Here's What Happens When You Ban Guns [Archive] - Page 2

Kecibukia

11-03-2005, 16:11

Guns are used in violent crime, therefore if guns are banned and the ability to get hold of them is restricted, then they cannot be used in violent crime and there would be less murders.
Relating the increase in crime in the UK to the gun ban is ridiculous, as many have pointed out, there was never a time when people defending themselves with guns (the one who did, tony martin, got jailed), and so the ban has not stopped them from defending themselves with guns as they never did.

The real reasons for the increase in crime are;
1) Increases in drug use and drug related crime
2) Light sentences and ineffective court system
3) Labour's refusal to build more prisons and lock criminals away for a longer time
4) A police force that has been crippled by Labour's obsession with two things; Paperwork/red tape, and political correctness.

Martin was released after a public outcry. Now he is in protective custody because the criminal and his associates have publicly threatened him and are being paid by the Gov't to sue him.

And w/ 1-4, you trust your Gov't to protect you and do what is in the best interests of the people?

I_Hate_Cows

11-03-2005, 16:12

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:13

I wasn't being ironic, I was being sarcastic as denoted by :rolleyes:

oh, ok. :rolleyes: doesn't always mean sarcasm

Kecibukia

11-03-2005, 16:14

Texas also likes to kill as many criminals as they can get their hands on

Nothing wrong w/ that IMO. As the comedian Ron White said" The rest of the country is abolishing the death penalty, we're puttin' in an express lane". In ragards to a new Texas law speeding up the process if there are 3 or more credible witnesses to the crime.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 16:15

I don't see 2.5 million crimes wern't prevented by firearm use

Ok, I'll get you that one also. Hang on a minute.

I_Hate_Cows

11-03-2005, 16:16

Nothing wrong w/ that IMO. As the comedian Ron White said" The rest of the country is abolishing the death penalty, we're puttin' in an express lane". In ragards to a new Texas law speeding up the process if there are 3 or more credible witnesses to the crime.
No, there is nothing wrong with killing as many criminals as you can get your hands if their crime is bad enoguh and you have enoguh indisputable proof. However, Texas just likes to kill people

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 16:22

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

Two surveys. Here's the link to a peer review of the National Self-Defense Survey. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html

Reprinted here, so you can see the comments:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

The survey itself is not online - you have to get a copy of the journal it was published in, or buy one of Prof. Kleck's books.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 16:26

Take a look at this number and see if it means anything to you, 2,452,643. Does it ring a bell? No? Well if you are thinking these numbers represent a lotto winner’s purse or the number of times Democratic candidates have attacked President Bush in the last month you are mistaken. No instead this very large number represents the number of times Americans have used firearms to thwart crimes and defend themselves over the past year.

According to the National Self-Defense Survey created by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 the rate of defensive gun uses can be projected to approximately 2.5 million per year, or one defensive use for every 13 seconds.

Do those numbers cone as a surprise? Certainly they would to those who buy into the myths put forward by the gun control advocates in our nation. According to their information guns are the very worst things any American can own.

They love to represent guns as the cause of crimes, tragic accidents and of course suicides. Yet the actual numbers do not bear their representations out at all. Consider some more numbers from the National Self-Defense Survey.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.) In 83.5 % of those successful gun defenses, the attacker either used or threatened force first. So much for the gun control argument that gun availability for self-defense will not make any difference.

Further, in 91.7% of these defensive uses the people protecting themselves neither killed nor wounded their attackers. This surely destroys the oft used argument that gun ownership leads to wild west style shootouts in the streets doesn’t it? Of course the media is incredibly irresponsible in their consistent non-reporting of these defensive uses of firearms. At most these stories will receive only passing mention in the vast majority of media outlets. And that is only if they are mentioned at all.

Yet another popular gun control myth put forward is that a gun will most likely be used against a family member or a loved one. Yet as the survey showed over 70 % of the defensive uses were against a stranger, while those against a family member or loved one was well below 10%.

Another very popular gun control tactic is to insist that alternate self-defense options such as pepper spray or martial arts are preferable to using a gun. Yet in this survey over half of these incidents the intended victim was facing two or more attackers. And in a quarter of them three or more attackers were menacing the victim. Pepper spray or hand to hand combat would not have served the intended victims nearly as well as their guns did. Yet those intent on disarming America insist on selling the lie that guns do not make us safer.

Of course possibly the most maligned laws by gun control advocates are concealed carry laws. In every state, which allows citizens to carry weapons violent crime, has dropped yet the cries of gun grabbers to do away with these laws for safety’s sake continue. The Self-Defense Survey proves most damning to the cries against these laws. Nearly 80% of the defensive gun uses were by citizens with concealed weapons. Further a quarter of the uses occurred away from the defenders home. Where would these innocent citizens have been without these laws?

The evidence from this study makers it very clear just how wrong the gun grabbers of America are. The may argue all day about wanting to reduce violent crimes yet they argue against Americans arming themselves. If they were to get their way there would have been more, many more victims of violent crimes, not fewer in this nation.

The gun control crowd loves to talk about our children and reducing crime and safety. Yet if their stated desires ever become the law of our land what will our children have to look forward to? More rapes, more robberies, more assaults, more murders, and more victims.

Maybe those who want us not to own guns really do care and really think they have our best interests at heart. But there are 2,452,643 Americans who will surely disagree.

Kecibukia

11-03-2005, 16:34

Take a look at this number and see if it means anything to you, 2,452,643. Does it ring a bell? No? Well if you are thinking these numbers represent a lotto winner?s purse or the number of times Democratic candidates have attacked President Bush in the last month you are mistaken. No instead this very large number represents the number of times Americans have used firearms to thwart crimes and defend themselves over the past year.

Come on WL, you should know the general response to this now.."LA LA LA, GUNS 'R BAD, disarm the public and crime will go down, Americans are stupid LA LA LA."

Why is it that Canuck is the ONLY one so far that has attempted to provide evidence supporting his case beyond "I "feel" safe" and "it's America's fault crime is high in the UK ?

Battlestar Christiania

11-03-2005, 16:58

There were only 853 murders in the UK last year, with a population of 60,000,000.

Alabama with a population of 4,500,752 had 299 murders.

Florida with a population of 17,019,068 had 924 murders.

Yeah, I guess the UK is a very dangerous place?
1. Murders are only a tiny portion of violent crime.
2. The U.S. murder rate has been rapidly declining relative to the U.K. rate.
3. Both N. Ireland and Scotland have MUCH higher homicide rates than the U.S.
4. In 1987, Florida's murder rate was 37% higher than the national average. That year, Florida passed a right-to-carry law. In 1999, Florida's murder rate was equal to the national average.

Battlestar Christiania

11-03-2005, 17:01

Comparitively, the US still has a higher amount of crime per person than the UK (based on those stats). Which means the UK is still a dramatically safer place to live than the US (or perhaps it would be more correct to say that living in the UK lowers the odds of being a victim of crime since "safe" is a relative term).

-sigh-

Britain has over 10,000 crimes per hundred thousand people. The United States has less than 4200. Victimization surveys also show a much greater crime problem in Britain.

At the end of the day, if I had to walk around town with a sign stuck to me reading "Mug me!" I'd feel safer doing it in the UK than the US.
And you'd be wrong -- not only would you be more likely to be mugged in the UK, you'd be unable to defend yourself.

Battlestar Christiania

11-03-2005, 17:05

I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but in 1994, the sale of assault weapons was banned in the US.

No, the MANUFACTURE of weapons with certain cosmetic features was prohibited. To suggest that these weapons, which were still available, which operated in the same manner as hunting and target shooting weapons, and which were only ever used in a tiny percentage of crimes, is laughable.

This ban lasted for 10 years and Bush let the ban lapse.
.
The United States Congress made no efforts to renew this unconstitutional infringement unpon the civil liberties of law-abiding people; the President had nothing to do with it.

Battlestar Christiania

11-03-2005, 17:09

Someone stated earlier, and I am not sure if it was on this thread or not, that Texas has had the right to carry concealed weapons since 1995 I believe and that Florida has had that same right since 1987. Does anyone know if that is fact?
Both correct, and crime (including murder) rates dropped dramatically as a result.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 17:11

Britain has over 10,000 crimes per hundred thousand people. The United States has less than 4200. Victimization surveys also show a much greater crime problem in Britain.
It is still safer. Being a victim of crime is not in itself dangerous. Rape, murder and assault are dangerous, and all are higher in the us than in the uk
not only would you be more likely to be mugged in the UK, you'd be unable to defend yourself.You are more likely to be mugged, but less likely to be murdered. And personally I'd much rather be mugged than murdered. If the mugging is the price of not being murdered, it's well worth it.

Killer Bud

11-03-2005, 17:11

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada

Yeah right buddy, nice try. As a Canadian, I know this comment to be bullshit. U.S. gun deaths are something like 7x more than Canada's and that's per capita, so population size isn't a factor here. Besides, Canada doesn't ban guns, again this shows how much you're uninformed here. We have laws like having to take a safety course and getting a license before you can legally buy a gun. This helps reduce accidental deaths from irresponsible use.

On the other hand, you neglected to mention that the U.S. is #1 in the world for gun deaths among 1st world nations. The U.S. is a warzone compared to Canada. So it goes to show how too many gun freedoms can be a problem as well. :mp5: :rolleyes:

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 17:20

murders with firearms

1. United States 8,259 (1999)
2. Canada 165 (1999)

population

1. United States 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.)
2. Canada 32,207,113 (July 2003 est.)

murders per capita:
US: 2.8*10^-5
Canada: 5.12*10^-6

candada has about 18% of the murders per capita that the US does so you are somewhere between 5 and 6 times more likely to get murdered with firearms in the US, based on these figures

Neo Cannen

11-03-2005, 17:43

So's the knowledge that your target may be armed.

Thats completely diffrent for a number of reasons

1) No one ever gets killed by a camera

2) A camera is not designed to kill anyone

3) The deterrant in the case of a camera is that there is evidence being gathered, not that your opponent is more hevely armed than you

4) With a camera there is a certianty that it is gathering evidence, where as with a gun, you may take your luck and think "I could take him as i have a bigger/better/more rapid fire etc gun".

The simple arguement against gun control is the more guns there are with a greater lack of control, the greater the potential for accidents. Why do you think we have crossings on roads and (in America) laws against crossing the road where there is no specific crossing (I believe thats known as Jaywalking). Because if you control crossings, you decrease the likelyhood for acidents. The less guns there are the less accidents and the less danger. I gurantee you that while gun crime may be going up in the UK, the number of gun related deaths per 1000 is much higher in America than the UK.

Snetchistan

11-03-2005, 17:51

-sigh-

Britain has over 10,000 crimes per hundred thousand people.
I'm confused by this. Could you explain why the Home Office statistics show the crime rates, at least for England and Wales, as being about a quarter of the amount you quote?

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:02

He might have been referring to "yearly".
The data is stating per quarter (every three months).

Taking 28.9 times 4 (quarters in a year) you get 115.6 per 1000 (according to the site)

Which, of course, translates to 11,560 per hundred thousand, per year.

It seems that "London, city of" has a crime rate of almost 13 times that, too - nearly 147,200 per 100,000, per year.

Nimzonia

11-03-2005, 18:03

-sigh-

Britain has over 10,000 crimes per hundred thousand people. The United States has less than 4200. Victimization surveys also show a much greater crime problem in Britain.

And you'd be wrong -- not only would you be more likely to be mugged in the UK, you'd be unable to defend yourself.

We can all talk shit, but your arguments are particularly pungent examples.

For example, randomly quoting nationmaster, because I'm too lazy to get stats from anywhere else, both the UK and US total crime rates per 100,000 are in the 8000s. The UK appears to have a much higher rate of fraud, but lower rates of crimes such as murder, assault and rape.

I don't particularly care whether it's a respectable source, since the only point I'm trying to make is that you can find statistics to support whatever you want.

But I doubt you even have that.

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:05

I would assume the main page for "Home Office" counts as fairly unbiased and trustworthy, as far as the England stats go?

Snetchistan

11-03-2005, 18:09

Ooops my mistake - that would actually explain it. I apologize.

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:13

It was easy to misunderstand - I don't think the poster clarified wether he meant "yearly" or not - I just found it highly likely, seeing as how the numbers on the site are posted quarterly, and they're almost EXACTLY a quarter of the claimed numbers (in this thread)

Snetchistan

11-03-2005, 18:17

No it's my fault entirely. i just went from page after page of yearly statistcal trends of individual crime statistics and clicked onto general crime statistics, I didn't pay enough attention to the specifics. My mistake, I apologise.

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:19

Not a big deal - I don't see a need to apologize for an honest error.

Rainbirdtopia

11-03-2005, 18:34

Nah here in the UK we just get madmen running down the motorway with Samurai swords, swipping at passing cars.

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:35

That actually sounds pretty darn cool.

Can I move over there with you?

Man.
"America - land of the free, home of the brave",
or:
"England - realm of car-slashing samurai"

I know where I'm living.
Samurai rock.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 18:41

I'll repeat myself. Here are two counties that are affluent suburbs of Washington, D.C. Nice place to live - low unemployment. One is in Virginia, and the other is in Maryland.

Maryland has tough anti-gun laws.
Virginia allows easy concealed carry permits, and open carry with no permits.

These counties border each other along the Maryland-Virginia border.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/c...03_Year_End.pdf
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/2003.htm

All census data is from quickfacts.census.gov

Montgomery County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 21
Rape 135
Robbery 1004
Aggravated Assault 954

Population 918,881
Median household income, 1999 $71,551
Per capita money income, 1999 $35,684
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 5.4%

Fairfax County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 9
Rape 80
Robbery 540
Aggravated Assault 399

Population 1,000,405
Median household income, 1999 $81,050
Per capita money income, 1999 $36,888
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 4.5%

Now, let's compare on the basis of crimes per 100,000 people:

Montgomery Fairfax % difference

Murder 2.3 0.9 - 61%
Rape 14.7 8.0 - 46%
Robbery 109.3 53 - 52%
Assault 103.8 39.9 - 62%

It is illegal to carry a gun in Montgomery County, Maryland.
There are severe restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.

It is legal to carry a gun openly in Fairfax County, Virginia.
It is easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Fairfax County, Virginia as long as you are not a felon.
The state offers no restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:43

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 18:51

I think it's important to state, for clarity's sake, that any sane person wouldn't argue for "guns for everyone!"

There have to be (and are, as far as I can tell) pretty good restrictions on weapon ownership - training is required (here in Kansas), and obviously, any prior felon can't just start packing.

No, in Virginia there are laws that prevent guns from legally being in the hands of felons.

But, in interviewing the felons I work with, I find that they know that people in Virginia are carrying guns, and whenever possible, they avoid crimes of personal confrontation (we call them Part 1 crimes). That's why our crime rate (as posted before) is less than half of what the Montgomery County, Maryland people are enjoying.

The Lordship of Sauron

11-03-2005, 18:52

Oh, I agree completely - I just know some people will invariably view your stance (and mine, as a side-note) as: "free gun handouts for everyone!"

They're right to oppose such lunacy - but that's not what we're discussing.

Naturality

11-03-2005, 19:20

Most gun owners in the US could care less about rap or Hollywood. Especially the law abiding ones (the vast majority).

The typical person who likes to emulate Hollywood and tries to use a gun in that manner usually ends up "killed by police" or "killed by armed civilian".

Here's a picture of idiotic sights that such a person might want to buy:
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-gag.html

Yeah, holding their nine sideways, just like in the movies.

Lol that annoys me so. They just don't know how absolutely stupid they look. Most of the wannabe hardcore dumbasses I've met.. know nothing much more about guns than that.

CanuckHeaven

11-03-2005, 20:28

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

I've posted the link many times before.
Weapon use

"In 2003, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present."

US Department of Justice, so I'm not pulling it out of thin air.
The last time you posted this, I posted a rebuttal, stating that your statistics do not offer a clear or true picture of the violent crimes in relation to gun usage. The 24% figure is representative of weapon use, but the following clearly depicts the natural choice of weapon, and that is a gun:

Using the site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon) that you quoted:

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

Therefore 67% of murders are committed by guns.

I love how gun enthusiasts play down the real numbers.

Here is another:

Offenders had or used a weapon in 45% of all robberies.

The 24% figure quoted above in your post, doesn't reflect a true picture.

Unistate

11-03-2005, 20:31

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 20:39

The last time you posted this, I posted a rebuttal, stating that your statistics do not offer a clear or true picture of the violent crimes in relation to gun usage. The 24% figure is representative of weapon use, but the following clearly depicts the natural choice of weapon, and that is a gun:

Using the site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon) that you quoted:

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

Therefore 67% of murders are committed by guns.

I love how gun enthusiasts play down the real numbers.

Here is another:

Offenders had or used a weapon in 45% of all robberies.

The 24% figure quoted above in your post, doesn't reflect a true picture.

I'm talking about "violent crime", which is ALL Part 1 offenses.
In that case, it is 24% of all Part 1 offenses.
Robbery is only a small part of Part 1 offenses.
Murder is an even smaller part of Part 1 offenses.

So, if you got rid of guns, there would still be a substantial number of Part 1 offenses.

In addition, two completely separate surveys (both peer reviewed) have found that there are 2.5 million violent crimes (Part 1 offenses) that would have been committed if the offender had not been driven away by an armed civilian.

Are you going to play down two completely separate peer reviewed studies?

Play down 2.5 million. Let's see you try.

Also, you haven't explained why two counties, so very much alike in every other respect, have vastly different Part 1 offense rates - violent crime in the gun control location is double that of the violent crime in the gun carrying location.

CanuckHeaven

11-03-2005, 20:42

And do you really think, if someone was going to go as far as murder, that they would care if they were able to use a gun, or had to use a plank with a nail or two through it?
Actually I do believe that gun ownership increases the number of murders and or woundings. It is far easier to shoot someone from a distance than get up close and personal.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 20:43

Actually I do believe that gun ownership increases the number of murders and or woundings. It is far easier to shoot someone from a distance than get up close and personal.

Then explain why my county has less than half the murders (and less than half the violent crime) of an adjacent county.

We carry guns in my county. Gun ownership is much higher.

The other county forbids the carry of guns by law.

Explain please why your hypothesis fails the test.

CanuckHeaven

11-03-2005, 20:48

Also, you haven't explained why two counties, so very much alike in every other respect, have vastly different Part 1 offense rates - violent crime in the gun control location is double that of the violent crime in the gun carrying location.
Like I stated before, two counties in two different States bordering each other is a very poor example.

Can you point to any credible stats between two States, one with gun control, and another without, and prove that the gun control State has double the violent crime that the non gun control State has?

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 20:49

Like I stated before, two counties in two different States bordering each other is a very poor example.

Can you point to any credible stats between two States, one with gun control, and another without, and prove that the gun control State has double the violent crime that the non gun control State has?

