Off Topic Poker Forums

You would expect a substantial reduction in the amount of people being shot . The below statistics are quite confronting.

The movie Bowling for Columbine reported the number of people killed by firearms per year. Director Michael Moore showed statistics on gun-related deaths per year for a few major countries (ordered here by deaths per 100,000):

United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)
France – 255 (0.389/100,000)
Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)
Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)

More telling is Gun ownership per capita
(figures are guns/100 people)

United States 88.8
Canada 30.8
Germany 30.3
France 31.2
Australia 15
England and Wales 6.2
Scotland 5.5
Japan 0.6

As you can see, the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country. However, when comparing the numbers to the numbers of gun-related deaths, there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the two. For example, the U.S. has 2.9x as many guns per capita than Canada, but the gun-related death rate is 7.5x higher in the U.S. Likewise, when comparing U.S. to Australia, gun-related deaths are 12.3x higher in the U.S., but gun ownership is only 5.9x higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

....and we interrupt this thread for some recent good news (and funny).

63 year old internet cafe customer.....opens fire on two armed robbers. Worth a chuckle.

I saw this when it came out. Awesome stuff haha.

If it has a high likelihood: What the F are you doing on that street?

What if your favorite pizza place is on that street? Good pizza is hard to find.

What if your favorite pizza place is on that street? Good pizza is hard to find.

Stop trying to derail threads. You're the Tribe Leader for God sakes........

medic, I agree with everything you said, except the part about putting the guy on the ground even with body armor. There's little chance anyone's CC gun is a .45 or .357. Those are too big.
Oh, and also that the Bill of Rights are different. They may be early and important amendments, but they are amendments. And the amending was done to create a society they wanted to live in.

The worst possible scenario argument.

It does not make any sense to use a situation that has a very very small likelihood as an argument. No matter how terrible.

If it has a high likelihood: What the F are you doing on that street?

It does not matter what the likelihood of the event occurring is. If it never happens, my weapon is never used. If it does happen, I need my weapon. If I love my wife and believe her life is valuable, anyway. How am I seriously supposed to look at her and say, hey we had a good run but since I can't protect you I'll see you in the afterlife?

As for what I'm doing on that street, I think that might be a difference between crime here and crime in Europe. That street could be anywhere. Sure we have neighborhoods where there is a higher likelihood of something like that happening, but it can happen a lot more places than it maybe can in Europe. I'm not rich, which means I'm more likely to have to be near streets where the likelihood is higher. Does that mean I should be either in my car or in my house at all times, that I'm not allowed to go for a stroll? I live in a decent neighborhood now, an apartment almost more than I can afford, and there were 2 armed robberies in my building. The streets where it has a high likelihood of happening are miles away.

And I'm pretty sure that theater had a pretty low likelihood of getting shot up.

medic, I agree with everything you said, except the part about putting the guy on the ground even with body armor. There's little chance anyone's CC gun is a .45 or .357. Those are too big.
Oh, and also that the Bill of Rights are different. They may be early and important amendments, but they are amendments. And the amending was done to create a society they wanted to live in.



It does not matter what the likelihood of the event occurring is. If it never happens, my weapon is never used. If it does happen, I need my weapon. If I love my wife and believe her life is valuable, anyway. How am I seriously supposed to look at her and say, hey we had a good run but since I can't protect you I'll see you in the afterlife?

As for what I'm doing on that street, I think that might be a difference between crime here and crime in Europe. That street could be anywhere. Sure we have neighborhoods where there is a higher likelihood of something like that happening, but it can happen a lot more places than it maybe can in Europe. I'm not rich, which means I'm more likely to have to be near streets where the likelihood is higher. Does that mean I should be either in my car or in my house at all times, that I'm not allowed to go for a stroll? I live in a decent neighborhood now, an apartment almost more than I can afford, and there were 2 armed robberies in my building. The streets where it has a high likelihood of happening are miles away.

And I'm pretty sure that theater had a pretty low likelihood of getting shot up.

If it never happens there is still a hefty price to pay: People will have easy access to guns.

Buying guns for self defense is like driving faster in order to spend less time on the streets thinking that it reduces the risk of crashing the car.

If it never happens there is still a hefty price to pay: People will have easy access to guns.

If those people have to be rigorously trained before they are allowed to carry, I'm fine with them having access. Just like an informed electorate is better than an uninformed one (what we have now, both in the case of the analogy and literally).

Buying guns for self defense is like driving faster in order to spend less time on the streets thinking that it reduces the risk of crashing the car.

