Guns

From iGeek
Revision as of 14:42, 3 February 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
Sheep.jpg
Reasonable gun-control is an oxymoron: it begs the question, which is a fallacy that assumes guilt/success as the premise. I ask, "why do you think a gun prohibition will work better than drugs, alcohol or the prohibition on murder?

The smartest Gun-Controllers in the room, can't explain a gun's basic operation, and don't know what a gun is (thinking it is a murder-machine), or if you ask them "What is an assault rifle?", most can't explain that is just cosmetic accessories on a low powered hunting rifle. They demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger (or the Beginner-Expert phenomenon), simultaneously knowing nothing, and getting mad at experts for contradicting them.

Gun-controllers (not all, but most) think things like:

So irrational hopolophobics (gun phobics) aren't informed, don't accept corrections, and use the same fear-based reasoning that causes arachnophobics to scream like a little-girl and feint at the site of spiders: it's all fear-based reasoning, as proven by:

Of course the reasonable know that laws can turn regular people into felons, but they can’t turn felons into regular people.

The question I ask is, "Do you think career politicians really don't know anything about guns or how to get laws passed -- or that they know better, and will stand on the graves of our children to get votes/money/power?" I suspect they aren't as dumb as they act, and they know better -- but they know that if they pass effective security improvements, then their best attention and campaign issue evaporates. Since they know this wouldn't be popular, they blame the other side for exactly what they're doing (commit the Big Lie™).

Gun Articles

🔫 These are some of the basics about Guns or Gun operations that anyone should know before they should form an opinion on how to address a "gun problem".

Bullets.jpg
There are many people who claim the AR-15 bullets (the .223) are uniquely deadly, or that you can get shot one place and have it exit somewhere else, and other myths propagate by FakeNews outlets like The Atlantic, NYT, or CBS's 60 minutes. Some of these rumors were created by the military to make the troops more comfortable with using a gun that was far less powerful than the AK-47's that our troops were facing, and much weaker than the hunting rifles they had used at home. But sometimes weaker is better. Wounded soldiers cost more resources than dead ones, and lighter guns/rounds are easier to carry and shoot: and that's why the military chose it. But the facts are that.223 isn't even the most powerful varmint round, and is one of the weakest of the rifle rounds. It is so weak that it can't be used to hunt deer or larger game in many states. Anyone trying to sell this AR-15 bullets are more deadly than other rifle bullets, is either a fool or a propagandist. And if they're a media organization with a single fact-checker, you know which one.
GunControlForDummies.png

Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's for short) is how many times guns are used for good (to stop a crime, or for "defense") as opposed to doing harm. If you don't know how many times a gun is used for good, then how can have context on the good-to-bad ratios? In other words, if guns are used for good, far far more often than they're used to commit crimes, or for bad uses, then gun control could easily do more harm than good.

