"It doesn't matter if the murder rate is lower or higher when compared to other countries"

huh? isn't the whole point of this gun control agenda to save lives or something?

"the fact is that it would surely be much lower with better gun control laws."

the statistics i posted from the uk clearly shows that this conclusion is wrong and do you know why? because the possibility that your target may shoot you dead is actually a deterrent when a criminal is assessing a target 

you are right that was my mistake

i skimmed this and didn't take the adjustments into consideration

regardless it is a fact that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

and its increasing : https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/27/violent-rising-england-wales-police-figures-ons

The point of wanting gun control isn't making the US a better place than other countries, is to make the US a better place than it is right now. It doesn't matter if the other countries kill more or less.

We have to better analyze the facts:

1. That huge spike in 2002/2003 happened because of the uncovering of Dr. Harold Shipman's almost 200 victims, credited to those years even though they happened from 1975-1998. That's an anomaly and shouldn't be considered for the analysis of a society. Similar anomalies happened in the years of 2001 (58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry going to the UK), 2004 (21 dead in the Morecambe Bay cockling disaster) and 2006 (52 victims from the 7/7).

2. The homicide rates were already increasing steadily decades before the gun ban in 97. 

3. The spike happened years after the ban. In http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf">The British Handgun Ban Logic, Politics, and Effect, Colin Greenwood claims that "The whole process of confiscating virtually all legally held handguns took place between July 1997 and February 1998." But for 1998, 1999 and 2000 the rates stayed basically the same. The spike in 2001 seems to be completely normal, as it also happened a few times before, even without the gun control laws.

4. There were too few handguns for it to make any difference. In 1997, the population of the UK was of about 51 million people. 57,000 people handed in guns after the handgun prohibition. That means that 1.1% of the population had all the handguns in the UK. That's basically nothing.

5. The law actually made a difference in the percentage of homicides committed using firearms. While we don't have any data for 1997, in 2009 the percentage in the UK was of 6.6%, according to UNODOC's Homicides by firearm document. In the US, in 2010, that percentage is of 67.5%.

Your fonts contradict what you're saying. The first one is from 2001, being extremely outdated. The second one, though, shows a graphic comparing the crime rate from 2006 to 2016, and it is actually decreasing. It had a slight increase compared to 2015, but a huge decrease from 2006. I'd recommend you read the whole article before contradicting yourself next time ;)

And according to UNODC's Global Study on Homicide, the UK has a homicide rate of 1.0 per 100k population, while the US sits at a 4.7. That's worse than Turkey, Ukraine, Iran, Tunisia, Lybia, Syria, and many other "violent" countries.

Your fonts contradict what you're saying. The first one is from 2001, being extremely outdated. The second one, though, shows a graphic comparing the crime rate from 2006 to 2016, and it is actually decreasing. It had a slight increase compared to 2015, but a huge decrease from 2006. I'd recommend you read the whole article before contradicting yourself next time ;)

And according to UNODC's Global Study on Homicide, the UK has a homicide rate of 1.0 per 100k population, while the US sits at a 4.7. That's worse than Turkey, Ukraine, Iran, Tunisia, Lybia, Syria, and many other "violent" countries.

I already posted links to 4+ polls that show a decreasing trendline and will provide no further data or entertain any further unqualified disputations.

You posted the "US doesn't have a gun problem" propaganda, and, again, any other reader will see right through this deflection.

Then it would be wise for you to not publicly post, "i'm flattered," in response to "you embody everything that is wrong with the views of a human being in my opinion" or "lol don't make me laugh," in response to the same person subsequently saying, "I'm not gonna try to talk sense into you."

The behavior is clearly antagonist, a celebration thereof, and definitely against community guidelines.

"I already posted links to 4+ polls that show a decreasing trendline"

ok... lets take the period from 1983 to 1994 (11 years)... gun edit ownership steadily increased to its highest percentage overall and yet violent crime decreased continuously simultaneously... 

this pretty much destroys your argument wouldn't you agree? 

No, see the already-posted 4 poll trend that shows consistent decreases.

"You posted the "US doesn't have a gun problem" propaganda"

my argument was that gun control has not reduced violent crime in the uk and that violent crime has been on a steady increase since gun control laws were put in place... the point is that ultimately its apparent that gun control has not made the uk safer and therefore,its kind of dishonest to assert that the us which has a similar culture will experience a decrease in violent crime if the same measures are taken

As I stated before and likely more than once, the study's conclusion began with an unscientific, biased claim that directly echoes the pro-gun propaganda. I explicitly noted this, at the very beginning, and specifically debunked that claim.

"Then it would be wise for you to not publicly post, "i'm flattered," in response to "you embody everything that is wrong with the views of a human being in my opinion" "

why not? i don't understand your problem with my response

That's knowingly antagonizing the other poster, and you've previously done this to them (http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=234947&page=5#7) and others, on this and other topics. It explains why they react so quickly and strongly, but I went through your post history and now understand the pattern.

" "lol don't make me laugh," in response to the same person subsequently saying, "I'm not gonna try to talk sense into you.""

and why not?

They won't, because you've engaged them in this fashion several other times: frankly, they're understandably exasperated. You may not be aware of your post history (hence, the link above), but this is not the first engagement with them.

"The behavior is clearly antagonist"

lmao so let me get this straight he insults me and i respond kindly and i'm the antagonist?

what about you choosing to call me a robot instead of addressing my points initially?

april fools ended like 3 days ago man, time to update your callender

When I made the bot comment, I was referring to whoever wrote the conclusion to the study: that's clarified at the beginning. Since this isn't only the first instance of you interacting with that poster and other posters on here, in the exact same fashion, he doesn't "straight insult you:" there's a history (You recently called him, "infantile," "enslaved," "a serf," "a peasant," "clue(less)", "pretty stupid," "delusion(al)." He actually said, "Honestly, i know who you are by now," most likely in reference to that.

Now that I'm also well aware of this trend and you potentially misunderstanding my point, which I hope I effectively clarified, I have no interest in in escalating this situation and will engage you on this topic no further, leaving it to the community to evaluate the merits of my assertion.

And the UK has surpased New York just recently in murders due to a rising knife problem.

Better start banning knives. 

So what? Car crashes are more frequent than shootings. Deaths from sugar related health problems more frequent than shootings. Should we ban or highly regulate cars, potato chips and Sprite too?

So what? Car crashes are more frequent than shootings. Deaths from sugar related health problems more frequent than shootings. Should we ban or highly regulate cars, potato chips and Sprite too?

So what? Car crashes are more frequent than shootings. Deaths from sugar related health problems more frequent than shootings. Should we ban or highly regulate cars, potato chips and Sprite too?