Racist Roots of Gun Control

[Rottenfruit]

A intresting articale i found and i would like your view on it



The Racist Roots of Gun Control

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]

In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. [4]

It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person. [5]

Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [6] Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. [7] But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. [8] The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.

One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence," [9] to: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." [10] [emphasis added] It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race. [11]

Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. [12] The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:

That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor. [13]
Elijah Newsom, "a free person of color," was indicted in Cumberland County in June of 1843 for carrying a shotgun without a license -- at the very time the North Carolina Supreme Court was deciding Huntly. Newsom was convicted by a jury; but the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict, and the state appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Newsom's attorney argued that the statute requiring free blacks to obtain a license to "keep and bear arms" was in violation of both the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution's similar guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. [14] The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to accept that the Second Amendment was a limitation on state laws, but had to deal with the problem of the state constitutional guarantees, which had been used in the Huntly decision, the year before.

The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:

That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [15]
The Court asserted that: "We cannot see that the act of 1840 is in conflict with it... The defendant is not indicted for carrying arms in defence of the State, nor does the act of 1840 prohibit him from so doing." [16] But in Huntly, the Court had acknowledged that the restrictive language "for the defence of the State" did not preclude an individual right. [17] The Court then attempted to justify the necessity of this law:

Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character. Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals. [18]
The North Carolina Supreme Court also sought to repudiate the idea that free blacks were protected by the North Carolina Constitution's Bill of Rights by pointing out that the Constitution excluded free blacks from voting, and therefore free blacks were not citizens. Unlike a number of other state constitutions with right to keep and bear arms provisions that limited this right only to citizens, [19] Article 17 guaranteed this right to the people -- and try as hard as they might, it was difficult to argue that a "free person of color," in the words of the Court, was not one of "the people."

It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! [20]
Finally, after this paean to liberty -- in a state where much of the population remained enslaved, forbidden by law to possess arms of any sort -- the Court defined the valid limits of laws restricting the bearing of arms:

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self- defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void... [21]
"Citizen"? Within a single page, the Court had gone from "right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys" to the much more narrowly restrictive right of a "citizen." The motivation for this sudden narrowing of the right appeared two years later.

The decision Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah (1848) was not, principally, a right to keep and bear arms case. In 1839, the city of Savannah, Georgia, in an admitted effort "to prevent the increase of free persons of color in our city," had established a $100 per year tax on free blacks moving into Savannah from other parts of Georgia. Samuel Cooper and Hamilton Worsham, two "free persons of color," were convicted of failing to pay the tax, and were jailed. [22] On appeal, counsel for Cooper and Worsham argued that the ordinance establishing the tax was deficient in a number of technical areas; the assertion of most interest to us is, "In Georgia, free persons of color have constitutional rights..." Cooper and Worsham's counsel argued that these rights included writ of habeas corpus, right to own real estate, to be "subject to taxation," "[t]hey may sue and be sued," and cited a number of precedents under Georgia law in defense of their position. [23]

Justice Warner delivered the Court's opinion, most of which is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, but one portion shows the fundamental relationship between citizenship, arms, and elections, and why gun control laws were an essential part of defining blacks as "non-citizens": "Free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office." [24] The Georgia Supreme Court did agree that the ordinance jailing Cooper and Worsham for non-payment was illegal, and ordered their release, but the comments of the Court made it clear that their brave words in Nunn v. State (1846) about "the right of the people," really only meant white people.

While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, on the frontier, the concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive." Unlike whites, however, a license was required for free blacks or slaves to carry weapons. [25]

The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the problem of Indian attack, and the normal criminal attacks that anyone might worry about, but he additional hazard that free blacks were in danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery. [26] A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement. [27]

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [28] It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [29]

The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives. [30] Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid. [31]

What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from that same decision -- so offensive that no one would dare make such an argument today -- sheds some light on the racism that apparently caused the sudden perspective change:

The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self- defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit... We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law. [32] [emphasis added]
This particular decision is more open than most as to its motivations, but throughout the South during this period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions were being narrowed, or simply ignored. Nor was the reasoning that led to these changes lost on judges in the North. In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun--while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker's scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions. [33]
While not relevant to the issue of racism, Justice Wanamaker's closing paragraphs capture well the biting wit and intelligence of this jurist, who was unfortunately, outnumbered on the bench:

I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding rather than the law-violating people. If this decision shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals, because they are daily committing criminal acts by having these weapons in their own homes for their own defense. The only safe course for them to pursue, instead of having the weapon concealed on or about their person, or under their pillow at night, is to hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large placard with these words inscribed:
"The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on one's person in one's home, even in one's bed or bunk, this weapon is hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar, hand me my gun." [34]

There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. [35]
Today is not 1893, and when proponents of restrictive gun control insist that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting questions that should be asked today. The most obvious question is, "Why should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a concealed handgun permit?" Here in California, even the state legislature's research arm--hardly a nest of pro-gunners--has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males. [36] Even if overt racism is not an issue, an official may simply have more empathy with an applicant of a similar cultural background, and consequently be more able to relate to the applicant's concerns. As my wife pointedly reminded a police official when we applied for concealed weapon permits, "If more police chiefs were women, a lot more women would get permits, and be able to defend themselves from rapists."

Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that "they" were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

In the seventeenth century, the aristocratic power structure of colonial Virginia found itself confronting a similar challenge from lower class whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack made this impractical; for all white men "were armed and had to be armed..." Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the upper class having to give up its privileges. [37]

Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it.

Another point to consider is that in the American legal system, certain classifications of governmental discrimination are considered constitutionally suspect, and these "suspect classifications" (usually considered to be race and religion) come to a court hearing under a strong presumption of invalidity. The reason for these "suspect classifications" is because of the long history of governmental discrimination based on these classifications, and because these classifications often impinge on fundamental rights. [38]

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.

[Terminator X]

Who wrote this?

[Blake's Baby]

Wow, the fact that some laws were drafted in 1865 that were racist, must mean everyone who oposes the murder of black people in the US now must be a racist! Thanks for opening my eyes there rottenfruit, what would we do without you to tell us that the widespread murder of black people is the only anti-racist way forward!

[Rottenfruit]

Who wrote this?

1993 Clayton E. Cramer

[Rottenfruit]

Wow, the fact that some laws were drafted in 1865 that were racist, must mean everyone who oposes the murder of black people in the US now must be a racist! Thanks for opening my eyes there rottenfruit, what would we do without you to tell us that the widespread murder of black people is the only anti-racist way forward!

Its not guns that is killing black youth it's povetry, discrimination, institutional racisim and classim, guns are simply a tool a means to an end, if it was not guns it would be knives or other objects.

All gun control can do is disarm law abiding citizens and change the method of how people are murdered, you want to get stabbed to death instead of being shot?

You think gun control will stop gang members from shooting each other ? Like how banning drugs has stopped people to use drugs?

[Blake's Baby]

In case you hadn't noticed, getting high is different to killing someone.

[Rottenfruit]

In case you hadn't noticed, getting high is different to killing someone.

Murder ratio per captia is linked to povetry not the amount of gun ownership, if your logic was right, Usa should have a higher murder rate then Honduars but Houndurs has a murder ratio per captia 18 times higher then Usa

And Hondoarus has a extremly low amount of guns owned by priviate civlians per captia

Honduras has 6.2 while Usa has 88
Tell me how comes its 18 times more likly to get killed in a nation that has 14 times less amount of per captia then Usa, Shouldnt Honduras have a extremly low murder rate compared to usa according to your logic?

[Blake's Baby]

Murder ratio per captia is linked to povetry not the amount of gun ownership, if your logic was right, Usa should have a higher murder rate then Honduars but Houndurs has a murder ratio per captia 18 times higher then Usa

And Hondoarus has a extremly low amount of guns owned by priviate civlians per captia

Honduras has 6.2 while Usa has 88
Tell me how comes its 18 times more likly to get killed in a nation that has 14 times less amount of per captia then Usa, Shouldnt Honduras have a extremly low murder rate compared to usa according to your logic?