I'll be back with that in a minute.

By the way, it's not a bad example. According to the US Census, these counties are demographically very much alike. Very much alike. So much so that the only essential difference is the gun laws.

You can't get better statistical control than that.

Neo Cannen

11-03-2005, 20:55

Also, you haven't explained why two counties, so very much alike in every other respect, have vastly different Part 1 offense rates - violent crime in the gun control location is double that of the violent crime in the gun carrying location.

"Violent Crime" is far too large a definition to justify gun ownership. You need to be more specific.

Neo Cannen

11-03-2005, 20:58

I've made this post 3 times now and I am not sure if people are ignoring it because they dont understand it or what it is but I will now explain. I said that CCTV cameras were a detterant and not an active method of preventing crime and I got this response.

So's the knowledge that your target may be armed.

Thats completely diffrent for a number of reasons

1) No one ever gets killed by a camera

2) A camera is not designed to kill anyone

3) The deterrant in the case of a camera is that there is evidence being gathered, not that your opponent is more hevely armed than you

4) With a camera there is a certianty that it is gathering evidence, where as with a gun, you may take your luck and think "I could take him as i have a bigger/better/more rapid fire etc gun".

The simple arguement against gun control is the more guns there are with a greater lack of control, the greater the potential for accidents. Why do you think we have crossings on roads and (in America) laws against crossing the road where there is no specific crossing (I believe thats known as Jaywalking). Because if you control crossings, you decrease the likelyhood for acidents. The less guns there are the less accidents and the less danger. I gurantee you that while gun crime may be going up in the UK, the number of gun related deaths per 1000 is much higher in America than the UK.

MEDKtulu

11-03-2005, 20:59

Then explain why my county has less than half the murders (and less than half the violent crime) of an adjacent county.

We carry guns in my county. Gun ownership is much higher.

The other county forbids the carry of guns by law.

Explain please why your hypothesis fails the test.

Just out of intrest, what percentage of deaths are caused by guns in each state?

And everyone here can keep posting as many statistics as they like till they are blue in the face. I know what it is like where I live and I like it that way. What you're happy with isn't what I'm happy with. With all these figures flying back and forth I'm suprised these haven't bee mentioned before:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
- Benjamin Disreali
You can prove anything with statistics
- Carl Jung

Mt-Tau

11-03-2005, 21:02

I'll be back with that in a minute.

By the way, it's not a bad example. According to the US Census, these counties are demographically very much alike. Very much alike. So much so that the only essential difference is the gun laws.

You can't get better statistical control than that.

I hate to tell you this, but some folks are so engrained by the media, far left, or have never enjoyed the right to bare arms to begin with. Almost 90% of people I know have a gun or a collection of guns. The ones who maliciously use a gun are a slim minority. Thanks to the media, they make it seem like everyone who owns a gun is going to be a anarchist or a criminal. I still find it sad that they will show someones brains splattered because some crack dealer killed someone, but they will not show how a robbery or a mugging was foiled without firing a shot.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 21:05

"Violent Crime" is far too large a definition to justify gun ownership. You need to be more specific.

Not if there are two studies that show 2.5 million Part 1 crimes stopped by civilians with guns each year.

Part 1 crimes are violent interpersonal crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravate assault.

It is the standard way that all states and the Federal government define violent crime.

Are you saying that rape is OK then? That we shouldn't justify gun possession because a raped woman is a much better idea?

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 21:06

We'll compare two states Vermont, and Massachusetts.

Vermont
Vermont is unique in that permits are not required for carry concealed or unconcealed for resident and non-resident alike. Local ordinances vary, though. VT has no statutes concerning concealed carry, nor is there a specific statute that allows it. In the absence of a statute that prohibits it, then it is taken that there is no law against it.

It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. It is unlawful to carry a firearm within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased by such institution.

It is unlawful for a student to carry or possess a firearm "upon a school". The board of school directors may authorize the use of firearms for instructional purposes when facilities for such instruction are available.

It is unlawful to carry or possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in or on a motor vehicle within the right of way of a public highway. Exempt are law enforcement officers and hunters who are paraplegic or have a "severe physical disability" and have been issued a permit by the fish and game commissioner.

Vermont State Constitution
Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and 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.

Massachusetts
Ever since the Gun Control Act of 1998 became law, license to carry applicants are faced with increased scrutiny, even if they have had a license for decades. In many communities it is very difficult to get a license to carry, particularly if you want a Class A license.

The 1998 law created two types of Licenses to Carry Firearms:

A Class A License to Carry Firearms will cover purchase, possession and carrying of all handguns, rifles and shotguns, including those now considered "large capacity."

A Class B License to Carry Firearms will cover possession of large capacity rifles and shotguns, and non large capacity handguns.

A Class B License does not permit the holder to carry concealed and loaded.
(Note: All Class A and Class B licenses will be issued for "all lawful purposes," however, a licensing authority is allowed to impose restrictions on the possession, use and carrying as he deems proper. The law does not limit those restrictions, and the penalty for not complying with the restrictions is a fine of $1,000 to $10,000.)

What is meant by "all lawful purposes?"
In Massachusetts, licenses to carry firearms are issued for a specific purpose, and the law allows for undefined "restrictions" to be placed on its use. If you wish to carry on your person for personal protection, you should request a class a license for "all lawful purposes." You will be required to state, in writing, why you have "reason to fear injury to your person or property." This could include working in high-risk professions, routinely carrying large sums of money or valuable items, threats against your person, working in high-risk areas or during high-risk times. Try to move beyond a "generalized fear of crime" and be as specific as possible.

What about openly carrying a firearm in Massachusetts?
There are no provisions in Massachusetts law for the open carrying of firearms for LTC holders. However you may open carry at your own risk on your property or at the location of your residence or business. I say at your own risk because even though this is technically legal Massachusetts is a discretionary issuing state and if the police are called they may charge you with disorderly conduct, a similar charge, or report to the issuing authority that you are not a "suitable" person to be licensed. This could put you at risk of losing your firearm rights in the state.

Massachusetts State Constitution
Declaration of Rights
Part I
Article XVII:
The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in the time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Just so you'll notice that there is an extreme philosophical difference between Vermont and Massachusetts.
BTW - Howard Dean is from Vermont.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm

Part 1 Crimes per 100,000 population
Massachusetts
Year Population Violent Murder Rape Robbery Assault
2000 6,349,097 476.1 2.0 26.7 91.6 355.9

Vermont
Year Population Violent Murder Rape Robbery Assault
2000 608,827 113.5 1.5 23.0 19.2 69.8

See the difference?

MEDKtulu

11-03-2005, 21:14

Not if there are two studies that show 2.5 million Part 1 crimes stopped by civilians with guns each year.

Now this is a figure that I take with a pinch of salt. Since the crime was stopped how many of them were reported to the police? And since it was from a survey asking enthusiasts I'm reluctant to believe that people didn't want to make themselves look better by adding a few white lies.

Also those 2.5 million attempted crimes should be added to your crime figures since they were attempted and they would have gone ahead.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 21:17

Now this is a figure that I take with a pinch of salt. Since the crime was stopped how many of them were reported to the police? And since it was from a survey asking enthusiasts I'm reluctant to believe that people didn't want to make themselves look better by adding a few white lies.

Also those 2.5 million attempted crimes should be added to your crime figures since they were attempted and they would have gone ahead.

You can take it with a pinch of salt all you like.

The studies in question were done by different people, and no one doing the peer reviews could find fault with the studies.

Whispering Legs

11-03-2005, 21:19

The usual complaint I hear about the statistics are:
1) you didn't do it by unit population (i.e., per 100,000 people).
So I did in the county by county comparison, and I did it here.
2) you didn't control for enough.
Well, in the county by county comparison (Fairfax as compared to Montgomery), you couldn't find two counties more alike demographically.
3) You didn't compare Virginia to Maryland.
Here you go. Read it and weep.

Virginia

Year Population Violent Murder Rape Robbery Assault
1982 5,491,000 309.1 7.4 24.9 122.2 154.6
1983 5,550,000 292.5 7.0 24.7 110.5 150.4
1984 5,636,000 295.6 7.7 26.7 102.3 158.9
1985 5,706,000 294.7 7.1 27.2 100.2 160.1
1986 5,787,000 306.0 7.1 26.5 105.7 166.7
1987 5,904,000 295.0 7.4 26.0 105.8 155.8
1988 5,996,000 299.2 7.8 27.1 112.5 151.8
1989 6,098,000 312.5 7.9 26.9 106.5 171.3
1990 6,187,358 350.6 8.8 31.0 123.3 187.6
1991 6,286,000 373.2 9.3 29.9 137.6 196.4
1992 6,377,000 374.9 8.8 31.5 137.8 196.8
1993 6,491,000 372.2 8.3 32.1 142.0 189.8
1994 6,552,000 357.7 8.7 28.5 132.8 187.6

Concealed Carry is liberalized at this point...
1995 6,618,000 361.5 7.6 27.2 131.7 194.9
1996 6,675,000 341.3 7.5 26.7 122.6 184.5
1997 6,734,000 345.2 7.2 27.0 124.5 186.5
1998 6,791,000 325.7 6.2 26.7 105.6 187.2
1999 6,872,912 314.7 5.7 25.0 101.1 182.8
2000 7,078,515 281.7 5.7 22.8 88.9 164.3

Maryland
Year Population Violent Murder Rape Robbery Assault
1982 4,265,000 850.0 10.1 37.4 360.5 441.9
1983 4,304,000 807.1 8.5 32.8 347.4 418.4
1984 4,349,000 792.3 8.1 37.7 301.1 445.3
1985 4,392,000 834.6 7.9 38.7 302.2 485.8
1986 4,463,000 833.0 9.0 43.6 304.0 476.4
1987 4,535,000 767.8 9.6 39.6 290.3 428.3
1988 4,644,000 806.8 9.7 37.1 301.3 458.7
1989 4,694,000 855.4 11.6 38.0 332.1 473.7
1990 4,781,468 919.0 11.5 45.7 363.8 497.9
1991 4,860,000 956.2 11.7 45.9 407.1 491.5
1992 4,908,000 1,000.1 12.1 46.4 429.0 512.6
1993 4,965,000 997.8 12.7 44.0 434.7 506.4
1994 5,006,000 948.0 11.6 40.7 402.5 493.3
1995 5,042,000 986.9 11.8 42.2 423.1 509.7
1996 5,072,000 931.2 11.6 37.6 393.2 488.8
1997 5,094,000 846.6 9.9 35.6 336.8 464.4
1998 5,135,000 796.6 10.0 33.4 298.7 454.5
1999 5,171,634 743.4 9.0 30.0 263.7 440.8
2000 5,296,486 786.6 8.1 29.1 256.0 493.3

Neo Cannen

12-03-2005, 00:25

Not if there are two studies that show 2.5 million Part 1 crimes stopped by civilians with guns each year.

Part 1 crimes are violent interpersonal crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravate assault.

It is the standard way that all states and the Federal government define violent crime.

Are you saying that rape is OK then? That we shouldn't justify gun possession because a raped woman is a much better idea?

I see the arguement that guns reduce crime because people are affraid of them as being, frankly rather stupid for the following reasons.

1) If the criminal is armed in the first place, there is a potential for a gunfight which could cost lives of those caught in crossfire

2) It takes a certian psycology to kill a person, of which only on average 2% of any given population. The chances of the civilian with the gun to use it effectively are very low.

3) With both criminals and civilians carrying guns you then get an arms race. The criminals know the civilians are carrying hand guns so they get a semi-automatic. The civilians know that the criminals are carrying semi-automatics so they get an assult rifile. Ok it may not be that pronounced and direct but the point is that there will just be a need for more and more dangerous guns in the streets, increasing the possibility of people getting hurt.

Bottom line is, regardless of statistics or crime prevention the truth is that the more guns you have the greater the chances of gun related deaths. And while people may quote statistics "Ah but in X american state with Y gun controls there was only Z deaths". I resond by saying that there were deaths. Deaths must be avoided at all costs. The only way to minimise gun related deaths is to control the number of guns you have. Its not just intentional shootings either. The more guns you have the greater the possibility of an accident. Accidents with guns are far more dangerous than accidents with anything else.

The UK does have a massively lower number of gun related deaths per 10,000 than the US. No question there.

Neo Cannen

12-03-2005, 11:56

Bump

CanuckHeaven

12-03-2005, 13:14

Westmorlandia

12-03-2005, 13:52

The bottom line is absolutely 100% correct. More guns = more deaths. :eek:

Indeed, though it is fair to point out in balance to that that illegal gun ownership isn't much affected by gun control laws. This is a very complex debate, which I think involves some rather complex effects, and the issues tend to be simplified out of existence as often as not.

As has been pointed out, British people pre-Dunblane (which prompted the gun ban) didn't carry guns around to defend themselves anyway, so the ban can really have had a minimal impact on the rise. This is further reinforced when the increase is further broken down, as it emerges that most of the increase is to do with Jamaican Yardie gangs and home-grown rivals going after each other.

I also think that it's quite interesting to note that the rise in gun crime in the UK also conincides with the increase in gun use by the police. An arms race? Maybe. In any case, criminals in the UK face guns more often now than they used to, not less.

The statistics in the US will show a different effect to those in the UK. The reason is that a large proportion of criminals in the US are already armed, unlike in the UK. Once that stage is reached then banning handguns for law-abiding citizens is unlikely to affect criminal gun use, so gun crime will rise as those criminals who have guns, and who are used to committing such crimes, can get away with more.

The issue is further complicated when you also consider that most murders are committed not by criminals, but by ordinary people in the home. Banning handguns will reduce the number of firearms used in these incidents, and may therefore reduce the murder rate to that extent.

I also think that it is unwise for Americans to gloat about their gun laws when they have a firearm homicide rate stratospherically higher than that in the UK, even despite our recent increases. The first post claimed that murders had risen 50% since 1996. That's about 5% per year. If we apply that to gun crime (it may be a little higher for that, so call it 8%, say), and then apply that to the figures here

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

then it will take us another 37 years to catch you up, despite our high rate of increase. That is of course assuming that the US rate is staying stable. If you managed to reduce it at the same rate we increased then it would take another 18 years or so. That's just a measure of what a mess your gun situation is - I don't believe that those rates will continue unchecked, and I doubt that we will converge within the next few decades, if ever.

The bottom line with that is that when it comes to gun crime I would rather live here in the UK than over there in the US.

Whispering Legs

12-03-2005, 14:37

I see the arguement that guns reduce crime because people are affraid of them as being, frankly rather stupid for the following reasons.

1) If the criminal is armed in the first place, there is a potential for a gunfight which could cost lives of those caught in crossfire

2) It takes a certian psycology to kill a person, of which only on average 2% of any given population. The chances of the civilian with the gun to use it effectively are very low.

3) With both criminals and civilians carrying guns you then get an arms race. The criminals know the civilians are carrying hand guns so they get a semi-automatic. The civilians know that the criminals are carrying semi-automatics so they get an assult rifile. Ok it may not be that pronounced and direct but the point is that there will just be a need for more and more dangerous guns in the streets, increasing the possibility of people getting hurt.

Bottom line is, regardless of statistics or crime prevention the truth is that the more guns you have the greater the chances of gun related deaths. And while people may quote statistics "Ah but in X american state with Y gun controls there was only Z deaths". I resond by saying that there were deaths. Deaths must be avoided at all costs. The only way to minimise gun related deaths is to control the number of guns you have. Its not just intentional shootings either. The more guns you have the greater the possibility of an accident. Accidents with guns are far more dangerous than accidents with anything else.

The UK does have a massively lower number of gun related deaths per 10,000 than the US. No question there.

So you're saying that reducing the number of deaths is ok even if it means an increase in violent crime (Part 1 crimes) of 2.5 million violent crimes per year?

Rapes? Robberies? Aggravated assaults? And murder? That would otherwise occur if there were no defensive uses of guns?

You'll notice that there is no arms race between criminals and their victims. The statistics show that those 2.5 million uses of firearms for defensive purposes do not involve any shots fired. So where is the gunplay, gunfights, and crossfires that you're talking about?

Kecibukia

12-03-2005, 15:28

So you're saying that reducing the number of deaths is ok even if it means an increase in violent crime (Part 1 crimes) of 2.5 million violent crimes per year?

Rapes? Robberies? Aggravated assaults? And murder? That would otherwise occur if there were no defensive uses of guns?

You'll notice that there is no arms race between criminals and their victims. The statistics show that those 2.5 million uses of firearms for defensive purposes do not involve any shots fired. So where is the gunplay, gunfights, and crossfires that you're talking about?

Standard response: But it's still lower than the US!!! It doesn't matter that it's increasing and the US's is decreasing, it's still lower than the US!!!! GUNS 'R BAD!!

Unistate

12-03-2005, 16:17

I see the arguement that guns reduce crime because people are affraid of them as being, frankly rather stupid for the following reasons.

1) If the criminal is armed in the first place, there is a potential for a gunfight which could cost lives of those caught in crossfire

And if NOBODY is armed then the criminal could just start shooting everyone without any chance of being stopped, so you could get ten dead civilians instead of four.

2) It takes a certian psycology to kill a person, of which only on average 2% of any given population. The chances of the civilian with the gun to use it effectively are very low.

I'm not of the mind to be shooting people, but I can assure you, if I or my family were threatened, I would be very ready to. And more to the point you seem to be missing that 2.5 million crimes were prevented by the presence of the gun, not by it's use.

3) With both criminals and civilians carrying guns you then get an arms race. The criminals know the civilians are carrying hand guns so they get a semi-automatic. The civilians know that the criminals are carrying semi-automatics so they get an assult rifile. Ok it may not be that pronounced and direct but the point is that there will just be a need for more and more dangerous guns in the streets, increasing the possibility of people getting hurt.

Slippery slope, and one that discounts the fact that if you know what you're doing a pistol can be easily as effective as an assault rifle.

Bottom line is, regardless of statistics or crime prevention the truth is that the more guns you have the greater the chances of gun related deaths. And while people may quote statistics "Ah but in X american state with Y gun controls there was only Z deaths". I resond by saying that there were deaths. Deaths must be avoided at all costs. The only way to minimise gun related deaths is to control the number of guns you have. Its not just intentional shootings either. The more guns you have the greater the possibility of an accident. Accidents with guns are far more dangerous than accidents with anything else.

There were deaths, yes, but there were deaths that were averted, too. Plus, there were rapes, robberies, burglaries, etc. etc.. Now, if this was just a handful of cases I'd agree, but life is overrated at times, and I'll take a handful of deaths (Which would be less likely to happen if guns were legal and people were educated anyways.) over a swathe of rape.

Kecibukia

12-03-2005, 16:31

1.I'm not of the mind to be shooting people, but I can assure you, if I or my family were threatened, I would be very ready to. And more to the point you seem to be missing that 2.5 million crimes were prevented by the presence of the gun, not by it's use.

