NationStates Jolt Archive

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.)

He had a propensity to turn anything (including door hinges) into weapons.

He had a long history of violent assault.

He would have escaped, probably without immediate deaths. I bet, however, that if he remained at large, he would have killed. Even without a gun.

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.I must admit, I'm amaking that assumption (from your informing us that your wheelchair-bound friend is regularly assaulted, among other things). Maybe I don't live in the right 'wrong' neighbourhoods, but I really don't see that happening here with the frequency you suggest it happens to your friend over there...

Something is culturally different. Maybe it's the flag. We're even a little bit afraid of our flag (too many negative connotations, e.g. being waved by jingoistic individuals asserting the perfection and power of their homeland) whereas you seem to be perfectly comfortable with it (loads of positive connotations, e.g. being waved by patriotic individuals asserting the perfection and power of their... oh, deja vu... ;)).

I must admit, I'm amaking that assumption (from your informing us that your wheelchair-bound friend is regularly assaulted, among other things). Maybe I don't live in the right 'wrong' neighbourhoods, but I really don't see that happening here with the frequency you suggest it happens to your friend over there...

Something is culturally different. Maybe it's the flag. We're even a little bit afraid of our flag (too many negative connotations, e.g. being waved by jingoistic individuals asserting the perfection and power of their homeland) whereas you seem to be perfectly comfortable with it (loads of positive connotations, e.g. being waved by patriotic individuals asserting the perfection and power of their... oh, deja vu... ;)).

No, afraid of the flag, and even the government.

You can live in the "right" neighborhood - but criminals wander, and we move around as well.

There's a Salvadoran gang called MS-13 that has crept into the area. Their trademark is hacking off your hands after they rob you (they use machetes, not guns).

It's happened twice in our county, both times in good neighborhoods outside movie theaters. They count on superior numbers (more than 20 at a time) and isolating the victims (behind the building) to prevent any intervention.

Oh, there have been attempts on people who were armed. But those people were left alone - apparently the gang figured out that it was too much work.

So, Neo, could you tell us what you would do if confronted by such a gang, aside from get your hands chopped off?

Gangs, BTW, are protected by the freedom of assembly. Despite the Patriot Act, we're given the freedom to do that here.

I love arguments like this; it proves to me yet again (if any further proof were needed) why it's sooo much better to be living in the United Kingdom than the United States.

Sorry if that offended anyone, but it will be mildly interesting to see who, if anyone, feels the need to flame me over that.

=========

This was a pubic service announcement from the Wandering Nomad-in-Chief

=========

He had a propensity to turn anything (including door hinges) into weapons.I appreciate that.

He had a long history of violent assault.I appreciate that.

He would have escaped, probably without immediate deaths.I'll go along with him escaping, and I obviously agree about the lack of immediate deaths.

I bet, however, that if he remained at large, he would have killed. Even without a gun.I don't want to be facetious, we're getting along so well, but why? During hot pursuit, his defence would at least approximate to the proportion of danger he was in, and degraded further without a weapon.

After the heat of direct pursuit had cooled off him he'd be much less likely to 'just kill', anyway, not wanting to attract attention, but if he did(because "he wants to kill") then the presence or absence of guns isn't going to stop either the determined or plain uncaring murderer.

Maybe I've got rose-tinted mind's eyes, and there are outlying examples of most occurences, but I don't see it your way, obviously.

I love arguments like this; it proves to me yet again (if any further proof were needed) why it's sooo much better to be living in the United Kingdom than the United States.

Sorry if that offended anyone, but it will be mildly interesting to see who, if anyone, feels the need to flame me over that.



It depends on where you live in the US. Some areas are just as safe. Even if they do have guns.

Some are far, far worse.

Then again, the most boring place on the planet, bar none, is Barrow in Furness.

With no guns, 76 percent of crimes (that didn't involve a weapon) would take place anyway.

Yes, but it would remove the 34% and thats a lot.


With no guns, an additional 2.5 million violent crimes would take place - some of which would be murder.

Why? Why if there are more guns would less crime take place.


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.

Whats the police.