Well, my logic is that gun homicide is linked to availibility of guns not the number of guns in private hands. If, for example, there's a lot of 'decommissioned' military stuff floating around illegally, or they're being imported by drug gangs or mafiosi, they still count towards 'availibilty' but not I suspect to the figures for private gun ownership.

But yes, my central thesis would fall if you or Prinskaj could demonstrate that places like Jamaica (that he mentioned before) and Honduras actually had low availability of guns as well as low official ownership of guns, but still had high murder rates.

It would suggest that in those cases there were very small numbers of people committing very large numbers of killings with their (small number of) guns, which is not what is happening in the US; there very large numbers of people are committing small (individually, but large collectively) numbers of killings with lots of guns.

Murder per capita is not linked to poverty, unless you think America is as poor as Peru and Thailand, and much, much poorer than almost any European country.

[Rottenfruit]

Well, my logic is that gun homicide is linked to availibility of guns not the number of guns in private hands. If, for example, there's a lot of 'decommissioned' military stuff floating around illegally, or they're being imported by drug gangs or mafiosi, they still count towards 'availibilty' but not I suspect to the figures for private gun ownership.

But yes, my central thesis would fall if you or Prinskaj could demonstrate that places like Jamaica (that he mentioned before) and Honduras actually had low availability of guns as well as low official ownership of guns, but still had high murder rates.

It would suggest that in those cases there were very small numbers of people committing very large numbers of killings with their (small number of) guns, which is not what is happening in the US; there very large numbers of people are committing small (individually, but large collectively) numbers of killings with lots of guns.

Murder per capita is not linked to poverty, unless you think America is as poor as Peru and Thailand, and much, much poorer than almost any European country.

Sure here are the sources
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/honduras
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

[Blake's Baby]

And what are these frontpages (not in themselves sources) supposed to be proving, Rottenfruit?

Give me a breakdown as to how the documents that are linked to from these pages are suppposed to confirm your thesis, please.

[Rottenfruit]

And what are these frontpages (not in themselves sources) supposed to be proving, Rottenfruit?

Give me a breakdown as to how the documents that are linked to from these pages are suppposed to confirm your thesis, please.

Here
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Gun ownership In jamaica is 8.1 , Usa 88 only 11 times more

[Blake's Baby]

Well, my logic is that gun homicide is linked to availibility of guns not the number of guns in private hands. If, for example, there's a lot of 'decommissioned' military stuff floating around illegally, or they're being imported by drug gangs or mafiosi, they still count towards 'availibilty' but not I suspect to the figures for private gun ownership.

But yes, my central thesis would fall if you or Prinskaj could demonstrate that places like Jamaica (that he mentioned before) and Honduras actually had low availability of guns as well as low official ownership of guns, but still had high murder rates...

Still not seeing it, sorry. Civilian gun ownership =/= availability of firearms.

[Rottenfruit]

Still not seeing it, sorry. Civilian gun ownership =/= availability of firearms.

So now its not the amount of guns people own that cause people to kill but how easy it was to buy the gun they own? :confused:

No matter how much i disprove your statements with real studies,sources and arguments, you keep going in circles and you keep ignoring everything i post.

Debeating with you is like debating with a creationists about evulution

I have backed up my statements with sources, now its your turn to disprove me. I do not need to prove,argue or show any more sources for you because i already have done enough of that. You have to disprove what i've claimed here for your argument to hold any validity,

[StalinFanboy]

Murder per capita is not linked to poverty, unless you think America is as poor as Peru and Thailand, and much, much poorer than almost any European country.

"It's no surprise that top earners in America make a heck of a lot more than middle- and lower-income Joes. But the disparity is greater here than in most developed nations.
The U.S. has a higher level of income inequality than Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and South Korea, according to data gathered by the World Bank."


http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/economy/global_income_inequality/index.htm


"The latest edition of UNICEF's report on child poverty in developed countries (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf) found that 30 million children in 35 of the world's richest countries live in poverty. Among those countries, the United States ranks second on the scale of what economists call "relative child poverty" -- above Latvia, Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, and 29 others. Only Romania ranks higher, with 25.5 percent of its children living in poverty, compared with 23.1 percent in the U.S."


"Danziger said he was especially impressed by a figure showing Canada and the U.S. have the same relative child poverty rate -- 25.1 The chart also showed that after government taxes, benefits and other social programs, Canada's child poverty rate drops to 13.1, while America's barely budges, hovering above 23.1 percent."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/us-child-poverty-report-unicef_n_1555533.html

[Blake's Baby]

So now its not the amount of guns people own that cause people to kill but how easy it was to buy the gun they own? :confused:

No matter how much i disprove your statements with real studies,sources and arguments, you keep going in circles and you keep ignoring everything i post.

Debeating with you is like debating with a creationists about evulution

I have backed up my statements with sources, now its your turn to disprove me. I do not need to prove,argue or show any more sources for you because i already have done enough of that. You have to disprove what i've claimed here for your argument to hold any validity,

No, really I don't.


So why are Americans 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than Brits, for example? Is that nothing to do with the availability of guns?


... I didn't mention gun ownership at all...


I'm asking if the 40 times greater number of people shot in the US than in England and Wales ... has anything to do with the availability of guns.
...

So what is the relationship between the availability of guns, and the masive numbers of people killed by them?...

So, I contend, the fact that Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot than English or Welsh people must have something to do with the availability of guns.


The facts are that in the USA, you're 40 times more likely to be shot than in England and Wales. Are you seriously claiming that statistic is totally unrelated to availability of guns?

...
... No guns = no people killed by guns. Lots of guns = lots of people killed by guns. Therefore, the number of people killed by guns is related to the availability of guns. ...


... you're still 4 times more likely to by murdered in the USA. 2/3 of American murders happen with guns. About 9% of British murders.

That 'might' suggest that around 9,500 of the 15,000 people murdered in the US might be alive today with different access to guns. Who knows, if you didn't have easy access to guns, maybe you could have the murder rate of first-world country?


...

Non-gun homicides are broadly comparable in the US and UK, where access to crossbows, hammers, kitchen knives and various kinds of sporting bats are broadly comparable; gun homicides are not broadly comparable. But that, apparently, has nothing to do with different levels of access to guns.


...

My point is that access to guns is a necesary precondition of a high gun-murder rate. Not that it's an automatic guarantee, but a necessary precondition. Prove me wrong - with 'math' if you like - by showing me one country with a high gun-murder rate, that has a low access to guns. That's all you have to do.

What, if not 'access to guns', accounts for the difference of around 40 times, in the gun murder rates between the US and the UK, when, as has been shown, other murder rates between the two countries are similar? I'm betting it's just as easy to get a kitchen knife in America as in the UK, it's just as easy to get a cricket bat in the UK as a baseball bat in the US... and these and other weapons that are equally accessable produce similar (not identical, but similar) murder rates. Guns however have very different access in the two countries and there are 40 times more gun murders in the US than in the UK (actually, 240 times as many, but adjusted for population, that's 40 times as meany per head). So, how is it possible to explain that, without reference to the availability of guns?


...


So I ask for a - wait for it - high gun-murder, low gun-access country, which would invalidate my point and back up yours; and you give me... a low gun-murder, high gun-access country, that doesn't invalidate anything! Priceless!
...


...
high levels of murders with guns, require (but are not necessarily caused by, just in case anyone fancies jumping on that straw horse again) high levels of access to guns, is a start....

So what is so different about America?

Well, there is the widespread availibility of guns. That might be a factor in the massive number of gun-deaths...