I disagree. Your analogy might be equivalent if I walked around with a gun drawn maybe. Owning a gun for self defense is more like being able to maneuver your car through an accident at high speed occurring right in front of you (with my assumption of proper training requirements in the use of the gun before being allowed to purchase it). It may not happen very often, but it's best to be prepared.

would we still have to defend ourselves if there were considerably less guns around?

would we still have to defend ourselves if there were considerably less guns around?

Yes, people would still break into your house because they're addicted to crack.
Instead of holding a gun on you, they'll use a machete that they can buy at any department store for 7 bucks.
OR since they're criminals and don't care about the law, then then gun ban doesn't really apply to them.

Did crime all of a sudden vanish in England whenever they banned handguns? No, the incidence of crime with knives and other weapons went up.

To use CO and VT again, both of those properties prohibited people from having guns. It's the law abiding citizens that respect the law, not the crazies.

Even if they were banned, they COULD still be obtained easily enough. If I wanted I could have a stolen gun this week, cheaper then what I paid for my 1911.

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

I feel like this is a really silly argument, not only would it not be that easy to make a high quality gun, many people simply lack the motivation to do this. Making arguments that "we shouldn't ban something because the most determined people will get it anyway" is a silly argument because the population of people is far far far greater than the number of people who are hell bent determined to do something. Is some stupid crackhead going to be thinking "oh ok guns are banned but no problem I'm just going to save some money to buy these parts and this precision machinery and then get good at metalworking and then make a gun and then take that gun to hold up a convienence store" ?

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

With like a one in four chance of blowing off a finger or worse.

Just some interesting history of.....
"Gun Politics in Australia".
It seems that each shooting incident caused reactions/laws.

Port Arther massacre (Australia 1996)
35 people killed by Martin Bryant)

Monash University Shootings (Australia 2002)
2 students (Huan Yun Xiang)


Norway. Toughest Gun Laws?
2011 Norway Attacks
77 people killed by Anders Behring Breivikp

Gun Politics of Finland (history).
May 2012, and 18 yr old Gunman kills two random students and shoots 7 others.
Nov 2007, and 18 yr old gunman kills 8 people in school and then himself


.....But wait, there is more!

In Kennesaw, Georgia (USA), "...Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County...."
Kennesaw had one murder in 25 years. Family Circle Magazine selected it as one of the nation's "10 Best Towns for Families". A small sample town, but it definitely did not go Wild West. It got safer.

There are crazy people in the world....even where gun control is more-or-less a given.

More telling is Gun ownership per capita
(figures are guns/100 people)

United States 88.8
Canada 30.8
Germany 30.3
France 31.2
Australia 15
England and Wales 6.2
Scotland 5.5
Japan 0.6

As you can see, the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country. However, when comparing the numbers to the numbers of gun-related deaths, there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the two. For example, the U.S. has 2.9x as many guns per capita than Canada, but the gun-related death rate is 7.5x higher in the U.S. Likewise, when comparing U.S. to Australia, gun-related deaths are 12.3x higher in the U.S., but gun ownership is only 5.9x higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

This IS a direct correlation - the US not suprisingly has more than double gun ownership than anyone else, and 12.3x higher gun related deaths than anyone else. The rate of deaths not being proportionate to the amount of gun ownership, but infact being much higher, only indicates other factors contribute to the high amount of shootings in the US - I am not sure how more deaths from shootings than expected supports the gun lobby argument????

Could it be due to the fact that one gun, or semi automatic weapon is capable of killing more than one person. ie. when you have an assault rifle capable of emptying 50 rounds in a minute. Once gun owner is capable of murdering more than one person, or 12 as in the case of this joker carrying an A-17 assualt rifle (which jammed), and two shotguns.

I would be interested in others thoughts of what other factors lead to the unbelievable amount of shootings in the US compared to other countries, besides the high level of gun ownership. Mental illness - lack of welfare etc, media obsession with violence?? Perhaps this is something the govt can tackle at the same time.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

terrific article, thanks a lot.

Even if they were banned, they COULD still be obtained easily enough. If I wanted I could have a stolen gun this week, cheaper then what I paid for my 1911.

From where would you have hypothetically stolen a gun this week?

Guns are also very simple mechanically, you could actually make one at home without much effort, and mostly with stuff from home depot.

Guns may not be complex machines, but they do require the knowledge and tools to make them. I can repair my car and I can weld myself up a bicycle or chair, but I can't make a gun.