You've got more murder and more death than you had before.

You are ignoring the UK. The UK has now, and always has had a much lower murder rate than the US. London's murder rate is 14 times less than that of London acording to GLA comparison studies. Britian hasn't changed its gun laws in centuries and has always had lower murder rates and such than the US. Your arguements do not work. You cannot say they do when you can only speculate about what may happen if you remove guns. I know what happens when you remove guns because I live in the UK. All things considered I am much safer in the UK than the US.

Yes, but it would remove the 34% and thats a lot.

24% - and not all of those are firearms.


Why? Why if there are more guns would less crime take place.
Neo, you need to recognize:
2.5 million violent crimes per year are PREVENTED by the use of GUNS in the US EVERY YEAR. PROVEN. UNDISPUTABLY PROVEN.

If you don't have guns, those crimes would have occurred - so with your plan, no guns, we get 2.5 million ADDITIONAL violent crimes. Including MURDER.



Whats the police.

Those are 2.5 million violent crimes not stopped by the police, Neo. You have to understand, Neo, that a felon doesn't let you call for help on your cell phone. They cut the phone lines to your house. You're alone in a parking lot, with no one to scream to.

Go ahead, call the police.



You are ignoring the UK. The UK has now, and always has had a much lower murder rate than the US. London's murder rate is 14 times less than that of London acording to GLA comparison studies. Britian hasn't changed its gun laws in centuries and has always had lower murder rates and such than the US. Your arguements do not work. You cannot say they do when you can only speculate about what may happen if you remove guns. I know what happens when you remove guns because I live in the UK. All things considered I am much safer in the UK than the US.

No, you said that your theory holds true EVERYWHERE. That it applies in the US. Always. So tell me, how is it that your theory is actually false in the US?

Britian hasn't changed its gun laws in centuries and has always had lower murder rates and such than the US. Your arguements do not work. You cannot say they do when you can only speculate about what may happen if you remove guns. I know what happens when you remove guns because I live in the UK. All things considered I am much safer in the UK than the US.

85 years is centuries? I love people who don't even know their own history.

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."



This is centuries:

But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised,


and the result is:

"When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge."

It depends on where you live in the US. Some areas are just as safe. Even if they do have guns.

Some are far, far worse.



Definately. If you take Gun Banning Chicago w/ it 20+/100K out of the equation, Illinois' murder rate drops down to .38/100K with 3x the population.

Just taking out Chicago and DC from the US equation drops it from 5.5 to 5.2/100k. That's an over 5% drop in murders from less than 1% of the population demographic.

And how many of those crimes stopped with guns involved guns by the party that was stopped thus requiring the gun to stop the crime? Hmm, there's a conundrum for you. And what unbiased site did you pull that gem of a pro-gun statistic from.

About the only thing that can be assumed is this:

The use of a gun (brandishing it or shooting it) by a civilian against a felon (or would-be felon if this is his first crime) MAKES IT MUCH HARDER FOR THE CRIMINAL TO COMMIT THE CRIME.

Or if they've already committed the crime by, say, breaking into the person's house... the presence of a gun would very likely make it more difficult for him to actually harm those who live there or steal from them.

Or.. let's simplify this:

If you try to take my candy bar, your success likely depends on a few things like size, strength, stealth, speed, need, etc.

If I don't have a gun, you may well get my candy bar.

If I have a gun... you're going to have to be willing to dodge bullets in order to get my candy bar.

Is that simple enough to grasp?

Whats the police.



.

Police not required to protect individual citizens.

In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order." In Bowers v. DeVito (686 F. 2d 616, 1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, "(T)here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Neo thinks that if I call for a pizza, and call for the police, the police will show up first.

HA! HA! HA! HA!

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.


Perhaps I misunderstood the tone/intent of your response, if so I apologise.

WL most probably meant to use the accused if only to be prescise, however he did say felon. A person in the US is innocent until proven guilty as they are in the UK..not sure about France.