2.Slippery slope, and one that discounts the fact that if you know what you're doing a pistol can be easily as effective as an assault rifle.

1. But if they'd done the SNiVeL, more would have been prevented because a criminal won't hurt you if you don't resist.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050312/ap_on_re_us/courthouse_shooting

2. You're wrong Unistate. It's perfectly legitimate to use that type arguement for gun removal but it's wrong to use it for civil rights. (ie registration, regulation, confiscation....)

Whispering Legs

12-03-2005, 18:56

If more guns = more violent crime, and more guns = more murders, then please Neo, explain why this is not true in the United States.

There are multiple peer reviewed studies now that have proven that in places where gun laws are relaxed, and concealed carry is the law, crime goes down, crime is lower than in areas that have strict gun laws, and murder rates are lower. This is absolutely true in the US.

I have already proven it with the comparison of two counties that are demographically identical save for the fact that one county is in a state with strict gun laws.

In fact, one of the anti-gun peer reviewers, Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

So try and find fault with their study all you like - you have neither the acumen nor the expertise of the peer reviewer in question. And the study is unquestionably correct.

So, go ahead and try to prove your point - that more guns cause more murders in the US.

Want to know something? Murders have decreased steadily over the past ten years - during which time gun ownership (in terms of the number of guns owned) went up by over 50 percent. By your reasoning, there should NOT have been a reduction in murders - by your reasoning, there should have been 50 percent more murders.

So, where are all the murders you predict? Are you going to pull them out of thin air?

Alomogordo

12-03-2005, 19:43

Whispering Legs

12-03-2005, 19:48

In 1993, in the U.S. guns were used in 12% violent crimes. In 2001, after the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban were put into effect, that number was down to 9%. Question: What's a large group of conservatives that is very anti-gun?

Answer" The Police

So how is it that the number of guns is now over 300 million, up from 200 million, in ten years - and in those ten years, our violent crime rate and our murder rate has gone down?

It's the police chiefs and unions who are anti-gun. There are many police who do not follow what their union or chief says - here in Virginia, I meet and work with many police in my off-hours - and none of them are anti-gun - in fact, most like the idea that concealed carry is now widely available in Virginia.

The assault weapons ban was a joke. It didn't stop the sales of any weapons - it only stopped the sales of cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and folding stocks and flash suppressors. I have a gun from the assault weapons ban period - it is a highly accurate semiautomatic version of the M-4 assault rifle - complete with ten 30-round magazines and one 200-rd magazine.

It was perfectly legal to buy during the assault weapons period - the only difference between this rifle and the one I carried in service is that it is not fully automatic.

It did, however, make a lot of people run out and buy that sort of weapon. I know a gun store in Virginia that was saved from near bankruptcy by the assault weapons ban.

Alomogordo

12-03-2005, 19:53

I have a gun from the assault weapons ban period - it is a highly accurate semiautomatic version of the M-4 assault rifle - complete with ten 30-round magazines and one 200-rd magazine.

Why on earth would you need this? What good could possibly come from it?

Kecibukia

13-03-2005, 03:05

Why on earth would you need this? What good could possibly come from it?

Ahh, the "need" arguement. Maybe because he is a competative target shooter? Maybe because range shooting is a fantastic stress reliever? Maybe because he just wanted it.

Should you only be allowed the things that others decide you "need"?

I_Hate_Cows

13-03-2005, 03:06

Ahh, the "need" arguement. Maybe because he is a competative target shooter? Maybe because range shooting is a fantastic stress reliever? Maybe because he just wanted it.

Should you only be allowed the things that others decide you "need"?
I wasn't aware they used M4s and the like in target shooting

Kecibukia

13-03-2005, 03:12

I wasn't aware they used M4s and the like in target shooting

The semi-auto sporter versions of the M4 and M16 (the AR-15) along with the M1 Garands ' are the most commonly used long firearms in competative shooting.

That was the whole thing about the Clinton AWB, all it did was demonize a type of firearm that had formerly been known as "sporters". Since people would be reluctant to criminalize something like that, Anti-gunners pushed to have them reffered to as "Assault Weapons" which sounds ominously like "Assault Rifle", giving people the impression of rapid fire military grade weapons.

I_Hate_Cows

13-03-2005, 03:25

Garands arn't too much like the M16 M4 class weapons

Kecibukia

13-03-2005, 03:29

Garands arn't too much like the M16 M4 class weapons

No, but it is a very accurate, semi-automatic rifle.

I_Hate_Cows

13-03-2005, 03:30

No, but it is a very accurate, semi-automatic rifle.
...so?

Kecibukia

13-03-2005, 03:33

...so?

So... what? Are you trying to make some kind of point here?

Kecibukia

13-03-2005, 04:47

I wasn't aware they used M4s and the like in target shooting

Also, what do you think the military qualifies (shoots at targets) w/?

I_Hate_Cows

13-03-2005, 05:26

Also, what do you think the military qualifies (shoots at targets) w/?
Military and policte training are not the same as civilian target shooting, this discussion is getting ludicrous

Kecibukia

13-03-2005, 06:39

Military and policte training are not the same as civilian target shooting, this discussion is getting ludicrous

You're right. Civilians ussually train more and are better shots.

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 00:38

Isanyonehome

14-03-2005, 00:59

There are two significant occurrences that happened in 1994, and that was introduction of the Brady Bill, and the banning of the sale of assault weapons. It is interesting to note, that for the most part, crime rates started to drop around that time. Coincidence? Discussion?

I would imagine that it would be the 1995 rates that would show the most obvious benefit?

The assault weapons ban is meaningless in regards to crime increases or decreases because they are so rarely used to commit a crime(.2%) Can u imagine a robber carrying an ar-15 around so that he can rob a store or mug someone?

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

as the brady bill

you can read about it here
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html

also check out
http://www.gunfacts.info/

for gun related info, all source data is refferenced.

edit: Few people have a big problem with background checks. We all want guns to be kept out of the hands of irresponsible people.

The only problem I have is that the government is maintaining the databases. The FBI has refused to destroy the data(as they are legally required to do). And it does bother me that the govt now knows the names and location of gun owners.

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 01:06

The assault weapons ban is meaningless in regards to crime increases or decreases because they are so rarely used to commit a crime(.2%) Can u imagine a robber carrying an ar-15 around so that he can rob a store or mug someone?

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

as the brady bill

you can read about it here
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html

also check out
http://www.gunfacts.info/

for gun related info, all source data is refferenced.
Part of the problem here is that you refer me to sites that are "pro" gun. Are there no indepentdent unbiased sources of study?

The Antarctican People

14-03-2005, 01:10

I believe guns should be legal, if only in case the government turns autocratic the people can revolt.

Isanyonehome

14-03-2005, 01:43

Part of the problem here is that you refer me to sites that are "pro" gun. Are there no indepentdent unbiased sources of study?

well, the percentage use of assault weapons is pretty straight forward and it shouldnt matter where it comes from.

As far as their interpretation of the effects of the Brady bill, the site seems to be neither here nor there. It didnt say the Bill was a failure or a success. What it did say was that it certainly wasnt the raving success that its proponents claimed.

As far as bias goes towards the gun debate, I cant really link you to anything. People are either pro or anti gun. The people in between dont bother to put up websites.

I have read some good books, you might want to try them out. Check out John Lott. But again, the stats gets so heavy that I need someone to interpret the underlying data. Its in the interpretation that a persons bias comes in.

I grew up believing the Kellerman study(a gun in the house is 43 to 1 times more likely to KILL someone in the house instead of a robber). Later on I found out that A) he included suicides b) He didnt care whether the person killed was killed with his gun or the one the intruder brought c) 97% of the time a shot isnt fired yet the crime is deterred d) if the intruder died in a hospital instead of in the house then he didnt count it.

The media of course ran with the Kellerman study and you can find people today who believe its numbers(he has since revised it to 3 to 1). Is that bias? I would say so given that suicide rates do not correlate to firearm possession and that people arent killed or even shot at in the VAST majority of times that a crime is prevented.

I will say that I have gone through the sites of Handgun Control Inc, now the institute against violence (or something), and I have gone through sites that are pro gun. The pro gun sites routinely provide more detailed information and statistics. They also cite the study and all pertinent sources. The same cannot be said of the anti gun sites.

You are free to believe what you will, but we have definately turned the corner in the US. More and more states are recognizing that a) given the supply of firearms, it is impossible to prevent "bad" people from getting their hands on one regardless of gun control measures. The logical followthrough from this is that Gun Control laws can only impact those people who should be able to have a gun if they choose. More and more states are permitting concieled and open carry with reciprocity. So I am pretty much a happy camper..unfortunately I do not live in the USA anymore and its pretty hard to get a gun where I do live. Luckily, given my socioeconomic status in the country I do live in, I always have at least a driver around to prevent any crime against my person(or at least give me time to run).

edit:
All I can do is encourage you to read some of the PRO gun sites. Maybe you will think they are biased(they are, they have looked at the data and believe gun control doesnt further its claimed aims..crime reduction) AND innaccurate. Maybe you will think they are biased and accurate.

I think slavery is wrong. I am biased, does that also make me wrong about slavery?

I_Hate_Cows

14-03-2005, 02:06

I believe guns should be legal, if only in case the government turns autocratic the people can revolt.
We both realise the people who are all for guns would be the first ones to support an autocracy and wouldn't question until their precious firearms are threatened.

Isanyonehome

14-03-2005, 02:13

We both realise the people who are all for guns would be the first ones to support an autocracy and wouldn't question until their precious firearms are threatened.

WTf? Where did that come from? People who believe in firearms also believe in an autocratic gov? What type of statement is that? Dont you want to at least APPEAR to be rational?

Disganistan

14-03-2005, 03:11

We both realise the people who are all for guns would be the first ones to support an autocracy and wouldn't question until their precious firearms are threatened.

Umm, okaaaay.

How about this? I'm pro-guns, anti-establishment, and non-religious. How can I support an autocracy when I don't like the idea of being controlled or even monitored?

I_Hate_Cows

14-03-2005, 03:14

Umm, okaaaay.

How about this? I'm pro-guns, anti-establishment, and non-religious. How can I support an autocracy when I don't like the idea of being controlled or even monitored?
Majority of people, majority of people.

I_Hate_Cows

14-03-2005, 03:15

WTf? Where did that come from? People who believe in firearms also believe in an autocratic gov? What type of statement is that? Dont you want to at least APPEAR to be rational?
No, most of the people who are pro-guns are pro-Republican and support them blindly and I see them as the most likely people to install a near-autocratic government

Unistate

14-03-2005, 03:40

We both realise the people who are all for guns would be the first ones to support an autocracy and wouldn't question until their precious firearms are threatened.

Wait, what? Sure, there are some radicals who want guns. But then again, there are plenty of reasonable people who want guns. I personally want firearms. I very much doubt I would ever take one anywhere with me except the shooting range, but I'd feel damned safe having one in the house. I'm not out to kill or hur people. I wouldn't let anyone near the gun(s) unless I knew they could handle them - and I wouldn't acquire a gun for myself before having had a number of training sessions, so that I could ensure my safety and that of those around me I'm confident you won't believe me when I accept that many people won't follow the same ideals, but that many people will. Something I have always noticed is that gun owners tend to know what they have, and they have great respect for the weapons in their control.

To assert, however, that anyone who disagrees with you is very likely to be a supporter of an autocratic, totalitarian regime is quite simply sad. It displays that you not only have no strong arguments to back up your beliefs, but that you feel resorting to generalizations and personal attacks will vindicate your side of the debate.

I'm about as socially and economically libertarian as you get before you're just plain anarchist. Trust me, I would be the first one to be protesting an autocratic government.

Kecibukia

14-03-2005, 04:12

There are two significant occurrences that happened in 1994, and that was introduction of the Brady Bill, and the banning of the sale of assault weapons. It is interesting to note, that for the most part, crime rates started to drop around that time. Coincidence? Discussion?

I would imagine that it would be the 1995 rates that would show the most obvious benefit?

You're wrong on two points:

1. The Clinton AWB did nothing but ban the manufacture and importation of certain types of Semi-auto rifles w/ "military style" features. It did not cover the sales of said weapons.

2.Crime rates started dropping in 1991/92.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

It's also convienent to note that Florida enacted a carry/concealed carry law in 1987 and showed a drop in crime in 1988 while the rest of the country was still increasing.

Coincidence? Discussion?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

Kecibukia

14-03-2005, 04:17

Majority of people, majority of people.

And your souce for this? Besides your personal opinion and stereotyping that is.

I_Hate_Cows

14-03-2005, 04:27

And your souce for this? Besides your personal opinion and stereotyping that is.
The whole statement is my opinion, thus my source is myself

Sllabecaps

14-03-2005, 04:35

Man I cant understand why guns are an issue. gun contral is dumb, only law obayers would falow it. but haveing a gun relly means shit. your not going to become the punisher if you buy a handgun. most peaple buy a gun for peace of mind not for blowing a pease of somebodys head and if we relly needed to get rid of a toatiaron government its not that hard to find a gun when you have no problems brakeing the law

Kecibukia

14-03-2005, 04:39

The whole statement is my opinion, thus my source is myself

and hence why that fountain of wisdom is dry.

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 04:53

You're wrong on two points:

1. The Clinton AWB did nothing but ban the manufacture and importation of certain types of Semi-auto rifles w/ "military style" features. It did not cover the sales of said weapons.
Not true according to this site (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb).

2.Crime rates started dropping in 1991/92.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

It's also convienent to note that Florida enacted a carry/concealed carry law in 1987 and showed a drop in crime in 1988 while the rest of the country was still increasing.
Again not true. In Florida in 1988, the violent crime index (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) actually increased by 444 basis points. It did not get back down to 1987 rates until 1992.

Coincidence? Discussion?

Kecibukia

14-03-2005, 05:13

Not true according to this site (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb).

Again not true. In Florida in 1988, the violent crime index (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) actually increased by 444 basis points. It did not get back down to 1987 rates until 1992.

Coincidence? Discussion?

Come on CH , you state this"Part of the problem here is that you refer me to sites that are "pro" gun. Are there no indepentdent unbiased sources of study?"

and then use the "Brady Campaign"Website as a source? You can do better.

They contradict themselves on the first page:

"The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban,"

Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

Therefore, all weapons available before the ban were still able to be owned and sold after the ban. Just no more could be made/imported for civilian use.

Also this nonsense:

"That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons"

An AK-47 is NOT an "Assault Weapon" by definition. That's just the typical "bait&switch" by HCI.

As for Florida, They're population was also increasing considerably and hence per capita total and violent crime started decreasing w/i two years. 1992 was still before the 1994 laws were enacted.

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 05:53

As for Florida, They're population was also increasing considerably and hence per capita total and violent crime started decreasing w/i two years. 1992 was still before the 1994 laws were enacted.
I was using the per capita basis in the Florida stats, so my argument remains as stated.

To further augment the case, I looked at a 10 year span (1987 to 1996) comparison between New York state and Florida, again, based on per capita data:

1987 figure followed by 1996 figure:

Crime Index:

New York: 5,952.4/4,132.3 (minus 1,820)
Florida: 8,503.2/7,497.4 (minus 1,006)

Violent Crime Index:

New York: 1,008.1/727.0 (minus 281)
Florida: 1,024.4/1,051.0 (PLUS 27)

Property:

New York: 4,944.3/3,405.3 (minus 1,539)
Florida: 7,478.7/6,446.3 (minus 1,032)

Murder:

New York: 11.3/7.4 (minus 3.9)
Florida: 11.4/7.5 (minus 3.9)

Forcible Rape:

New York: 31.1/23.0 (minus 8.1)
Florida: 50.2/52.1 (PLUS 1.9)

Robbery:

New York: 503.3/340.0 (minus 163)
Florida: 356.6/289.2 (minus 67.4)

Aggravated Assault:

New York: 462.4/356.7 (minus 105.7)
Florida: 606.3/702.2 (PLUS 95.9)

It would appear that the carry concealed weapon actually did nothing to deter violent crime in Florida?

New York wins on every index except a draw on murder rates, which were identical drops), although if you take the 2000 rates, murder per 100,000 is 5.0 in New York and 5.6 in Florida.

Isanyonehome

14-03-2005, 08:45

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 10:44

Oh, The brady bill didnt impact a state like NY because NY laws were already stricter than the Brady Bill(with regards to waiting periods and background checks) NY doesnt just do a NIC background check like the Brady bill requires, they do a full police investigation(at least Nassau county and suffolk counties do with regards to handguns) NYC makes it impossible to get a handgun and even a long gun is hard. Unsure about upstate. The police investigation takes at a bare minimum 6 months(or so I was told by the police). I am talking about the early 90s. NY might have speeded up the process now.
NYC used to be one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Now it is among the most safest category. Therefore, long term gun control has been beneficial to curbing crime in that city. What the Brady Bill would do for New York State is ban the poliferation of deadly automatic weapons. This is a good thing.

So I dont really know why you keep bringing up Florida's and NY's crime rates. Crime rates across the country fell, and that had to do more with an improved economy and increased police force and prison space. To properly see the effects you are going to have to do a county by county analysis and control for the overall decrease in crime.
Firstly, many posters here have cited that the right to carry laws in Florida have reduced violent crime and in my last post, I detailed that in a 10 year span, violent crime actually increased in Florida, according to FBI stats. In relation to New York state, it is even more compelling evidence that gun control does work.

some op eds about gun control

regarding the brady bill and AWB
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NYPostNAS.html

general gun control with UK Australia and Canada as examples
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html
The real problem here is look who wrote the articles. John Lott is obviously a pro gun lobbyist and makes money selling books telling everyone that gun control is wrong and doesn't work.

The only problem is that he is wrong and the figures he uses do not support his case. How is he wrong? Well he manufactures the "truth" that pro gun enthusiasts want to hear and that is good for his bank account. The story about the UK, Canada, and Australia are truly "sensationalized" and are to be blunt....BS!!

The FBI Stats clearly show that that most violent crime is more likely to take place in States that have no gun control, especially the southern States.

Florida has the dubious distinction "as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the States" in 2000. In 2003, the murder rate in Florida, has actually gone up per capita.

Isanyonehome

14-03-2005, 11:23

NYC used to be one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Now it is among the most safest category. Therefore, long term gun control has been beneficial to curbing crime in that city. What the Brady Bill would do for New York State is ban the poliferation of deadly automatic weapons. This is a good thing.

1st, NYC was cleaned up by Guiliani. Its gun control policies were and still are much much stricter than anything contained within either the Brady Bill or the AWB. These 2 bills had ZERO impact in places like NYC and Chicago because they added no more controls to who owns guns and what type of gun they own. If NYC adopted the Brady BIll and the AWB, then its gun control policies would LESSEN. I dont know why you keep trying to beat a dead horse.