Best estimates on both are that guns are used in ≈9,000 murders per year (only about 1/2 to 2/3rds of murders are with a gun), but they're used about 2.2 million times a year to stop a crime. That means if you outlawed all guns (pure gun control), and you're naive enough to think that would stop 9,000 murders, you'd probably increase crime (including violent crimes) by a couple million more cases a year? Whether that is a net win for you is based completely on your irrational fear/hatred of an inanimate object (hopolophobia).
DoSomething2.png
After every mass shooting (especially School shootings), there's the hue and cry, "this happened again, we have to do something!" They usually don’t say what, and the few who do, usually aren't very informed on the topic. So let's tear it down and look at what we should do, and should not do, and what people are asking for. And understand why were are likely to stay divided between gun controllers and those with a clue.
IsItLoaded.jpeg
This is a short list of some of the "smartest Gun-Controllers in the room". This isn't just "gotcha" type mistakes, this is about Gun Control advocates fundamental failure to understand the basics of what they're talking about. I'd be happy to find a gun-controller that could talk about the basic parts and operation without sounding like an idiot, but this article is about the examples of the 99% that are giving the rest a bad name. The things they said that make the informed gun-owners double-face-palm, and undermines the interests of any rational gun controllers. Some day I'll meet one of the latter.
KnifeControl.png
While I wish it was a joke, California, UK and Oz (Australia) all have "knife control" to keep the public from having pointy things. And they're adding more of these laws to protect us, all the time. Never mind that criminals ignore dumb laws by nature of them being criminals, so all the laws can do is punishing the innocent. Worse, since gun control laws seem to result in more violent criminals using knives, and thus more stabbings (up to 5-10x our rate of stabbing), they are looking at adding many more laws to protect us from the dreaded assault utensils. Seriously, don't stop rampant criminal immigration, or punish criminals, it's time to outlaw pointy things, and demanding cooling off periods before ordering cutlery. Politicians are willing to turn law abiding citizens (collectors/practitioners) into criminals, and waste the courts time and money, and distract law enforcement from more serious issues.
AssaultWeapon.png
Since the 1930's an assault rifle is fully automatic (select fire) military weapon (one squeeze of the trigger fires multiple bullets). Then in 1988 gun-control activist (Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann) invented the term "Assault Weapon", to include civilian semi-automatic weapons (one squeeze of the trigger fires one bullet), because it had a few cosmetic features in common with assault rifles, and because the public might not be able to understand the difference. The media and AP immediately went along with the ruse to dupe the public. So an assault weapon is just a low-powered (smaller cartridge) hunting rifle with some wooden parts replaced by plastic parts (to lighten it), and some cosmetic accessories thrown in; like a pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, accessory rails, or collapsable/foldable stock. Most guns have removable magazines, and the biggest difference coastal progressives point to is a pistol grip or magazine size. But all these features are easily swappable after-the-fact, none of which changes the lethality at all, and people can convert most rifles back and forth in about 10 minutes. Which is why gun enthusiasts think gun controllers (and their voters) are completely uninformed about guns

🔫

NPR tries to school the right on something NPR knows little about: in this case anything to do with guns (or canons), or History. Which begs the question, "Why do we have to subsidize them"? It's not that I dislike NPR, but whenever I hear them on conservative issues, they usually fuck it up, big time. Like this example on where Molon Labe comes from, and why it's wrong to use it with AR-15's instead of a canon.
MyGadsden.jpg
There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
ModernMusket.png
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
GunControlForDummies.png

Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's for short) is how many times guns are used for good (to stop a crime, or for "defense") as opposed to doing harm. If you don't know how many times a gun is used for good, then how can have context on the good-to-bad ratios? In other words, if guns are used for good, far far more often than they're used to commit crimes, or for bad uses, then gun control could easily do more harm than good.

Best estimates on both are that guns are used in ≈9,000 murders per year (only about 1/2 to 2/3rds of murders are with a gun), but they're used about 2.2 million times a year to stop a crime. That means if you outlawed all guns (pure gun control), and you're naive enough to think that would stop 9,000 murders, you'd probably increase crime (including violent crimes) by a couple million more cases a year? Whether that is a net win for you is based completely on your irrational fear/hatred of an inanimate object (hopolophobia).
The news never likes to talk about GGWG's (Good Guys with Guns), and the many, many more cases, where responsible adults save lives, using guns. This is just a small sampling of the millions of DGU's (Defensive Gun Uses) that happen each year.
GunQuotes.png
Here are my favorite gun quotes. This quote sums up the key problem with gun-controllers arguments: they're unintentional hypocrites or fools. You can’t eliminate a tool, or knowledge of it. All that you can do is decide whether there should be a balance of power, or none. Some believe in that balance, others believe that the state is never wrong, especially if you ignore the History of all the times they’ve been wrong in the past. Liberty •  Militia Meaning Militia Dependent •  Founding Fathers •  Legal Famous People OpponentsObama
Magazine limits have never been shown to have any impact on gun crime, crime, or casualties in mass shootings. Democrats demand low capacity magazines either knowing that (and not caring), or being ignorant of the topic they're trying to legislate. Persecuting someone knowing that your law can't help is kinda the definition of asshole.
Here are dozens of examples of Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians. Those claiming that civilians don’t stop school shootings are either either ignorant, liars, or both. So if you hear or read that claim, you can immediately consider the source discredited by their own dishonesty, bias or incompetence. 16 items

🔫 These are some of the basics about Guns in the Media, or how the media handles guns, that everyone should know before they take what the media is offering them for granted.