You say that I 'cannot claim' that gun-murder rates would drop while non-gun-murder rates would remain the same, were it not for easy access to firearms ...

It may be that the high levels of gun-murder in the US would not be so high if not for easy access to guns...

Right I'm bored of this now. It's obvious that you don't even know what you're arguing against.

'Murr! Bad man wants to take our guns! Murr! Must be a liberal!'

You keep telling yourself that, and ththen tell yourself that Americans are uniquely murderous among the inhabitants of first world countries, and there just ain't nothing no-one can do about it.

[Rottenfruit]

No, really I don't.





















Right I'm bored of this now. It's obvious that you don't even know what you're arguing against.

'Murr! Bad man wants to take our guns! Murr! Must be a liberal!'

You keep telling yourself that, and ththen tell yourself that Americans are uniquely murderous among the inhabitants of first world countries, and there just ain't nothing no-one can do about it.

Usa has alot higher povetry then the nations in the westren europe, like i pointed Moldiva,Lithuania,Russia,Estonia have a higher murder ratio per captia.
Nothing unique about it ,

Read what bloom posted


"It's no surprise that top earners in America make a heck of a lot more than middle- and lower-income Joes. But the disparity is greater here than in most developed nations.
The U.S. has a higher level of income inequality than Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and South Korea, according to data gathered by the World Bank."


http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/economy/global_income_inequality/index.htm


"The latest edition of UNICEF's report on child poverty in developed countries (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf) found that 30 million children in 35 of the world's richest countries live in poverty. Among those countries, the United States ranks second on the scale of what economists call "relative child poverty" -- above Latvia, Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, and 29 others. Only Romania ranks higher, with 25.5 percent of its children living in poverty, compared with 23.1 percent in the U.S."

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, read the CNN article, skimmed the Child Poverty report... China has more unequal incomes than the USA, but has a much lower murder rate (so that can't be it), the UK has half the child poverty of the US but only a quarter of the murder rate (so that can't be it)...

My statistics will have to wait for another time, it's 4am now.

[StalinFanboy]

Right I'm bored of this now. It's obvious that you don't even know what you're arguing against.

'Murr! Bad man wants to take our guns! Murr! Must be a liberal!'

You keep telling yourself that, and ththen tell yourself that Americans are uniquely murderous among the inhabitants of first world countries, and there just ain't nothing no-one can do about it.

Why the fuck are you continuing to go on about the number of guns in america, even when you yourself say that it is not necessarily the causality of gun related deaths? If you've been called a liberal because of this topic, its because you're fucking saying liberal nonsense that seriously surprises me coming from a communist. If we know that the number of guns doesn't necessarily cause high gun related deaths, remember you are saying this too - and Rottenfruit gave an example of it - then why are you trying to use that as a defense of increased gun control/decreased access to guns?
This is a liberal argument through and through because it doesn't take into account both the material and cultural conditions that are likely to be a stronger impetus for gun related violence than simply having a gun.

But really this isn't even the actual issue at hand. The removal of guns from people's ownership necessitates an increase of state power and an increased reliance of people, especially working people, on the state, neither of which are remotely helpful in building a revolutionary movement.

[Blake's Baby]

Why the fuck are you continuing to go on about the number of guns in america, even when you yourself say that it is not necessarily the causality of gun related deaths?

I say it's a necessary precondition, which you don't accept, but you really need to.


... If you've been called a liberal because of this topic, its because you're fucking saying liberal nonsense that seriously surprises me coming from a communist...

So if I said you were an NRA supporter and therfore a racist and closet fascist, that would be OK too, would it?


... If we know that the number of guns doesn't necessarily cause high gun related deaths, remember you are saying this too - and Rottenfruit gave an example of it - then why are you trying to use that as a defense of increased gun control/decreased access to guns? ...

If you're trying to use the example of Switzerland, it does have a high number of gun deaths, it just doesn't have a high number of gun murders. I would have thought that Canada is a much better example for you to cite, because it has quite a low number of gun deaths, but high gun ownership.

Of course, most guns in Canada are hunting rifles, not handguns or assault rifles, so maybe that doesn't really back up your case.

High numbers of gun murders depend on large number of guns. Just as high numbers of people jumping off tall buildings depend on the existence of tall buildings. People can't jump off tall buildings if there are no tall buildings. Building tall buildings doesn't mean people will jump off them, but if you find somewhere where people do, then you're gonna find that that's where the tall buildings are...



...
This is a liberal argument through and through because it doesn't take into account both the material and cultural conditions that are likely to be a stronger impetus for gun related violence than simply having a gun...

Material cpnditions that I've demonstrated occur in other countries, but without the high US murder rates. It's not material conditions. What the fuck are 'cultural conditions'? Do you mean, like every prick and his dog thinking that it's badass to own a gun? If the answer is 'yes' then - finally - thank you, that's what I'm saying.


...But really this isn't even the actual issue at hand. The removal of guns from people's ownership necessitates an increase of state power and an increased reliance of people, especially working people, on the state, neither of which are remotely helpful in building a revolutionary movement.

So like Prinskaj, your only answers are 'let the state take the guns' or 'give everyone a gun'. Marvellous.

[Invader Zim]

Its not guns that is killing black youth it's povetry, discrimination, institutional racisim and classim, guns are simply a tool a means to an end, if it was not guns it would be knives or other objects.

Except, of course, poverty, discrimination, institutional racism and classism are prevalent in Britain - which nobody denies, and explains the considerable degree of violent crime in British inner cities (which actually exceeds that of US inner cities, because the structural problems in Britain that result in violent crimes are in some respects actually more acute). However, murder is extremely low precisely because 'knives or [sic] other objects' are far less efficient tools, and require greater proximity both physically and emotionally. It is one thing to unload shots from the window of a vehicle at a passing victim and quite another to stalk them, approach them and stab them to death. The former is easier, physically safer, involves less risk of capture, much easier and far less messy. The fact that fire arms are not available is the only plausible factor to explain why, despite huge violent crime levels, the murder rate is so low. In fact, tens of thousands of people are stabbed in Britain each year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html), but because knives are actually such an inefficient weapon the vast majority of the victims survive and the murder rate remains below 1,000 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/violent-and-sexual-crime/) (the anomalous homicide spike in the early 2000s is directly attributable to the 30 years period in which Harold Shipman murdered at least 172 of his patients, but because these were discovered and recorded in 2002/3).

Your argument is idiotic as anyone who examines it with even the most perfunctory analysis can observe. It is selective in its application of facts and fails to pass muster when examined comparatively.

[halliadam]

wow.....!
i really like this Article. What a massive thinking.




thanks for sharing.

[Lucretia]

THis entire discussion talks about different variables "causing" some phenomenon, yet consists almost entirely of correlation statistics. I suppose now might be a good time to bring up the correlation between the decline in sea piracy, and the rise in global temperatures.

[Blake's Baby]

There is a connection between the two, however, though it's a case of 'dancing shadows'.

The decline in piracy and the rise in global temperateures, which are both phenomena that are manifest over the last 300 years or so, are both (in part) a consequence of technological developments.

Steam power and electric power, both of which developed in great measure from exploitation of coal, and the exploitation of petroleum which developed particularly through the C20th, have been contributary factors in global warming; on the other side of the coin, steamships, ironclad naval vessels, instantaneous communications, and radar, which are technical achievements of the industrial revolution going on into the C20th, have contributed to the decline in piracy.

So, contrary to the claims of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, pirates do not 'prevent' global warming (one could as easily claim global warming prevents piracy); rather, the decline of one phenomenon and the rise of another, are both related to a third phenomenon.

[Invader Zim]

THis entire discussion talks about different variables "causing" some phenomenon, yet consists almost entirely of correlation statistics. I suppose now might be a good time to bring up the correlation between the decline in sea piracy, and the rise in global temperatures.

