Americans and Their Guns

[BishopIII]

Actually, minimum pricing does work. At least according to the University of Sheffield which predicts that by the end of the 10 year cycle in Scotland, admissions per year to A&E would go down by 6500.  And save nearly a £1 Billion of the tax payers money.

 That's all well and good, but a prediction is light years away from actual, demonstrable evidence that it works. What I want to see is a situation where such a thing has happened. The past decade has been one price-increase after another, and yet, we see no such decrease in drink-driving. In fact, drink-driving has remained roughly the same since the early Nineties. It fluctuates, but there has been no significant drop in cases over the last ten years, during which both governments have set prices much higher than they were in 2000. Admittedly, the statistics only cover up to 2006 for England and Wales, and 2007 for Scotland, but both sets show the same trend. Any decrease in the intervening years can be put down to the recession causing more people to simply buy from shops and drink at home, as opposed to in pubs (most cases involve drinkers returning from a night [or day] out). End of the day, it's about taking more money from us, alcohol and tobacco are just easy targets. We live in a money farm.

 http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.php

Also, only half of the people caught drunk driving are habitual drinkers.

 Point taken. However, it would be logical to assume that habitual drinkers are more likely to drink-drive than occasional drinkers, due to them being over the legal limit most of the time, they always have a high blood alcohol content, although, it may be that they are so acclimatised to the alcohol, that they are less likely to either get caught, or cause accidents. An occasional drinker wouldn't have such resistance, and thus would be more likely to be involved in an accident or conviction.

Also, the HDI for the "third world" has been increasing, as seen here with India, vs the rest of the world since 1980

I would say that India is a special case. The people of many African countries, such as Nigeria or Somalia, would disagree with your assessment, and HDI is not a measure of poverty, that's HPI (Human Poverty Index) you're thinking of, and the stats from that show that poverty has increased between the early 1980s and late 2000s.


http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2011-en/03/05/02/index.html;jsessionid=5f1ka3o4a63c2.delta?contentType=/ns/Chapter,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2011-32-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

The gap between the rich and poor not only sucks, it's obscene! The fact is, the richer some people get, the less money is circulating. The less money is circulating, the global economy suffers, and thousands, or millions of other people go without. It's selfish greed, at the end of the day.

I agree with you about owning assault rifles. They may be cool weapons, but they're better left in military hands. A simple low-voltage taser is effective enough for self and property-defence, and to see some brain-dead thug go down twitching, well, that just sounds satisfying in a way that splattering them across your hallway just wouldn't do! 

[Hudson]

I think it's funny that Illinois (my state of residence) is about to ban assault weapons, at least if the governor has his way, and there are actually people who exist that have a problem with this.

What the fuck do you need an assault weapon for? Hunting deer? Hunting birds? Shooting skeet? Home defense? No, didn't think so, that's why it's not called a hunting or defense weapon. It's fucking designed to kill people from half a mile away and to hold many rounds to do so.

I have no problem with the freedom to own a gun, shit my goal is to buy a .357 this year. People who feel it is their right to own MILITARY GRADE assault weapons are psychotic and shouldn't be allowed to own any firearm at all.

[Hieronymus]

Depends on how one's defining assault weapons.  My information is slightly out of date, but back when the old assault weapons ban was in place, I had sometimes heard that many of the criteria used to define "assault weapons" were cosmetic, not functional.

Regarding military-grade weapons, the only argument I've heard that makes sense is that the United States was founded as an act of armed rebellion against what was perceived to be tyranny.  It's sort of in the national nature to want to preserve the capacity to overthrow a tyrannical government again, if need be.  However, I think there's more fantasy than reality in that line of thought.

[Hudson]

The thing that pushes me over the edge is that a lot of those people hoarding ridiculous firearms WANT the chance to overthrow the government in armed rebellion.

[Hubbs]

Mmmmmm armed rebellion.

[SM]

The thing that pushes me over the edge is that a lot of those people hoarding ridiculous firearms WANT the chance to overthrow the government in armed rebellion.

The government should just issue a "Come at me bro!" to these people...

[Hubbs]

Another shooting in the US...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-shooting-oak-creek-wisconsin-domestic-terrorism/story?id=16933779#.UB8_9U1lSO4

Does this debate really need to go on? Americans are not mature/trustworthy enough to own guns it seems.

[Hudson]

Wow, that's probably the biggest generalization you could make at this point.

It's not just "Americans" who are running around committing these atrocities, it's mentally disturbed people, most of whom actually raise red flags before they do anything. These people exist EVERYWHERE, not just the US. Unlike most countries though, they have the ability to purchase firearms here.

Thanks though.

[Hieronymus]

Another shooting in the US...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-shooting-oak-creek-wisconsin-domestic-terrorism/story?id=16933779#.UB8_9U1lSO4

Does this debate really need to go on? Americans are not mature/trustworthy enough to own guns it seems.

Right.  Because Anders Breivik was a Yank.

[Hubbs]

All I'm saying is guns are easily acquired in the US, as is ammo, and the main excuse for Americans owning guns (all kinds) is 'self defense'.

[severen76]

Well I'd feel a lot safer walking home at night with a pistol on my person for self defence.

[deezelboy]

Less so if everybody else you see on the streets is also armed, though...

[severen76]

I don't live in a nice area, so if they aren't already armed in some way, the chances are that they wouldn't be able to get anything legally after a background check.

[deezelboy]

Yeah, but illegally acquiring a gun becomes that much easier - you just need somebody clean and willing to buy on your behalf.

Always struck me as a vicious circle - those armed with a knife would proceed onto guns if they think that the people they're after/at threat from are similarly armed. 

[severen76]

It's not like I want to go round and Charles Bronson everyone in my town. It's never going to happen in the UK, but if we had a conceal-carry law I'd certainly think about it. 

I do get your point and you're probably right. I'd hopefully never have to use it but I wouldn't dread the walk home from work as much.