vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
So then we should definitely allow these culturally short-tempered people to carry guns around? I have to question just how that can sound like a good idea to anyone.
|
Because the data backs it up when done within culture and when doing before and after studies. (something you'd agree are the most valid studies, correct?)
For example. Florida's homicde rate used to be 36% above the national average. After passing concealed carry laws it dropped to 4% below national average.
In Texas, when concealed carry laws passed, murder droped 50% faster then the national average.
The most valid studies tend to point to concealed carry laws reducing homicide and rape, not increase it... and some increases in violent crime in the areas AROUND places that inact concealed carry. (Criminals acting out of town one would guess.)
The rest tend to indicate there is no relationship at all. None i'm aware of actually suggest concealed carry makes things WORSE.
It's essentially a case of removing laws on concealed carry = no effect.... or better.
When the statistical arguement is between a position is no effect or a positive effect. Why should anyone be against the position? Worst case scenario... nothing really changes.
Aside from which, have you ever met someone with a short temper. How much they control their temper is largely related to how much they expect people will tolerate it... and what negative impact that they will happen.
|
Actually they are invalid studies for a very smple reason. For example, someone from Florida can go up to Georgia and get a gun on the used market extremely easily. Alll these studies are done in states, in a country wehre gun possession is perfectly legal, and therefore there is a business in selling guns, and therefore proliferation of guns is very high, legal or not. While the guns are there, it is better to have the same equipment to defend onceself, however if there were no guns to begin with (confiscate, reimburse, melt them down, and stop sale of any and all ammunition to people that aren't officials) the problems would be far, FAR lower.
|
A) Have any studys for that. Currently the only country you seem to have for evidence is a country that naturally has a very low crime rate.
If you've got a study or datapoints where a country actually pulled this off and it supported you, i'd be interested to see it.
Best i could find was information that suggested gun confiscation in Australia INCREASED overall crime and death rather then decreased it or had no effect.
Confiscation doesn't seem to have even effectected gun crime.
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp2008n17.pdf
B) Assuming you can find data. Lets consider confiscating and reimbursing plan... There are 90 guns for every 100 people in the united states. I don't think I really have to contiue this point.
Interestingly, the top 5 behind the US? Yemen, Finland, Switzerland, Iraq and Serbia. Pretty odd and inconclusive bunch when it comes to gun crimes... like I said, I'd expect it to be largely due to culture... but worth noting, as it's currently still better data then your so far unsupported hypothisis.
Amusingly the areas we'd expect to have TONS of guns, like Latin America... actually have relativly few per capita.
C) It's extremly easy to make your own ammunition if you have some basic metalworking tools (Or a gun for that matter, though a less sophisticated gun... then again with the interent, it'd probably be pretty easy for people to get ahold of and make potent guns via lathe much like how meth dealers work.)
In short, your arguement so far is lacking in data and even if you could suggest it was true with data, your arguement is impractical in application suggesting that even if said arguement was right... less strict gun control would be the answer for the US, and Norway. (Who despite strict gun laws actually is 11th in guns per capita. Who knew?)