Not at all. My argument is that murder, and all violent crime, largely has a structural basis in socio-economic trends. However, I also argue that prohibition of firearms removes the most deadly commonly available tool to facilitate murder - and that in doing so victims of extreme and potentially deadly violence are far more likely to survive. As noted, there are 60,000 stabbings in the UK annually and less than 1,000 murders. Had that been 60,000 victims of shootings I think it entirely reasonable to suggest that the murder rate would increase in proportion to the increased efficiency of the tool used. If you prevent would-be murderers from using efficient tools for murder then obviously murder rates will decrease. And that fact is reflected by the statistics, not the other way round.

[agnixie]

Not at all. My argument is that murder, and all violent crime, largely has a structural basis in socio-economic trends. However, I also argue that prohibition of firearms removes the most deadly commonly available tool to facilitate murder - and that in doing so victims of extreme and potentially deadly violence are far more likely to survive. As noted, there are 60,000 stabbings in the UK annually and less than 1,000 murders. Had that been 60,000 victims of shootings I think it entirely reasonable to suggest that the murder rate would increase in proportion to the increased efficiency of the tool used. If you prevent would-be murderers from using efficient tools for murder then obviously murder rates will decrease. And that fact is reflected by the statistics, not the other way round.

Except you have to distinguish by local stats to get a good view of either Europe or the US as no US state and no european state has the same gun control laws. Some of the most violent (firearm violence) not only have strict control, but no reciprocity agreements, similrly some of the least violent have next to none. The reverse is also equally common. The gun ownership rate in continental european countries is, almost everywhere, an order of magnitude higher than in the UK, yet there is not an order of magnitude more gun violence in continental europe.

And lastly, gun control in the UK started out as a way for the tories to disarm the workers in the face of large scale agitation on the continent.

[Tim Cornelis]

Gun control works well in Bogota, apparently. But perhaps it's too easy to say that the ban caused the drop in gun-related crime.


Colombia's capital reported a decrease in several crimes including homicide, which is down 20% compared to the same period last year.

Official city figures released Thursday recorded 98 murders in Bogota in the month of June, compared to 122 in 2011. The homicide rate sits at its lowest in 30 years, with 16.6 murders per 100,000 people.

...

Bogota instituted a gun ban in February that was initially meant to last three months, but was extended to six after police reported a significant drop in gun-related crime.

Mayor Gustavo Petro announced Thursday that a new initiative aimed at involving citizens in the fight against crime would be introduced in Bogota's 15th district, Antonio Nariño. 80 residents will be given a "panic button" to use when a suspected crime is witnessed. An alarm will chime and the citizen can then speak to a nearby officer on their cell phone, in hopes of cutting down police response time.

"We did the pilot and it worked very well in the neighborhoods of San Antonio and Restrepo. The best weapon against crime is a community working together," said General Luis Eduardo Martinez, commander of Bogota's police force.

The goal is that by the end of the year 10,000 businesses and 500 additional residents will own the device, according to Antonio Nariño's municipal leader, Giovanni Monroy.

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/21346-colombian-govt-to-propose-gun-control-bill.html

Also, Brazil: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/2/575.full

In contrast, other evidence from other countries may suggest different conclusions. The use of gun control depends on the country therefore.

[Rottenfruit]

Except, of course, poverty, discrimination, institutional racism and classism are prevalent in Britain - which nobody denies, and explains the considerable degree of violent crime in British inner cities (which actually exceeds that of US inner cities, because the structural problems in Britain that result in violent crimes are in some respects actually more acute). However, murder is extremely low precisely because 'knives or [sic] other objects' are far less efficient tools, and require greater proximity both physically and emotionally. It is one thing to unload shots from the window of a vehicle at a passing victim and quite another to stalk them, approach them and stab them to death. The former is easier, physically safer, involves less risk of capture, much easier and far less messy. The fact that fire arms are not available is the only plausible factor to explain why, despite huge violent crime levels, the murder rate is so low. In fact, tens of thousands of people are stabbed in Britain each year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html), but because knives are actually such an inefficient weapon the vast majority of the victims survive and the murder rate remains below 1,000 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/violent-and-sexual-crime/) (the anomalous homicide spike in the early 2000s is directly attributable to the 30 years period in which Harold Shipman murdered at least 172 of his patients, but because these were discovered and recorded in 2002/3).

Your argument is idiotic as anyone who examines it with even the most perfunctory analysis can observe. It is selective in its application of facts and fails to pass muster when examined comparatively.
Also guns can pretty ineffective to kill as well if you wana go into that argument, people have survived 45 magnum in the head
I would say that you have a bigger chance of surviving a 22 caliber then getting stabbed

[Rottenfruit]

Gun control works well in Bogota, apparently. But perhaps it's too easy to say that the ban caused the drop in gun-related crime.



http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/21346-colombian-govt-to-propose-gun-control-bill.html

Also, Brazil: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/2/575.full

In contrast, other evidence from other countries may suggest different conclusions. The use of gun control depends on the country therefore.

Crime rate has been dropping worldwide

[Rottenfruit]

Except you have to distinguish by local stats to get a good view of either Europe or the US as no US state and no european state has the same gun control laws. Some of the most violent (firearm violence) not only have strict control, but no reciprocity agreements, similrly some of the least violent have next to none. The reverse is also equally common. The gun ownership rate in continental european countries is, almost everywhere, an order of magnitude higher than in the UK, yet there is not an order of magnitude more gun violence in continental europe.

And lastly, gun control in the UK started out as a way for the tories to disarm the workers in the face of large scale agitation on the continent.
Yes but murder rate per captia is higher in some europian nations
Moldivia,Lithuina and Russia
You are arguing for how people are getting killed, not if guns increase murder rate or decrease which i see nobody disfutiing my claims with real sources

[Rottenfruit]

Not at all. My argument is that murder, and all violent crime, largely has a structural basis in socio-economic trends. However, I also argue that prohibition of firearms removes the most deadly commonly available tool to facilitate murder - and that in doing so victims of extreme and potentially deadly violence are far more likely to survive. As noted, there are 60,000 stabbings in the UK annually and less than 1,000 murders. Had that been 60,000 victims of shootings I think it entirely reasonable to suggest that the murder rate would increase in proportion to the increased efficiency of the tool used. If you prevent would-be murderers from using efficient tools for murder then obviously murder rates will decrease. And that fact is reflected by the statistics, not the other way round.
So banning people from owning guns is okay dokay but it's okay for the goverment to own and use the guns the public is banned to own?

WHy the hell does not gun control apply to the army then?

[Philosopher Jay]

This is from Wikipedia on Cramer:

"Cramer writes a regular column on gun owners' rights and related issues for Shotgun News.
In 2008, Cramer ran for Idaho State Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Senate) from District 22 as a Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28U.S.%29), but was defeated in the primary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election). [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Cramer#cite_note-3)
Besides his research and publications on gun owners' rights and American history, Cramer also has a strong personal interest in the treatment of the mentally ill. He is critical of the recent policy of making involuntary commitment of seriously mentally ill persons extremely difficult [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Cramer#cite_note-4), and has researched and compiled a book explaining the origins of this policy and its present day effects. However this book has not yet found an organization interested in publishing it.
Cramer is also an avid amateur astronomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy). He has developed a system of lockable wheels for heavy telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope) mountings, which he dubbed "ScopeRoller". He manufactures ScopeRoller in his home machine shop for sale to other amateur astronomers."

[agnixie]

Yes but murder rate per captia is higher in some europian nations
Moldivia,Lithuina and Russia
You are arguing for how people are getting killed, not if guns increase murder rate or decrease which i see nobody disfutiing my claims with real sources

Still nothing that correlates with gun ownership.