Putting someone in a shock belt is surely reserved for very specific violent cases. Criminals here are normally allowed to be unhandcuffed and in "street" clothes when they are before a jury.

yeah, lmao:

Caller (screaming): I NEED HELP! THERE'S A BURGLAR HERE AND HE'S CHASING ME AROUND MY HOUSE WITH A MACHETE! I THINK HE'S GOING TO KILL ME!

911 Operator: Ma'am, try to remain calm. Use stalling/delaying tactics until the police arrive. (loud scream from caller) Try, perhaps, offering him a sandwich and a Coke. He is probably just an unlucky, oppressed individual. (loud scream from caller) Try to ask him to describe his feelings to you, and respond honestly and positively if possible. (loud scream from caller) Whatever you do, keep running. Okay, an officer should be there in approximately 15 minutes. Good luck!

This document appears to be ill-informed bullshit.

Why do people insist on tying the UK gun ban to increases in crime? The two are completely unrelated. The fact is, pretty much nobody had guns before the ban was enacted, nobody used guns to defend themselves anyway, so how exactly can banning them have '[denied] law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves'?
Except that now the only people with them are criminals. Good idea. And even your police will enter their field with no prior training in firearms, as opposed to the US where damn near everyone knows how to shoot by the age of 10 (in the south at least, I can't speak for the Yanks).

The victim, Brian Nichols, after having been accused of rape for having spent qualtiy time w/ his former significant other, was forced into a life of crime by an unforgiving system. The presence of a firearm drove him insane and forced him to remove it from his oppressor and reeducate her on the dangers of handgun ownership. He then did his civic duty and entered the courtroom to face what is loosely called "justice". However the judge, sitting in a higher position than Nichols, caused former life flashbacks thereby creating a hostile Master-Slave relationship. This caused further trauma to Nichols, forcing him to shoot the judge. The court reporter obviously had to have threatened him w/ her typewriter.

After performing self-release, Nichols encountered an stormtrooper outside the courthouse and was forced to shoot him to protect his own civil rights. The car-owner goaded Nichols into chasing and beating him by having the gall to run away.
After having to remove a firearm from another Gov't stormtrooper, the oppressed Nichols sought refuge in the home of an involuntary associate who performed the SNiVel correctly and did not speak to him of Oppressive Patriarchical religions or subservient familial roles of women.

So obviously it wasn't his fault. It was the guns'.

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.


there is one reason above all else why no one in the UK get shot in court be it by a gun that they are carrying, a gun that a policeman is carrying or a gun that the fairy godmother has smuggled in under her tutu

THERE ARE NO GUNS ALLOWED IN COURTS IN THE UK!!!!!!!!!

no guns = no shootings - not exactly rocket science is it!

one statistic I would LOVE to see however is how many people in the USA are shot by their OWN gun that has been removed by a criminal?

I am proud to say I have never seen a hand gun and that I most probably never will but then I live in a country that its easy to see who the criminals are - the ones brandishing guns as handguns as no one is allowed to carry them here in the UK

you carry on living in a country where any idiot with a gun licence and who is having a bad day can go out and shoot someone - I'll stay in my nice safe country where gun crimes are statistically (both in actual numbers AND percentage wise) way way lower than yours - I wonder who is the safer?

me I am guessing

oh and the police in the UK who do carry firearms are EXTENSIVELY trained how do I know that? I have a close firend who is a UK firearms officer in London

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.


there is one reason above all else why no one in the UK get shot in court be it by a gun that they are carrying, a gun that a policeman is carrying or a gun that the fairy godmother has smuggled in under her tutu

THERE ARE NO GUNS ALLOWED IN COURTS IN THE UK!!!!!!!!!

no guns = no shootings - not exactly rocket science is it!

one statistic I would LOVE to see however is how many people in the USA are shot by their OWN gun that has been removed by a criminal?

