Americans should not be allowed to own guns.

[marquis2]

So what your hope is in this scenario is that you're not home in the event your home is robbed?

If you live in an area prone to home robberies and you are against owning a firearm, the insurance policy you should be updating is your life insurance policy.:2 cents:

My reply was directed to someone who doesn't have house insurance but protects his property with a ***.But only,of course, while he's in.
It's been known for a very long time that the sense of security when armed is illusionary and delusionary.You Might feel safer with a *** , sometimes of course you will be , but overall you are simply raising the level of risk and things can go horribly wrong.
If neither you or I have a ***-low risk.
If you have a *** and you know that I don't , less risk for you.But of course if you then use it you could be in deep ****.
If you have a *** but don't know if I have then you are on the horns of a dilemma.
If we both have guns we are both at high risk.

I've heard what people say what they would do with their guns if someone broke in.Of course the burglar/****** might have ideas about what to do with an armed householder.Or there might be more than one of them.Things look different if they have guns too.

 

[Marlo Manson]

Omg you anti-*** tards are so FUCKIN NAIVE and I only call you that, cuz you all don't stop with your anti-*** situational scenario's or your proper reasons, and your naive notions about giving the CRIMINAL the advantage from jump, cuz your @ there mercy if you don't have an equal measure of defense when and if that CRIMINAL targets your very life, your families life or your house.

If you don't want too defend your families life or your own when it comes to a home invasion or an assault somewhere, or wherever your situation comes about, or arises that's your option, if you wanna risk losing your life, or one of your ****** members lives that's your option.

I am personally not willing or waiting to findout why or if a confrontational ****-STAIN has a *** or any weapon for that matter to see if he is gonna use it too ****** my ******, myself or not.

If you wanna try your luck or be submissive, or be passive in these types of situations that's entirely up too you.

So why do you question or criticize my wanting to be SURE my ****** and I are equipped with the best possible defense as I humanly can, A ***, MY ***(S)?

I don't have a police officer escorting my ****** or I around everywhere we go, nor does a police officer come as standard issue protector / security system with the purchase or renting of my home. and even though I pay taxes to have a police ***** in my city, which isn't an option whether I want to pay or not, a police officer is not issued to my residence for paying my taxes or my rent.

So while being passive and letting a SHITBAG CRIMINAL... ie.

(A) Control my actions, not to mention, take what they please, and treat me the way they please.

(B) Make the decision whether or not my ****** and I live or die, or are physically harmed or not, or just left alone, but definitely too scared too testify for fear of reprisals if they ever get caught and we have to testify against them?

(C) why give a CRIMINAL all those advantages, luxuries, and freedom to do all because I didn't have a *** to defend my ****** and I with?

I myself am not giving any CRIMINAL any of those desired situations. you maybe that person, or shall I say that EASY VICTIM but I will NOT be. :2 cents::hatsoff:

 

[sproing99]

But why do you live in fear of a home assault ?

Seriously, the thought has never crossed the mind of this "anti *** 'tard"

 

[Hot Mega]

My reply was directed to someone who doesn't have house insurance but protects his property with a ***.But only,of course, while he's in.
It's been known for a very long time that the sense of security when armed is illusionary and delusionary.You Might feel safer with a *** , sometimes of course you will be , but overall you are simply raising the level of risk and things can go horribly wrong.
If neither you or I have a ***-low risk.
If you have a *** and you know that I don't , less risk for you.But of course if you then use it you could be in deep ****.
If you have a *** but don't know if I have then you are on the horns of a dilemma.
If we both have guns we are both at high risk.

I've heard what people say what they would do with their guns if someone broke in.Of course the burglar/****** might have ideas about what to do with an armed householder.Or there might be more than one of them.Things look different if they have guns too.

YFA (you're fucked anyway) and in the meantime, there's no fear of becoming one of the thousands ****ed every year in their own home by accident

I know how this is going to sound but if you end up dead at the end of your own firearm, Darwinism has been looking for you and just happened to catch up with you in the form of your own firearm.

If it's the unfortunate case where someone in your home falls victim to an accident that would merely be consistent with the reality that accidents happen every day in every way possible.

People are ****ed in auto accidents everyday....including whole families. Is that less tragic? Is that now a case against automobiles and/or driving?