[Rottenfruit]

Still nothing that correlates with gun ownership.
Which means like ive claime before the amount of guns and accest to guns for all public does not increase murder, yes it does change the method of killings,less guns equals more murders by knives or other objects,

But guns are the tool we need for a revolution anybody whos anti gun is a useless reactionary

[Blake's Baby]

Anyone who's in favour of everyone having guns is in favour of the mass murder of workers.

You're a reactionary piece of shit and a tool of American nationalism and the military-industrial complex.

[Invader Zim]

So banning people from owning guns is okay dokay but it's okay for the goverment to own and use the guns the public is banned to own?

WHy the hell does not gun control apply to the army then?

Strawman, you are conflating two very different issues. And if I were in charge I wouldn't merely disarm the military, I would disband it entirely. And I also entirely agree with the principal of an unarmed police force.


Also guns can pretty ineffective to kill as well if you wana go into that argument

Not in relative terms. The fact is that if knives were more efficient weapons for murder then they would dominate murder statistics. As it happens only 13% of all murders in the US (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls) are committed with a knife or other sharp object while 67.5% are committed with firearms.


I would say that you have a bigger chance of surviving a 22 caliber then getting stabbed

You say wrongly then. In fact, a .22 can be, statistically speaking, just as deadly in a fire fight as any other handgun:

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fatalities-900x654.jpg

Which I presume is down to the fact that while you lose power you trade it for both accuracy and limited recoil.



Which means like ive claime before the amount of guns and accest to guns for all public does not increase murder, yes it does change the method of killings,less guns equals more murders by knives or other objects,

Then how do you account for the discrepancy in murder statistics between the US and the UK. As noted your argument that it is other factors is plainly wrong given the very high incidence of UK violent knife crime, and violent crime in general, while retaining a very low murder rate. The fact is that if 40,000 of these knife attacks had involved a firearm, and even 10% of those were fatal, the UK murder rate would increase by over 400-500%, and we would have a similar murder rate, per capita, to the US.

[agnixie]

Anyone who's in favour of everyone having guns is in favour of the mass murder of workers.

You're a reactionary piece of shit and a tool of American nationalism and the military-industrial complex.

You're a cowardly liberal. You're also objectively pro fascist. It's also not only americns arguing that the people should be armed.

Most people form the working class, which means that everyone being armed would mean the working class is more armed.


Then how do you account for the discrepancy in murder statistics between the US and the UK.

How do you account for the lack of discrepancy between the UK and the rest of Europe?

[Rottenfruit]

Anyone who's in favour of everyone having guns is in favour of the mass murder of workers.

You're a reactionary piece of shit and a tool of American nationalism and the military-industrial complex.
Im not even american, the guns that are sold to people are peanuts for the weapons manufcators a tiny prectange of the profit they make
, how much do you think they make on priviate owned guns vs armying whole militarys plus bombs and such.

[Rottenfruit]

Strawman, you are conflating two very different issues. And if I were in charge I wouldn't merely disarm the military, I would disband it entirely. And I also entirely agree with the principal of an unarmed police force.



Not in relative terms. The fact is that if knives were more efficient weapons for murder then they would dominate murder statistics. As it happens only 13% of all murders in the US (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls) are committed with a knife or other sharp object while 67.5% are committed with firearms.



You say wrongly then. In fact, a .22 can be, statistically speaking, just as deadly in a fire fight as any other handgun:

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fatalities-900x654.jpg

Which I presume is down to the fact that while you lose power you trade it for both accuracy and limited recoil.




Then how do you account for the discrepancy in murder statistics between the US and the UK. As noted your argument that it is other factors is plainly wrong given the very high incidence of UK violent knife crime, and violent crime in general, while retaining a very low murder rate. The fact is that if 40,000 of these knife attacks had involved a firearm, and even 10% of those were fatal, the UK murder rate would increase by over 400-500%, and we would have a similar murder rate, per capita, to the US.
No offensive but have you shot a gun? 22 caliber does little damage compared to a 12 gauge slug or a buckshot, a 22 caliber in the leg would cause a injury, a 12 gauge slug would blow your feet off.
Only reason why 45 is not high is because they are expensive bullets, the mostpoweful handgun is nitro 775 but the caliber is insanly expensive, this also applys to 50 bmg , you pretty much cant shoot more a deadly bullet legaly then that in Usa.

Also i notice the list does not sepearte the types of shotgun bullets, a slug shell which is just one bullet is the most leathal and blows a human being apart shortrange, birdshoots are very unlikly to kill a human no matter the range

Yeah the list is missing 50 caliber handgun bullets, the seperate types of shotgun shells,50bmg is missing,nitro .600 Nitro Express is missing and many more and these are not that obscure bullets

Reason why 22 ranks high is 22 is the cheapest

I've not claimed that knives are equaly good tool to killing humans as guns but thats the whole point, for a real revolution people need weapons, how do you think the october revulution happend? By holding signs?

[Blake's Baby]

You're a cowardly liberal. You're also objectively pro fascist. It's also not only americns arguing that the people should be armed.

Most people form the working class, which means that everyone being armed would mean the working class is more armed...

And this would result in fewer murders of workers how?



...
How do you account for the lack of discrepancy between the UK and the rest of Europe?

What does the question mean?

The US has a gun murder rate 40 times high than the UK and state promotion of gun ownership. The discrepancy in gun murder rates between different Euroipean states is very large in some cases. There is no 'lack of discrepancy' to account for.

[Rottenfruit]

And this would result in fewer murders of workers how?




What does the question mean?

The US has a gun murder rate 40 times high than the UK and state promotion of gun ownership. The discrepancy in gun murder rates between different Euroipean states is very large in some cases. There is no 'lack of discrepancy' to account for.
WHy does it matter how you are killed? And even if guns would cause higher murder(which they dont) it is a trade worth it because people need guns if they want a revulution to happend.

Why does Hounduars have 14 times lower gun ownership per person then Usa and yet a murder rate 18 times higher? Oh yeah SOCIAL FACTORS

[Blake's Baby]

WHy does it matter how you are killed? And even if guns would cause higher murder(which they dont) it is a trade worth it because people need guns if they want a revulution to happend...

It's easier to kill someone with a gun than a breadknife. If all you have is a breadknife, you ain't going to the top of no tower and taking out 14 poor peeps who are walking past, unless you're some total fucking breadknife ninja.

And if massive gun ownership meant that the revolution was one iota closer, America and Switzerland would bne the epicentres of world revolution instead of pretty insignificant.


Why does Hounduars have 14 times lower gun ownership per person then Usa and yet a murder rate 18 times higher? Oh yeah SOCIAL FACTORS

Yeah, social factors including massive availability of illegal guns, military arsenals etc? No-one has, at any point claimed that 'gun ownership per person' has anything to do with it, as you already know because I quoted something like 20 posts where I referred to 'availability of' and 'access to' guns, rather than 'ownership'. Titanic strawmnan up yer butt there. Take it out and clean it up before you come back to argue with the grownups, please.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I think supporting the bourgeois state in disarming the workers should be a position worthy of restriction. Who do you think enforces gun control laws?

But I guess it's more important to clutch one's pearls at the fact that some workers end up getting murdered with guns (as if being killed by a knife or blunt instrument made one any less dead), as opposed to pointing the finger of blame directly at the source - the disgusting socioeconomic conditions orchestrated by our rulers.

[Rottenfruit]

It's easier to kill someone with a gun than a breadknife. If all you have is a breadknife, you ain't going to the top of no tower and taking out 14 poor peeps who are walking past, unless you're some total fucking breadknife ninja.

And if massive gun ownership meant that the revolution was one iota closer, America and Switzerland would bne the epicentres of world revolution instead of pretty insignificant.



