Gun control laws don't work in Europe or anywhere else. What does work is an arm
" Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?
Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.
You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.
Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?
Dr. Lott: If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.
Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?
Dr. Lott: I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.
People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a
The bad guys will always find a way to get a weapon, be it a gun or otherwise. So why would you disarm regular civilians.
There are a number of cases where would be mass-killers were stopped by average joes carrying concealed weapons. Sure, the police can be helpful, but their response is not immediate. It is better to have someone right then and there to can respond to the threat.
Maybe if there had been some school faculity who had access to a firearm this recent tradegy might have been averted.
A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.
more proof (www.nationalreview.com)
The data does NOT support your argument.
Here is an entirely different argument that shows that your argument does not support water. In Africa, they use machetes. Are we supposed to ban machetes also?
In China, a man used a knife.
Where there's a will, there are relatives but, there is also a way. ;)
Gun control laws don't work at best and at worst..., they make things worse.
I saw a documentary portraying people from all over the states all supposedly normal people, but in fact all murderers who anywhere else in the world would be locked up, but in America, it's said they were let go for shooting the other person in self defensive. One guy (from Alabama) shot a black man because he was intimidated by him. Another got his shotgun out and killed two people performing a robbery about 6 houses down from where he was. There was no fight, they saw him, they tried to run, and then he shot them both. Some other guy who had required his firearm responsible just a few days before shot a teenager three times "by accident". All of this is bullshit, however you still think that the NGA and other republican crap like that. World wide, knife related deaths are higher yes. However, you might be surprised to hear that America is not the only country in the world, and that in fact gun related deaths are higher than knifes. Understand this chump:
The fact gun regulations in the USA are, and have been so loose is the reason so many innocent people are being killed. You can say "Making regulations tighter won't help" well then if your own hicks have become so attached to their damned weapons, that's your fault. Like turning your baby in to a smoker at the age or 1, they won't live long, and what little life they have they will need their smoke. Regulations must be made, and if you get a couple of rednecks kicking up a fuss because they're remorsing over it, tough love.
Surely you can see that not allowing easy access to weapons will decrease their use, that's just a simple fact of life. True there will always be those people who will want to kill and will find a way to get a gun but if it was harder to obtain the weapons many would be deterred, as soon as situations escalate to the use of guns there are clearly going to be more deaths than say with a knife, as a British citizen I can say knife crime is the largest killer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/
I do NOT see that at all.
Surely you can see that if more people carried guns, they would be able to defend themselves against the crazy people and the number of deaths would decrease because the crazy shooter would get taken out quicker.
NOTE: it is the crazy people doing the shooting, they are in the minority. Making guns more readily available will help identify the crazy people and they will be dealt with by the majority in a timely manner. ;)
If it was harder to kill someone because they too would have a gun, many would be deterred.
By the way..., I can tell from your argument that you did NOT read the article. if you choose to stick to your talking points without looking at the evidence, there's no hope for you. ;)
An armed society is a polite society. In the Old West, when everyone carried a gun, everyone called each other "mam" and "sir." ;)
People need guns for self defense and to deter crazy shooters.
The evidence given, that 1 article that gives little data from 1 source (as a scientist that is not enough to make a conclusion from) is used to back up a statement made, a statement that may I say is wrong, for the simple reason that you can find good evidence that gun control laws do work. As for the part of the article about concealed guns or not I find irrelevant due to my opposition of guns anyway. To even make a comment about the Old West being better times is ridiculous considering there clearly was higher death rates and a poor quality of life not to mention a far lower level of intelligence which is an interesting point as there a psychology articles showing a correlation between decreased intelligence and the purchasing of guns ( A quick note on that point is that it excludes those sales for hunting and job purposes). My point is just that if you don't have guns on sale then there's less crazy people with guns and therefore no need to carry guns. I am a British citizen as I said so I cannot really comment on the need for a gun, I think if I lived in America where guns are available so readily i probably would buy one and say I need it for self defence but I feel sorry that you feel the need to possess a gun, to possess a tool capable of killing someone. I apologise if you feel I did not read the argument or if you feel my point was misplaced but when a point "Gun control laws don't work" is made on a website made for debating and I disagree with the point then I am going to reply, even if you seem happy to accept one piece of evidence with no regard to it's possible bias.