 

[The Paulinator]

Omg you anti-*** tards are so FUCKIN NAIVE and I only call you that, cuz you all don't stop with your anti-*** situational scenario's or your proper reasons, and your naive notions about giving the CRIMINAL the advantage from jump, cuz your @ there mercy if you don't have an equal measure of defense when and if that CRIMINAL targets your very life, your families life or your house.

If you don't want too defend your families life or your own when it comes to a home invasion or an assault somewhere, or wherever your situation comes about, or arises that's your option, if you wanna risk losing your life, or one of your ****** members lives that's your option.

I am personally not willing or waiting to findout why or if a confrontational ****-STAIN has a *** or any weapon for that matter to see if he is gonna use it too ****** my ******, myself or not.

If you wanna try your luck or be submissive, or be passive in these types of situations that's entirely up too you.

So why do you question or criticize my wanting to be SURE my ****** and I are equipped with the best possible defense as I humanly can, A ***, MY ***(S)?


I don't have a police officer escorting my ****** or I around everywhere we go, nor does a police officer come as standard issue protector / security system with the purchase or renting of my home. and even though I pay taxes to have a police ***** in my city, which isn't an option whether I want to pay or not, a police officer is not issued to my residence for paying my taxes or my rent.

So while being passive and letting a SHITBAG CRIMINAL... ie.

(A) Control my actions, not to mention, take what they please, and treat me the way they please.

(B) Make the decision whether or not my ****** and I live or die, or are physically harmed or not, or just left alone, but definitely too scared too testify for fear of reprisals if they ever get caught and we have to testify against them?

(C) why give a CRIMINAL all those advantages, luxuries, and freedom to do all because I didn't have a *** to defend my ****** and I with?

I myself am not giving any CRIMINAL any of those desired situations. you maybe that person, or shall I say that EASY VICTIM but I will NOT be. :2 cents::hatsoff:

They suffer cognitive dissonance, my friend. They have already accepted that they will not own a *** (for the time being, anyway), therefore all *** ownership is bad, however legal, responsible, and maturely someone else handles it. Plus, merely brandishing a weapon will diffuse a situation most of the time (note my lack of made-up percentages here), ****ing or wounding is not always the instantaneous and automatic outcome.

 

[Marlo Manson]

But why do you live in fear of a home assault ?

Seriously, the thought has never crossed the mind of this "anti *** 'tard"

Who says I am afraid of my house being broken into? albeit it could happen tonight. I am merely prepared for the situation should it happen, just like I am prepared for the unexpected when I am outside my home.

And BTW there is no guarantee I am gonna shoot or for that matter **** the said attacker, or the home invader, I will see if they have a VISIBLE (weapon) in hand and in sight, it could be a ***, a *****, a bat, a crowbar..etc...

If its a weapon that I surmise that I have the advantage I would more than likely just detain the CRIMINAL until the police picked him up, if they have a *** or a ***** they better drop it on command or they will catch some hot ones.

My reference to anti-*** "tard" is because you people are so fuckin NAIVE why do you think we are scared or why should I have to be afraid of something that could happen, or have too wait for a situation when I would have needed a ***? :dunno: So I ask why can't I just be prepared for when it does happen? I am not NAIVE, I don't wanna be a victim, I don't wanna be @ the mercy of a CRIMINAL / ATTACKER.

You must live in an upscale neighborhood where there is very little ******** or danger? Cuz most people don't have the luxury of living in an area where crime, ********, criminals, and or dangerous elements don't plague the hood sort of speak, its dangerous for most people, only the very wealthy and well off can afford to live in a community where "danger" is void or non-existent. to most people that is a ***** that will never be had. :2 cents:

 

[rawlwear]

glad u **** ******* for fun. ur suuuuuch a great being

haha are you kidding me, I hunt ******* for several reasons, food, because I enjoy the sport, and because it helps monitor there population levels, Let me guess your just another ******** heart in the world of hunting is cruel? So next time your driving and a deer runs out in front, and you **** up in the hospital don't **** because your there.

sorry to go off topic, but I will argue this to the end if anyone makes smart comment about hunting.

 

[JayJohn85]

If you all have guns then it isnt a problem lol.