Yeah, social factors including massive availability of illegal guns, military arsenals etc? No-one has, at any point claimed that 'gun ownership per person' has anything to do with it, as you already know because I quoted something like 20 posts where I referred to 'availability of' and 'access to' guns, rather than 'ownership'. Titanic strawmnan up yer butt there. Take it out and clean it up before you come back to argue with the grownups, please.
How many spree kill happends?
What maby 100-200 people a year die in spray killings in Usa compared to what you sad 20000 murders?
More people die from choking on peanuts then that

[agnixie]

And this would result in fewer murders of workers how?


By establishing worker power and eliminating the alienation and poverty that causes crime. Do you have more stupid questions like that?




What does the question mean?

The US has a gun murder rate 40 times high than the UK and state promotion of gun ownership. The discrepancy in gun murder rates between different Euroipean states is very large in some cases. There is no 'lack of discrepancy' to account for.

Gun ownership in continental Europe is an order of magnitude higher than in the UK in almost every country. Gun related crime is not an order of magnitude higher. In fact it's comparable to the UK in Northern Europe, France, etc. Thus, lack of discrepancy. It's obviously not the scary guns.

BTW, Vermont has some of the lowest violent crime rates in the US. They also have no gun control whatsoever, which is less than every single state in the US.


availability of' and 'access to' guns, rather than 'ownership'.

Widespread ownership means the guns are available and accessible, goalpost moving liberal.

[Blake's Baby]

Personally I think supporting the bourgeois state in disarming the workers should be a position worthy of restriction. Who do you think enforces gun control laws? ...

Personally I think supporting the bourgeois state in promoting the murder of workers should be a position worthy of restriction. Who do you think wrote America's gun laws?


But I guess it's more important to clutch one's pearls at the fact that some workers end up getting murdered with guns (as if being killed by a knife or blunt instrument made one any less dead), as opposed to pointing the finger of blame directly at the source - the disgusting socioeconomic conditions orchestrated by our rulers.

Yeah, and I guess it's more important to slurp the anti-human shite of the US military and its paid hacks on the right (as if it's as easy to kill someone with a breadknife as an assault rifle - that must be why all modern armies are armed with breadknives, yeah?), as opposed to admitting that the massive gun murder rate in the US might be something to do with the state's promotion of gun ownership.

[agnixie]

Personally I think supporting the bourgeois state in promoting the murder of workers should be a position worthy of restriction. Who do you think wrote America's gun laws?

Which laws, do you mean the Reagan laws that established gun control in California to disarm the black panthers?

Or maybe the gun control laws of Illinois, initially enacted to disarm the Lehr und Wehr Verein, because workers were daring to arm themselves against the Pinkertons. Upheld and reinforced by both parties.

You have to be clear here, which laws?

"Draft dodgers, gun packers, anarchists, these vulgar sounding names, blew dust in the eyes of the jurors, the crowd in the courtroom the same"




Yeah, and I guess it's more important to slurp the anti-human shite of the US military and its paid hacks on the right (as if it's as easy to kill someone with a breadknife as an assault rifle - that must be why all modern armies are armed with breadknives, yeah?), as opposed to admitting that the massive gun murder rate in the US might be something to do with the state's promotion of gun ownership.

You're still being a liberal. How do you think you'll have class war if only the state and the bourgeoisie get arms? Idiot.

Now answer, how is widespread ownership not a proof of availability?

[Blake's Baby]

...

Gun ownership in continental Europe is an order of magnitude higher than in the UK in almost every country. Gun related crime is not an order of magnitude higher. In fact it's comparable to the UK in Northern Europe, France, etc. Thus, lack of discrepancy. It's obviously not the scary guns.

BTW, Vermont has some of the lowest violent crime rates in the US. They also have no gun control whatsoever, which is less than every single state in the US....

BTW, Cleveland in England has some of the most depressed areas in the UK and yet their gun muder rate is zero. It's obviously not the scary poverty.


...

Widespread ownership means the guns are available and accessible, goalpost moving liberal.

You don't know goalposts are, you fucking chump.

I have consistently argued that the question is 'access'. The fact that you and your knuckle-faced troglodyte co-thinkers (I use the word 'thinkers' sarcastically there) think that 'access' means the same as 'ownership' means that you have no clue as to what you're arguing against. Hardly my fault, as I've been clear all the way through this argument that the question is not 'ownership' but 'access'.

Widespread ownership might mean that guns are available and accessable. Narrow ownership might also mean that guns are vailable and accessable, however, if for example large numbers are stolen, armouries are liberated, etc. 'Widespread ownership' is not the only way guns can be accessable and available. In exactly the same way, I am awesome; but not everything that is awesome is me.

[agnixie]

Again, how is widespread ownership not access?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

BTW, Cleveland in England has some of the most depressed areas in the UK and yet their gun muder rate is zero. It's obviously not the scary poverty.

Why does it matter if the murders are done with guns? If we compare overall murder rates (not just ones with guns) in Cleveland to other areas of England, I think you'd find that more deprived areas turn out worse.


I have consistently argued that the question is 'access'.

And who controls access through legislation? That's right, the bourgeois state.

[Invader Zim]

Why does it matter if the murders are done with guns? If we compare overall murder rates (not just ones with guns) in Cleveland to other areas of England, I think you'd find that more deprived areas turn out worse.
Cleveland is among the most deprived areas in the country in terms of employment and household income.


Personally I think supporting the bourgeois state in disarming the workers should be a position worthy of restriction.

And I think you're being daft - which is unusual for you and highly disappointing, you are one of the few members of this forum whose posts are typically worth reading. Sadly not in this case. The fact is that restriction of popular firearms has no influence on the USA's revolutionary potential, because revolutions are not faught with these weapons (low calibre handguns). They are faught with modern military rifles and armaments. For instance the Russian revolution was faught with WW1 service rifles, such as the Mosin–Nagant. Similarly the Spanish Civil War was also faught with Russian Mosin–Nagant rifles and Spanish military issue Mauser rifles. Weapons that actually made the revolutionary forces a match for counter-revolutionary forces. They were not faught with the pissant handguns typically used in common murders. And it is laughable to suggest that restricting access to weapons such as 9mm handguns and the mass of WW2 issue M1911s still floating around is going to have any impact on the USAs revolutionary potential. It is to fundermentally confuse the last 300 years worth of military history. Successful insurrections, revolutions and coups are faught with modern military grade weapons, not handguns. The fact is that in a firefight between counter revolutionary forces armed with M16s and L85s and revolutionaries with 9mm hand guns is only going to go one way.


As for RottenFruit, you utterly failed to understand what that table was telling you. Take another look and then come back to me. I'll give you a clue: it isn't showing total homicide by weapon calibre. Rather it is showing a percentage of fatalities in a sample of individual gunfights by calibre of firearm. Want to connect the dots or am I going to have to spell it out for you entirely?

[Rottenfruit]

Cleveland is among the most deprived areas in the country in terms of employment and household income.



And I think you're being daft - which is unusual for you and highly disappointing, you are one of the few members of this forum whose posts are typically worth reading. Sadly not in this case. The fact is that restriction of popular firearms has no influence on the USA's revolutionary potential, because revolutions are not faught with these weapons (low calibre handguns). They are faught with modern military rifles and armaments. For instance the Russian revolution was faught with WW1 service rifles, such as the Mosin–Nagant. Similarly the Spanish Civil War was also faught with Russian Mosin–Nagant rifles and Spanish military issue Mauser rifles. Weapons that actually made the revolutionary forces a match for counter-revolutionary forces. They were not faught with the pissant handguns typically used in common murders. And it is laughable to suggest that restricting access to weapons such as 9mm handguns and the mass of WW2 issue M1911s still floating around is going to have any impact on the USAs revolutionary potential. It is to fundermentally confuse the last 300 years worth of military history. Successful insurrections, revolutions and coups are faught with modern military grade weapons, not handguns. The fact is that in a firefight between counter revolutionary forces armed with M16s and L85s and revolutionaries with 9mm hand guns is only going to go one way.


