[Oni]

Thought this was worth a watch.

[Rick]

Thought this was worth a watch.

The reason the US isn't comparatively big on murder rates is because the western world has lower crime rates and shit than honduras and whatever, I don't live over there but I've never seen anybody claim that the murder rate is the highest in the world or whatever, it's probably just that they'd feel a lot safer if 90% of the population didn't own firearms, I certainly would.

Sure you don't have higher homicide rates than crime ridden places like S.A or sub saharan africa, but compared to Europe, Canada and Australia. You still top the list.

As for the crap about the stricter states having the higher gun crime, you still only need to register a handgun, and how much illegal gun sales/ownership do you reckon there is in places like detroit? Yes it is absolutely the people holding the guns, but giving those people easier access to the guns isn't doing anybody any good, shit if it's the people then you need to focus on fixing that.

[Oni]

The reason the US isn't comparatively big on murder rates is because the western world has lower crime rates and shit than honduras and whatever, I don't live over there but I've never seen anybody claim that the murder rate is the highest in the world or whatever, it's probably just that they'd feel a lot safer if 90% of the population didn't own firearms, I certainly would.

Sure you don't have higher homicide rates than crime ridden places like S.A or sub saharan africa, but compared to Europe, Canada and Australia. You still top the list.

Glad you caught on to that, but  we're still #111.  I've personally noticed that the murder rate is higher in areas that are densely populated (often with lots of crime). There are plenty of areas filled with responsible gun owners, that receive much fewer than ~4 murders per 100,000 (average of the US). You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than be murdered with a gun if you're the average American. My citations aren't the best because I'm lazy, but you can double check the statistics. There's an average of 18.6 homicides, 49.3 forcible rapes, 359.9 robberies, and 460 aggravated assaults per 100,000 people in Chicago. There's  an average of 1.6 murders, 16.3 forcible rapes, 59.9 robberies, and 211.1 aggravated assaults per 100,000 people in Plano.

It's no coincidence there's more murders in Chicago, because there's more crime, and it's more densely populated. Gang violence is rampant in Chicago and is less existent in Plano. Many of the firearms used in murder, were likely used in the commission of other crimes in Chicago. The author of the video also mentions that Chicago has much stricter gun laws than Plano, which is also true. Places that have more crime are going to murder more. Criminals with access to firearms will likely murder. It's common sense. But are you really in favor of taking away 90,000 guns from law-abiding citizens (in Plano, TX), when only 1 person is murdered a year? Are you taking away their guns, because of what has happened in Chicago or elsewhere? Taking away the freedoms of all (law-abiding) citizens because of criminals, is a poor way to go. You have to make the choice between freedom and convenience.



If you've never held a firearm and aren't trained to use one, it's much easier to make the decision to take away the firearms of others. It doesn't impact you. I believe citizens should have the right to defend themselves, in the event law enforcement doesn't. Law enforcement should focus on crime-ridden areas, which raise the average of murders for the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
http://plano.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

[mothered]

I believe citizens should have the right to defend themselves, in the event law enforcement doesn't.

I definitely agree with this. In the event someone attacks you with the Intention to kill (firearm or otherwise), the police aren't going to attend there and then.

That said, there can be a fine line with what's considered "self-defense" and "manslaughter". The decision to act on self-defense needs to be warranted and absolutely correct. This Is where a lot of cases get blown way out of proportion- particularly when there's so many sides to the story (from media, lawyers, etc). It's such cases that makes gun ownership all the more difficult.

[Jiggly]

I think there may be an issue with access. However, can there not be more schemes that target areas that ARE the problem. Why is it one rule fits all? Surely there's a reason each state can have it's own laws, then there's federal. If guns and crime are an issue, address that where it is an issue. Education, background checks, records of ownership and monitoring could be increased? Surely you don't need to stop people owning them, just make sure the WRONG people aren't owning.

I will probably never carry a gun in my life, as I have not been reared to feel comfortable with them or feel safe that I would do the right thing if I was attacked. I also have only shot 1 or 2 guns at a still target with the assistance of the people around me. However, while it's not for me, I get why people want it. I get how it works as a deterrent as well.

[Eclipse]

>meanwhile banning kinder surprise

[Jiggly]

>meanwhile banning kinder surprise

I died. Reminds me of when schools banned bouncy balls and crisps. I don't even. Priorities.

[Eclipse]

I definitely agree with this. In the event someone attacks you with the Intention to kill (firearm or otherwise), the police aren't going to attend there and then.

That said, there can be a fine line with what's considered "self-defense" and "manslaughter". The decision to act on self-defense needs to be warranted and absolutely correct. This Is where a lot of cases get blown way out of proportion- particularly when there's so many sides to the story (from media, lawyers, etc). It's such cases that makes gun ownership all the more difficult.

"Oh shit, I'm being attacked. But I'm a responsible gun-owner, so it's in my safe. Let me just ask this nice fella if I can walk over to my safe and fetch it before he kills me."

You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice than be murdered with a gun if you're the average American.

False.

[Dyme]

DAMN YOU LEFT WING WEENIES!!!!!

[Despised]

I think there may be an issue with access. However, can there not be more schemes that target areas that ARE the problem. Why is it one rule fits all? Surely there's a reason each state can have it's own laws, then there's federal. If guns and crime are an issue, address that where it is an issue. Education, background checks, records of ownership and monitoring could be increased? Surely you don't need to stop people owning them, just make sure the WRONG people aren't owning.

This pretty much. I think they should be more strict with who may actually possess guns but again there will always be the blackmarket.