 

[Ceska]

They suffer cognitive dissonance, my friend. They have already accepted that they will not own a *** (for the time being, anyway), therefore all *** ownership is bad, however legal, responsible, and maturely someone else handles it. Plus, merely brandishing a weapon will diffuse a situation most of the time (note my lack of made-up percentages here), ****ing or wounding is not always the instantaneous and automatic outcome.

In all fairness, I don't think this is a case of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance occurs because of a presumed logical inconsistency in accepting two or more notions (such as refusing to eat meat while wearing leather shoes).

The question here is an empirical one, not a logical one.

"Does *** ownership lead to an increase in *** ********?"

That question cannot simply be answered logically.
As I see it, the disagreement is about the facts and how to interpret them.

I think most people here are being reasonable given their personal experiences (which may differ from those of citizens of other nations). While each person will make their own decisions based in large part on personal experience, it may be better to go beyond that.

================
Why would a sensible person believe that *** ownership leads to *** ********?

I assume the thinking goes something like this:

UK Firearm homicide rate = 0.11
US Firearm homicide rate = 2.97
(27x as high)

UK *** Ownership = 4.7%
US *** Ownership = 39%
(8.30x as high)

Therefore... "Wow! the high U.S. *** ownership must lead to its high firearm homicide rate."

Looking at it that way can be deceptive.

What is being missed is that countries with high ******** are apparently violent regardless of the number of guns owned.

"The U.S. has a higher non-*** ****** rate than many European country's total ****** rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-*** ****** rates in excess of our total ****** rate."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Other causes are likely more predictive of this ********.

In other words, there appears to be a strong correlation between total homicide and firearm homicide - but not between *** ownership and either one.

Instead it might help to look at it this way:
UK Firearm homicide rate / Total homicide rate = (*** ********) = 8%
US Firearm homicide rate / Total homicide rate = (*** ********) = 65%
(8.13x as high)

UK *** Ownership = 4.7%
US *** Ownership = 39%
(8.30x as high)

UK *** ******** (8%) / UK *** Ownership (4.7%) = 1.70
US *** ******** (65%) / US *** Ownership (39%) = 1.66
(Roughly equal)

Compare to:
Netherlands *** ******** (32%) / Netherlands *** Ownership (2%) = 16
New Zealand *** ******** (11%) / New Zealand *** Ownership (22%) = .5

So even though the Netherlands has fewer guns, the percentage of homicides by firearms is high.

While in New Zealand, where *** ownership is high, the percentage of homicides by firearms is low.

(Note: In both Netherlands and New Zealand, total homicides and homicides by firearms are low)

 

[sproing99]

Who says I am afraid of my house being broken into? albeit it could happen tonight. I am merely prepared for the situation should it happen, just like I am prepared for the unexpected when I am outside my home.

It does feel a little paranoid, to prepare for an event (your house being broken into, while you're in it, by someone who intends you harm). Someone earlier in the thread likened it to greasing your roof to *****-proof it

You must live in an upscale neighborhood where there is very little ******** or danger? Cuz most people don't have the luxury of living in an area where crime, ********, criminals, and or dangerous elements don't plague the hood sort of speak, its dangerous for most people, only the very wealthy and well off can afford to live in a community where "danger" is void or non-existent. to most people that is a ***** that will never be had. :2 cents:

If you consider Europe upscale then yes. Otherwise no, I live in a working-class neighbourhood in a large European city.

 

[marquis2]

In all fairness, I don't think this is a case of cognitive dissonance.



================
Why would a sensible person believe that *** ownership leads to *** ********?


UK *** Ownership = 4.7%
US *** Ownership = 39%
(8.30x as high)

UK *** ******** (8%) / UK *** Ownership (4.7%) = 1.70
US *** ******** (65%) / US *** Ownership (39%) = 1.66
(Roughly equal)

If you take the ****/gang scene out of the UK picture then *** crime drops to practically zero.It's not a part of mainstream crime.Guns are rarely used in robberies because they add 5 years to the sentence.

You must also look at suicide rates , a lot of US *** deaths are from this.You might argue that if guns weren't available then another method would be found.But where other methods are used the success rate is much lower, perhaps because many people who attempted suicide were really in a temporary state or looking for help.