I am proud to say I have never seen a hand gun and that I most probably never will but then I live in a country that its easy to see who the criminals are - the ones brandishing guns as handguns as no one is allowed to carry them here in the UK

you carry on living in a country where any idiot with a gun licence and who is having a bad day can go out and shoot someone - I'll stay in my nice safe country where gun crimes are statistically (both in actual numbers AND percentage wise) way way lower than yours - I wonder who is the safer?

me I am guessing

oh and the police in the UK who do carry firearms are EXTENSIVELY trained how do I know that? I have a close friend who is a UK firearms officer in London

no guns = no shootings - not exactly rocket science is it!

one statistic I would LOVE to see however is how many people in the USA are shot by their OWN gun that has been removed by a criminal?


you carry on living in a country where any idiot with a gun licence and who is having a bad day can go out and shoot someone - I'll stay in my nice safe country where gun crimes are statistically (both in actual numbers AND percentage wise) way way lower than yours - I wonder who is the safer?



Then why is your gun crime increasing?

If you want the statistic, find it.

You stay in your nice safe country while your rights are eroded away bit by bit. "That will never happen to me" said the man wearing glasses.

there is one reason above all else why no one in the UK get shot in court be it by a gun that they are carrying, a gun that a policeman is carrying or a gun that the fairy godmother has smuggled in under her tutu

THERE ARE NO GUNS ALLOWED IN COURTS IN THE UK!!!!!!!!!

no guns = no shootings - not exactly rocket science is it!

one statistic I would LOVE to see however is how many people in the USA are shot by their OWN gun that has been removed by a criminal?

I am proud to say I have never seen a hand gun and that I most probably never will but then I live in a country that its easy to see who the criminals are - the ones brandishing guns as handguns as no one is allowed to carry them here in the UK

you carry on living in a country where any idiot with a gun licence and who is having a bad day can go out and shoot someone - I'll stay in my nice safe country where gun crimes are statistically (both in actual numbers AND percentage wise) way way lower than yours - I wonder who is the safer?

me I am guessing

oh and the police in the UK who do carry firearms are EXTENSIVELY trained how do I know that? I have a close friend who is a UK firearms officer in London

here here!

here here!

...has seen an exponential rise in crime.

...has seen an exponential rise in crime.

and us having or not having guns is nothing to do with it

and us having or not having guns is nothing to do with it

I am sure the victims of said crimes would heartily agree. I mean really, whats a little personal sacrifice. So what if someone got raped or had his neck broken, at least they werent armed. Because we all know that guns are the work of the devil.

I am sure the victims of said crimes would heartily agree. I mean really, whats a little personal sacrifice. So what if someone got raped or had his neck broken, at least they werent armed. Because we all know that guns are the work of the devil.

ask Brits. Most will say we are happy. I have been a victim of crime, but I don't want a gun

and us having or not having guns is nothing to do with it

So you're saying that "the police in the UK who do carry firearms and are EXTENSIVELY trained" are incapable of doing their jobs effectively? or maybe it's the Gov't whose incompetant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2641611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2642977.stm

I am sure the victims of said crimes would heartily agree. I mean really, whats a little personal sacrifice. So what if someone got raped or had his neck broken, at least they werent armed. Because we all know that guns are the work of the devil.



LOL!


stop trying to change the fact that the UK has gun laws preventing the carrying of guns and therefore has a lower gun crime rate

oh and so far the statistics I have seen have only compared the fact that the ratio's have changed - have you ever considered thats due to the drop of gun crime in the USA - maybe you should be patting yourselves on the back for containing a problem that was starting to spiral out of control instead of trying to patronise the British

and if you want to discuss rape statistics then those are lower in the UK aswell thanks

You stay in your nice safe country while your rights are eroded away bit by bit. "That will never happen to me" said the man wearing glasses.

my rights arent being eroded at all - guns have been prohibited in the UK since before my birth and tbh there is no way I would want it to become legal for them to be carried

the UK government isnt the best in the world but as far as gun crime is concerned they have my vote

and remember in the US gun crime is counted by the million

in the UK its in the low hundreds

still happy to live in the UK thanks :p

ask Brits. Most will say we are happy. I have been a victim of crime, but I don't want a gun
I'm sure Mr. Buckland thought differently..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1518967,00.html

RAF veteran is found hanged after burglars ruined his world
By Simon de Bruxelles
Despairing elderly victim killed himself after being raided by thieves for the third time
A FRAIL RAF veteran was driven to suicide after his home was burgled for the third time.