The NYT embarassing editorial on guns, shows what's wrong with the paper. They either don't have fact checkers, or count on their readers to either not know the truth, or not care. Bad facts, and one side of the story is propaganda (FakeNews), not journalism.
There was another anti-gun hit-piece in NYT, where they gave up all semblance of journalism and integrity, and decided to turn over their editorial pages to founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus (with no common sense or rebuttals allowed, as usual). The lies of omission make you dumber for reading the article, as you'll come out less informed and more confident of the opposite (like Progressives on most issues they know nothing about). And then some wonder why the informed on topics mock the NYT as a caricature of what Journalism is supposed to be?
BCTSGV.png
Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence is another FakeNews organization that exists to invent false numbers to dupe the gullible rubes. A cursory look at their numbers, and they fall apart -- they aren't based on subjective murder rates, gun ownership rates, or anything that would lead to the conclusions they draw: it's about whether they like the gun policies -- then cooking the numbers to invent a correlation that doesn't exist.
GLCTPGV.png
The GLCTPGV is part of the far-left disinformation campaign to dupe the gullible rubes. They either know nothing about the topic of guns, or are flamingly dishonest. This explains how.
IsItLoaded.jpeg
This is a short list of some of the "smartest Gun-Controllers in the room". This isn't just "gotcha" type mistakes, this is about Gun Control advocates fundamental failure to understand the basics of what they're talking about. I'd be happy to find a gun-controller that could talk about the basic parts and operation without sounding like an idiot, but this article is about the examples of the 99% that are giving the rest a bad name. The things they said that make the informed gun-owners double-face-palm, and undermines the interests of any rational gun controllers. Some day I'll meet one of the latter.
Truth480.png
Why don't people trust Obama when he says he isn't trying to take anyone's guns? Because gun advocates listen to what he says at other times too. How he legislated, what he says to campaign contributors, and like his gun control speech that the media failed to fact-check, but I point out just a few of the problems with it.
ChainsawBayonet.png
USAToday has a long history of dumb, and they should have been renamed USSA (United Socialist States of America) because that seems to be their bend/lean. But here's an example of their dumb.

🔫 There are stories about Government stifling or suffocating liberty and opportunity: almost always for the greater good. But if you're getting squashed or stymied by a jack-boot, it may not matter to you what the intentions were.

MyGadsden.jpg
There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
ModernMusket.png
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
In 2016, California passed many gun-grabbers dream laws: phased in tyranny over the next couple years. If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
Concealed carry facts:
  • They commit fewer crimes than the population, or police
  • They have better records on shooting than the populace or police
  • The fallacy with more guns = more crime is disproven by the fact that states with the most conceal and carry permits, have lower crimes -- and the trends as C&C goes up, crime has not
In 1994 the federal government enacted a "Assault Weapon" ban, with a sunset clause to end by 2000. After 6 years it was shown that it had done absolutely nothing to curb crime, gun crime or mass shootings -- so it went away and there was absolutely no noticeable difference in either. California quickly enacted a standard magazine ban (what they call high capacity magazines) to punish their citizens for not living in a free state -- but because ex-post facto laws (ones that make prior actions a crime) are generally unconstitutional, they grandfathered in old magazines. While the law was still technically unconstitutional, it wasn't clear how the Supreme's would rule, so the gun advocates took it, and could get around the law by claiming new magazines were pre-ban. Then in 2018 California figured fuck the Constitution they'd ban them all (without fair compensation). It was guaranteed to lose, but they could harass their citizens for years while it wound it's way through the court. Instead a judge quickly and brutally ruled against it, and made standard capacity magazines legal for a week: and over 1M of them were bought, showing how fraudulent and corrupt the ban was in the first place. If crime doesn't skyrocket, it proves that magazine bans aren't about public safety, but intolerance and people control.
Militia.png
Words change meaning over time. The militia means what it meant at the founding, not what the word evolved to mean today.