 

[bimmer1]

bottom line is i want to do what i want to do, and i dont want someone telling me i cant have guns.

ill get them anyways, so you might as well not make me a criminal.
its a ton of fun to collect and shoot them, to boot, not to mention reloading and handloading ammo.
building guns like a modular ar-15 is a ton of fun as well.

its also nice to know should i need leathal ***** to protect myself, or in an armageddon scenario, ill have what i need to be a deciding factor in survival.
thats obviously very unlikely, but hey is a little bit to justify a very expensive hobby.

gangbangers arent putting together ar-10s and handloading matchking ammo... and no one is gonna get hurt by me having such things.

so just get over the *** ban thing. people that have them want to keep them, and we would like you to butt out. if you dont like them, please just stay away from them. and us for that matter. i promise i wont go showing them to you. they are locked up very well in a VERY nice safe, only to go out under my control.

ps- i live in a very nice area- and the number one crime is home invasion from criminals from poor areas. upscale areas are targets.

 

[Hot Mega]

If you take the ****/gang scene out of the UK picture then *** crime drops to practically zero.It's not a part of mainstream crime.Guns are rarely used in robberies because they add 5 years to the sentence.

You must also look at suicide rates , a lot of US *** deaths are from this.You might argue that if guns weren't available then another method would be found.But where other methods are used the success rate is much lower, perhaps because many people who attempted suicide were really in a temporary state or looking for help.

Well, my ****** used to always say "if" and "but" are the two biggest, little words in the dictionary.

I suppose "if" you take out the people who rob banks for money as opposed to the thrill of it, those too would drop to practically zero.

I'm not sure why most people who want to defend themselves would necessarily care about those want to **** themselves. One person obviously values his/her life while the other doesn't...why would someone put these two types of people in the same sentence?

 

[Marlo Manson]

It does feel a little paranoid, to prepare for an event (your house being broken into, while you're in it, by someone who intends you harm). Someone earlier in the thread likened it to greasing your roof to *****-proof it



If you consider Europe upscale then yes. Otherwise no, I live in a working-class neighbourhood in a large European city.

You call it paranoid, and I call it prepared. anybody who likens being prepared to defend thy self and my ****** to that of some dipshit greasing there roof to ***** proof it, just shows what a NAIVE :conehead: would say about something that's so possible. the mere fact that aliens until proven they are real, we all know, they don't exist until they are somehow authentically proven to exist. But on the otherhand, CRIMINALS really do exist, and there threat is real, my house could be broken into, theres NO guarantee that says it won't get broken into, nor is there a certainty it will be broken into.

Just so you know, (I live on the property of a business, which does handle cash, my house is connected to that business) so in essence my home is more likely too be broken into then a normal household.

and although the city I live in is slower, less violent and considerably less dangerous then some of the other surrounding cities in the metro area where I live, there are always burglaries, robberies, assaults, and just crime in general.

The city I live in, its a pretty nice neighborhood, but its flooded with RICH young people who crave and thrive on *****, so the **** element is very much alive and well, which in turn breeds criminals, ********, and the very real possibility and propensity of danger even in one of the nicer working class hoods in the large metro area where I live.

 

[marquis2]

Well, my ****** used to always say "if" and "but" are the two biggest, little words in the dictionary.

I suppose "if" you take out the people who rob banks for money as opposed to the thrill of it, those too would drop to practically zero.

I'm not sure why most people who want to defend themselves would necessarily care about those want to **** themselves. One person obviously values his/her life while the other doesn't...why would someone put these two types of people in the same sentence?

True-with 6 "Ifs" I could rule the world.

The point is that the *****/gangs scene is where all the shootings are ; up to a point it's very restricted and the population in general isn't involved.They tend to shoot each other.
Practically all the guns registered in the UK are shotguns , primarily used by farmers or members of shoots.There are also some rifles , particularly in Scotland.These are rarely if ever used in crimes.There are no registered handguns at all.Actual shootings outside the gang enclaves are practically non existent.
The reason I brought up suicide is that it's a facet of *** availability.We do get the occasional farmer ****ing himself with a shotgun (farmers have a surprisingly high suicide rate) but the ordinary depressed person has no access to a *** and chooses something like an overdose.There is a chance of rescue and very often the victim is grateful for it.