Herbert Buckland, 84, was afraid to leave his house or even open his front door after being robbed by doorstep conmen twice last year.

So you're saying that "the police in the UK who do carry firearms and are EXTENSIVELY trained" are incapable of doing their jobs effectively? or maybe it's the Gov't whose incompetant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2641611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2642977.stm

You read them yeah?

The one that had one survey put crime up, and one put it down?

How will MORE guns reduce gun crime, eh?

I'm sure Mr. Buckland thought differently..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1518967,00.html

RAF veteran is found hanged after burglars ruined his world
By Simon de Bruxelles
Despairing elderly victim killed himself after being raided by thieves for the third time
A FRAIL RAF veteran was driven to suicide after his home was burgled for the third time.

Herbert Buckland, 84, was afraid to leave his house or even open his front door after being robbed by doorstep conmen twice last year.

doorstep conmen. What do you propose, he shoots anyone who comes to his door!?!?

So you're saying that "the police in the UK who do carry firearms and are EXTENSIVELY trained" are incapable of doing their jobs effectively? or maybe it's the Gov't whose incompetant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2641611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2642977.stm


I quote from the 1st link (2 years old)

'Barbara Lamb, a former Victim Support counsellor, has been burgled on three occasions. (snipped out the irrelevant stuff) But her view is more in line with that held by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, that first-time non-professional non-violent domestic burglars should no longer be sent to prison. '

real advocate for changing the gun laws there ;)

I quote from the second link (again 2 years old by the way)

'Home Office officials insisted, however, that the new system of including all crimes, whether there was supporting evidence or not, was responsible for some of the increases. '

'The statistics come after the government this week announced a crackdown on gun crime with a series of plans to tighten firearms law. '

THIS WAS IN JAN 2003!!!

and link number 3?

AGAIN 2 YEARS OLD and before the crack down happened

find me some REAL and up to date statistics and I will take you seriously!

LOL!


stop trying to change the fact that the UK has gun laws preventing the carrying of guns and therefore has a lower gun crime rate

oh and so far the statistics I have seen have only compared the fact that the ratio's have changed - have you ever considered thats due to the drop of gun crime in the USA - maybe you should be patting yourselves on the back for containing a problem that was starting to spiral out of control instead of trying to patronise the British

and if you want to discuss rape statistics then those are lower in the UK aswell thanks



my rights arent being eroded at all - guns have been prohibited in the UK since before my birth and tbh there is no way I would want it to become legal for them to be carried

the UK government isnt the best in the world but as far as gun crime is concerned they have my vote

and remember in the US gun crime is counted by the million

in the UK its in the low hundreds

still happy to live in the UK thanks :p

A lower gun crime rate and climbing.

You've "only" seen ratio's? You apparently haven't been reading the thread.

Rape, lower but climbing.

Gun crime is counted in the MILLIONS?! REALLY!!! Show me that statistic.

Or maybe it's Defensive uses of guns to prevent crime is in the millions.

Then why is your gun crime increasing?

If you want the statistic, find it.


Gun crime is not increasing reletive to gun law changes. Thats the mistake you make. Gun crime in the UK is, and always has been far lower than America. London has 14 times lower a murder rate than New York, as confrimed by a comparison study carried out by the GLA.

ask Brits. Most will say we are happy. I have been a victim of crime, but I don't want a gun


Thats fine, a perfectly valid approach. But why do you think you should be able to choose for me(if I was British). I dont claim to be able to decide what is right or wrong for you, why do you feel you can for me? Once again, assuming I am British.

I'm sure Mr. Buckland thought differently..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1518967,00.html

RAF veteran is found hanged after burglars ruined his world
By Simon de Bruxelles
Despairing elderly victim killed himself after being raided by thieves for the third time
A FRAIL RAF veteran was driven to suicide after his home was burgled for the third time.

Herbert Buckland, 84, was afraid to leave his house or even open his front door after being robbed by doorstep conmen twice last year.

at least he wasnt shot by some crack head with a gun though! and at 84 he probably wouldnt have been able to hit a barn door!

