Gun Lobby: Healthcare Reform Will Take Away Your Guns

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ever heard of per 100,000; which negates population.

US population: 303 million

Aus population: 21 million

~ US has 14.4 times the population

USA: 9,369 ~ person killed every 56 minutes

AUS: 59 ~ person killed every 8,908 minutes

~ 158 times the homicide rate by means of firearms.

Sure, we got you in firearms, but if we have 14.4 times the population, then why is our TOTAL homicide rate (per 100,000) only 5 times as high?

I'd hypothesize, and this isn't scientific at all, but if Australia was to grow it's population by 14 times (whilst still paying folks on welfare over $1000/week!) the homicide rate would be significantly higher, even without firearms.

Slim, I think you need to work on your math skills... Divide the total number of US homicides by 14.4, use a calculator if you need to. It works out to 650.625, which when compared to Australia's 59 works out to considerably more than 5 times the rate in Australia. Try 11 + times as high...

[Heracles 417]

The UK had 14 people killed by firearms. The UK has even more restrictive gun rules than Aus.

------

Population

US: 303 million

UK: 61 million

~ US has 5 times the UK's population - Population density is also much higher in the UK.

------

Murdered by means of firearms

US: 9,369

UK: 14

~ 669 times more people killed by means of firearms than those in the UK. - Australia is not as restrictive as the UK, consequently has a higher rate as well.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,533]

While the US has 14 times the population, it has 158 times more homicides by means of firearms. Otherwise, if the murder rate by means of firearms was on par with Aus, you would only have 849 murders for your population. The reality Reality is that gun restrictions enacted in Australia over a decade ago have worked.

Sure, they've worked to lower homicides by firearms, but they haven't worked to curb homicides overall. No guns? Surprise, surprise, stabbings have increased, what, 75 times? Why is NSW having a "knife amnesty period?" Was taking most of the guns away not effective enough? After all, if they've lowered homicides by firearms so well, why are there still the same amount of homicides?

I don't know what you are even pointing out here. It actually backs my argument that population alone has little to do with crime.

Proportionally, the U.S. has VERY LOW gun crime compared to other countries with similar populations.

Civil unrest? We live in the 21st century. First world countries no longer have civil unrest, as we vote in change. The 2nd Amendment was there for protection against the British soldiers who raided people's homes. It's laughable to think that people actually believe it's how you run a country. "Do as I say or else...". Are we living in Sudan or the United states of America?

It's laughable to think the government is this benevolent big brother always looking to help everyone.

Since you pointed out population, Switzerland is a country of 7,739,100 people. Switzerland is also a country that does not have an issue with crime, violence, gangs and so on. Even in the US, you have states that have lower crimes rates than European countries. Guns in these states are not a problem. However, it's the states with crime problems that need to be regulated. The fact is that since the gun buyback scheme in Aus was enacted, deaths by means of firearms have dropped.

So.... Switzerland doesn't have a problem with crime, violence, gangs, etc. - yet it has the highest per-capita firearms ownership in the world. Coincidence?

The U.S. has states with crime problems that need to be regulated? Funny how the most "regulated" places in the U.S. are also the places with the highest crime rates. Coincidence?

Once again, AUS enacted gun buyback schemes but yet, homicides didn't drop.

Think about all these factors together.

WHY???? (Here's a hint - ask yourself if firearms themselves have anything to do what-so-ever with crime.)

[slim 1,533]

Slim, I think you need to work on your math skills... Divide the total number of US homicides by 14.4, use a calculator if you need to. It works out to 650.625, which when compared to Australia's 59 works out to considerably more than 5 times the rate in Australia. Try 11 + times as high...

Thanks for correcting my math. I'm no genius, but to me, it seems like it still doesn't add up though. 11+ times as high still doesn't equal out to 14.4 times the population. There's still an inconsistency.

Either way, it seems that what Booyah! is implying is that if we took all the guns out of the U.S. our homicide rate would drop significantly, even to the levels of Aus. I just don't think that adds up.

[slim 1,533]

The UK had 14 people killed by firearms. The UK has even more restrictive gun rules than Aus.

~ US has 5 times the UK's population - Population density is also much higher in the UK.

Australia is not as restrictive as the UK, consequently has a higher rate as well.

Total homicide rates in the UK are... surprisingly enough.... about 5 times lower than that of the U.S.

Factor out guns, and take into account ALL homicides, and it seems like regardless of the means, the numbers just don't change.

[Heracles 417]

Sure, they've worked to lower homicides by firearms, but they haven't worked to curb homicides overall. No guns? Surprise, surprise, stabbings have increased, what, 75 times? Why is NSW having a "knife amnesty period?" Was taking most of the guns away not effective enough? After all, if they've lowered homicides by firearms so well, why are there still the same amount of homicides?

Stabbed versus shot dead. Um the overall homicide rates have dropped.

