So if America makes drug use illegal, then people won't buy and use drugs 'cause they can't buy 'em at the local markets? Do you use the same arguments for drugs, James? Baron Max
So youre basically saying its all just some weird 'coincidence' when the statistics shoot up in countries with higher gun ownership, i guess you know all logical arguments have been thoroughly exhausted when it comes to this.
Actually, you don't have a comparison like that. USA always had relatively free acess to guns. The crime rates shot up with Prohibition. Great Britain has had a relatively low crime rate for several decades but it shot up when gun were effectively banned. Same with Australia. Yes they aren't in the same levels of the US, yet. But while our rate of crime growth is shrinking Britians and Australias is growing. But in any scientific study you should have only one variable. A second variable clouds the result, the mosre variables there are the more meaningless the results.
It's only paranoia if it is not a justifiable fear. More than one regime used gun control to make the people defensless in just the last century. Oh god, you are niave. That is what you would do to LEGALLY buy a gun. To illegally buy one is a lot less labor intensive Of course you will, becuase you know I am right. A Lambourghini Countash is designed to exceed 60 miles and hour, but that is no guarantee it will. A Pickup is designed to haul heavy loads, but that is no guarantee it will. A firearm is designed to fire bullets. Those bullets may be aimed at any number of things. It is the person using the car, truck, or gun who determines what it will do. A reasonable amount of caution is not paranoia. If anything Gun Control is paranoia wrapped inside a phobia. Basically the average gun control advocate is portraying the image of "Oh my god, another person has been shot to death. It's all the fault of guns. Obviously if guns did not exist, murder wouldn't exist. We should ban guns." which is completely unreasonable. Guns don't load themselves, aim themselves, turn off the safety, or pull the trigger. People do that themselves and if they had to they'd use their own hands to kill. It's actually a sad reflection of the world. I will bet even in your area there are people that can have you erased if you cross them.
If you cut down the availability of drugs, there are fewer deaths from drug overdoses. Statistics support that 100%. Look at drug death rates. You'll find that, for example, when heroin was a drug of choice in Australia if you graphed the death rates vs. the purity of imported heroin the lines on the graphs followed each other almost exactly. Reducing ready availability of drugs reduces drug deaths. And reducing ready availability of guns reduces gun deaths.
Man, do you have a sever case of tunnel vision. Drug Prohibition has done NOTHING to reduce the availaibilty of drugs. Nothing. In fact they are more plentiful today than ever before.
No actually it increases the numbers of deaths due to drugs, as the quality of the drugs go down, due to impurities that are added to cut the drugs, which then increases the danger in using them. A while ago some dealer here cut his supplies with strychnine, and killed 4 of his users, he is on trial for murder, and the really sad thing is that in my state we don't have a death penalty, 2 of those who died we 15.
Right, so the statistics are meaningless when they dont pay service to your sensiblities. That doesnt seem much a step forward on from alluding to all the data being coincidental to be honest. You obviously really enjoy guns and the concept of gun-ownership, id say just be happy with that, because any atempt to skew your personal likes and dislikes as being better for everyone is really not going to hold up. Unless you want to engage in socio-politcal hop-scotch - invoking statistics when they seems to collude with your tastes and then switching over to dismissing the whole nature of statistics when they dont.
Statistics can be meaningless. It's easy to get the answer you want by manipulating and sorting the Data. Now take the always infamous results of "Ban guns and gun deaths go down." What they don't tell you is that while Gun Deaths go down, the other violent and wrongful deaths increase, resulting at best status quo of wrongful deaths. While they did not tell a falsehood, they still did lie by omission. However my point is that trying to compare Flint, Michigan to London, England is like comparing Habenero Peppers to Bell Peppers. Yeah they have one thing in common, being a city, but everything else is different.
Only gun-related crimes increase in countries with higher gun ownership, but overall crime themselves shoot up in countries with lower gun ownership. The impact of being unable to defend yourself is greater than that of allowing everyone the same tool for defense. A criminal is still gonna rob ya whether or not they have a gun, it's not gonna increase it happening, but when they know you can't defend yourself, have fun being painted a target. Personally, I'd rather have the guns to defend myself and deal with the gun-related deaths. Why? Being able to adequately defend myself is more important than what tool someone uses to rob me. But the main reason? Crimes and gun-related deaths mainly occur in the same bad areas, and the victims of those gun-related deaths tend to be gang members and criminals themselves, so those idiots are doing us a favor by killing each other off. Alter the statistics by removing gang-members and criminals being involved in gun-related crimes and deaths, and our crime and murder rates are actually quite low here in the States. - N