2nd, How does any legistlation prevent the proliferation of "deadly automatic weapons"? They have been more or less(there is an exception) illegal since 1934 everywhere in the country. Even to get a regular hunting rifle or shotgun is extremely difficult in NYC, BEFORE either of these came along.

So, once again I completely dont understand why you try to use NYC or New York as an example of the Brady Bill and AWB working?

Firstly, many posters here have cited that the right to carry laws in Florida have reduced violent crime and in my last post, I detailed that in a 10 year span, violent crime actually increased in Florida, according to FBI stats. In relation to New York state, it is even more compelling evidence that gun control does work.

I dont know where you are getting those numbers because I cannot find a state by state breakdown in the FBIs UCR for the year 1996. Perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, I dont understand how you can believe any rise or decline in crime is SOLELY attributed to gun control measure without accounting for all the other factors.

The real problem here is look who wrote the articles. John Lott is obviously a pro gun lobbyist and makes money selling books telling everyone that gun control is wrong and doesn't work.

The only problem is that he is wrong and the figures he uses do not support his case. How is he wrong? Well he manufactures the "truth" that pro gun enthusiasts want to hear and that is good for his bank account. The story about the UK, Canada, and Australia are truly "sensationalized" and are to be blunt....BS!!

The FBI Stats clearly show that that most violent crime is more likely to take place in States that have no gun control, especially the southern States.

Florida has the dubious distinction "as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the States" in 2000. In 2003, the murder rate in Florida, has actually gone up per capita.

Since you are only willing to believe those who agree with your view and label everyone else as "Biased", what is the point of continuing this discussion? You disregard that his work has been meticulously peer reviewed and no significant flaws have appeared. If you are interested in his methodology, read his book..more guns less crime

E B Guvegrra

14-03-2005, 11:38

1) If the criminal is armed in the first place, there is a potential for a gunfight which could cost lives of those caught in crossfireAnd if NOBODY is armed then the criminal could just start shooting everyone without any chance of being stopped, so you could get ten dead civilians instead of four.If nobody is armed in the first place then: The criminal is far more unlikely to get access to a gun, Even if he does (or produces a reasonable facsimile thereof), he's much less likely to shoot first and ask questions later(Caveat: Anyone who does obtain a gun/replica for criminal purposes is going to be significantly more serious about attracting attention of some kind, whether that be Respec' from his homies or SO19, the UK armed-response unit.)

So, this is how it works in the UK, at least. I can see how this doesn't translate well to the US. Guns are so all pervasive that access to guns already exists, and wouldn't diminish easily in the case of a ban. And you'd have to be darn sure that the 'victim' hasn't got a real gun (or the cops you'll inevitably draw the attention of) if you went around threatening with a fake one.

Still, a controlled-gun culture is arguably safer (as in less people being fatally shot, which is the whole point) than one without. And it helps if your gun-controlling culture is traditionally a non-gun one and isn't neighbouring one (without significant border controls and geographical barriers) with a high gun availability and relevant crime rates that are so high in the first place that decade-long fluxuations look like long-term trends, which is exactly where the Virginia/Maryland county examples fall down, but you all knew that.

Torching Witches

14-03-2005, 11:38

Similar logic to:

Very few people go on fox hunts in Britain.

Then fox hunting gets banned, and for a period afterwards the fox population might fall a bit.

Therefore, banning fox hunting is damaging to wild fox populations.

Or perhaps, there could be other reasons.

Asengard

14-03-2005, 12:25

Banning guns has nothing to do with rising crime.
There's still as many criminals about, violent criminals, it's just that they are far less likely to have guns. The amount of violence performed per criminal act is therefore likely to be less.

The banning of guns help prevent crazed killing spree's by adolescents and the psychotic. Crimes of passion are less likely to be fatal, as well as accidental deaths.

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 13:49

What entails violent crime in Britain?

To my knowledge, it is anything up from a theat of physical force.

You can be done for armed robbery if you say you are carring a gun to a cashier. The physical gun need not be displayed or used.

The Iron Maiden Nation

14-03-2005, 13:55

In response to violent crime going down due to guns and the use of defensive weapons to stop violent crime the fact that violent crime is being committed but it is being stopped by the victims does not take away the fact that it is being committed.

It also dismisses the idea that members of society who are willing to commit violent crime are less likely to if they cant get a gun to help them. Without the power and/or protection that affords criminals will be less confident of committing violent crime.

Unistate

14-03-2005, 14:05

If nobody is armed in the first place then: The criminal is far more unlikely to get access to a gun, Even if he does (or produces a reasonable facsimile thereof), he's much less likely to shoot first and ask questions later(Caveat: Anyone who does obtain a gun/replica for criminal purposes is going to be significantly more serious about attracting attention of some kind, whether that be Respec' from his homies or SO19, the UK armed-response unit.)

How do you figure? Have you actually ever looked at criminal psychology, or are you basing this off your own conjecture? From what I understand, a criminal who is happy to shoot a store up and ask questions later isn't one looking out for himself, it's one who wants to kill people, and his ownership of a gun is not going to aid or dissuade him. Jack the Ripper, anyone? To suppose that any criminal will burst into the local co-op, shoot the staff and customers, and make off with the cash is flawed - it seems to be rational on the surface, but criminals tend not to want attention. A robbery gets a little attention - top spot on the local news, usually. Killing a dozen people for £350 makes national news for two weeks, and you've got the entire British constabulary hunting you down. The only people who would be happy to kill are those who are happy to kill anyway, and in those cases it's better for the innocent to be armed so they can stop him.

So, this is how it works in the UK, at least. I can see how this doesn't translate well to the US. Guns are so all pervasive that access to guns already exists, and wouldn't diminish easily in the case of a ban. And you'd have to be darn sure that the 'victim' hasn't got a real gun (or the cops you'll inevitably draw the attention of) if you went around threatening with a fake one.

No you wouldn't. If someone is waving a 'gun' in a cashiers face, they should be damned well expecting a full, armed response.

Still, a controlled-gun culture is arguably safer (as in less people being fatally shot, which is the whole point) than one without. And it helps if your gun-controlling culture is traditionally a non-gun one and isn't neighbouring one (without significant border controls and geographical barriers) with a high gun availability and relevant crime rates that are so high in the first place that decade-long fluxuations look like long-term trends, which is exactly where the Virginia/Maryland county examples fall down, but you all knew that.

I'm not sure where this total sanctity of absolutely every life on Earth comes from. Most people, yes. Rapists, no. Murderers, no. They try it on, they get shot, and I celebrate the shooter.

And please, try and discount all the evidence the pro-gun crowd has shown. I mean, there's a strongly anti-gun peer review which admits; the evidence isn't arguable. I've got an odd feeling he's more qualified to decide what is and is not valid than you.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 14:12

Not true according to this site (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb).

Again not true. In Florida in 1988, the violent crime index (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) actually increased by 444 basis points. It did not get back down to 1987 rates until 1992.

Coincidence? Discussion?

Canuck, then explain why the assault weapons ban only banned the following features:

Bayonet lug
Flash hider
High capacity magazine (legal if bought separately)
Folding stock
Pistol grip

You couldn't have a rifle that had three or more of those features AT THE SAME TIME. So most manufacturers dropped the bayonet lug, the flash hider, and the folding stock.

Which meant that I was legally able to buy a M-4 assault rifle complete with 30-rd magazines - as was everyone else in the country. Oddly, though there was supposedly a "ban" in place, many people who feared that a real ban was coming went out and bought these rifles - rifles they would never have purchased in the first place. Gun ownership skyrocketed throughout the Clinton Administration - to the tune of a nearly 100 million gun increase.

Good job, there.

You'll also notice that the concealed carry laws of 30 states came into effect during those years, against his wishes. The crime dropped in those states - but not in the states that restricted their gun laws.

So, Canuck, can you explain that?

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 14:35

You'll also notice that the concealed carry laws of 30 states came into effect during those years, against his wishes. The crime dropped in those states - but not in the states that restricted their gun laws.

So, Canuck, can you explain that?

I think that everone was keyed up and so reduced the possibilities for sucessful crimes.

Also re the Extra guns bought, Of course that was the result, you were the main proponents of the cold war stockpiling, If your government needs to have the power to blow up the whole planet more than once, the bulk of your individuals will want to do the same.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 14:51

I think that everone was keyed up and so reduced the possibilities for sucessful crimes.

Also re the Extra guns bought, Of course that was the result, you were the main proponents of the cold war stockpiling, If your government needs to have the power to blow up the whole planet more than once, the bulk of your individuals will want to do the same.

I think what happened is that the majority of people figured out that if you call for a pizza, and call for a policeman, the pizza is going to show up first.

So you're on your own if you're being victimized. The police are really good at showing up after everything is over - after you're dead, raped, robbed, or wounded.

People wanted to get their hands on the best legally available weapons - for fear that Clinton was going to get a further ban.

Want to know who made out on this deal?

Just before the ban went into effect, Norinco, the Chinese arms manufacturer, had a shipload of semiautomatic versions of the AK-47 (a legal version) arrive in San Francisco - 250,000 weapons on one ship. These were personally grandfathered in by Bill Clinton - so that they could be legally sold.

Norinco is owned by the Chinese government. The Chinese government was a big donor to the Democratic Party. Need I say more?

Theologian Theory

14-03-2005, 14:56

Independent Homesteads

14-03-2005, 14:59

I think what happened is that the majority of people figured out that if you call for a pizza, and call for a policeman, the pizza is going to show up first.

So you're on your own if you're being victimized. The police are really good at showing up after everything is over - after you're dead, raped, robbed, or wounded.

People wanted to get their hands on the best legally available weapons - for fear that Clinton was going to get a further ban.

Want to know who made out on this deal?

Just before the ban went into effect, Norinco, the Chinese arms manufacturer, had a shipload of semiautomatic versions of the AK-47 (a legal version) arrive in San Francisco - 250,000 weapons on one ship. These were personally grandfathered in by Bill Clinton - so that they could be legally sold.

Norinco is owned by the Chinese government. The Chinese government was a big donor to the Democratic Party. Need I say more?

Seriously? Chinese govt donated to the democrats? but not the republicans?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 15:02

Seriously? Chinese govt donated to the democrats? but not the republicans?

At that time, the Republicans weren't at the feeding trough. Clinton pioneered milking the Chinese. So they could sell assault weapons.

Independent Homesteads

14-03-2005, 15:07

At that time, the Republicans weren't at the feeding trough. Clinton pioneered milking the Chinese. So they could sell assault weapons.

which you are no doubt thrilled about, being an assault weapon devotee?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 15:08

which you are no doubt thrilled about, being an assault weapon devotee?

No, I'm not thrilled at foreign money influencing US politics. Nor am I thrilled about a US President that says he's against "assault weapons" and helps a shipload get in, and then claims to have reduced crime, when in fact the number of guns skyrocketed.

The Downtrodden Masses

14-03-2005, 15:16

I'm a criminal in the US. I know the owner of the house is likely to have a gun, so when I see him come downstairs I shoot him.

I'm a criminal in the UK. The owner is unlikely to have a gun, thus I hold him up and tie him up rather than shoot him.

I am a homeowner. A criminal is in my bedroom, and has sneaked up and has a gun pointed at me. I have a gun behind my pillow/under the bed. I reach for it, and because I'm not a Neo-styled martial artist he blows my head off before I manage to do the same to him.

Guns are useless in many situations, and increase the chance of you yourself being shot. At home I have a 2 million candlepower torch and an old policeman's baton. The torch is so powerful you're temporarily blinded, even in daylight, easily long enough for me to club them with the baton, which is designed to inflict maximum pain with minimum damage. The torch is so bright you can't pinpoint the source at close to mid range and you curl up and shield yourself almost uncontrollably, while the baton is so painful you can't perform actions more complicated than basic reflex or ingrained movements. And yes, I have experienced both.

So do I need a gun? No, not at all. Am I on safer ground on the legal side of things? Yes, I am, because long term damage is unlikely to occur.

Oh, and the increase in crime in the UK is related to Labour's soft approach. The ban on guns was coincidental, and was of so little consequence as to make no difference.

Independent Homesteads

14-03-2005, 15:16

and then claims to have reduced crime, when in fact the number of guns skyrocketed.

Every US citizen that I have ever seen defend US gun ownership on NS has said that private gun ownership reduces crime. Many have quoted statistics. If this is true, then an increase in gun ownership is a defacto reduction in crime. Even if the two aren't linked like this, why are you linking them the other way, as if an increase in gun ownership means an increase in crime?

Also, regardless of gun ownership, recorded crime at least is a matter of record. You can see whether it has gone up or down just by counting.

And about the foreign money in politics, both parties take foreign money, and governments of both parties give money to foreign governments. If you don't like it, vote against it, don't blame one guy in one party.

Independent Homesteads

14-03-2005, 15:19

Oh, and the increase in crime in the UK is related to Labour's soft approach. The ban on guns was coincidental, and was of so little consequence as to make no difference.

Soft approach my arse. Do you think criminals sit around saying "with that tony blair in power i know i'll have an easy ride in jail, in the unlikely event i get sent there, so i'll go rob that old biddy"?

other than that, spot on. Room with 10 people and no guns is how much safer than a room with 10 people and 10 guns?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 15:21

Every US citizen that I have ever seen defend US gun ownership on NS has said that private gun ownership reduces crime. Many have quoted statistics. If this is true, then an increase in gun ownership is a defacto reduction in crime. Even if the two aren't linked like this, why are you linking them the other way, as if an increase in gun ownership means an increase in crime?

Also, regardless of gun ownership, recorded crime at least is a matter of record. You can see whether it has gone up or down just by counting.

And about the foreign money in politics, both parties take foreign money, and governments of both parties give money to foreign governments. If you don't like it, vote against it, don't blame one guy in one party.

I've said that at least in the US, there is the number you pointed out, as well as numerous studies that show that the more guns US citizens own, the less crime.

I'm trying to be sarcastic. Canuck and others seem to believe that there is a concrete link "more guns always equals more crime".

When it isn't true.

They can't argue with the radical increase in firearms and the concomitant decrease in violent crime and murder in the US. Especially in states where you are encouraged to carry concealed.

Torching Witches

14-03-2005, 15:25

Meaning? :mad:
Think it through, mate. Think it through.

Torching Witches

14-03-2005, 15:26

I've said that at least in the US, there is the number you pointed out, as well as numerous studies that show that the more guns US citizens own, the less crime.

I'm trying to be sarcastic. Canuck and others seem to believe that there is a concrete link "more guns always equals more crime".

When it isn't true.

They can't argue with the radical increase in firearms and the concomitant decrease in violent crime and murder in the US. Especially in states where you are encouraged to carry concealed.
Guns are a means to commit crime, they are not a crime in themselves. However, you can do a lot less damage though, if you have no access to guns.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 15:29

Guns are a means to commit crime, they are not a crime in themselves. However, you can do a lot less damage though, if you have no access to guns.

The problem being that the majority of violent crime (Part 1 felonies) are not commited with guns.

And, in the US, self-defensive use of firearms stops 2.5 million violent crimes each year. So, if we didn't have guns, those crimes would occur - as they would not be stopped.

I_Hate_Cows

14-03-2005, 15:36

And, in the US, self-defensive use of firearms stops 2.5 million violent crimes each year. So, if we didn't have guns, those crimes would occur - as they would not be stopped.
I don't recall, did you ever produce the basis for that statistic

MEDKtulu

14-03-2005, 15:38

However more murders are committed with firearms than with any other weapon. 51% if I remember correctly from the link you posted. So although the amount of violent crime committed with a weapon is low (24%) a firearm has the highest mortality rate. After all it is easier to shoot someone than to beat them up

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 15:45

I don't recall, did you ever produce the basis for that statistic
Yes, I did. There are two studies that prove it.

The two most sophisticated national surveys are the National Self-Defense Survey done by Marc Gertz and Dr. Kleck in 1995 and a smaller scale survey done by the Police Foundation in 1996.

The National Self-Defense Survey was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It asked all respondents about both their own uses and those of other household members, inquired about all gun types, excluded uses against animals or connected with occupational duties, and limited recall periods to one and five years. Equally importantly, it established, with detailed questioning, whether persons claiming a defensive gun use had actually confronted an adversary (as distinct from, say, merely investigating a suspicious noise in the backyard), actually used their guns in some way, such as, at minimum, threatening their adversaries (as distinct from merely owning or carrying a gun for defensive reasons), and had done so in connection with what they regarded as a specific crime being committed against them.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

MEDKtulu

14-03-2005, 15:50

Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

You mean under 18's can have guns legally and carry them around, yet they can't vote or drink. Don't you think that's more than a little fucked up?

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 15:53

I've said that at least in the US, there is the number you pointed out, as well as numerous studies that show that the more guns US citizens own, the less crime.
That is not true. Look at Florida, which has been highly touted in this thread. While New York State violent crime was decreasing, Florida's was increasing. Florida has had the right to conceal since 1987, and yet when crime rates did go down, the gains by New York State were even greater. However, in the 10 year period that I compared, the fact remains that overall violent crime in certain respects, actually increased (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8432710&postcount=342). Please explain that fact.

I'm trying to be sarcastic. Canuck and others seem to believe that there is a concrete link "more guns always equals more crime".
All I am trying to point out is the fact that while overall crime is tending to reduce, the fact remains that most anti gun control States have the slowest rate of decline and are often the highest ratio States in regards to violent crime.

When it isn't true.

They can't argue with the radical increase in firearms and the concomitant decrease in violent crime and murder in the US. Especially in states where you are encouraged to carry concealed.
Here is the page that points out the failure of the carry concealed argument, at least in Florida:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8432710&postcount=342

Now what is the current rate of crime in Florida (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl05.xls)(2003)?

You will notice, that the murder rate has increased to 5.4, and New York State has gone down to 4.9. Your arguments do not support the statistics.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 15:57

That is not true. Look at Florida, which has been highly touted in this thread. While New York State violent crime was decreasing, Florida's was increasing. Florida has had the right to conceal since 1987, and yet when crime rates did go down, the gains by New York State were even greater. However, in the 10 year period that I compared, the fact remains that overall violent crime in certain respects, actually increased (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8432710&postcount=342). Please explain that fact.

All I am trying to point out is the fact that while overall crime is tending to reduce, the fact remains that most anti gun control States have the slowest rate of decline and are often the highest ratio States in regards to violent crime.

Here is the page that points out the failure of the carry concealed argument, at least in Florida:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8432710&postcount=342

Now what is the current rate of crime in Florida (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl05.xls)(2003)?

You will notice, that the murder rate has increased to 5.4, and New York State has gone down to 4.9. Your arguments do not support the statistics.

I posted earlier links and provided evidence from published sources that you chose to dismiss, including two demographically identical counties where one has strict gun laws and the other does not - where I proved that the one with more guns has 60 percent less murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Furthermore, there are published studies that have been peer reviewed that show that your one example (let's assume it's true) does not hold true for the entire United States.