*** ownership ......................... Homicide.......................... *** homicide....................... Suicide ......................... *** suicide
rate per 100k .........................rate per lm.......................... rate per lm .......................... . rate per I m...................... rate per lm
USA ..85,000 ....................................... 9.3 ........... ....................6.40 ................ ... ......... 12.0 ................ . .......... 7.1

Britain 3,000 ................................. . 1.3 ..................................... 0.14 .................................. 8.6 ......................... 0.4

 

[sproing99]

bottom line is i want to do what i want to do, and i dont want someone telling me i cant have guns.

Excellent answer, not attempting to justify a liking for guns by claiming that you're doing it to preserve the Union.

ill get them anyways, so you might as well not make me a criminal.
its a ton of fun to collect and shoot them, to boot, not to mention reloading and handloading ammo.
building guns like a modular ar-15 is a ton of fun as well.

It's good to have a hobby

its also nice to know should i need leathal ***** to protect myself, or in an armageddon scenario, ill have what i need to be a deciding factor in survival.
thats obviously very unlikely, but hey is a little bit to justify a very expensive hobby.

....and here's where we go off piste. All of a sudden the prospect of the collapse of society is being used as a reason to have firearms.

It's like me trying to justify my 500 bottle **** cellar as a precaution against prohibition.

gangbangers arent putting together ar-10s and handloading matchking ammo... and no one is gonna get hurt by me having such things.

Only members of your ****** and/or visitors to your home. Among "responsible" *** owners accidental death and/or injury is the only way anyone is going to get hurt

so just get over the *** ban thing. people that have them want to keep them, and we would like you to butt out. if you dont like them, please just stay away from them. and us for that matter. i promise i wont go showing them to you. they are locked up very well in a VERY nice safe, only to go out under my control..

In which case, as a responsible *** owner, it's likely that you won't be able to get to them in time as the ravening hordes burst through your front door.

ps- i live in a very nice area- and the number one crime is home invasion from criminals from poor areas. upscale areas are targets.

That's a surprise. The link below indicates that home invasions account for less than 5% of robberies and are generally restriced to poor areas (junkies can't be arsed to travel to commit crimes)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jun-20-Sun-2004/news/24144219.html

 

[Ceska]

If you take the ****/gang scene out of the UK picture then *** crime drops to practically zero.It's not a part of mainstream crime.

Do you have any statistics to support this claim? Or is it based on personal perception?

In any case, whether or not crime is considered "gang-related" (a difficult determination) in one country, does not help answer the question "Does *** ownership lead to an increase in *** ********?".

Guns are rarely used in robberies because they add 5 years to the sentence.

Again, do you have any statistics to back up this claim?

You might try....
Criminal Justice in England and the United States
By J. David Hirschel, William O. Wakefield
Page 59
http://books.google.com/books?id=RT...rcentage+of+robberies+committed+with+firearms

Percentage of Homicides related to Firearms (1979-1992):
England: 7.7
United States: 61.7
(8.01x as high)
(note: similar to information in previous post 8% vs 65%)


Percentage of Robberies related to Firearms (1979-1992):
England: 9.5
United States: 37
(3.89x as high)

Robbery by *** = Robberies related to Firearms as a percentage of total.

UK Robbery by *** (9.5%) / UK *** Ownership (4.7%) = 2.02
US Robbery by *** (37%) / US *** Ownership (39%) = .95

Again (just as in firearm homicide) U.S percentages for robbery by firearm are indeed higher than in the U.K.

....BUT when viewed as a proportion of *** ownership, U.K. robbery by firearm is twice as high.


Perhaps, if people are looking to commit a crime they will find a way...
UK Robberies with Knives Rise as Guns Fall - Reuters (April 24, 2009)
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/uk-robberies-knives-rise-guns-fall-2672131

You must also look at suicide rates , a lot of US *** deaths are from this.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

UK Firearm Suicide rate / Total Suicide rate = (Suicide ********)

As a Proportion of *** Ownership:

Northern Ireland Suicide ******** (15.93%) / Northern Ireland *** Ownership (8.4%) = 1.90
Netherlands Suicide ******** (3.07%) / Netherlands *** Ownership (1.9%) = 1.62
United States Suicide ******** (60.95%) / United States *** Ownership (39%) = 1.56
France Suicide ******** (24.72%) / France *** Ownership (22.6%) = 1.09
Switzerland Ireland Suicide ******** (26.36%) / Switzerland *** Ownership (27.2%) = .97
Canada Suicide ******** (28.2%) / Canada *** Ownership (29.1%) = .97
Australia Suicide ******** (18.58%) / Australia *** Ownership (19.4%) = .96
U.K. Suicide ******** (4.3%) / U.K. *** Ownership (4.7%) = .91

Again, (just as in firearm homicide) U.S percentages for suicide by firearm are higher than the U.K.