As for RottenFruit, you utterly failed to understand what that table was telling you. Take another look and then come back to me. I'll give you a clue: it isn't showing total homicide by weapon calibre. Rather it is showing a percentage of fatalities in a sample of individual gunfights by calibre of firearm. Want to connect the dots or am I going to have to spell it out for you entirely?

but that make no sense, how the hell can a 22 be more lethal then 44 magnum. Sorry but thats absurd

[Invader Zim]

how the hell can a 22 be more lethal then 44 magnum.

Well, in terms pf precentage there isn't a lot in it. Presumably due to the fact that it doesn't matter what calibre the weapon is if it catastrophically damages a major organ. And while the .22 may not blow a hole out the opposite side of the victim it will still enter the body at over 500 ft/s at 400 yards, and is capable of inflicting 150 ft lbs of force. And given the low recoil you are actually likely to get off more than one accurate shot. To paraphrase a range officer who runs a range where I used to go shooting as a boy, the person who underestimates any fire arm may well be making their last mistake. And .22s are no different, if you get shot in the wrong place you are going to die regardless of the weapon that fired it.

[Invader Zim]

Again, how is widespread ownership not access?

Well, for a start, if gun owenership were regulated in terms of security - i.e. where and how people are permitted to store their firearms access, through theft and other means, could be seriously reduced. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of firearms are stolen in the US every year. These weapons are (or at least were) a a primary port of call for violent criminals, as surveys of prisoners in the US penal system have shown (37% report having stolen a weapon or purchasing a stolen weapon on the black market (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF)).

In short criminals do not have to own their weapons and in many cases clearly do not. So 'access' is not just about ownership, it too is a nuanced concept apparently beyond you.

[danyboy27]

Murder ratio per captia is linked to povetry not the amount of gun ownership, if your logic was right, Usa should have a higher murder rate then Honduars but Houndurs has a murder ratio per captia 18 times higher then Usa

And Hondoarus has a extremly low amount of guns owned by priviate civlians per captia

Honduras has 6.2 while Usa has 88
Tell me how comes its 18 times more likly to get killed in a nation that has 14 times less amount of per captia then Usa, Shouldnt Honduras have a extremly low murder rate compared to usa according to your logic?
Unless your stats aknowledge the widepsread circulation of black market gun, then it dosnt mean shit, especially if you are talking about a south american country. Yea sure, the governement could always show you stats of gun ownership, but the reality on the ground is that most folks wont bother bribing officials/filling the paperwork and just purchase the stuff on the black market.

i am not defending the other guy, just pointing out that stats about corrupted countries like honduras are often bullshit beccause of the lack of understanding of the situation on the ground.

[danyboy27]

Every form of control can lead to injustice and suffering, but that dosnt mean its a bad thing in itself.
For exemple, i think its a good thing to restrict the ownership of 150MM tracked field artillery but wouldnt mind the relatively widespread of small arms if peoples receive a proper safety training.

[agnixie]

In short criminals do not have to own their weapons and in many cases clearly do not. So 'access' is not just about ownership, it too is a nuanced concept apparently beyond you.

In which case access is pretty much universally wide and easy. There's black market guns in the UK too and getting to them is as easy as any other black market.

[Invader Zim]

In which case access is pretty much universally wide and easy. There's black market guns in the UK too and getting to them is as easy as any other black market.

Which is plainly false given that UK gun crime is minuscule, and criminals who desire guns turn to refurbished previously deactivated weapons and converted replicas - and typically both are extremely risky to the assailant as well as the victim. If they could cheaply and easily acquire actual fire arms, with limited risk, then they would. The fact is they cannot.

So instead of posting more obviously fallacious nonsense, why don't you just trot off and do some research before your next post? It would save us both time, I wouldn't have to correct you and you would already know the answer.

[agnixie]

Which is plainly false given that UK gun crime is minuscule, and criminals who desire guns turn to refurbished previously deactivated weapons and converted replicas

And yet as far as I can tell the black market for guns exists. But keep believing whatever you will.

[Invader Zim]

And yet as far as I can tell the black market for guns exists. But keep believing whatever you will.

Again, you fail to grasp the point being made. It is not that there is not a black market for firearms, to suggest otherwise would be idiotic (the kind of thing you would suggest), what I'm saying is that the limited supply of weapons makes them extremely expensive and beyond the reach of the vast majority of criminals, so they instead turn to replica and reactivated firearms (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2634223/Guns-converted-using-basic-tools-bought-on-eBay.html).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7533437.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7070547.stm

So, as noted, why don't you go away and educate yourself before you humiliate yourself further, because talking to reveals a degree of ignorance that is just embarrassing to witness.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Guns have capitalist roots... So if you are against, you are a racist, if you are pro guns then you are a capitalist? Doesn't make sense.

[agnixie]

Guns have capitalist roots... So if you are against, you are a racist, if you are pro guns then you are a capitalist? Doesn't make sense.

You might as well sat that guns have feudal roots considering that portable firearms are about 700 years old (first known use in battle was by Mamluk forces at Ain Jalut) and gunpowder artillery goes back a few hundred years more, starting with chinese rockets.

Unless of course you want to argue that Capetian France, Spain, and the Ottoman and Mughal Empires were bourgeois capitalist states. In which case you can be my guest.


So, as noted, why don't you go away and educate yourself before you humiliate yourself further, because talking to reveals a degree of ignorance that is just embarrassing to witness.

And I assume your anecdata is universal. Also "reactivated" guns are not necessarily to that degree.

[Blake's Baby]

So, you're saying supporters of the bourgeois state's encouragement of guns are feudalists?

[agnixie]

So, you're saying supporters of the bourgeois state's encouragement of guns are feudalists?

Most modern staple foods also developed during feudal periods.

Or to be less nice, if that's you understood out of my comment, you're an idiot of the first order. And a liberal, since you seem to think the revolution will just happen because the capitalists get asked politely.

BTW, what are the checks on lever actions, bolt actions and shotguns in the UK once you have a license, because as far as I understood they are very few, the british just don't own guns because they don't. And of course it's not like it would be hard to smuggle shit from France if criminals bothered. There's an incredible naivete in this thread.

Fun fact; I live in Canada, I can get a gun delivered to my door, no questions asked, no government checks, ammo crate included. Aside from some types of guns being banned (typical saturday night special scare laws) it's actually much looser than most of the US. What we do not have is rampant gun violence.

[Bostana]

I know that when the KKK was considered and illegal terrorist organisation, the NRA was created in the same year not to long after. The NRA was against the idea of African-Americans owning guns and protested against it more than anything.

Now-a-days they aren't really open about their past. Bad for the rep ;)

[Blake's Baby]

Most modern staple foods also developed during feudal periods.

Or to be less nice, if that's you understood out of my comment, you're an idiot of the first order. And a liberal, since you seem to think the revolution will just happen because the capitalists get asked politely...

Just seeing if you're paying attention.

Apparently, those of us who oppose the state promotion of firearms are 'racist' because gun control legislation is 'racist'. So, we were asking if you were bourgeois if guns are bourgeois.

You rightly point out that they were developed under feudalism. So, are you a feudalist?

If you think I'm going to be polite to the bourgeoisie, you have another thing coming, you stupid fucking dipshit. I will be less polite than I am to you you shit-sucking bourgie wank-fan.


BTW, what are the checks on lever actions, bolt actions and shotguns in the UK once you have a license, because as far as I understood they are very few, the british just don't own guns because they don't. And of course it's not like it would be hard to smuggle shit from France if criminals bothered. There's an incredible naivete in this thread...

Fuck knows.

You're right, it's not so hard to smuggle guns in from a variety of close-by places. Certainly a huge amount of weed comes in so why not AK47s too? There are gun crimes in the UK - about 50 murders a year. But as our cops aren't regularly armed there maybe isn't as much point. But then again, no-where in Europe close to the UK has anything like US gun laws, so maybe the question isn't about slightly higher access to guns, maybe it's about massively higher access to guns.