Shall I quote the lead peer reviewer of that study?

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 16:07

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics:

Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05
By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.

Handgun murders: Handgun Control, Inc.
Population Figures: July 1992 count for each country as reported by CIA World Factbook, 1992.

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 16:07

I posted earlier links and provided evidence from published sources that you chose to dismiss, including two demographically identical counties where one has strict gun laws and the other does not - where I proved that the one with more guns has 60 percent less murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Furthermore, there are published studies that have been peer reviewed that show that your one example (let's assume it's true) does not hold true for the entire United States.

Ok I wont slate the study, One question though.
IF a gun is used should the incident be classed as violent, and if one party was breaking a law, would that not be a crime?
So if i shot someone who was breaking the law, is this not still recorded as violent crime? also if i shot say a pickpocket, would that not be overreaction and a violent crime of itself?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 16:11

Ok I wont slate the study, One question though.
IF a gun is used should the incident be classed as violent, and if one party was breaking a law, would that not be a crime?
So if i shot someone who was breaking the law, is this not still recorded as violent crime? also if i shot say a pickpocket, would that not be overreaction and a violent crime of itself?

If someone is committing a violent crime against me, and I use a firearm to stop the crime, my use of the firearm is not considered "violent crime" in the US. To be considered and recorded as a violent crime by any police or governmental agency in the US, it has to be a Part 1 Felony.

Defensive use of a firearm is not a felony - as long as the use is justified. Since in most cases, the firearm is never fired, and the victim is displaying the gun, that's not a Part 1 felony - and not a violent crime.

I am, however, stopping a violent crime in progress. Murder. Rape. Robbery. Aggravated assault.

The study is not counting defensive use against pickpockets - it is counting defensive uses against criminals who are committing Part 1 felonies.

Torching Witches

14-03-2005, 16:13

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
That does make me think, but the whole gun control issue is still missing the point. Shouldn't crime prevention ideally happen before the person decides to commit the crime?

There are many reasons why people commit violent crime. Guns aren't one of them. If people feel that they shouldn't commit violent crime, then whether they have a gun or not is irrelevant.

There are many more pressing social factors to tackle, and it is these issues that are more important in the UK, certainly, but also elsewhere (in the UK, gun ownership is very low anyway, so it is not a factor in fluctuations in statistics).

However, I maintain the point that if someone really wants to commit violent crime, they will do it anyway. Gun control tackles the very rare events like Dunblane, and that is why I support gun control.

Crassius

14-03-2005, 16:16

MEDKtulu

14-03-2005, 16:16

A review of the statistics:

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05
By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.
Handgun murders: Handgun Control, Inc.
Population Figures: July 1992 count for each country as reported by CIA World Factbook, 1992.

And that just goes to prove that more guns = more deaths. Especially since that stastitic shows murders and not self defense/manslaughter.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 16:20

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 16:21

"Violent crimes" is a widely intepretive phrase which may mean something significantly different for a liberal nation like Great Britain versus a conservative nation like the US.

Gun related crime in the UK is any crime where a gun has been found or the mention/suggestion of a gun has been used in the crime.

So the UK stats going up on violent crime, dont nessersarily mean that more guns are in use, just that criminals are saying they have a gun.

Crassius

14-03-2005, 16:30

Whispering: "Even if I reduce it to gun-related crime, the crime in my county (as opposed to the neighboring county where guns are nearly forbidden in public) is 60 percent lower (and has been since 1995, when our gun laws were relaxed to allow concealed carry)."
'
Is it that hard for you to understand your regular statistical fallacies?

Numbers. Provide numbers. You could scream until you're blue in the face about double digit increases and if both of the numbers are already exceedingly small compared to the population then there is no public health issue.

In addition, the Part 1 violent crimes are standardized across the US - they are used in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

As a former employee at a local police department who assisted in delivering violent incidence numbers, I know for a fact that the FBI has nothing to do with how local authorities tally "violent crimes". And when I say nothing, I mean nothing.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 16:31

As a piece of advice.

Don't make your points solely with percentages - you've got to use the numbers as well.

Country A has a 100% increase in violent crime when peanut M&M's are withdrawn from store shelves. Country B has a 2% decrease in violent crime when peanut M&M's are sold untaxed.

Country A had 60 million people, 12 violent crimes the year before and 24 violent crimes year after. Country B had 300 million people, 500,000 violent crimes the year before and 490,000 the year after.

You understand your argument is statistical rubbish? I mean completely statistical rubbish.

The other factors you have to isolate for is counting methodologies, etc. For instance, I know for a fact that various districts within the United States have changed what counts as a "violent crime" in an effort to provide PR that they are "tough on crime".

If you want to make statistical arguments you have to provide much more specific explanations for the numbers. Gun-related crimes is a relatively safe figure - its kind of hard to fudge that number. "Violent crimes" is a widely intepretive phrase which may mean something significantly different for a liberal nation like Great Britain versus a conservative nation like the US.

I just spoke to the police at Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia. Their counting methodologies are identical.

Demographically, it would be hard to find two counties in the US more alike.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/c...03_Year_End.pdf
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/2003.htm

All census data is from quickfacts.census.gov

Montgomery County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 21
Rape 135
Robbery 1004
Aggravated Assault 954

Population 918,881
Median household income, 1999 $71,551
Per capita money income, 1999 $35,684
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 5.4%

Fairfax County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 9
Rape 80
Robbery 540
Aggravated Assault 399

Population 1,000,405
Median household income, 1999 $81,050
Per capita money income, 1999 $36,888
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 4.5%

Now, let's compare on the basis of crimes per 100,000 people:

Montgomery Fairfax % difference

Murder 2.3 0.9 - 61 less in Fairfax
Rape 14.7 8.0 - 46 less in Fairfax
Robbery 109.3 53 - 52 less in Fairfax
Assault 103.8 39.9 - 62 less in Fairfax

It's been pretty consistent like this ever since the murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault began to drop in Fairfax beginning in 1995, when concealed carry was made possible in Fairfax.

It is illegal to carry a gun in Montgomery County, Maryland.
There are severe restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased. You cannot go to Virginia and buy a gun if you live in Maryland.

It is legal to carry a gun openly in Fairfax County, Virginia.
It is easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Fairfax County, Virginia as long as you are not a felon.
The state offers no restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 16:37

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 16:41

I still hold that if you, and you are aware that those around you are/could be armed you are going to be very alert to trouble.

In other words, fewer crimes as your all scared silly and so keep yourselves out of trouble.

If you didnt have the guns you could still see the same reduction if you stayed alert. Check out the self defence classes they all teach, be alert first.

Yes, Jimmy. That would work for the man in the wheelchair that I taught to shoot so that he could get a concealed weapons permit.

He's been beaten three times by people who wanted to rob him. He gave them the money. He was beaten anyways.

I'm sure a karate class would really help him.

You know, in Maryland, he would NEVER be given a permit. They think it's better that he be beaten to the point that he goes to the hospital - repeatedly - than to be allowed the means to defend himself.

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 16:47

Kecibukia

14-03-2005, 17:00

Yes, Jimmy. That would work for the man in the wheelchair that I taught to shoot so that he could get a concealed weapons permit.

He's been beaten three times by people who wanted to rob him. He gave them the money. He was beaten anyways.

I'm sure a karate class would really help him.

You know, in Maryland, he would NEVER be given a permit. They think it's better that he be beaten to the point that he goes to the hospital - repeatedly - than to be allowed the means to defend himself.

That's exactly what (at least American) anti-rights individuals want. They want to let people get beaten/raped/robbed repeatedly w/o the means to defend themselves all w/ the excuse "at least they weren't killed by having a gun" . Ask a rape victim if she would have liked to have a gun even at the risk of "maybe" getting killed. A buddy of mine was vehemently anti-gun, until someone broke into his house and attacked his wife, only being chased away by a neighbor w/ a gun. Next day he went and applied for his permit.

NOW considers a female senior citizen w/ a gun a "threat to public safety" even if she has never committed a crime. They would rather have her beaten to death.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2005/03/12/m1a_hammer_0312.html

Are there other issues involved in crime? Of course. Urban gang crime is at rediculous levels and the Gov't, along w/ the citizenry, needs to do something about it. Disarming the Law-Abiding Public however, is not the answer.

See u Jimmy

14-03-2005, 17:05

How about disarming the Gangs?

Even if they haven't been convicted yet of something, they will soon so lets take the weapons off them now.

I know even better lets put them in gaol now as well.

Then us law abiding citizens will be really safe.

*sarcasm*

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 17:07

If he was taught Karate well it would. (I too am an instructor) I have never needed to resort to striking anyone, because I am aware before trouble arrives of the extent it is likely to reach.
I would be interested to know if this guy was ever threatend with a gun. also will he shoot, non gun carrying assailants?

You point seems to be far more that the Police should be more evident and responsive than Guns should be carried by all, overtly or covertly.

I learned jiujitsu so that I have another option other than shooting. But for a handicapped man who can't move quickly, trouble finds him before he can get away. He has no ability to get up out of the wheelchair and do anything.

He would be justified in Virginia if he shot a man who was beating him. Even if his assailant was using his bare hands.

I would not. The law varies on what it would take. If the assailant had a knife, I could shoot and be justified.

It's not whether someone has the same weapons - it's the threat that they pose to your life or the lives of others around you. If you see a man strangling an old woman, you're allowed to walk up and shoot him in the head.

Kecibukia

14-03-2005, 17:08

You point seems to be far more that the Police should be more evident and responsive than Guns should be carried by all, overtly or covertly.

It would be wonderful if the police/authorities would actually perform their job more efficiently. Unfortunately, to cover their own asses, the courts, in thier wisdom, have ruled the the police are NOT obligated to protect people. This is basically to keep people from suing after the police fail to show up or take thier time getting to a crime scene. (note: this is not an attack against ALL police)

It is also inneffective in rural areas. In a best case scenario, it would take the police almost a half-hour to get to my house. Lots can happen in that time.

Law-Abiding Citizens should be able to carry. The fact that they are Law Abiding shows they can (w/ few exceptions) be trusted to uphold the law.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 17:08

E B Guvegrra

14-03-2005, 17:58

How do you figure? Have you actually ever looked at criminal psychology, or are you basing this off your own conjecture? From what I understand, a criminal who is happy to shoot a store up and ask questions later isn't one looking out for himself, it's one who wants to kill people, and his ownership of a gun is not going to aid or dissuade him. Jack the Ripper, anyone? To suppose that any criminal will burst into the local co-op, shoot the staff and customers, and make off with the cash is flawed - it seems to be rational on the surface, but criminals tend not to want attention. A robbery gets a little attention - top spot on the local news, usually. Killing a dozen people for £350 makes national news for two weeks, and you've got the entire British constabulary hunting you down. The only people who would be happy to kill are those who are happy to kill anyway, and in those cases it's better for the innocent to be armed so they can stop him.

Maybe it's a misunderstanding of some kind, but I can't equate your arguments with the view I was proposing and the paragraphs you replied to... Unless it's just the caveat at the end, but even then, barely..
The average criminal is not going to get a gun in (frexample) the UK. Someone wanting a gun is going to know that, guns being rare and thus likely criminal, they are taking risks. For this reason, non-psycho/non-'mob' gun use is going to based upon the threat of use, not its actual use (the 'gun' might even be a finger in a pocket). Gunmen rarely encounter armed 'victims' in the UK, guns are loud when used and the only non-passive pacification technique that you could reliably employ without lethal force or massive injury is pistol-whipping (for which a basic cosh would seem better designed).

No you wouldn't. If someone is waving a 'gun' in a cashiers face, they should be damned well expecting a full, armed response.Erm... yes... and? I'm talking about mugging someone with a 'gun'. In the UK, the victim may be uncertain about the future, but the criminal can choose to use passive threats with the gun, and worry about the armed response later on when the police are informed. In the US, criminals with guns have to be prepared to deal with citizens with guns. Citizens who have the ability to kill them stone dead 'in self defence' (and with a police commendation, possibly) regardless of the criminal's ability or willingness to shoot back, and thus they have to consider going that extra couple of inches and using their weapon. I imagine there are attacks with replicas, but it doesn't sound like a survival strategy to me. Even (or especially?) if the replica is obvious to the expert.

I'm not sure where this total sanctity of absolutely every life on Earth comes from. Most people, yes. Rapists, no. Murderers, no. They try it on, they get shot, and I celebrate the shooter.Sancity of life? Where did that come from? I mentioned "a controlled-gun culture is arguably safer (as in less people being fatally shot, which is the whole point)", but not sure if you understand me. With guns in your culture, rapists still rape but take account of their victims possibly being armed, surely... And (pre-conceived) murderers are going to murder anyway, again taking account of the potential armoury of their victim. Spur-of-the-moment murders are going to be worse with guns available to the criminal ("point, shoot, ooops!, flee scene" rather than "grapple, strangle, ooops!, release, apologise profusely and depart the scene" or whatever scenario you care for) and no safer for the victim, given any particular situation they found themselves in.

And please, try and discount all the evidence the pro-gun crowd has shown. I mean, there's a strongly anti-gun peer review which admits; the evidence isn't arguable. I've got an odd feeling he's more qualified to decide what is and is not valid than you.I haven't seen any figures that I would accept. At one end of the geographic spectrum, comparisons between adjacent (and otherwise alike) counties don't take into account the cummuting criminals (benefiting from lax gun control in their 'base', and strong gun control in their 'workplace'). The societial differences between countries are chock-a-block with a million other factors that could affect the figures. The quotes of historic vs contemporary figures that deal with the transition of gun laws don't take into account other factors changing over time, mark changes as more significant than they are. Oh, and a minor point: I reckon that 100% of respondants to surveys who reported 'gun on gun' situations had survived that experience... I don't know what the number of gun deaths is among armed and resisting victims, and I wouldn't know where to start predicting what it 'meant' in the grand scheme of things. Does US media tend to make note of 'have a go'-heroes who were killed?

BTW, reading through some more of the thread before coming back to respond, I made a note that post 360 (I forget who by) was particularly suited to explaining what I mean.

E B Guvegrra

14-03-2005, 18:00

You mean under 18's can have guns legally and carry them around, yet they can't vote or drink. Don't you think that's more than a little fucked up?As least they aren't drunk in charge of a firearm... :)

Harrida

14-03-2005, 18:06

As least they aren't drunk in charge of a firearm... :)

I suppose so.
But I still think that it's kinda freaky!

E B Guvegrra

14-03-2005, 18:22

That's exactly what (at least American) anti-rights individuals want. They want to let people get beaten/raped/robbed repeatedly w/o the means to defend themselves all w/ the excuse "at least they weren't killed by having a gun" . Ask a rape victim if she would have liked to have a gun even at the risk of "maybe" getting killed. A buddy of mine was vehemently anti-gun, until someone broke into his house and attacked his wife, only being chased away by a neighbor w/ a gun. Next day he went and applied for his permit.Slight misrepresentation there, though you may be right that America is just too f*%$ed up to do anything about.

As a point of information, I'm UKian, not USian. I personally enjoy a gun-free culture and have a low fear of crime. I live on the borders of a small but 'drug-ridden' estate (my evaluation based on national standards and personal experieince of other areas), and yet I feel perfectly safe. There have been at least a couple of shootings within half a mile of my house, over the last couple of years. Two. Perhaps three, I half remember another mentioned. And I can walk the streets at night. I am largely unaffected by anything other than the occasional amplified dance track on warm evenings.)

'All' I really worry about (if I even deign to think of it at all) is being stabbed without warning. Somebody comes up to me with a knife, I'll take that and deal with it. Haven't had to yet, but I know enough to handle it. Stabbed without warning and (by extension) at range (i.e. beyond grappling range) by a gun is what I don't like. And because we're a low-gun culture, I can essentially forget about the gun menace. If it was easy for me to get a gun, then I imagine I wouldn't/coudn't be so blasé about it.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 18:30

Rapes? Robberies? Aggravated assaults? And murder? That would otherwise occur if there were no defensive uses of guns?

In the UK we have stricter gun controls and a lower crime rate in regards to vilonet crime per 1000. It may be going up now but thats in no relation whatsoever to our gun control as we havn't held the right to bear arms for centuries.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 18:34

In the UK we have stricter gun controls and a lower crime rate in regards to vilonet crime per 1000. It may be going up now but thats in no relation whatsoever to our gun control as we havn't held the right to bear arms for centuries.

You still haven't answered the conundrum you posed.

You said that more guns always equals more murder and more crime.

If this is so, then how did the violent crime and murder decline in the US over the past 10 years while the number of guns owned increased by 50 percent to over 300 million guns?

Or better yet, why do the two counties that I picked as demographical twins have such a disparity in violent crime when the only difference is the gun laws in those counties? Why is it that the county with the more lax gun laws has 60 percent less violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault)?

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 18:35

And if NOBODY is armed then the criminal could just start shooting everyone without any chance of being stopped, so you could get ten dead civilians instead of four.

And how often does that happen in the UK? I will tell you now, practically never.

I'm not of themind to be shooting people, but I can assure you, if I or my family were threatened, I would be very ready to. And more to the point you seem to be missing that 2.5 million crimes were prevented by the presence of the gun, not by it's use.

Like I said, its psycologically proven only 2% of people are actually capable of killing someone. Very few people have the mindset. Thats why the army has a series of training programes designed to make it easier. And the prevention of crime arguement is debatable. You cannot possibly say "well we interviewed X number of potential criminals who said they were going to commit a crime but found that too many people had guns so they didnt"

There were deaths, yes, but there were deaths that were averted, too. Plus, there were rapes, robberies, burglaries, etc. etc.. Now, if this was just a handful of cases I'd agree, but life is overrated at times, and I'll take a handful of deaths (Which would be less likely to happen if guns were legal and people were educated anyways.) over a swathe of rape.

Do you value low crime above low deaths. Bottom line, more guns equal more deaths. How anyone can support that I dont understand.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 18:36

Like I said, its psycologically proven only 2% of people are actually capable of killing someone. Very few people have the mindset. Thats why the army has a series of training programes designed to make it easier.

Millions of US citizens have rotated in and through these programs in the armed forces - each person only serving a 4 year term.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 18:38

You still haven't answered the conundrum you posed.

You said that more guns always equals more murder and more crime.

No, I said more guns equal more deaths. Be it in crime or otherwise.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 18:38

Bottom line, more guns equal more deaths. How anyone can support that I dont understand.

The evidence in the US does not support this.

If I increase the number of owned guns from 200 million to 300 million, how can the violent crime and murder go down?

Which is what it is, and has been, doing.

How can my county, which is demographically identical to another, with the exception of gun laws, have less than half the murder rate? When the other country has strict laws?

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 18:41

The evidence in the US does not support this.

If I increase the number of owned guns from 200 million to 300 million, how can the violent crime and murder go down?

Which is what it is, and has been, doing.