In this instance, your case is stronger. The U.S. has 71% higher suicide rate via firearms than the U.K. (even after *** ownership is taken into account)
But this can only be taken so far. Once again the Netherlands is a leader with 78% higher suicide rate than the U.K. (taking into account *** ownership)

You might argue that if guns weren't available then another method would be found.But where other methods are used the success rate is much lower,perhaps because many people who attempted suicide were really in a temporary state or looking for help.

This is not necessarily true.
Japan, with a very low *** ownership rate has a total suicide rate of 16.72. High compared to either the U.S. or U.K. (12.06, 7.68 respectively)
Japan's suicide success rate is still quite high using other methods.

Scotland also maintains a fairly high overall suicide rate 12.16, despite having a low *** ownership rate (4.7%) and low suicide by firearm percentage (2.55%).

True-with 6 "Ifs" I could rule the world.

The point is that the *****/gangs scene is where all the shootings are ; up to a point it's very restricted and the population in general isn't involved.They tend to shoot each other.
Practically all the guns registered in the UK are shotguns , primarily used by farmers or members of shoots.There are also some rifles , particularly in Scotland.These are rarely if ever used in crimes.There are no registered handguns at all.Actual shootings outside the gang enclaves are practically non existent.
The reason I brought up suicide is that it's a facet of *** availability.We do get the occasional farmer ****ing himself with a shotgun (farmers have a surprisingly high suicide rate) but the ordinary depressed person has no access to a *** and chooses something like an overdose.There is a chance of rescue and very often the victim is grateful for it.

*** ownership ......................... Homicide.......................... *** homicide....................... Suicide ......................... *** suicide
rate per 100k .........................rate per lm.......................... rate per lm .......................... . rate per I m...................... rate per lm
USA ..85,000 ....................................... 9.3 ........... ....................6.40 ................ ... ......... 12.0 ................ . .......... 7.1

Britain 3,000 ................................. . 1.3 ..................................... 0.14 .................................. 8.6 ......................... 0.4

I don't know where you got these figures from since you didn't cite a source. I disagree with the USA (Total Homicide rate of 9.3) and (*** Homicide Rate of 6.4) figures, as they are in disagreement with data from both the United Nations Office on ***** and Crime (4.55, 2.97 respectively) as well as the U.S. Department of Justice (5.8, 3.9 respectively).

The suicide rates seem about right, but posting the rates alone does not clarify the relationship to *** ownership.
(See Scotland above)

 

[Serpent7]

Can someone please explain to me why Americans feel it is a God-given right for them to own a lethal weapon? Because it makes no sense to me. Permitting any old Tom, Dick and Harry to own a device that could easily inflict deadly bodily harm on another person is not logical. And don't compare *** ownership to ***** ownership. Guns are a lot more dangerous. Plus they are designed specifically to serve as weapons.

I so totally agree. A *** is a tool used for ****ing and or distruction. Both ****ing and distruction are negative. I'd prefer screwing.

 

[skechers]

haha are you kidding me, I hunt ******* for several reasons, food, because I enjoy the sport, and because it helps monitor there population levels, Let me guess your just another ******** heart in the world of hunting is cruel? So next time your driving and a deer runs out in front, and you **** up in the hospital don't **** because your there.

sorry to go off topic, but I will argue this to the end if anyone makes smart comment about hunting.

:thumbsup: Estimated 1.5 Million deer collide with cars every year in the US.

And lets not forget the effects of overpopulation on the environment. Ravaging saplings and the native undergrowth, destroying crops, gardens. They also carry ticks that spread lyme disease.

 

[marquis2]

Do you have any statistics to support this claim? Or is it based on personal perception?

