Guns

[mufa23]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

The city's website claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

I wish my town would do this! But we already have nearly no crime. We are all country folk with firearms up here.

[1714130040]

1714130040

[1714130040]

1714130040

[vampire]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

The wiki says that the law changed nothing, the crime rate was falling rapidly prior of the law enactment.

[Explodicle]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

I assume that more criminals know how to use firearms in the US compared to other countries? Where did they learn? I blame Call Of Duty. Lets ban video games too.

He later added

... without using a Straw Man?

[myrkul]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

The wiki says that the law changed nothing, the crime rate was falling rapidly prior of the law enactment.

Where, exactly? For ease of pointing out where, I have copied the entire section of the article on the gun law:

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]

    (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
    (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984. Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw.] In 2005, the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% since the law was put into affect.

The city's website claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

Bonus quote:

Crime statistics

Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages. Crime rates declined from 2003 through 2008.

[Brunic]

Where, exactly? For ease of pointing out where, I have copied the entire section of the article on the gun law:

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]

    (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
    (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984. Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw.]In 2005, the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% since the law was put into affect.

The city's website claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

Just there.

[TheButterZone]

Is anyone going to respond to that graph?

Why?

a few per 100,000 is nothing..

Swimming pools kill something like 2 per 100,000 per year.

I don't see anyone calling for banning of swimming pools..  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States

Smoking tobacco    435,000    18.1%    
Being overweight and obesity    111,909    4.6%    
Alcohol    85,000    3.5%    
Infectious diseases    75,000    3.1%    
Toxic agents including toxins, particulates and radon    55,000    2.3%    
Traffic collisions 43,000    1.8%    
Firearms deaths (regardless of whether self-defense, self-inflicted, accidental, murder or 'unknown') 29,000[3]    1.2%
Sexually transmitted infections    20,000    0.8%    
Drug abuse    17,000    0.7%

So there you have it, the only two things that "shouldn't" be banned sooner than guns are sex and drugs. At least if prohibition did anything other than empower criminals...

Say goodbye to your motor vehicles, say goodbye to living in anything but a lean-to in the middle of nowhere, say goodbye to being able to have human contact, say goodbye to libation, say goodbye to eating anything other than food pellets or NG tube food, say goodbye to knowing who's an asshole by their lighting up in front of asthmatics, at gas stations, and near pressurized gas tanks. Then you can say goodbye to innocent life, exterminated by genocidal tyrants and lesser violent criminals.

[myrkul]

Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw.]

Just there.

Hmm.... No, that says that there was no evidence that it reduced the rate of burglaries. Says nothing about the general crime rate, nor about the rate dropping prior to the law enactment. So... Try again. For reference, the original statement:

The wiki says that the law changed nothing, the crime rate was falling rapidly prior of the law enactment.

[nimda]

While we're cherry-picking our data:

19. Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."

[myrkul]

While we're cherry-picking our data:

19. Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."

Still no evidence that the rate was dropping before the law. But let's even go one step further an assume I'm wrong. The guns did nothing to lower the crime rate. That still means you're wrong. The guns also did nothing to increase crime. So all that chart up there proves is that overall, Canadians are nicer people than Americans. Not exactly Pulitzer-prize stuff there.

[vampire]

While we're cherry-picking our data:

19. Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."

Still no evidence that the rate was dropping before the law. But let's even go one step further an assume I'm wrong. The guns did nothing to lower the crime rate. That still means you're wrong. The guns also did nothing to increase crime. So all that chart up there proves is that overall, Canadians are nicer people than Americans. Not exactly Pulitzer-prize stuff there.

Canadians are nicer for sure. Few points : a tiny town's stats mean nothing. I can point out few countries with few crime and no guns laws. Except they are fucking rich, society creates crime. Poor countries have more crime - guns or not.

[TheButterZone]

While we're cherry-picking our data:

19. Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."

ROTFLMFAO, Hemenway... http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2006/03/hemenway-and-co-authors-refuse-to.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/01/problems-with-latest-miller-hemenway.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm
http://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

[myrkul]

Poor countries have more crime - guns or not.

In other words, Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

[TheButterZone]

Poor countries have more crime - guns or not.

In other words, Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

"Poor people kill people, but never in self-defense because that requires bribery, so ban guns now!"

[Brunic]

Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."

Source 19 of the wiki.

Anyway, giving guns to people to reduce crime is not solving the source of the problem, the crimes. We could argue about it all day long, each side will probably find sources and statistics data that prove our point of view.