Fun fact; I live in Canada, I can get a gun delivered to my door, no questions asked, no government checks, ammo crate included. Aside from some types of guns being banned (typical saturday night special scare laws) it's actually much looser than most of the US. What we do not have is rampant gun violence.

Another fun fact: most guns in Canada are hunting rifles. Which aren't really that good for the sort of crimes that cause gun-deaths in the US.

I mean, you could hold up a convenience store with a hunting rifle, but it would be marginally more efficient to shoot out the front window from, say, 600 yards away, then phone the place and say it was you, then get them to leave all the cash in a grocery bag outside. Walking into the store with it hidden in your trousers is only going to cause hilarity when you try to get it out again.

[Invader Zim]

And I assume your anecdata is universal.

Apparently we can also chalk up the term 'anecdata' among the many concepts you fail to grasp, because there was nothing anecdotal regarding the sources I posted. And it is a statistical fact that the majority of firearms recovered by the police recovered from criminals are converted replicas or have been re-actived. As the BBC note:

"Police found 72% of the firearms seized by the Metropolitan Police under last year's Operation Trident, were either imitations, air weapons, blank firers or starter pistols that had been converted, modified or upgraded to fire bullets."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3182898.stm

In addition to swatting up on the basics of this debate, perhaps you should invest in a dictionary?

[agnixie]

Another fun fact: most guns in Canada are hunting rifles. Which aren't really that good for the sort of crimes that cause gun-deaths in the US.

I mean, you could hold up a convenience store with a hunting rifle, but it would be marginally more efficient to shoot out the front window from, say, 600 yards away, then phone the place and say it was you, then get them to leave all the cash in a grocery bag outside. Walking into the store with it hidden in your trousers is only going to cause hilarity when you try to get it out again.

You can also use a SKS for hunting, and people have use rifles and carbines for crime. It's a very common brush gun in both Canada and the US. It also doesn't change that I can basically waltz in a gun shop, get a hangun, and the controls will be less than in the US so long as it's not a prohibited gun. Unless you intend to move the goal posts further. After all, liberalism must be maintained.

As a fencer, I can assure you it's very easy to enter somewhere with something long and thin concealed from view. It's a matter of picking the proper bag. I can't be responsible for your lack of imagination.


Apparently we can also chalk up the term 'anecdata' among the many concepts you fail to grasp, because there was nothing anecdotal regarding the sources I posted. And it is a statistical fact that the majority of firearms recovered by the police recovered from criminals are converted replicas or have been re-actived. As the BBC note:


If you don't want me to dismiss as anecdote then give stats right away, because what you gave the first time was, in fact, an anecdote. As you haven't replied to my other question I assume you either don't know or concede, considering that there is virtually no control besides a license to get a shotgun, lever action or bolt action rifle or carbine in the UK, which is why the sawn off shotgun is the typical weapon people imagine british gangsters with. The fact that smuggling this shit from France doesn't occur to criminals is rather impressive, though, considering the kind of shit french soldiers smuggled back from service in Germany during the cold war.


But then again, no-where in Europe close to the UK has anything like US gun laws
Nowhere close to the UK has anything like british gun laws either. In fact, France has looser gun laws than the US in a few aspects (although slightly more controlled in most). I'll still note that despite these slightly tighter laws, private gun ownership in France, Germany and Italy is rather closer to that of the US than it is to that of the UK, it's half that of the US but an order of magnitude more than that of the UK. Thus, again, your insistance on some magical access separate from general ownership is absurd, as there is access anyway, people left military service in Germany with AKs in their suitcase on a sufficiently common basis that it was a secret de polichinelle.

[Blake's Baby]

... Unless you intend to move the goal posts further. After all, liberalism must be maintained...

I do wish you'd get a handle on this. You have waltzed into a debate without making yourself aware of what being discussed, you have picked up the wrong end of several different sticks, and possibly some things that aren't even sticks, you have jumped to a lot of conclusions about the argunments involved, you had failed to aquaint yourself with what has already been said.

You don't know what the goalposts even look like, because you don't know what game we're playing; furthermore, you're standing on the wrong field.

Now; go back and read the threads over, educate yourself about what the grown-ups are discussing, and come back when you are cleverer.






... your insistance on some magical access separate from general ownership is absurd, as there is access anyway, people left military service in Germany with AKs in their suitcase on a sufficiently common basis that it was a secret de polichinelle.

Wow, so in the same sentence, you claim that there is no such thing as 'access' seperate to 'ownership', and then, after a comma, you give an example that exactly backs up my contention, and disproves what you just claimed. It's incredible. I don't need to offer any argument at all, do I? All I need to do is wait and you confirm what I've been claiming all along.

[Invader Zim]

If you don't want me to dismiss as anecdote then give stats right away, because what you gave the first time was, in fact, an anecdote.

The first was a news report describing the considerable scale of an individual illegal gun factory operation converting replica weapons. Which returns us to the underlying point, that there is a market for these weapons - which proves my point. The second reported the extent of converted replica's in a major metropolitan area - which is statistical in basis. So, either you fail to fully grasp what an anecdote is or you didn't bother to actually read the articles.


considering that there is virtually no control besides a license to get a shotgun, lever action or bolt action rifle or carbine in the UK

To acquire a shotgun in this country an individual requires a shotgun licence which is issued by the local police. The police not only check the security precautions in place to prevent safe storage of the weapon, but they also do extensive background checks on prospective owners who would be invalidated if they have criminal histories.

And in order to acquire a rifle you do not merely need to apply to the police, but you actually have to prove to them that you actually require the weapon for a legitimate purpose and no criminal convictions.


which is why the sawn off shotgun is the typical weapon people imagine british gangsters with.

Or, perhaps, it has something to do with the fact that shotguns were not regulated until 1968 - and this image is a legacy of the gangster image generated in the 1950s and 60s? The fact is criminals rarely use shotguns, because contrary to your belief they are difficult for criminals to acquire and tend only used by the hardened professional armed robbers because of their ability to intimidate - criminals are actually far more likely to use illegal handguns. The fact is that if weapons were easily acquired legally, there would be no market for converted replicas, and manifestly there is a market.

[Rottenfruit]

Guns have capitalist roots... So if you are against, you are a racist, if you are pro guns then you are a capitalist? Doesn't make sense.

Im saying that the original goal of gun control In Usa was to oppress minirotiys,hence RACIST ROOTS

[Silvr]

Im saying that the original goal of gun control In Usa was to oppress minirotiys,hence RACIST ROOTS

Lets leave aside some exceptional bullshit that happened in one city half a century ago, and instead look at present state of affairs across much of the country. Lets look at the fact that gun control in immensely unpopular with the most viciously, overtly racist segments of the US population, and that guns are frequently used against minority individuals for racist purpose (*ahem* Trayvon Martin, mass shooting at the Sikh temple, guy that just shot his black neighbor in the head, I could go on forever). Seriously, what planet are you people living on?

Oh, thats right... Planet But Mommm, I Wanna Shoot My Gun!!! *throws tantrum*

[Rottenfruit]

Lets leave aside some exceptional bullshit that happened in one city half a century ago, and instead look at present state of affairs across much of the country. Lets look at the fact that gun control in immensely unpopular with the most viciously, overtly racist segments of the US population, and that guns are frequently used against minority individuals for racist purpose (*ahem* Trayvon Martin, mass shooting at the Sikh temple, guy that just shot his black neighbor in the head, I could go on forever). Seriously, what planet are you people living on?

Oh, thats right... Planet But Mommm, I Wanna Shoot My Gun!!! *throws tantrum*

! Thats a trivial point, i like dogs, hitler like dogs, does that make me a nazi? No! Also i never sad supporting gun control is racist but it's original goal was