In any case, whether or not crime is considered "gang-related" (a difficult determination) in one country, does not help answer the question "Does *** ownership lead to an increase in *** ********?".




Again, do you have any statistics to back up this claim?

You might try....
Criminal Justice in England and the United States
By J. David Hirschel, William O. Wakefield
Page 59
http://books.google.com/books?id=RT...rcentage+of+robberies+committed+with+firearms

Percentage of Homicides related to Firearms (1979-1992):
England: 7.7
United States: 61.7
(8.01x as high)
(note: similar to information in previous post 8% vs 65%)


Percentage of Robberies related to Firearms (1979-1992):
England: 9.5
United States: 37
(3.89x as high)

Robbery by *** = Robberies related to Firearms as a percentage of total.

UK Robbery by *** (9.5%) / UK *** Ownership (4.7%) = 2.02
US Robbery by *** (37%) / US *** Ownership (39%) = .95

Again (just as in firearm homicide) U.S percentages for robbery by firearm are indeed higher than in the U.K.

....BUT when viewed as a proportion of *** ownership, U.K. robbery by firearm is twice as high.


Perhaps, if people are looking to commit a crime they will find a way...
UK Robberies with Knives Rise as Guns Fall - Reuters (April 24, 2009)
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/uk-robberies-knives-rise-guns-fall-2672131




http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

UK Firearm Suicide rate / Total Suicide rate = (Suicide ********)

As a Proportion of *** Ownership:

Northern Ireland Suicide ******** (15.93%) / Northern Ireland *** Ownership (8.4%) = 1.90
Netherlands Suicide ******** (3.07%) / Netherlands *** Ownership (1.9%) = 1.62
United States Suicide ******** (60.95%) / United States *** Ownership (39%) = 1.56
France Suicide ******** (24.72%) / France *** Ownership (22.6%) = 1.09
Switzerland Ireland Suicide ******** (26.36%) / Switzerland *** Ownership (27.2%) = .97
Canada Suicide ******** (28.2%) / Canada *** Ownership (29.1%) = .97
Australia Suicide ******** (18.58%) / Australia *** Ownership (19.4%) = .96
U.K. Suicide ******** (4.3%) / U.K. *** Ownership (4.7%) = .91

Again, (just as in firearm homicide) U.S percentages for suicide by firearm are higher than the U.K.

In this instance, your case is stronger. The U.S. has 71% higher suicide rate via firearms than the U.K. (even after *** ownership is taken into account)
But this can only be taken so far. Once again the Netherlands is a leader with 78% higher suicide rate than the U.K. (taking into account *** ownership)




This is not necessarily true.
Japan, with a very low *** ownership rate has a total suicide rate of 16.72. High compared to either the U.S. or U.K. (12.06, 7.68 respectively)
Japan's suicide success rate is still quite high using other methods.

Scotland also maintains a fairly high overall suicide rate 12.16, despite having a low *** ownership rate (4.7%) and low suicide by firearm percentage (2.55%).




I don't know where you got these figures from since you didn't cite a source. I disagree with the USA (Total Homicide rate of 9.3) and (*** Homicide Rate of 6.4) figures, as they are in disagreement with data from both the United Nations Office on ***** and Crime (4.55, 2.97 respectively) as well as the U.S. Department of Justice (5.8, 3.9 respectively).

The suicide rates seem about right, but posting the rates alone does not clarify the relationship to *** ownership.
(See Scotland above)

My source ;http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=726110

Regarding suicide, from the New England Journal of Medicine;

But the Supreme Court's finding of a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home does not mean that it is a wise decision to own a *** or to keep it easily accessible. Deciding whether to own a *** entails balancing potential benefits and risks. One of the risks for which the empirical evidence is strongest,1 and the risk whose death toll is greatest, is that of completed suicide.

In 2005, the most recent year for which mortality data are available, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. Among Americans of all ages, more than half of all suicides are *** suicides. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. *** suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than *** homicide.

Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to **** themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2

Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Indeed, recognizing the self-limiting nature of suicidal crises, penal and psychiatric institutions restrict access to lethal means for persons identified as potentially suicidal.

Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving ***** or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often.

The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling.3 There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a *** in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of ***-owning households.