How can my county, which is demographically identical to another, with the exception of gun laws, have less than half the murder rate? When the other country has strict laws?

London = No guns
New York = guns

New York has over 14 times the murder rate of London.

Britain has a much lower murder rate per thousand than Amercia

In Britan in 2001 there were 47 gun related deaths per 10,000
In America that figure is closer to 600.

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 18:41

No, stop the war on drugs, and the gangs will go away, just like they did after Prohibition was repealed.
I have seen you make this argument many times so far. You would legalize drugs so that the pressure would be relieved from the gun enthusiasts?

What drugs would you legalize?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 19:05

I have seen you make this argument many times so far. You would legalize drugs so that the pressure would be relieved from the gun enthusiasts?

What drugs would you legalize?

http://www.cato.org//dailys/04-07-00.html

No, I'm not relieving pressure from the "gun enthusiasts".

You might ask yourself, "why do people commit violent crimes? Is it because they are gun enthusiasts, or because they have other social problems?"

You'll find that in the US, being associated with drugs (either as a buyer, a seller, or an acquaintance of one or the other, or being in an area where a lot of drug trade and use is going on) is a higher risk factor for being a victim of violent crime or murder than any other risk factor - including being in the presence of a firearm.

1. It funds terror organizations.
2. It funds gangs that would cease to exist without those funds.
3. It fuels petty crime.
4. It fuels violent crime.
5. It criminalizes a large sector of the poor population who may have committed no other "crime" than possession.
6. It fills prisons and wastes 40 billion a year on a program that has NEVER limited the supply of ANY drug on the street.

Why do the majority of robberies, thefts, home invasions, car jackings, burglaries occur in the US? To get money for drugs, or to get drugs directly.

Alcohol kills about 150,000 Americans per year (not counting 50 percent of all highway deaths and 65 percent of all murders).

Misuse of prescriptions by doctors on patients kills 120,000 per year.

Illegal stimulant and narcotic drugs kill 5500 Americans per year from overdose or long term effects of addiction. Marihuana kills no one.

You could save more than half the people killed or wounded by violence in the US - not just the ones caused by firearms - but by knives, clubs, bare hands, etc. - if you removed the violent aura around drug use that is brought on by the War on Drugs.

Take a look at this graph:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

and you'll see the effect that drug laws have had on violence - worse than the effect of Prohibition.

Tograna

14-03-2005, 21:11

um cut the crap guys.

in the uk in 2002 there were 152 gun related deaths in total for the whole country for thw whole year.

in the usa for the same year gun related deaths were somwhere around the 12,000 mark.

So yeh CLEARLY guns are a good think, nice one lads, got that one sorted havn't you

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 21:24

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don’t reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

[In] contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation’s violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI’s figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special?

You are either lazy (in that you did not bother to understand) or stupid (in that you can't).

British people don't use guns for self defence.

Nobody except criminals carries guns, at all in the UK.

Guns available to the public have no impact on crime.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 21:26

Yes, I heard that you aren't allowed to defend yourself - the law will come down on you if you try.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 21:34

Yes, I heard that you aren't allowed to defend yourself - the law will come down on you if you try.

you can use 'reasonable force'. just no-one carries. no-one robs you with guns either.

we're quite happy without them

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 21:39

you can use 'reasonable force'. just no-one carries. no-one robs you with guns either.

we're quite happy without them

Most people who rob you here don't use a gun either.
But you're allowed to shoot them. It's called reasonable force if the bad guy has the capability to do you bodily harm.

So, if you're an old woman, and the bad guy is a 240 pound young man with large muscles, she can kill him with a pistol, even if he is unarmed.

If you have a knife, and I have a gun, I can shoot without fear of legal repercussions.

Most felons are dimly aware of this bright line - more aware than they are of the actual laws they are breaking. It's why the deterrent effect is so strong here.

Try walking in Ward 7 or 8 in Washington D.C. at night with your no-guns attitude, and we'd be seeing your corpse on the morning news.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 21:43

Try walking in Ward 7 or 8 in Washington D.C. at night with your no-guns attitude, and we'd be seeing your corpse on the morning news.

Wouldnt it be better just to take away EVERYONES guns.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 21:47

Wouldnt it be better just to take away EVERYONES guns.

Neo, you still haven't answered the question - you refuse to answer the question.

In the US, two studies say that 2.5 million times a year, guns are used defensively to end a violent crime (a Part 1 crime - a murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault) without killing anyone.

Since only 24% of Part 1 crimes are committed with a firearm, we'll remove 24% of the 2.5 million.

So we would have 1.9 million additional Part 1 crimes per year - more murders, more rapes, more robberies, and more aggravated assaults, if we had NO GUNS AT ALL. That would be a radical increase in the number of crimes in the US - a radical increase in violence that would be preventable - if only the law abiding people had guns.

And you still haven't proven that in the US, more guns ALWAYS = more murder.

The past ten years prove you're wrong. We have 300 million guns - 50 percent more than before, but we have less violent crime and less murder.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 21:47

...

Try walking in Ward 7 or 8 in Washington D.C. at night with your no-guns attitude, and we'd be seeing your corpse on the morning news.

nope, i'll stay in safe old england if they'll kill me in america.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 21:52

nope, i'll stay in safe old england if they'll kill me in america.

The problem that I have is that it's not just a matter of murder.

Most victims of crime I know personally (including myself) were not killed (obviously for me).

We weren't attacked by felons using guns, either.

Most of us, at a minimum, were severely beaten.

Are you saying that someone should be allowed to beat someone, at will, and the person being beaten should have no recourse?

Most of the people I know who were victims would NEVER be able to fight back in a physical way no matter how many "self-defense" courses they took.

Would you condemn them to repeated beatings?

Here in the US, they are allowed to kill their attacker.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 21:59

The problem that I have is that it's not just a matter of murder.

Most victims of crime I know personally (including myself) were not killed (obviously for me).

We weren't attacked by felons using guns, either.

Most of us, at a minimum, were severely beaten.

Are you saying that someone should be allowed to beat someone, at will, and the person being beaten should have no recourse?

Most of the people I know who were victims would NEVER be able to fight back in a physical way no matter how many "self-defense" courses they took.

Would you condemn them to repeated beatings?

Here in the US, they are allowed to kill their attacker.

We don't have the death penalty here, and certainly not for robbery

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:01

We don't have the death penalty here, and certainly not for robbery

So the man I know here, who is wheelchair bound, and been the hospitalized victim three times of a beating by three different robbers, in the UK he would:

a) continue to be defenseless
b) look forward to being beaten again
c) have no recourse

Here, I have taught him to use a pistol, which he keeps with him. It is only a matter of time before the next man who tries to beat him is killed.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 22:01

The past ten years prove you're wrong. We have 300 million guns - 50 percent more than before, but we have less violent crime and less murder.

Not compared to a country without guns you dont. And while you may have less murder the number of gun related deaths is rising. Vilont crime is an ireelevence. The UK is a safer nation than the US. No question. More guns equalling more murder is a logical step. What are guns, weapons. If more people have access to them, the more accidentental and intentional killings there are.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:03

Not compared to a country without guns you dont. And while you may have less murder the number of gun related deaths is rising. Vilont crime is an ireelevence. The UK is a safer nation than the US. No question.

It still doesn't answer the question of why your hypothesis is false in the US.

Your hypothesis:

More guns always equals more murder. Everywhere.

So, if we had less guns in 1995, and we have 100 million more guns now, there SHOULD be more murder.

But There Is Not. There Is Less. And You Can't Change That. So Your Hypothesis Is False.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 22:08

So the man I know here, who is wheelchair bound, and been the hospitalized victim three times of a beating by three different robbers, in the UK he would:

a) continue to be defenseless
b) look forward to being beaten again
c) have no recourse

Here, I have taught him to use a pistol, which he keeps with him. It is only a matter of time before the next man who tries to beat him is killed.

Or he pulls his gun so they kill him.

We don't cheapen life by endorsing killing people. You cannot kill someone intentionally unless there are extreme mitigating circumstances, and even then going prepared (like carrying a gun) would make you a murderer.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:11

Or he pulls his gun so they kill him.

We don't cheapen life by endorsing killing people. You cannot kill someone intentionally unless there are extreme mitigating circumstances, and even then going prepared (like carrying a gun) would make you a murderer.

It's unlikely that they'll kill him. He's a very fast shot for someone with legs that don't work.

Statistically, even against multiple attackers, he has a good chance.

Better than not fighting back. Did you know that our police now encourage that? Because the younger the offender, the more likely they are to beat, rape, or kill you just for fun.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 22:13

So, if we had less guns in 1995, and we have 100 million more guns now, there SHOULD be more murder.

But There Is Not. There Is Less. And You Can't Change That. So Your Hypothesis Is False.

I said more DEATHS. You studies do not take into account accidental deaths and unrecorded deaths. Like it or not statistics are not flawless.

Jester III

14-03-2005, 22:16

@ WL
And why could he not defend himself with a taser? It has range, doesnt need any bodily strength and takes the attacker out as well.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:17

Kroblexskij

14-03-2005, 22:17

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime.

we never had legalised weapons, so how could we ban them.

yes i know you CAN own a lisence but thats for your fancy lords and ladys

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 22:19

It's unlikely that they'll kill him. He's a very fast shot for someone with legs that don't work.

Statistically, even against multiple attackers, he has a good chance.

Better than not fighting back. Did you know that our police now encourage that? Because the younger the offender, the more likely they are to beat, rape, or kill you just for fun.

and how quickly can he turn himself round to shoot someone behind him after he has shot the one in front?

I am happier living here, where there is no incentive for criminals to kill you.

Maybe your nation's cheapening of life leads people to kill more easily.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:24

and how quickly can he turn himself round to shoot someone behind him after he has shot the one in front?

I am happier living here, where there is no incentive for criminals to kill you.

Maybe your nation's cheapening of life leads people to kill more easily.

They don't have an incentive to kill you here, either. It's done for fun.

I live in an area that has 60 percent less death, 60 percent less murder, because we carry guns and the felons know it.

That's why they drive to the nearby state of Maryland, and commit mayhem there, where they know that their victims have been legally disarmed.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 22:27

They don't have an incentive to kill you here, either. It's done for fun.

I live in an area that has 60 percent less death, 60 percent less murder, because we carry guns and the felons know it.

That's why they drive to the nearby state of Maryland, and commit mayhem there, where they know that their victims have been legally disarmed.

of course they have an incentive. If you might shoot them if they rob you, then they have to make sure you can't if they want to rob you.

Your country sounds pretty shitty, with huge armed gangs roaming around killing anyone who isn't armed. Glad I live here.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:31

of course they have an incentive. If you might shoot them if they rob you, then they have to make sure you can't if they want to rob you.

Your country sounds pretty shitty, with huge armed gangs roaming around killing anyone who isn't armed. Glad I live here.

I interview felons as part of my work.

They avoid people who are armed, or who they believe might be armed.

They go to places where they know people won't be armed - by law.

They attack you for the fun of it. I think you're missing their rationale. They don't attack you because you have a gun - they attack you ONLY if they can get away with it without injury or working too hard.

Make it work, or make it risky, and they stay away. But make it easy, and you're going to find out what rape and assault mean - in a very personal way - just for their entertainment.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 22:34

Even if that's what you say, we have 50 percent more guns in 10 years.
We have 300 million guns....

and we have....

less deaths....

NO! You have less MURDERS! Your statistics do not cover accidental deaths and unreported deaths. Both of which are higher than you would think, especially in a country which has extremely liberal gun laws. You have MORE gun related deaths per 10,000 than the UK by a massive margin. New York has 14 times the murder rate of London, and they are cities of comparable size and demographics.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:36

NO! You have less MURDERS! Your statistics do not cover accidental deaths and unreported deaths. Both of which are higher than you would think, especially in a country which has extremely liberal gun laws.

It's rather difficult to have an unreported firearm death in the US. Very difficult indeed.

You see, there are Federal and State laws. It's a felony not to report one, or to fudge the figures on a report.

Accidental deaths are down as well, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Care to try again?

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 22:37

The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime.

Ok thats wrong. In Britain you haven't been able to own a gun for seveal centuries. There was no "broad ban" in 1997. It has been like this for almost since guns were invented.

Neo Cannen

14-03-2005, 22:40

It's rather difficult to have an unreported firearm death in the US. Very difficult indeed

They are called homeless people I believe the term is "bums" in America.

Accidental deaths are down as well, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Care to try again?

Down relating to what? Guess what, they are still much higher than they would be if you had no guns. They are certianly not down compared to the UK. You cant win. The UK is far better off without guns than the US is with them

Care to try again?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:42

http://www.nj.com/sports/times/index.ssf?/base/sports-10/110819921088420.xml

It's a fact that left to themselves, guns do no harm. It's only when someone misuses them that they have dire consequences. Yet some people blame the gun and not the person who misused it. So here are some facts that are part of the statistics that the National Safety Council (NSC) compiles.

By the looks of the nightly news and media coverage, most people don't know that the nation's violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and is now at a 27-year low. The NSC's annual numbers, rates and trends of common accidents and selected other causes of death for the U.S. is available online at www.nraila.org, in spreadsheet format.

The statistics show that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council's Injury Facts 2004 reveal a 54-percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003, which is the last year for which statistics are available.

Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.

Perhaps, Neo, we should do as I said, and legalize drugs. The War on Drugs is the cause of most of the violence, and the violent nature of crime here in the US.

It's the vast majority of the violence and Part 1 crime. Stop the war on drugs, and it stops.

We would probably have a lower overall violent crime rate than the UK if we did that, on a per 100,000 population.

MEDKtulu

14-03-2005, 22:47

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 22:52

You also say that they beat you up for the fun of it. Now we do have them here but they are not in the majority of cases. Most muggings/robberies etc over here if you comply with the criminal you will be unharmed. So therefore maybe you should look at why the ones in your country feel the need to kick crap out of people because it's fun. So we don't need guns here. If you say it works for you then go for it, just how do you think foreigners/tourists will get on because they won't be armed and be easy pickings to your fucked up criminals.

They aren't doing it because I have a gun. Most of them don't have one.

Kicking the crap out of a man in a wheelchair isn't something that someone asked for. It's part of the street culture.

If you stay in a state that has concealed carry, you'll have a lower chance of being victimized. If you go to an urban area that has strict gun laws, your chances of being victimized go up substantially.

MEDKtulu

14-03-2005, 22:58

Kroblexskij

14-03-2005, 22:59

guns dont kill people stupid people with guns kill them ,

canada has statistically more guns than america, and less deaths, but the best would of course to have no guns.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 23:02

Can you see the point I'm trying to make though? We don't have guns, the criminals know we don't have guns and yet in general we're doing pretty good without them. I don't really want to know what would happen if we allowed guns and I personally hope we never do.

Yes, I can see the point you're trying to make. It looks like it's been that way long enough to have people socialized to accept it. Even your criminals accept it.

I think that having unarmed police de-escalates the violence in the criminal population - but it depends on having less desperate criminals in the first place.

That would never work here. Here, the war on drugs has touched everything and turned it rotten - most of the people in prison here did nothing more than possess drugs. It destroys families, impoverishing them, eliminates fathers, etc. And most of them are desperate to stay out of jail - so they'll do anything to avoid capture.

That guy who shot those people in the courtroom was NOT unusual.

That's the kind of person on the street here. Since I can't count on the police to show up in time, I have to have the pistol.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 23:10

Yes, I can see the point you're trying to make. It looks like it's been that way long enough to have people socialized to accept it. Even your criminals accept it.

I think that having unarmed police de-escalates the violence in the criminal population - but it depends on having less desperate criminals in the first place.

That would never work here. Here, the war on drugs has touched everything and turned it rotten - most of the people in prison here did nothing more than possess drugs. It destroys families, impoverishing them, eliminates fathers, etc. And most of them are desperate to stay out of jail - so they'll do anything to avoid capture.

That guy who shot those people in the courtroom was NOT unusual.

That's the kind of person on the street here. Since I can't count on the police to show up in time, I have to have the pistol.

I don't think we have 'less desperate' criminals.

Why did that guy in the court have to shoot people?

Because the security had guns. Plain and simple. If they didn't he wouldn't need to shoot first (not to mention he wouldn't be able to get a gun).

When you create a need for criminals to have guns and cheapen life by allowing wanton murder, then what do you expect?

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 23:14

I don't think we have 'less desperate' criminals.

Why did that guy in the court have to shoot people?

Because the security had guns. Plain and simple. If they didn't he wouldn't need to shoot first (not to mention he wouldn't be able to get a gun).

When you create a need for criminals to have guns and cheapen life by allowing wanton murder, then what do you expect?

The woman guarding him had a gun.

He felt he was going to be convicted, so he tried to escape. To do that, he needed her gun. So he shot her with her gun.

Then he went out into the courtroom.

Because of court policy, only the bailiffs have guns - none of the other police in the building can carry one. So no one in that room was armed. He decided to kill the judge and the stenographer. Then he exited the back door of that room.

In the hallway there, he was confronted by a surprised deputy - whom he shot on the spot and killed.

Then he went to the parking garage... and the rest is history.

He didn't want to get sentenced. I think we have much harsher prisons and sentences than the UK. So going to jail is a bigger, life ending deal here. To a young man, that's the end of the world, and if you're at the end of the world, it no longer matters if you kill someone.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 23:16

The woman guarding him had a gun.

He felt he was going to be convicted, so he tried to escape. To do that, he needed her gun. So he shot her with her gun.

Then he went out into the courtroom.

Because of court policy, only the bailiffs have guns - none of the other police in the building can carry one. So no one in that room was armed. He decided to kill the judge and the stenographer. Then he exited the back door of that room.

In the hallway there, he was confronted by a surprised deputy - whom he shot on the spot and killed.

Then he went to the parking garage... and the rest is history.

He didn't want to get sentenced. I think we have much harsher prisons and sentences than the UK. So going to jail is a bigger, life ending deal here. To a young man, that's the end of the world, and if you're at the end of the world, it no longer matters if you kill someone.

But if no-one had a gun he wouldn't have been able to get one, and would have had no need to shoot anyone.

Whispering Legs

14-03-2005, 23:17

But if no-one had a gun he wouldn't have been able to get one, and would have had no need to shoot anyone.

I work in courts where they wear a stun belt.

The deputy holds a remote.

If you look cross-eyed at anyone, the deputy fries your genitals at 100,000 volts.

Enlightened Humanity

14-03-2005, 23:25

I work in courts where they wear a stun belt.

The deputy holds a remote.

If you look cross-eyed at anyone, the deputy fries your genitals at 100,000 volts.

way to go.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Nope! they're all animals the moment they are arrested!

And you wonder why there's so much violence.