At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia.

But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313).

You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below
Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, and pump/lever action, then bolt action guns (which committed one of our worst mass shootings in American history) and the results are, there are no safe guns in the hands of crazies. Thus logic says they're lying, either to us, themselves or both. So I've yet to meet the gun-controller that will be satisfied with X, when that means their neighbors will still have guns.
Hillary2A.png
While Hillary tries to play the moderate to those that don't know better, if you have any understanding of her background, you'd know she'd be on the least constitutional, and certainly least pro-2nd Amendment Presidents we've ever had. For me, that's reason enough to never have voted for her. But the denials of those on the left come in two flavors: ignorance or polemics (trying to spin). If you know what you're talking about, there's no doubt of where she stands, only doubt on how successful she'd be at her agenda.
A good gun law? I'm pleasantly surprised. This law requires mandatory firearm knowledge before legislators can introduce firearm related legislation. What a novel idea!
Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.
Magazine limits have never been shown to have any impact on gun crime, crime, or casualties in mass shootings. Democrats demand low capacity magazines either knowing that (and not caring), or being ignorant of the topic they're trying to legislate. Persecuting someone knowing that your law can't help is kinda the definition of asshole.
Microstamping.jpg
Microstamping.jpg
Microstamping is a form of gun-control. California figures if you can't outlaw something, you can still put impossible regulations on it to illegally achieve the same ends: enter micro-stamping. Like their law passed in 2007 to put little engravings of serial numbers rounds that are fired, the technology doesn't exist, if it did it would be easy to defeat, and wouldn't be effective for 100 years. But common sense doesn't slow the left, they passed it anyways (A.B. 1471).
NoFly.png
The left demands that we close the “insane” loophole that allows people on the No Fly List to buy guns. Which begs the question, who gets on that list, and how do you get off it, if you're on it by mistake? What we know is there's thousands of people that shouldn't be on there, on it. No known way for them to get off it. And no mass shooter has ever been on it. Sounds like a good enough reason to assume your guilt and take away your rights, to a Democrat.
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.
Law.jpg
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more. If you want to be reasonable, you first need to be informed, and get the basics right. How can you reason with an ignoramus (well meaning or not)? So the first step to reasonable gun laws, is educating the gun controllers, on what guns are, how they work, and how bad the current laws are.
Law.jpg
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more.
Shotspotter.png
Shotspotter.png
Progressives are full of good ideas on how to spend other people's money, on ways to avoid blaming criminals for their actions. This one was by spending ≈$250,000/square mile (or about $60-90K/sq mi in yearly reoccurring costs), you could detect and send cops to scenes of shootings. And liberals who watch too much CSI pressed many cities to adopt the expensive systems. How are they working?
SmartGuns.png
"Smart guns" (sometimes called safe guns) were an idea invented by gun controllers to have a wedge issue to divide the nation. But there's nothing smart about them. Anyone with a basic clue of them, would laugh openly, if they weren't so fucking dangerous. But the whole issue is evidence of why we should tests to qualify people on topics, before allowing them to vote.
If our gun laws are reasonable, then they won't have unreasonable outcomes. There wouldn't be unreasonable prosecutions, people wouldn't be getting their lives ruined by gun laws or over aggressive prosecutors, as if the laws were reasonably designed and written, they would have checks against those abuses. A single example disproves the ideas that gun laws are reasonable, and we have more than a single example: * 2015.07.14 Elizabeth Griffith •* 2015.06.28 Brian Fletcher •* 2015.02.13 Charged for owning an antique gun •* 2013 Shaneen Allen •* 2010.07 Todd Doering •.

🔫 These are some of the basics about Guns Experiences, or my experiences with a gun, just to share some first person stories and help people understand my biases or where I'm coming from.

