, not just the assault types. Banning all knives would save more lives than banning those evil rifles you so h**e.

I know you will not see my point John nor will any other Left Winger on here. You are so engrossed in achieving the impossible that a common sense point of view will be dismissed as not valid.

Dennis

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I am curious as to why you think the article is a farce. Is it because it was on CNN?

You are correct, Dennis, that I don't see your point. And clearly you don't see mine.

Following your logic, we should just let C***D eliminate all humans and there would be no more human deaths AT ALL! Dumb, right? But that is where your reasoning drives.

There is a logical endpoint to the confiscation of "weapons" that covers cars, knives, baseball bats, clubs, fists, etc. No one expects an end to human deaths; there will always be crimes, skirmishes, or accidents, and humans will die (BTW, using cars as an example is foolish because the majority of automobile deaths are accidents, not murder or violent crime). One stops at the point of reasonableness, and the article I gave you (did you actually read it?) addresses the anomaly of the US in relation to the rest of the world. I am sure you have heard the expression, "When the whole world looks crazy it is time to look at yourself." Well, if you don't see the US as an outlier then you truly are blind.

You said that figures don't lie. So what is wrong with the data presented in the article?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Well, for starters, the ordinate in the graphs in the article I referenced are absolute numbers. Take the data in your graph and multiply it by 3000 to get a comparable picture.

As for the trend in the US, it may be coming down... but the numbers are still WAY out of line with the rest of the civilized world.

And if you took the time to actually look at the other countries that are presented you will see that all of them had declines BEFORE enactment of the stricter gun laws. What matters is the rate of decline, and the slope increased after the laws were passed.

Finally, the graph you presented shows there is currently an uptick in the numbers. Good luck with that, given the Rittenhouse now paved the way for anyone to blow anyone away for any reason as long as they can say they feared for the life... and the jury has to put themselves in that person's mindset, not that of a reasonable onlooker.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

lots more will die before that insane law is remedied.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

The NRA has salted the debate with dumb, rusted-on straw man positions, as we've seen in this thread already.

When a newsworthy shooting makes it to the attic pages, there is always the strident ... "More Guns!" ... crowd.
They will never concede 'awesome semi-auto firepower' is a multiplying factor in semi-auto, industrial style shootings.
Now the shuck for gun sales is ... 'freedom and self-defense' ... as if these are solely MAGA(real Yanks) owned concepts.

"Not even Donald J Trump could go bankrupt selling guns" Mr Vlad, more or less.

Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb

Absolutely correct. Too bad for the honest people who don't abuse their right. They'll just have to suffer for the good of the people. Then we'll expand it to save even more people. We'll use the same forward thinking common sense to save more people.

Along with the ban on firearms we will ban personal automobile ownership to save the many many thousands k**led by drunk drivers. Driving is only a privilege anyway, not a right. So it only makes sense because it will save people.

We'll also ban all private swimming pools and save thousands of innocent children. Again, only even a privilege, not a right.

Lastly, we'll deport all i*****l a***ns and all who have ever entered the country illegally. Kate Steinle and many other citizens would still be alive.

So yes, time to get serious about common sense, especially when it only involves privileges and not rights.

Rose42

I don’t think Rittenhouse paved the way for that. Different judge, different jury, different lawyers, different results. Unfortunately justice often hinges on who has the most money and/or who has the best lawyer.

He is not a hero or a villian. This tragedy happened as a result of multiple things gone wrong. He never should have been there in the first place.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

John while I did read the CNN article there is way too much for me to sit down and go over ever point brought up. But to touch on a couple, what difference does it make, how many firearms are in America compared to other countries? That would be as asinine a thought as how many vehicles are in any given country. As far as I know vehicles are used in more deaths by some type of object than most other items given. America has millions of vehicles running around. So what. The deciding factor is what are these vehicles used for. Firearms are the same type of item. At one time I owned over 100 firearms and have owned hundreds of others. Is that a problem for you that I would own so many? As I have pointed out, knives are used to k**l more people than are rifles, any type of rifles. How many knives do you own John? Take a look in your kitchen drawers and count knives. Do you REALLY need all of those deadly instruments? Aren't there many you can send to me? Are you thinking about those numbers? My guess is you are not because you don't think about stabbing or cutting anyone. But others do and on a regular basis. Did you happen to notice in the NYC subway system, two people were stabbed to death within the past few days? I did. Just random k*****gs by the way. One stabbed in the chest and the other stabbed in the neck. Now if that had been two random shootings you and the other like minded Left Wingers here would be up in arms to ban firearms. But let's face it, they were not gun deaths so no harm, no foul, RIGHT? Because those people were k**led with knives you on the Left just plain don't give a damn. RIGHT???

As for America having more shootings than other countries, that has been debunked often when you consider that if you take away the Democrat Controlled cities such as Detroit, Chicago and others the numbers come way down. What you fail to consider because it does not fit your lying corrupt agenda is that this is not a gun problem but a people/criminal problem. Consider that in those Democrat run cities r**ting, l**ting, arson is permitted. In other American cities those traits by r****rs is deemed illegal.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Rittenhouse paved the way for NOTHING. America has always been a country where if you are attacked on the street or in your home you have the God given common sense right of self defense. If you are attacked on the street or in your home do you not have the right to self defense? I would certainly hope so.

You nor your Left Wing brethren do not like it but Rittenhouse was attacked on the street during a r**t. He had the RIGHT to defend himself for each of three separate attacks. How is it you on the Left STILL have not spoken out against the r****rs, those POS people who were r**ting, destroying the property of others, that were l**ting and then burning down businesses that other citizens worked hard to build. Why do you on the Left give those people a pass?

Dennis

pendennis

As always, comparison of South Africa, or any other country is a nonstarter.

No country on earth has a society built on the model the United States has.

Use of firearms in defense of ones security is not a crime, and those shootings are not reported in the FBI's uniform crime statistics. "Unintentional" shootings mean what, exactly? Even suicides aren't uniformly reported, since suicide is not a criminal act.

If you want to study the issue from a well researched perspective, read "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Ahhhhh, trying to throw some common sense into the discussion, eh? You know the Left loses when common sense is brought up.

Dennis