I think, to reduce crimes rates, we should find the sources of the crimes first. A big majority didn't dream of becoming a criminal, but circumstances in life brought them at that point. It's not news that poor neighborhood have a higher crime rate than richer ones. Schools makes wonders long-term to reduce crime, but the effect of guns on crime rate is debatable. Why do you think there's a lot of people that think armed citizens is not a good idea? Because the effect is not as strong as you think, and doesn't solve the root of the problem.

Yeah, I agree than in certain countries in the world, I would prefer having a gun with me. But it's only a short-term solution, that only provides me self-defense in an hostile environment. Humans didn't evolve only by self-defense, but also by adapting their environment. In my country, we worked to provide free education and free health care to any citizen, while developing a strong police force. Since people have opportunities, they find crime less attractive and want to cooperate with the police force. Instead of having n00bs fighting crime, you have a group of professional that take care of it.

There is many solutions, but I don't think guns is useful on a long-term perspective. A bullet doesn't build, think or create. What you invest on bullets is lost opportunity to develop something else. Sure, you need a minimum of protection. But, let's say that one day, you succeed and everybody owns a gun. Ok, now what? What did you achieve with every citizens owning a gun? You really think crime will disappear? That the guy who need to steal or sell drug to survive is going to stop?

I think that until you make a safe society, you need guns for the time being, so that your citizens can survive. But I really think you should put energy to make a society where your citizens can feel safe without a gun. I mean, I'm lucky and I live in a society where I don't feel the need to have a gun for my safety. Here, having a gun is more trouble than anything, especially if you get caught.

And if you live in a society where you're more afraid of the corrupted police force or the governement than criminals, get a cellphone instead of a gun. Governments always have more guns than you, but can't do anything against information

Anyway, I know I'm against the majority here, and I simply taught that you could find interesting of having a complete opposite point of view of somebody who lives in a society where guns are irrelevant.

[TheButterZone]

Tyrants can do plenty against information, unless you have a route to the internet that doesn't require any infrastructure and can survive radio signal jamming. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/bart-pulls-mubarak-san-francisco

Against a crowd of defenseless innocents? All options are open, including genocide.

Against a crowd of armed innocents? Suddenly, they have to switch tactics and wait to pick off victims individually who've separated from the crowd.

[myrkul]

There is many solutions, but I don't think guns is useful on a long-term perspective. A bullet doesn't build, think or create. What you invest on bullets is lost opportunity to develop something else. Sure, you need a minimum of protection. But, let's say that one day, you succeed and everybody owns a gun. Ok, now what? What did you achieve with every citizens owning a gun? You really think crime will disappear? That the guy who need to steal or sell drug to survive is going to stop?

Well, to be honest, the points you make about professional crime fighters and other, more attractive opportunities are spot-on. When options other than violence are available, people tend to take them. But the real reason that people need to be armed is not to ensure they are safe from crime. It is to ensure they are safe from oppression. The "rifle behind every blade of grass" quote, though mis-attributed, has a grain of truth to it. A well-armed populace is the best defense against invasion.

[vampire]

A well-armed populace is the best defense against invasion.

Um that didn't help Afganistan against like few invasions?

[myrkul]

A well-armed populace is the best defense against invasion.

Um that didn't help Afganistan against like few invasions?

Even the best defense can be defeated, but whatever you say about Afghanistan, you cannot say that it was a "soft target."

[FirstAscent]

Poor countries have more crime - guns or not.

In other words, Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

Repeating memes might indicate that to argue your case, you can't think on your feet, can't post original arguments, and are victim to group think.

[mufa23]

Assuming firearms are more harmful them helpful, banning them isn't going to do much good for the US. As of right now, if you were to ban guns from the US, there is still millions of firearms across the country. For a new country just starting off, it would be helpful since there are no firearms introduced to the population. I personally don't think banning firearms in the US will have much of an effect on gun related crimes. And according to this statistic:

It's not very high on our list of concerns. If we banned smoking for one year, we'd save more then ten times the amount of people that would die from gun violence in a year.

We could argue about it all day long, each side will probably find sources and statistics data that prove our point of view.

Wiser words have hardly ever been spoken. Guys, we can argue all day about gun control. The fact of the matter is, smarter people then us have been debating it for years longer then we probably ever will. Since they are still arguing about it, I highly doubt on a little forum like this that we'd find a solution.