CanuckHeaven

14-03-2005, 23:46

See what happens when you DON'T ban guns:

FIREARM DEATH, INJURY AND CRIME (http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Americas/USA_MH04.html)

The United States has one of the highest rates of firearm injury and death in the developed world. (3) (16) (20) In a study of 36 high- and upper-middle- income countries, the US had the highest overall firearm mortality rate. The firearm mortality rate was approximately 8 times higher than other high-income countries and the firearm homicide rate was approximately 19 times higher than that of the other 35 countries combined. (22) In 2001, there were 29, 573 firearm-related deaths in the US, for an average of around 80 deaths per day. (16)

A 1992 study in the United States estimated the direct and indirect annual costs of gunshot wounds at $126 billion (US). (20) (21) According to 2001 data, firearm deaths account for 1 of every 5 injury deaths. In 2002, there were an estimated 58,841 nonfatal firearm injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States. (16)

Oh, and the comment about assault weapons not being much of a factor:

Assault weapons represent a significant threat to police officers. Approximately 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers who were killed on duty between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2001 were shot with assault weapons. This means that one in five were killed by an assault weapon. (28) Nevertheless, since 1995 the frequency of the use of assault weapons in crimes has dropped significantly. (7) Between 1990 and 1994, the assault weapons named in the ban accounted for 4.82% of the guns traced to crimes by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Since the implementation of the ban, this has dropped to only 1.61%. Using these figures, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence estimates that if the ban had not been enacted, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crimes in the last ten years. (31)

So the banning of the sale of assault weapons did have a profound effect?

Unistate

15-03-2005, 00:39

NO! You have less MURDERS! Your statistics do not cover accidental deaths and unreported deaths. Both of which are higher than you would think, especially in a country which has extremely liberal gun laws. You have MORE gun related deaths per 10,000 than the UK by a massive margin. New York has 14 times the murder rate of London, and they are cities of comparable size and demographics.

Cars kill people. Occasionally on purpose. Mostly by accident.

Let's ban cars!!!

San haiti

15-03-2005, 00:44

Cars kill people. Occasionally on purpose. Mostly by accident.

Let's ban cars!!!

Let's ignore the serious point in the post and write some irrelevant rubbish instead!!!

Unistate

15-03-2005, 01:39

Let's ignore the serious point in the post and write some irrelevant rubbish instead!!!

Oh please, maybe try a critical thinking lesson before your next response.

For those of you who did miss my point however;

Cars are dangerous. A half ton to two tons of metal travelling at 70mph is a very powerful device. Generally, cars are used for transportation, a perfectly legitimate end. Sometimes they are used for sports. However, sometimes things go wrong, and that large amount of energy hits something else, releasing the energy with the end result of death and disability. Does this mean we ought to ban cars? Of course not.

Guns are dangerous. An explosive charge capable of propelling a small piece of metal at extreme velocity is a very powerful device. Generally, guns are used for personal protection, a perfectly legitimate end. Sometimes they are used for sports. However, sometimes things go wrong, and that large amount of energy hits something else, releasing the energy with the end result of death and disability. Dose this mean we ought to ban guns any more than we ought to ban cars?

I think you can extrapolate the answer, and I hope you can extrapolate that the point I am making is that accidents are not justification for something's prohibition.

MEDKtulu

15-03-2005, 02:17

I hope you can extrapolate that the point I am making is that accidents are not justification for something's prohibition.

Indeed not, it should be for the fact that firearms are the most popular choice of murder weapon by a long shot. Not much point debating since no-one has a strong enough argument to change anybodies opinion and statistics can be produced by both pro/anti guns and can be interpreted in lots of ways.

As way of an example, in 2003 violent crime dropped in the US but the murder rate actually increased. LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/25/national/main651164.shtml?cmp=EM8706)

I'm sure you can pull that apart and provide you're own figures that prove otherwise.

The Go club

15-03-2005, 03:20

Oh please, maybe try a critical thinking lesson before your next response.
Perhaps you should make yourself clearer next time, for everyone elses benefit

I think you can extrapolate the answer, and I hope you can extrapolate that the point I am making is that accidents are not justification for something's prohibition.
I don't think the analogy is entirely valid, the main reason being people would really feel the effect if cars were banned (not being able to travel at will etc), because cars actually serve a useful purpose. While the use of guns is debateable (as the forum has proven), and since many countries happily get along without them, the case is certainly there for banning guns.

The accidental deaths *are* taken into account with cars, thats why we have things like cycle lanes etc, but banning cars cannot be done, while the easiest way to prevent accidental deaths with guns is to ban them, which at worst has mixed consequences, unlike cars.

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 04:05

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 04:09

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 04:12

way to go.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Nope! they're all animals the moment they are arrested!

And you wonder why there's so much violence.

Yep, it's society and the courts that make these people commit crimes. They have no responsibility at all. Duh.

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 04:29

we never had legalised weapons, so how could we ban them.

yes i know you CAN own a lisence but thats for your fancy lords and ladys

Never? Centuries? Geez, learn the history of your own country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

"Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is."

CanuckHeaven

15-03-2005, 04:37

And the flaw in your post is that guns TRACED to crimes. The BATFE reduced its' "tracing" of guns therefore less guns traced to crimes.

You can use better souces than the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership.

But since you like sources like that:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=12

The Brady's are the same people that refer to semi-auto's as "machine guns" and randomly redefine types of firearms.
The source actually is from a Canadian University and if you check at the bottom, it listed all the references used to put the article together.

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 04:55

The source actually is from a Canadian University and if you check at the bottom, it listed all the references used to put the article together.

The "references" reads like a who's who of gun banners. Nope, no bias here.

* United Nations (UN), International Study on Firearm Regulation, 1999 update: www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/.
* International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), ?The United States?: www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/namerica.htm#usa.
* The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, ?Federal Legislation?: www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/gunlaws.asp.
* BATF statistic cited in Dianne Feinstein, ?Rate of Banned Assault Weapons Used in Crime Down by Nearly Two-thirds since Passage of 1994 Law?, 5 November 2003: feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm.
* Table adapted from Table A.10 in World Health Organization (WHO), World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva: WHO, 2002, p. 323.
* JHCGP, ?Licensing And Registration of Firearms Makes It Harder for Criminals and Juveniles to Get Guns, New Study Shows?, 30 August 2001: www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/gun_laws.html.
* Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (JHCGPR), ?Factsheet: Firearm Death and Injury in the United States?, January 2004: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet_2004.pdf.
* JHCGPR, ?Factsheet: Stolen Guns?, February 2003: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/gun_theft_fs.pdf.
* National Report of the United States of America on the Implementation of the United Nations' Small Arms and Light Weapons Programme of Action, 2002, submitted to the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/salw-nationalreports.html.
* JHCGPR, ?Factsheet: Guns in the Home?, May 2002: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/Guns_in_Home.pdf.
* World Health Organization (WHO), World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva: WHO, 2002.
* T.R. Miller and M.A. Cohen, ?Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons?, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, 1997, pp. 329?341.
* Violence Policy Center (VPC), The Campaign to Ban Assault Weapons: www.vpc.org.
* The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), ?Assault Weapon Ban Basics?: www.csgv.org/issues/assaultweapons/banbasics.cfm.
* VPC, Officer Down: Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement, May 2003: www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm.
1. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act, March 2004: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/on_target.pdf. (Accessed 29 March 2004)

CanuckHeaven

15-03-2005, 04:59

Here is why John Lott, a "pro gun" enthusiast, anti gun control advocate, and who makes money selling "pro gun" books, is not a credible source:

From John Lott's article (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html):

"The Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration. Public confidence in the government's ability to fight crime has also eroded, with one recent survey showing only 17% of voters support the registration program."

1. He didn't reference anyone from the Canadian government as to their "recent admission" regarding registration benefits.

2. He didn't reference the "recent survey" suggesting only "17% of voters support the registration program."

3. He makes money selling anti gun control books.

Here is a fairly recent survey that suggests that John Lott's numbers are way off the mark:

Majority Support for Gun Control; Majority Support Continuation of National Firearms Registry (http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=513)

The latest FOCUS CANADA Survey by the Environics Research Group finds that three-quarters of Canadians (74%) support the current gun control legislation. As well, despite the controversy over the management of the National Firearms Registry, a majority of Canadians (55%) believe that the concept is workable and should be completed. In contrast, forty percent of Canadians believe that the cost overruns in the Registry prove that it is unworkable and should be abandoned.

Environics, I can trust in relation to Johnny (I can make a) Lott of money dissing gun control.

CanuckHeaven

15-03-2005, 05:17

The "references" reads like a who's who of gun banners. Nope, no bias here.

* United Nations (UN), International Study on Firearm Regulation, 1999 update: www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/.
* International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), ?The United States?: www.iansa.org/regions/namerica/namerica.htm#usa.
* The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, ?Federal Legislation?: www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/gunlaws.asp.
* BATF statistic cited in Dianne Feinstein, ?Rate of Banned Assault Weapons Used in Crime Down by Nearly Two-thirds since Passage of 1994 Law?, 5 November 2003: feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm.
* Table adapted from Table A.10 in World Health Organization (WHO), World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva: WHO, 2002, p. 323.
* JHCGP, ?Licensing And Registration of Firearms Makes It Harder for Criminals and Juveniles to Get Guns, New Study Shows?, 30 August 2001: www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/gun_laws.html.
* Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (JHCGPR), ?Factsheet: Firearm Death and Injury in the United States?, January 2004: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet_2004.pdf.
* JHCGPR, ?Factsheet: Stolen Guns?, February 2003: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/gun_theft_fs.pdf.
* National Report of the United States of America on the Implementation of the United Nations' Small Arms and Light Weapons Programme of Action, 2002, submitted to the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/salw-nationalreports.html.
* JHCGPR, ?Factsheet: Guns in the Home?, May 2002: www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/Guns_in_Home.pdf.
* World Health Organization (WHO), World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva: WHO, 2002.
* T.R. Miller and M.A. Cohen, ?Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons?, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, 1997, pp. 329?341.
* Violence Policy Center (VPC), The Campaign to Ban Assault Weapons: www.vpc.org.
* The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), ?Assault Weapon Ban Basics?: www.csgv.org/issues/assaultweapons/banbasics.cfm.
* VPC, Officer Down: Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement, May 2003: www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm.
1. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act, March 2004: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/on_target.pdf. (Accessed 29 March 2004)
However, you omitted perhaps the most important ones on that list:

1. United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The World Factbook 2003, United States: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.

4. United States (US), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), 2001 Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER); 2000 AFMER; and 1999 AFMER: www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm

5. US, BATF, “Frequently Asked Questions”: www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/

8. US, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “Homicide Trends in the US”: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

9. US, BJS, “Firearms and Crime Statistics”: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

If you want to deal in facts, you need to go to the source, and that article did.

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 05:31

[B]
If you want to deal in facts, you need to go to the source, and that article did.

The "facts" as worded and presented by some of the largest anti-gun groups in the world. Had that paper even cited one " however the other side states" , it might be legitimate. Did you even look at the NRA article on "gun traces" ? Is it biased? yes. Does it present a well documented opposing opinion? Yes.

You've complained about Pro-gunners skewing the data and you're posting some of the worst examples of it.

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 05:38

Here is why John Lott, a "pro gun" enthusiast, anti gun control advocate, and who makes money selling "pro gun" books, is not a credible source:

From John Lott's article (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html):

Environics, I can trust in relation to Johnny (I can make a) Lott of money dissing gun control.

Adn what's your source for Lott's lack of citations? Oh wait, one single article from a magazine.

Try this:

http://www.johnlott.org/

Instructions for Obtaining John R. Lott's Raw Data

Most of this data involves STATA 7.0 data sets. The reason for using this is that the county level data involves a much larger set of control variables than can readily be handled by other statistical packages. The data sets can be obtained by clicking on the following links which will take you to the download page:
* Chapter 6: MVPS Paper Data
* Chapters 7 and 8: Safe Storage, Gun Shows, Assault Weapons Data
* Appendix 1: Crime Data 77-00 Data
* Appendix 2: Magazine Sales Data
* 2002 Survey on Defensive Gun Use Data
* General Discussion of the 1997 and 2002 Surveys
* Debate_over_Stanford_Law_Review
* Confirming More Guns, Less Crime
* All of the Above Sections

Who funds ERG? Is it for profit? If they make a penny, I guess their surveys are invalid because they're making money?

CanuckHeaven

15-03-2005, 06:12

Adn what's your source for Lott's lack of citations? Oh wait, one single article from a magazine.
Lott not only lacked citations in that story, he outright twisted the truth. He is "pro gun" and makes a good living doing that?

What you might have failed to notice, is that what I have been posting, for the most part, is based on raw data from the law enforcement agencies. You cannot refute those raw numbers.

Here is some more interesting stats based on info gathered from the:

FBI, Uniform Crime Reports: (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/lacrime.htm)

Also in the year 2000 Louisiana had 12.5 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 1st highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Mississippi had 9.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 2nd highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Maryland had 8.1 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 3rd highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Georgia had 8.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 4th highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 New Mexico had 7.4 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 5th highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Alabama had 7.4 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 6th highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Tennessee had 7.2 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 7th highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Illinois had 7.2 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 8th highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 Arizona had 7.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 9th highest rate for Murder.

Also in the year 2000 North Carolina had 7.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 10th highest rate for Murder.

How many of these States have the right to carry concealed weapons?

The answer is all but Maryland, Illinois, and New Mexico. Why is it that in general, the southern states have the highest murder rates?

Kecibukia

15-03-2005, 07:20

Lott not only lacked citations in that story, he outright twisted the truth. He is "pro gun" and makes a good living doing that?

Show me where his data is wrong. Not just biased, but wrong. I've given you the sources of his data.

The whole "southerners are stupid, violent, redneck" arguements are getting pretty lame. Why do they show the largest drops then? The cherry-picking of "raw-data/numbers" can go both ways.

Louisiana.: Down 7.8 since 1993 peak. RTC 1996 then bigger drops.
Mississipi: down 6.3 since 1994 peak. RTC 1990 1st drop after in '92.
Maryland: drop of 4.6 since 1993 peak. Year befor AWB.
Georgia: drop of 4.8 since 1991 peak. RTC 1989.
New Mexico: Drop of 4.1 since 1996 peak, RTC 2003 Get your facts straight.
Alabama: drop of 4.5 since '94 peak, "discretionary" RTC laws
Tennessee: Drop of 3.5 since '95 peak, RTC '94.
Illinois: Drop of 4.5. since '94 peak. 90% of murders in Chicago.
Arizona: Drop of 3.5 since '94 peak. RTC 1994
North Carolina: Drop of 4.3 since '93 peak. RTC 1995,

Now look at Vermont w/o a permit needed. In the '90's it "peaked" at 3.6 and was at 1.5 in 2000.

And why aren't you jumping on Florida anymore? Could it be that thier murder rate has dropped 6.1 since 1987. The year they implemented RTC? Their violent crime peaked in 1990. 4 years before the AWB.

You've cited the VPC as a source. They've stated:

In 1995, the Violence Policy Center claimed Florida`s carry law "puts guns into the hands of criminals." ("Concealed Carry: The Criminal`s Companion") The claim was preposterous, since the law permits a person to carry, not acquire, a firearm. VPC claimed "criminals do apply for concealed carry licenses," without noting that such applications are rejected. Contradicting itself, VPC pointed out that criminals, after their applications were rejected, wanted the rejections reconsidered. "To set the record straight," Florida Secretary of State, Sandra B. Mortham, said, "As of November 30, 1995, the Department had denied 723 applications due to criminal history. The fact that these 723 individuals did not receive a license clearly indicates that the process is working." She added, "the majority of concealed weapon or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self-defense." (St. Petersburg Times, 1/11/96.)

In 2001, VPC claimed that there are more women murdered with handguns than criminals who are killed by women in self-defense. ("A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense") VPC erred in measuring the value handguns for self-defense in terms of the number of criminals killed, rather than in terms of the number of women who use handguns to prevent themselves from becoming crime victims. Also, VPC undercounted the number of criminals killed in self-defense by counting only those noted in police reports, which exclude homicides the courts find to be justifiable and those determined through further investigation to have not been criminal.

As for "Twisting Facts":

In March 1995, David McDowell claimed that gun homicide rates increased in Miami, Jacksonville and Tampa after Florida`s 1987 RTC law. ("Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States.") But homicide rates fell 10%, 18% and 20%, respectively, in those metropolitan areas from 1987 until 1993, the latest available data at the time. Determined to show an increase, McDowell calculated Jacksonville and Tampa trends from the early 1970s, when rates were lower than in 1993, but calculated Miami`s from 1983, since rates before 1983 were higher and their inclusion would have shown that the city`s homicide rate decreased. None of McDowell`s homicides was committed by a license holder, and he did not even indicate which homicides had occurred in situations where a license would be required to carry. Another McDowell gem is his claim that D.C.`s homicide rate decreased after its 1977 handgun ban. In fact, the rate tripled after the ban.

Morteee

15-03-2005, 07:50

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don’t reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

[In] contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation’s violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI’s figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special?

strange I havent seen any reports of a judge being shot in a courtoom in the UK ;)

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 13:18

strange I havent seen any reports of a judge being shot in a courtoom in the UK ;)

Maybe because the judge in the US was shot with a deputy's gun, not his own gun.

You can't bring a gun into a US courtroom unless you're a deputy. There are metal detectors you have to pass through.

My local court does the metal detector AND a pat down. And to get to another area of the court building, you pass through the detectors AGAIN.

MEDKtulu

15-03-2005, 15:33

Maybe because the judge in the US was shot with a deputy's gun, not his own gun.

Or maybe because no guns are taken into a court room. Just a suggestion :p

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 15:39

Or maybe because no guns are taken into a court room. Just a suggestion :p

In the Atlanta courtroom, no police are allowed to carry a gun except the bailiff.

In my jurisdiction, all the police carry guns, as well as the bailiff, in court.

In addition, we have the felons wearing a stun belt.

If the felon moves wrong, he gets 100,000 volts to his genitals.

See u Jimmy

15-03-2005, 16:32

The simple fact is no guns = no shooting.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 16:33

The simple fact is no guns = no shooting.
The simple fact is that if I can smuggle drugs into a country, I can smuggle anything else that is forbidden and will fetch a price.

Smuggling into an island is child's play.

Independent Homesteads

15-03-2005, 16:35

In the Atlanta courtroom, no police are allowed to carry a gun except the bailiff.

In my jurisdiction, all the police carry guns, as well as the bailiff, in court.

In addition, we have the felons wearing a stun belt.

If the felon moves wrong, he gets 100,000 volts to his genitals.

Well, it's a good job the US goes around the world fighting for justice and freedom and against brutal regimes that torture their citizens.

Did you know in the UK at least it is very rare that a felon is in court. Because the accused person is only a felon at the end of the trial, if convicted. Accused people sitting in court during the trial aren't felons because they haven't been convicted. They might even be innocent.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 16:37

See u Jimmy

15-03-2005, 16:38

The simple fact is that if I can smuggle drugs into a country, I can smuggle anything else that is forbidden and will fetch a price.