Proportionally, the U.S. has VERY LOW gun crime compared to other countries with similar populations.

You just said above that China has a lower crime rate. Actually Both China and India's homicide rate (per 100,000) combined is lower than the United States. 2.36 + 2.82 = 5.18 vs United States: 5.8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...l_homicide_rate

It's laughable to think the government is this benevolent big brother always looking to help everyone.

Yes, that is what government do in first world countries.

So.... Switzerland doesn't have a problem with crime, violence, gangs, etc. - yet it has the highest per-capita firearms ownership in the world. Coincidence?

The U.S. has states with crime problems that need to be regulated? Funny how the most "regulated" places in the U.S. are also the places with the highest crime rates. Coincidence?

Once again, AUS enacted gun buyback schemes but yet, homicides didn't drop.

Think about all these factors together.

WHY???? (Here's a hint - ask yourself if firearms themselves have anything to do what-so-ever with crime.)

Actually Switzerland's homicide rate (per 100,000) is higher than the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Japan, etc. Furthermore, I would like to see what type of guns you are allowed to buy in Switzerland.

Most regulated is irrelevant when an individual can go to a state and buy a gun, with no checks, at a gun show. Even a challenged crook will know this.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

The UK had 14 people killed by firearms. The UK has even more restrictive gun rules than Aus.

~ US has 5 times the UK's population - Population density is also much higher in the UK.

Australia is not as restrictive as the UK, consequently has a higher rate as well.

Total homicide rates in the UK are... surprisingly enough.... about 5 times lower than that of the U.S.

Factor out guns, and take into account ALL homicides, and it seems like regardless of the means, the numbers just don't change.

The overall homicide rate in the US is 5.8 per 100,000. The UK is 2.03.

Therefore, per 100,000, it's 2.8 times higher.

[slim 1,533]

ready4ONE the numbers you were crunching above were for firearms only.

If you take the whole amount of homicides (knives, boards, hands and feet!) and factor them in, the U.S.'s rate is only about 5 times as high.

I'm not disputing our homicide by firearm rate isn't higher - it's way higher - what I'm disputing is the total rate of homicides per capita isn't influenced by firearms as much as it is by other factors.

[Heracles 417]

ready4ONE the numbers you were crunching above were for firearms only.

If you take the whole amount of homicides (knives, boards, hands and feet!) and factor them in, the U.S.'s rate is only about 5 times as high.

I'm not disputing our homicide by firearm rate isn't higher - it's way higher - what I'm disputing is the total rate of homicides per capita isn't influenced by firearms as much as it is by other factors.

Is that supposed to discredit the reality that if the United States had 21st century first world laws against firearms, your homicide would be on par with that of first world countries.

You cannot stab 32 people in under a minute; and that's with just two semi-automatics. Better yet, how about comparing a stab to any organ versus a gun shot? Have you ever seen what those shot in the face look like? Statistically by someone they know.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,533]

Stabbed versus shot dead. Um the overall homicide rates have dropped.

Take a look at your little linky down there.... ah, no, they haven't. Well, I guess you could call a .2/100,000 a "success" but then again, that's like calling Chicago's gun ban a success. Also, I know for a fact people in America won't give up their Freedom for a .2/100,000 drop in homicides. Just not worth it!

You just said above that China has a lower crime rate. Actually Both China and India's homicide rate (per 100,000) combined is lower than the United States. 2.36 + 2.82 = 5.18 vs United States: 5.8

I also said something about govt. interference in folks' everyday lives. (I guess you missed that part.)

Your stats, well, for the three total years BOTH countries reported, do support your theory. However, do you really think China included all the people their govt. executed, babies thrown away, women who killed themselves, etc.? Or, did India count all the homicides in areas not under govt. control? How about the areas that lack the infrastructure to keep tabs on such numbers? I wonder if all those statistics were included in those THREE years of data from BOTH countries.

Yes, that is what government do in first world countries.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao..... do I even need to go on?

Actually Switzerland's homicide rate (per 100,000) is higher than the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Japan, etc. Furthermore, I would like to see what type of guns you are allowed to buy in Switzerland.

A little bit, sure. But with EVERY SINGLE MALE in possession of an assault rifle and/or pistol, shouldn't they be WAY higher?

Standard issue is the SG550 - a Sig 5.56NATO assault rifle. Compare to our M-16.

And by the way.... they're full auto.

Most regulated is irrelevant when an individual can go to a state and buy a gun, with no checks, at a gun show. Even a challenged crook will know this.

That's illegal already. How do you make it "more illegal?"

The overall homicide rate in the US is 5.8 per 100,000. The UK is 2.03. Therefore, per 100,000, it's 2.8 times higher.

Well, that doesn't make any sense then. What with all our guns and our 5 times the population. We should be more like 5 times as high, right?

Is that supposed to discredit the reality that if the United States had 21st century first world laws against firearms, your homicide would be on par with that of first world countries.