The only way to take our guns away is to pry our cold, dead, fingers from our guns ;)
At the very minimum, Gun Control will NOT work in the U.S.
In the aftermath of contemporary gun tragedies, we don’t see new gun legislation. What we do see is a spike in gun sales. After the shooting last summer in Aurora, Colorado, gun sales went up. After the Giffords shooting, there was a surge in purchases of the very Glock semiautomatic that wounded her. Certainly, the firearm industry and lobby will confront some bad P.R. in the coming weeks, but they can likely find succor in an uptick in business. Following the Newtown shooting, Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners for America, suggested that these massacres might be avoided in the future, if only more teachers were armed.
As David Remnick detailed on Friday, both in his Chicago years and as a candidate in 2008, Obama expressed support for greater gun control. After his election four years ago, gun sales shot up in anticipation of forceful new regulation. But the regulation never arrived. When Attorney General Eric Holder suggested in February 2009 that the Administration might seek to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, he was reportedly chastised by Rahm Emanuel, and told to drop the subject.
Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat from Arkansas, joked that the President had become “his own stimulus plan for the gun industry.”
(When the state of California outlawed civilian ownership of the Barrett .50 caliber rifle several years ago, the company’s owner, Ronnie Barrett, suspended all sales of the weapon to California law enforcement, on the grounds that the authorities should not have access to more powerful weaponry than the average citizen. “I told them, ‘I’m cutting you off,’” he said, to applause, in a recent speech.
Given you all like wasting our time and posting links, I found a few for you :
And many many more. Now I realise not all of these are correct. In fact there is a chance none of them are correct. I am simply illustrating to all you lazy douchebags out there who can't be bothered to come up with your own arguments- These sources are not always correct. Or if you think they are, maybe take a look at some of these ^^
Would you agree that problems have different solutions? What's wrong with improving our ability to identify crazy people? The problem is not the guns. The problem is the crazy people that use them. I don't want to be "punished" because of a FEW crazy people.
How about if we put a chastity belt on both males and females so they can't procreate out of wedlock and oh..., they can't masturbate either..., oh, well..., too bad..., it's for the good of society. Would you feel punished for not being able to touch yourself because of a few irresponsible people? ;)
Maybe we should ban alcohol..., again..., to fix drunk driving. And while we are at it, let's ban fast food and fix obesity. Let's make women wear burkas and fix rape. Let's ban porn and fix..., whatever ;)
The problem with the "crazy people" argument is that we can't always identify the crazy ones. While I can, to some degree, identify mental illness; there are also a range of transient mental conditions which can be implicated in these events. Furthermore, is an intellectual cop out to simply dismiss every mass shooter as "crazy". Andres Brevik was assessed by several psychiatrists and deemed to be NOT mentally ill.
Gun control does not mean that you cannot own a firearm. In Australia, you can still own a firearm; but you cannot own fully or sem-automatic assault weapons which are designed primarily for killing people. You can, however, own a hunting rifle or marksman rifle. These weapons can still be used to kill people. However, they are slower to reload and to prime, thus giving potential victims more time to escape; thereby reducing the body count. Even banning all guns outright still wont prevent these massacres from happening. We can, however, take step to reduce the burden of such shootings.
You say that you don't want to be punished because of the actions of the few. I get that. I think most gun owners are responsible people. However, the victims, the dead and their families also never wanted to be punished for the actions of the few crazy or irresponsible gun owners. Now, who is being punished more? The victims, those killed and their families? Or the shooters who are now limited in the number or type of gun they can own?
Chastity belts...this is called a "strawman" logical fallacy. :-)
When you begin to rely on logical fallacies for your arguments, you forfeit the debate.