Smuggling into an island is child's play.

So your a criminal?

The problem is if only law abiding people carry guns then you will not have many errors resulting gun deaths. But how do you ensure that only law abiding people carry guns.

Everyone carrying guns just makes it easier for criminals to get them, and ups the ante for any crimes committed.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 16:42

So your a criminal?

The problem is if only law abiding people carry guns then you will not have many errors resulting gun deaths. But how do you ensure that only law abiding people carry guns.

Everyone carrying guns just makes it easier for criminals to get them, and ups the ante for any crimes committed.

We reached a compromise here in the States.

Given that a certain percentage of felons will always try to get (and succeed in getting) a gun...

we have the computerized instant background check. If you're not a felon, you can buy.

It's not perfect - but we're not in the situation where the law abiding have NO guns and the criminals have all they want.

So far, we've kept the number of criminals who use guns in the commission of violent crime to below 24 percent.

And, law abiding citizens defend themselves millions of times per year - preventing violent crime.

See u Jimmy

15-03-2005, 16:53

We reached a compromise here in the States.

Given that a certain percentage of felons will always try to get (and succeed in getting) a gun...

we have the computerized instant background check. If you're not a felon, you can buy.

It's not perfect - but we're not in the situation where the law abiding have NO guns and the criminals have all they want.

So far, we've kept the number of criminals who use guns in the commission of violent crime to below 24 percent.

And, law abiding citizens defend themselves millions of times per year - preventing violent crime.

So a quarter of violent crime involves gun use, in the US
In the non Gun world thats lower.
In Canada with the gun registration laws it's lower.
(using previously quoted figures)

Isanyonehome

15-03-2005, 16:53

Well, it's a good job the US goes around the world fighting for justice and freedom and against brutal regimes that torture their citizens.

Did you know in the UK at least it is very rare that a felon is in court. Because the accused person is only a felon at the end of the trial, if convicted. Accused people sitting in court during the trial aren't felons because they haven't been convicted. They might even be innocent.

This means exactly what? What if a person who was previously convicted of a felony(and served his time) is in court again for another crime? Does the UK have special courts for these people(I mean, they are felons)? Or maybe you are just talking out of your ass. Finding any excuse to berate the US.

Did you know in the UK at least it is very rare that a felon is in court.

Do you even have the brain wattage to understand what a stupid statement this is? Do you know WHY it is a stupid statement? Going by your inferance of what is and is not a felon, are you imlying that sometimes innocent people are treated as felons? I mean you did use the words "very rare"

The truth of the matter is that people in both the US and the UK are innocent until proven guilty. Both of these countries are wise enough to not adopt the Napoleanic system of justice.

The atlanta killings are directly the result of the policy of that court to allow the accused(regardless of crime) to appear in court without handcuffs and in the clothes of their choosing(so that the jury will not be biased a la seeing a man in prison fatigues).

If he had been handcuffed, this never would have happened. Regardless, I personally think the court's policies are correct with regard to handcuffs and street clothes.

What offends me is bigoted people like yourself who will find any excuse to jump up and down saying the US is bad. That is clearly what you are trying to do when you are inferring that in the US it is guilty until proven innocent.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 16:54

So a quarter of violent crime involves gun use, in the US
In the non Gun world thats lower.
In Canada with the gun registration laws it's lower.
(using previously quoted figures)

No, 24 percent of violent crime involves the use of a "weapon", which is a knife, club, firearm, etc. Not just a firearm.

Gun registration in Canada is a joke. Several of the provinces aren't even enforcing it, because it isn't funded.

Independent Homesteads

15-03-2005, 16:58

Do you even have the brain wattage to understand what a stupid statement this is? Do you know WHY it is a stupid statement? Going by your inferance of what is and is not a felon, are you imlying that sometimes innocent people are treated as felons? I mean you did use the words "very rare"

Please explain. The American to whom I was responding said that in his state "the felon" wears a shock belt.

I said that in my country, a felon is only a felon once convicted.

In the event that someone is convicted and returned to court for another trial, the person is still an accused. We don't assume that someone convicted of one offence is automatically guilty of everything else they are accused of.

So there is no need to be rude, just explain what you are talking about.

See u Jimmy

15-03-2005, 17:01

No, 24 percent of violent crime involves the use of a "weapon", which is a knife, club, firearm, etc. Not just a firearm.

Gun registration in Canada is a joke. Several of the provinces aren't even enforcing it, because it isn't funded.

Read your own post, their your figures.

Independent Homesteads

15-03-2005, 17:01

What offends me is bigoted people like yourself who will find any excuse to jump up and down saying the US is bad. That is clearly what you are trying to do when you are inferring that in the US it is guilty until proven innocent.

Oh I see, sorry, I see your point now - you're paranoid and you can't read very well. If only you'd said earlier.

I wasn't inferring anything. You are inferring that I am implying that in the US an accused person is guilty until proven innocent. I don't really see how you arrive at that inference. Still, if you like I'll explain what I thought I was implying.

The post to which I was originally responding said that "felons" wear shock belts. I was wondering how the court knows the people are felons before they are tried. The mistake is the poster's not the US justice system's. Still it makes you wonder, when the US justice system puts a 100,000 volt shock belt on an innocent person.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 17:38

The post to which I was originally responding said that "felons" wear shock belts. I was wondering how the court knows the people are felons before they are tried. The mistake is the poster's not the US justice system's. Still it makes you wonder, when the US justice system puts a 100,000 volt shock belt on an innocent person.

The problem is that many people held by the courts try to escape - and, as you noticed in the recent shootings, will do ANYTHING to escape.

Previously, everyone appearing in court wore shackles. But courts have decided that the appearance of shackles is presumptory, and unduly influences juries.

So, they need a way to control extremely violent people - but how?

The stun belt is worn beneath the clothing.

The prisoner is not shocked unless they attempt to become violent.

They DO watch a video of what will happen if they don't cooperate.

Not every court uses them - but ours and many others do on prisoners on whom we have probable cause to believe they are violent.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 17:39

I really am getting the impression that some of you believe that the reason the prisoners are violent is the fault of the state somehow.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:11

Cars kill people. Occasionally on purpose. Mostly by accident.

Let's ban cars!!!

Cars are not DESIGNED to kill people though are they!

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 18:12

Cars are not DESIGNED to kill people though are they!
Not all guns are designed to kill people. Some are even very bad at it.

You'll notice that the police aren't running around with .22 target pistols...

E B Guvegrra

15-03-2005, 18:15

It still doesn't answer the question of why your hypothesis is false in the US.

Your hypothesis:

More guns always equals more murder. Everywhere.

So, if we had less guns in 1995, and we have 100 million more guns now, there SHOULD be more murder.

But There Is Not. There Is Less. And You Can't Change That. So Your Hypothesis Is False.

I think I've worked something out that might bear positing to the world in general (or at least this thread/forum).

Yourself: "Rate of reported crime is going down in a country with more guns."
also: "Rate of reported crime is going up in a country without guns."
Opposers: "Amount of reported crime is higher in a country with more guns."
"Amount of reported crime is lower in a country without guns."

All statements are true. One or other of each pair are the crux of the respective pro- and anti-gun lobbies. Both lobbies feel justified in their claims.

It could be argued that the former country, with the increasing gun ownership, is riding down the wave of an independant/only loosely connected fluctuation in crime, while the latter is on the upward slope for its own, gun-independant reasons.

And the overall rate of crime could be due to histo-geographic tendencies, like springing from the (alleged, and not entirely corroborated) gunslinging mentality of the Wild West and other circumstances that mean so much to you (e.g. War of Independance and subsequent Purchases/etc of the further 37-ish states from Old Europe, which may makes all men pioneers/conquerers/liberators/pursuers of property, though I could be going too far with that simile). We, as an old country with old country ways, have settled into a 'comfort zone' that no longer includes warbands (morphing into 'gangs', though we continue to re-import the concept from Jamaica, LA, Russia, etc) and leaves us with a large number of lowly cutpurses and few Dick Turpins, only the occasional Jack The Ripper and hardly any Fred West.

Actually, the list of US 'celebrity criminals' that I can construct is also small, where it should be larger on a population vs length of history assessment. Manson and Darmer come immediately to mind, obviously the recent court guy, Billy the Kidd and others of his era, the man who killed Versacchi (sp?), a few names I tend to associate with the mob but aren't to sure if they are even fact or fiction, really not very many at all...

For the UK I submit the aforementioned Turpin, Ripper, West plus Yorkshire Ripper, Robin Hood (or, rather, the factual people the fictional elements were based upon), Shipman and the like.

For Australia, Ned Kelly (+ gang) and the guy who cut his ear off are the only ones I can think of. Ok, so the population is small for the size of country (though I put that down as a reason for the lawlessness of the Wild West and Kelly's bush), but pretty few, given that a significant proportion of the early immigrants from the UK were criminals... :)

Anyway, back to the point, I think we're counting different standards and calling them 'good' or 'bad', 'bad' or 'good'...

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:16

Not all guns are designed to kill people. Some are even very bad at it.

You'll notice that the police aren't running around with .22 target pistols...

What exactly is a gun if not a weapon?

Liskeinland

15-03-2005, 18:18

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don’t reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

[In] contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation’s violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI’s figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special? How about violent GUN CRIME is on the increase in the UK? Simple fact - if you are allowed to have a gun, then Johnny Burglar will have one as well.

(didn't bother to read rest of thread)

E B Guvegrra

15-03-2005, 18:18

I said more DEATHS. You studies do not take into account accidental deaths and unrecorded deaths. Like it or not statistics are not flawless.Even if that's what you say, we have 50 percent more guns in 10 years.
We have 300 million guns....

and we have....

less deaths....

Perfect example of my previous post.

US has more deaths per capita than UK.
US has less deaths per capita than it used to.

Cross-purposes, you see.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:20

US has less deaths per capita than it used to.

I read your post earlier to this effect and I have made points about this. While crime in general in the UK is rising, it has nothing to do with gun laws, since gun laws have remained as they are now for several centuries. For some reason, people here think it happened in 1997, but it most certianly did not.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 18:21

What exactly is a gun if not a weapon?
Well, in the biathlon, it's a sporting tool. You aren't there to shoot the other competitors, or the spectators, or the judges.

It's a poor sort of tool that's only used for one thing.

It's a poor sort of gun that only works for the bad guys.

You still haven't grasped the concept that guns are morally indifferent - that they rely on the morality of the user. If the user has moral failings, or moral weakness, they will be incapable of just use of the gun.

To be able to use a gun wisely implies that the user has a moral ascendancy over those who cannot - that person has control of the will to power.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:32

You still haven't grasped the concept that guns are morally indifferent - that they rely on the morality of the user. If the user has moral failings, or moral weakness, they will be incapable of just use of the gun.

Which is precisely why there should be no guns. If you give guns to everyone of every morality it means that there are dangerous people out there who are able to kill people. And equally there are "good" people out their with the power to kill people. But the risks of gun deaths are just too high. The UK has always been far safer that the US without guns. While your crime levels may be falling and ours may be rising I see little cause to relate that to gun laws, seeing as how the laws in the UK haven't changed in centuries. And even if crime in the UK is now going up, its a fact that the British murder rate is, and always has been far lower than the American one. Now there are a number of possible reasons but I am willing to bet one of them is gun control.

E B Guvegrra

15-03-2005, 18:32

I interview felons as part of my work.

[...]

They go to places where they know people won't be armed - by law.

[...]

Which is why you have a bad situation, where those states/counties that try to lower gun ownership for personal safety reasons are making it harder to defend against criminals, whereas those states/counties that try to make gun ownership more ubiquetous for personal safety reasons are making it more likely to be shot in various circumstances.

Going to the local shopping centre (i.e. mall) you'll find that the shops selling similar items (e.g. two computer games shops) have the same prices. Exactly. Including discounts. Take a trip into town, and you might find cheaper or more expensive prices, but that's the retail-equivalent of crossing the border to Mexico (not as easy as strolling to the next state). What you're unavoidably doing with lax gun laws in one place and strong ones in another might be (loosely) analogued as the equivalent of finding something on the exclusive hangers in a clothes store but paying for it at the counter in the discount department.

Make it work, or make it risky, and they stay away. But make it easy, and you're going to find out what rape and assault mean - in a very personal way - just for their entertainment.

Might it be worth comparing the number of diagnosed sociopaths in each country? It certainly sounds horryfyingly worse of your side the of the pond. My first instinct that "guns=power" is the driving force, but as not all criminals are armed (it just seems like it, apparently) there must be something else...

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:33

Well, in the biathlon, it's a sporting tool. You aren't there to shoot the other competitors, or the spectators, or the judges.

Designed to destroy things. Its a weapon. Arrchery is a sport but that does not detract from a bow and arrow being a weapon. Fencing is a sport, but that does not detract from a foil being a weapon.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 18:36

If you've ever been robbed by someone who regularly uses meth, you'll know why they're sociopathic beyond anything you'll usually see in the UK.

It's difficult to reason with them, even simply. They understand what I call "the clear bright line", but you have to draw that line for them, or they'll act irrationally.

A meth user desperate for the small amount of cash it takes to buy a bit more - he's willing to kill you for less money than you realize. And even if he gets the money, he requires stimulation to achieve any real enjoyment - a level of stimulation that usually involves extreme violence.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:39

To be able to use a gun wisely implies that the user has a moral ascendancy over those who cannot - that person has control of the will to power.

That would be a fine peice of logic if the US gave guns to thoses only with the moral standards to use them properly.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:40

If you've ever been robbed by someone who regularly uses meth, you'll know why they're sociopathic beyond anything you'll usually see in the UK.

We have meth users in the UK. Tell me are you actually British?

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 18:42

We have meth users in the UK. Tell me are you actually British?
Nope, born and raised in North Carolina, lived overseas for a while, came back to the US.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:45

Nope, born and raised in North Carolina, lived overseas for a while, came back to the US.

Right, so why do you consider yourself any authority on what sort of criminals you can find in the UK? All I have presumed is what I know about the US gun law system, which I know for a fact is much less controlled than the British system.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 18:46

Right, so why do you consider yourself any authority on what sort of criminals you can find in the UK? All I have presumed is what I know about the US gun law system, which I know for a fact is much less controlled than the British system.

I'm not the authority - there are other UK posters here who assert that the typical UK criminal is nowhere near as violent as the typical US criminal.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:51

I'm not the authority - there are other UK posters here who assert that the typical UK criminal is nowhere near as violent as the typical US criminal.

Your the one who posted. You said that meth users in the US are more vilonent than most criminals in the UK. You have however no authority to make that statement, seing as you are not British and as far as I can tell have not lived in the UK.

E B Guvegrra

15-03-2005, 18:53

But if no-one had a gun he wouldn't have been able to get one, and would have had no need to shoot anyone.So he "needed" to (alledgedly) rape his ex GF for three days? the reason he was there in the first place. He had previously been detained for attempting to bring multiple knives into the courthouse. It was the courts that "forced" him to kill those people?Misunderstanding there, methinks...

EH suggests that he first of all wouldn't have normally got hold of a gun, but even if he had that he'd have been able to just threaten people with it, rather than instinctivly shoot to make a point. (The first two he shot were unarmed, unlike the deputy blocking his exit, but he was in an environment were shots could be fired so who knows what reasons were going through his mind.) In the UK, you aren't usually forced to shoot court officials because the potential for being shot at is much lower (what firearms teams might be in attendance at high-risk venues are the highly-trained few, rather than the fairly-well trained (if you're lucky) many.

The 'sharpened hinges' he'd previously tried to smuggle in were an indication he intended to escape if at all possible (warning signs missed there) but I don't think he'd have risked approaching the people he shot had he just been armed with a cutting-edge... It was the availability of the gun that did it...

As for his 'need' to rape, well, that was standard criminal behaviour and neither here nor there or anything to do with guns in all practical aspects.

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 18:53

Your the one who posted. You said that meth users in the US are more vilonent than most criminals in the UK. You have however no authority to make that statement, seing as you are not British and as far as I can tell have not lived in the UK.

You need to read back in the thread. Someone asked me why the US criminals were so much more violent than the UK ones. I thought it was because of meth (and other drugs).
You still haven't explained why increasing guns in the US has lowered our death rate - even if you include accidents.

Neo Cannen

15-03-2005, 18:59

You still haven't explained why increasing guns in the US has lowered our death rate - even if you include accidents.

From what I have seen the two variables are not isolated enough to encourage a link from the statistics you have shown me. I cant say I am entirely convinced.

From what I understand the logic of the pro gun arguement goes along a simmilar line to the idea behind a nuclear detterant. Basicly if everyone has one (Gun/ICBM), then no one is going to use one on anyone else for fear of retrebution. If thats the case, then wouldnt it just be simpler to remove the nukes/guns from everyone, thus making it impossible for people to use them. As if no one has them then they cant use them in the same way that no one will use them in the everyone has them logic.

E B Guvegrra

15-03-2005, 19:03

Then I'm sure that the guy who killed all those people in court here in Atlanta in an attempt to escape would have no trouble escaping any court in the UK.

I bet they would just let him walk out.If he had a gun, possibly, but almost certainly without fatalities. If SO19 (designation of UK police firearms unit) were called, then it might have turned into a negotiated stand-off at whatever locale (within court, on public road) they succesfully intercepted him at but he'd almost certainly know they don't shoot without good cause, but shoot to kill when they do. It most likely would have been ended by negotiation or shotless storming.

(Or he could have completely escaped, but it sounds to me like this guy had essentially done so, only while in the house at the end of his run he was talked and calmed down enough by the homeowner to essentially give up. If I have the news correct.)

Whispering Legs

15-03-2005, 19:07

Neo, you're ignoring what I'm saying.

Most violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon of any kind.
Only 24 percent of crimes are committed using a weapon.
Not all of those involve a firearm.
For the record, 67 percent of homicides are committed with a firearm.

So, we have proof from two studies that 2.5 million violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) are PREVENTED by someone using a gun - but not shooting anyone.

With no guns, 76 percent of crimes (that didn't involve a weapon) would take place anyway.

With no guns, an additional 2.5 million violent crimes would take place - some of which would be murder. If you assume that murders are 1 percent of violent crime (which is much lower than reality), then you're adding 25,000 murders that would have been prevented, but are now going to take place because no one can stop them.

In the US, less guns does not mean less violent crime - or less death.

It doesn't translate to less accidents.
It doesn't translate to less murder.
There aren't enough "unreported deaths" to make up for a 10,000 body difference.

Your method would add 25,000 dead people to the total. If we reduce the roughly 10,000 murders from last year by 67 percent, we're left with 3300 by other weapons. Add 25,000 to that number.

You've got more murder and more death than you had before.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's What Happens When You Ban Guns - Page 2