Russia has some pretty strict gun control... yet their murder rate is pretty high.

You cannot stab 32 people in under a minute; and that's with just two semi-automatics. Better yet, how about comparing a stab to any organ versus a gun shot? Have you ever seen what those shot in the face look like? Statistically by someone they know.

Now I see where all this is coming from. You're a media-informed anti-gunner.

I'm probably going to stop arguing here in about one or two more posts. Don't take it personally, it's just hard to argue with ignorance.

[Heracles 417]

I'm probably going to stop arguing here in about one or two more posts. Don't take it personally, it's just hard to argue with ignorance.

Whaaat! Dude, you pull figures out of your azz and then use them to back your opinion. Yet, I catch you out on this and I am ignorant. All good and well to bring in other homicide causes and attempt use it to justify guns, however, the focus of the discussion is on murders and guns.

I don't know where you got 0.2 from. It's in black and white above. The US has 5 times the population of the UK yet 669 times more people killed by firearms.

Does Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand have lower homicide rates than the US? Yes or No.

Does Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand have more restrictive gun laws than the US? Yes or No.

Case closed.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,533]

Whaaat! Dude, you pull figures out of your azz and then use them to back your opinion. Yet, I catch you out on this and I am ignorant. All good and well to bring in other homicide causes and attempt use it to justify guns, however, the focus of the discussion is on murders and guns.

I don't know where you got 0.2 from. It's in black and white above. The US has 5 times the population of the UK yet 669 times more people killed by firearms.

Does Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand have lower homicide rates than the US? Yes or No.

Does Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand have more restrictive gun laws than the US? Yes or No.

Case closed.

OK, murders and guns, and I'll use your stats.

You are correct, AUS, CAN, UK, NZ -

All lower homicide rates.

All more restrictive gun laws.

- All with ZERO (legal) effective means for folks to defend themselves against a man with two semi-automatic pistols who is capable of killing 32 people in a minute.

[Pooky 3,930]

Whaaat! Dude, you pull figures out of your azz and then use them to back your opinion. Yet, I catch you out on this and I am ignorant. All good and well to bring in other homicide causes and attempt use it to justify guns, however, the focus of the discussion is on murders and guns.

I don't know where you got 0.2 from. It's in black and white above. The US has 5 times the population of the UK yet 669 times more people killed by firearms.

Does Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand have lower homicide rates than the US? Yes or No.

Does Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand have more restrictive gun laws than the US? Yes or No.

Case closed.

OK, murders and guns, and I'll use your stats.

You are correct, AUS, CAN, UK, NZ -

All lower homicide rates.

All more restrictive gun laws.

- All with ZERO (legal) effective means for folks to defend themselves against a man with two semi-automatic pistols who is capable of killing 32 people in a minute.

And the restrictive gun laws are in place to prevent the sh*thead getting his two semi-auto pistols in the first place!

In the UK, before the most current laws came into effect, were 2 mass murders - Hungerford and Dunblane. Look them up.

Since the latest legislation came into effect, the UK has been spared a gun-wielding lunatic on that scale. That's how the gun laws work, and from the figures quoted in this thread, they do, without question, work

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not foolish at all. The stability of everyday life in the U.S. is, compared to other countries in population, top-notch. A big reason for that? Firearms in the hands of population, not just government and/or the criminal element.

Absolute rubbish. The US has one of the worst crime rate in the developed world.

Once again, please compare apples to apples.

China - very low reported crime rate. Very high rate of government influence in peoples' everyday lives.

India - Low crime rate?

Indonesia - See India.

Brazil - HA!

Pakistan - Please!

If you're going to compare apples to apples, just in the top five, the U.S. has it, hands down.

Comparing the US to developing countries is comparing apples to apples? Says something about where you think the US stands.

Take a look at the below map for some guidance. If the US is an apple, then the dark green spots is where the other apples are. I don't see any of the "apples" you want to cite here colored anywhere near dark green. They must not be apples, then.

Now, when you actually do compare apples to apples, say the EUR zone (14 developed countries w/ total population of 328MM) and the US (developed w/ total population of 320MM), you come up with these numbers:

Total homicides EUR zone: 3,825 (0.000012 per capita or 1.2 per 100,000)

Total homicides USA: 16,204 (0.000051 per capita or 5.1 per 100,000)

If the only comparison the US can hold up to is that with developing countries, then that would suggest that we're doing something wrong.

[rebeccajo 14]

It will be the basis to control what you eat, smoke, drink, drive, shoot, play with. It is opening a terrible door.

Now let me see.

We have the FDA that controls what we eat.

We have state liquor and tobacco commissions that control what we smoke and drink. Not to mention all the little babysitter health departments in every state and county that tell you where you can smoke.

State Road Commission? Department of Motor Vehicles? Anybody ever heard of those?

And I think there is something out there called the Consumer Product Safety Administration that regulates unsafe toys and other things...........