Thats fine, a perfectly valid approach. But why do you think you should be able to choose for me(if I was British). I dont claim to be able to decide what is right or wrong for you, why do you feel you can for me? Once again, assuming I am British.

because if you could have a gun, and I could, then criminals HAVE to have them to defend themselves if they try to rob or burgle you. Which means we all HAVE to have them to defend ourselves from the criminals, which is just silly.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/atlanta.shooting/index.html


At the courthouse on Friday, police said Nichols overpowered a deputy sheriff while they were en route to his retrial. He escaped and walked to a courtroom, shooting and killing Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland W. Barnes and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, police said. During his escape Nichols also shot and killed sheriff's deputy Sgt. Hoyt Teasley.

I bet the families of Judge Barnes, Ms Brandau and Sgt. Teasley are real comforted that this guy got access to a gun

wouldnt have happened in the UK

Gun crime is not increasing reletive to gun law changes. Thats the mistake you make. Gun crime in the UK is, and always has been far lower than America. London has 14 times lower a murder rate than New York, as confrimed by a comparison study carried out by the GLA.

So gun crime has NOT (convienently) risen since the '98 grab in comparison to the drops before?

Repeated ad nauseum" EVEN THOUGH OURS IS RISING AND YOURS IS DROPPING, IT"S STILL LOWER THAN YOURS!!!!"

That won't last for long.

there is one reason above all else why no one in the UK get shot in court be it by a gun that they are carrying, a gun that a policeman is carrying or a gun that the fairy godmother has smuggled in under her tutu

THERE ARE NO GUNS ALLOWED IN COURTS IN THE UK!!!!!!!!!

no guns = no shootings - not exactly rocket science is it!

one statistic I would LOVE to see however is how many people in the USA are shot by their OWN gun that has been removed by a criminal?

I am proud to say I have never seen a hand gun and that I most probably never will but then I live in a country that its easy to see who the criminals are - the ones brandishing guns as handguns as no one is allowed to carry them here in the UK

you carry on living in a country where any idiot with a gun licence and who is having a bad day can go out and shoot someone - I'll stay in my nice safe country where gun crimes are statistically (both in actual numbers AND percentage wise) way way lower than yours - I wonder who is the safer?

me I am guessing

oh and the police in the UK who do carry firearms are EXTENSIVELY trained how do I know that? I have a close firend who is a UK firearms officer in London

i'm sensing a fundamental difference between the brits here and the anti-gun-control Americans:

The Brits seem to have no problem with the prospect of a criminal breaking into their house, stealing their stuff and beating the shit out of them... they would rather be proud of their country's stance against (and banning of...) guns than to be able to defend themselves from violent criminals. Probably some of these Brits would invite the criminal(s) to sit for a spot of tea and crumpets while the hospitable victim bandages the cut above his eye and tries to re-attach his left index finger at the second knuckle.

The Americans who are anti-gun-control seem to NOT want that to happen and believe that owning a gun will greatly decrease a criminal's ability to perform above atrocities on their person or their home/property.

You've "only" seen ratio's? You apparently haven't been reading the thread.


I have read the whole thread and the ratio's were stated about 20 pages back and if you think I am sad enough to delve my way back then you are wrong

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/atlanta.shooting/index.html


At the courthouse on Friday, police said Nichols overpowered a deputy sheriff while they were en route to his retrial. He escaped and walked to a courtroom, shooting and killing Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland W. Barnes and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, police said. During his escape Nichols also shot and killed sheriff's deputy Sgt. Hoyt Teasley.

I bet the families of Judge Barnes, Ms Brandau and Sgt. Teasley are real comforted that this guy got access to a gun

wouldnt have happened in the UK

OMG, are you really that naive? He got the gun by attacking and almost killing the deputy. Nice how you left that part out. He previously had been caught w/ shanks in the courthouse. I bet the families are more upset he wasn't shot on the spot.

So gun crime has NOT (convienently) risen since the '98 grab in comparison to the drops before?

Repeated ad nauseum" EVEN THOUGH OURS IS RISING AND YOURS IS DROPPING, IT"S STILL LOWER THAN YOURS!!!!"

