Another obvious point is that there are 2 million concealed carry permit holders and none of them have commited an unlawful homicide
Wrong. Try Jamie Cokes, for one. He had CCW permit, and went out looking for a man who had shot him previously. He didn't find him, but did shoot and kill another man.
William Manies, serving 26 years for going back and murdering the boss who had fired him. He was also under investigation for threatening to shoot another driver in a road rage incident a few weeks before he comitted the murder.
Clay Wallace, who shot and killed his friend after an argument over a new sewage system escalated into a fist fight.
There are many more. Don't believe everything you read on gun lobby sites.
So, "sharp object" homicides are acceptable losses then?
Of course they aren't acceptable.
Because sharp instruments, unlike say guns, cannot be registered/licensed/restricted/banned/confiscated?
So, no matter how many die from "sharp instruments" society just has to accept it because SOME people find knives absolutely necessary
Some? Everybody does. Tell you what, I won't use a gun for the next year if you agree not to use a knife for the next year. Deal?
Ah. So a patina of age confers the societal "immunity necklace" upon a murder weapon then?
No, it just shows how necessary knives are. Man invented the knife long before he became modern man.
Wait..... it's not age? It's just general ownership and use that confer the "immunity necklace"? Over here, according to gun ownership stats, the overwhelming majority of us own guns. So, guns would get the "immunity necklace" here?
No, it's necessity. Knives are necessary, guns are not, for the vast majority of people.
I'd estimate about 8,000 murders a year would be prevented in the US if guns are banned. I know you won't accept that, but tell me how many murders you think is an acceptable price for your right to own a gun? If it was 8,000, would you think that fair enough? 4,000? What if it went up to 12,000, or 20,000?
What if it was only 1, but that one was your wife or child? Below the belt, I know, but it' still a valid question.
If you don't believe guns result in any extra murders, ask yourself why America has less robberies but more people killed during robberies, less violent assaults but more people killed during violent assaults, less burglaries but more people killed during burglaries etc.
Look a little closer. The two major countries E/W/S and Australia that have banned guns have seen no statistically significant drop in their gun homicide rate.
Britain didn't have a statistically significant gun homicide rate anyway. It's the same argument as banning skiing in Jamica doesn't save lives, so banning skiing in Switzerland won't save lives.
Same with banning swimming in the Sahara, or banning driving on the moon.
Who says Australia's hasn't?
Seems homicides by guns in Australia went up from 27% in 89 to 35% in 95, and down to 21% the year after (when gun control increased) to 19% now. Sounds like a drop to me.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/type.htmlIn raw numbers, killings with guns went from 87 in 1989 to 111 in 95 to 64 in 98/99. Incidentally, 64 is a lower number than for any year in the preceeding decade.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/28/ch2.pdfThey have, however, seen a rise in their "sharp instrument" homicide rates.
No, both England anWales and Australia have seen a drop in the sharp instrument category since the mid 90s, which produced highs in both countries.
At the same time, without bans/confiscation, firearms homicide rates have dropped very significantly in the US, along with our "sharp instrument" homicide rate
Along with the entire crime rate. The US has increased the number of police, brought in tougher sentencing, and increased the likelihood of criminals getting caught. That has reduced the number of people committing crimes, for obvious reasons.
Britain has gone the opposite route, reducing effective police numbers, letting more criminals walk free on technicalities, hamstringing the police with "racial awarness" etc.
In the bad old days before Sam Colt, what happened when the big, mean bully started whaling away on the little milquetoast? "Beaten to death" is a phrase that entered our language because it was a useful, meaningful description.
So, you want to go back to the old days? Where big folks can beat the doodah out of little folks? Because there sure aren't enough cops anywhere to stop it.
They can anyway. What happens if both have guns? Chances are, the criminal will have less scruple about using it, will go in to the encounter better prepared (after he knows he's going to attack you. you don't set out to attack him).
US policemen aren't protected by their guns, having a murder rate many times that of British policemen.
Sure. And if you stop and think about E/W/S, just as many guns are being pulled as were pulled before the ban.
Not in any real sense. English law defines a firearms crime as any one where the offender claims to have a firearm. Famously, one "armed robber" used a banana in his jacket pocket. Not much chance of him panicking and firing the banana, was there?
By far the most common type of "firearm" used in a robbery in the UK is a replica pistol, either blank firing or airsoft.
Further, look at Pongo's thread. Look at all that money spent to register with little or nothing successfully accomplished.
What Pongo's thread shows is that the people responsible for that policy and it's implementation are very stupid indeed. It has nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the policy.
Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail".
Firearm homicide rate is lower?
Number of firearms homicides in England and Wales in 2000 was 62, out of a population of just over 50,000,000.
In Canada the number was 171, out of a population of just over 30,000,000. That's about 4 - 5 times the UK rate.
What I said and what I still say is that it is not the inanimate objects. Man has been killing man since the dawn of time for essentially the same reasons that feature in homicide today, Greed, jealousy, etc.
Agreed. A saint with a gun is safe, a thug without a gun is not safe. But a thug with a gun is more dangerous than a thug without a gun. Surely you can agree with that?
Guns are a very efficient way of killing people, far more so than bare hands, knives, clubs etc.
Canada has far more guns than E/W/S and probably as many per capita as the US. Their firearms rate is the lowest of the three.
No, it's far higher than the UK's.