FXImpact.jpg
There's this common myth that Air Rifles ("BB Guns" or "Pellet Guns") are toys, however, while they don't have quite the velocity of our top of the line modern rifles, they easily exceed black powder rifles that brought down buffalo and won the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. People hunt Buffalo and Elk with them, and they have no problem going through humans. Fortunately, since the gun-ignorant don't understand their threat, they aren't highly regulated (one last bastion of liberty, for now), and mass shootings and crimes are usually committed with gunpowder-based weapons. Which makes them especially popular in countries/place with hoplophobia.
CCWAZ.jpg
The other day, I went and got my CCW (License To Carry a Concealed Weapon). Well, technically, I took the class to get my CCW, and have filled out my forms (it'll be a couple months before I get them back). And since I'm in the People's Republic of California, I only took the classes for the other ≈40 or so states (in Free America) that respect the Constitution and 2nd Amendment (called shall issue states): those silly rules don't apply in California, unless we get national reciprocity, then they'll secede. Still, it was an experience that I figured I'd share.
Waver.png
These are the stories of my experiences pulling a gun to stop crimes, and how it differs from the stereotypes. In my life, I have personally used a gun to end an altercation three times. A rape, an armed car robbery, and a drug dealer or pederast trying to pedal something on a not so helpless young lad.
Waver.png
This is a story of what shooting is like for me, and how it differs from the stereotypes. Now the plural of anecdote is not data -- but lies of omission, are lies. The media loves to bombard us with selective anecdotes about how guns ruined lives, but almost never about the many, many millions of times a year more, where they are just used for hobby or sport. This is just some of those.

🔫 I think comparisons across countries (and cultures) are stupid: they are almost never done to increase insights, but to mislead the gullible for an agenda.

  • Countries account differently (like the UK only counts homicide when someone has been charged), we have different cultures, policing and racial breakdowns -- which completely changes the outcomes. Would you rather be burned to death in one Australia's murder-by-fire events, or run over by a truck in France?
  • Many countries with gun control have much higher violent crime, or their trends are worse than our trends, is that really a win?
  • Once you start normalizing for race/culture, you get some shocking discoveries, like the U.S. has a lower white murder rate than many places like the U.K. If guns cause crime, then why doesn't it cause more white crime? If gun control stops crime/violence, why doesn't it stop it in African or South American countries?
    • Over 3/4ths of America's gun violence seems to be focused around immigration or turf problems with Gangs in our Democrat-controlled inner-cities, which have strict gun controls. Why are Democrats 4x more likely to commit murder with lower gun ownership that Republicans?

If you truly care about the lives being lost, you'd dig for the answer to these questions. Most Democrats just call people names (like racist) and run-away from anything that might actually help or save lives. And they get outraged at science/facts that show that gun-control hasn't worked, or that many of America's problems comes from cultural conflict (due to our higher rates of diversity and immigration).

USvOZ.jpg
Australia took away guns and had a decrease in gun murder/crime/suicide, with a larger increase in murder/crime/suicide overall. Decades later they are down in murders and suicides, but not by any more than the U.S, or trends that started 30 years before the gun ban. They’re up in Violent Crime, Robbery, Rape and aggravated assault by much more. Their mass murderers moved to burning down buildings (with rates about flat). So they spent $500M, still have 3M illegal guns in their country., and higher violent crime: I’m not seeing the win.
USvCanada.jpg
There’s this common meme spread to mislead people that the U.S. is so much worse than Canada in murders, so I wanted to show it in pictures (to help people understand). Canada rates of murder didn't change any more than the U.S. despite Canada enacting gun control and the U.S. loosening it. This shows that gun control is not an effective determining factor in murder rates.
USvUK.png
When you correct for their creative-accounting, the U.S. has a lower white murder rate, and less violent crime than the UK. And the UK's murder and crime rates went up since gun control (while the U.S.'s have been trending down, despite loosening gun-control laws). Gun control didn’t work well for the UK. This breaks down the numbers, links to sources, and shows my work.
Scales.png
When the facts support your argument, you share the facts -- when they don't, some will resort to partial information (cherry picking), fallacies, or other deceptions. The facts are, in murder rates: U.S. ranks #121 safest out of 218 countries, #4 safest out of 49 counties in our hemisphere, #19 safest out of 36 OECD countries, our drug/gang/crime problems have nothing to do with gun control, and more guns = less murder because it's dangerous to try to kill an armed person. This article contains the stats and facts, for those who care.