That won't last for long.

you still fail to understand british gun laws. NO-ONE can carry them. Not before handguns were banned, not after. They were banned from private lockers and clubs. You aren't allowed to carry it, and if you have it in the house it MUST be in a gun case.

They're NOT used for defence.

Repeated ad nauseum" EVEN THOUGH OURS IS RISING AND YOURS IS DROPPING, IT"S STILL LOWER THAN YOURS!!!!"


Forgive me, but ours is rising at nowhere near the rate yours is falling. If you seriously believe that British gun crime will overtake America you have a screw loose. In America in 2001 there were something in the region of 600 gun related deaths per 10,000. In the UK that figure is more like 40. Its not rising as fast as our media thinks. Its still very good compared to America. While crime levels will fluctuate, in this case you are still very much the worse off. Britian has, and will always be a safer society.

OMG, are you really that naive? He got the gun by attacking and almost killing the deputy. Nice how you left that part out. He previously had been caught w/ shanks in the courthouse. I bet the families are more upset he wasn't shot on the spot.

Still wouldnt have happened in the UK. There are no armed guards around our courts, unless there is a terror alert.

OMG, are you really that naive? He got the gun by attacking and almost killing the deputy. Nice how you left that part out. He previously had been caught w/ shanks in the courthouse. I bet the families are more upset he wasn't shot on the spot.

if the deputy hadnt HAD to carry a gun due to the fact that your nation lets just about anyone carry one then he wouldnt have got hold of it would he?

am sure the famlies would have preferred that

as I said before it wouldnt have happened in the UK

FACT!

I have read the whole thread and the ratio's were stated about 20 pages back and if you think I am sad enough to delve my way back then you are wrong

So you're basically saying you just made that up that you have "only" seen ratio's or you have a selective memory.

here is something else that certainly wouldnt happen in the UK

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4279424/detail.html?subid=22100412&qs=1;bp=t

'HOUSTON -- A 2-year-old remained in critical condition Sunday after being shot by his 4-year-old brother, who may not have known the difference between a real and toy gun, police said.

Police Sgt. Cameron Grysen said the boys had been arguing at their home in the 5600 block of Gatewood Ave. in southwest Houston at about 4:20 p.m. Saturday when the 2-year-old threw a toy at his brother.

Grysen said the older boy got the loaded gun from a purse in his mother's bedroom and shot his brother once in the temple. The mother thought the boys had returned to their room, but they had instead gone to her room, where the older boy took the loaded gun from her purse.'


no loaded guns in my purse for my 4 year old to get hold of

still think guns are necessary???

Forgive me, but ours is rising at nowhere near the rate yours is falling. If you seriously believe that British gun crime will overtake America you have a screw loose. In America in 2001 there were something in the region of 600 gun related deaths per 10,000. In the UK that figure is more like 40. Its not rising as fast as our media thinks. Its still very good compared to America. While crime levels will fluctuate, in this case you are still very much the worse off. Britian has, and will always be a safer society.

Are you trying to tell me that in 2001, ONE in SIXTEEN (approximately) of all deaths was gun-related?

hmmmm

Are you trying to tell me that in 2001, ONE in SIXTEEN (approximately) of all deaths was gun-related?

hmmmm

Yes. That is what I said.

In America in 2001 there were something in the region of 600 gun related deaths per 10,000.

Source it.

/10K what? Deaths, crime, population?

still think guns are necessary???

Yes. I do.

because if you could have a gun, and I could, then criminals HAVE to have them to defend themselves if they try to rob or burgle you. Which means we all HAVE to have them to defend ourselves from the criminals, which is just silly.

Sounds very much like one of your previous leaders. Its better to lie low than provoke our enemies. Better to appease than stand up. Do you know of whom I am reffering?

Yes. I do.


I see so a 4 year old shooting his 2 year old brother is totally acceptable in your eyes

is this what you would call collateral damage?


thank you for displaying what a rational, caring and up standing member of the human race you are

...because i highly doubt it.

maybe that pertains to inner-city deaths, but THINK about how many people die of cancer, emphyczema (sp?), heart disease/heart attacks.

you're basically talking about murders and home defenses/accidents, and saying that 6% of deaths are such.

that's extremely hard to believe.

I see so a 4 year old shooting his 2 year old brother is totally acceptable in your eyes

is this what you would call collateral damage?


thank you for displaying what a rational, caring and up standing member of the human race you are

that's what gun locks are for...

you can remove it, but your kids can't.

i'd rather take that chance than to NOT be able to protect them if some criminal decided one night to sneak in and kill me and my family.

if your that paranoid then maybe you should move to a country with a lower crime rate

UK maybe ? ;)

Sounds very much like one of your previous leaders. Its better to lie low than provoke our enemies. Better to appease than stand up. Do you know of whom I am reffering?

If someone is taking your wallet, the easiest and safest thing is to let them.

Then let the police try and catch them.

it's called civilisation, as opposed to a bunch of gun-toting vigilantes shooting each other.

Ask yourself this.
Which criminal is has more need to take me out first, one who thinks I have a gun, or one who doesn't?

I see so a 4 year old shooting his 2 year old brother is totally acceptable in your eyes

is this what you would call collateral damage?


thank you for displaying what a rational, caring and up standing member of the human race you are

Ah, the emotional and "save the children" arguements. Is that really the best you can do?

Because I don't blame the gun for this accident, I must be a cold hearted monster. I "must" feel that it's OK for children to be killed.

Because I think the mother shouldn't have left her purse in an accessible area, I must have no emotions or sympathy whatsoever.

I put it in the same category as people who let their children get killed by not buckling them into car seats, tragic, but a stupid and preventable accident.

yup preventable by not having a gun in the first place

nn I am off to sleep soundly in my nice safe house in the countryside of my nice safe county in my nice safe country :p

I might even forget to lock my front door as I quite often do ;)

Yes. That is what I said.

dude, you are smoking some heavy drugs. Total gun deaths in the US are arond 35K while car deaths are around 40-50k. Heart disease alone kills something like 100k a year. then there is flu, bad prescriptions, other diseases ect. gun deaths dont even rank up there. Even considering that more than half of them are suicides which would have happened anyway.

1 in 16?? no way. Check out the cdc if you dont believe me.

If someone is taking your wallet, the easiest and safest thing is to let them.

Then let the police try and catch them.

it's called civilisation, as opposed to a bunch of gun-toting vigilantes shooting each other.

Ask yourself this.
Which criminal is has more need to take me out first, one who thinks I have a gun, or one who doesn't?

And that's the same arguements that the anti-gunners here used as crime increased for another 10 years. That's the message you want to send. I can get away w/ anything I want and the courts will barely do a thing. Make yourself an easy target., encourage crime.

The "vigilantes" arguement has also been used to try and keep states from passing RTC laws. Strange that none of thier predictions of rampant shoot outs have happened.

A criminal who thinks you have a gun will leave you alone and go after an easier mark, A Brit perhaps?

And that's the same arguements that the anti-gunners here used as crime increased for another 10 years. That's the message you want to send. I can get away w/ anything I want and the courts will barely do a thing. Make yourself an easy target., encourage crime.

The "vigilantes" arguement has also been used to try and keep states from passing RTC laws. Strange that none of thier predictions of rampant shoot outs have happened.

A criminal who thinks you have a gun will leave you alone and go after an easier mark, A Brit perhaps?

As I've said before in this thread, we don't have the death penalty. Maybe we just respect life more than Americans?

We're quite happy and safe here without guns. We don't want guns. Neither do we want all our police to have guns.

You can live in a world where if 'you ain't packing' you are an 'easy target' but we don't live like that.

If someone is taking your wallet, the easiest and safest thing is to let them.

Then let the police try and catch them.

it's called civilisation, as opposed to a bunch of gun-toting vigilantes shooting each other.

Ask yourself this.
Which criminal is has more need to take me out first, one who thinks I have a gun, or one who doesn't?

If I had a gun and someone demanded my wallet, I would give it to them. If they demanded my car keys I would give it to them. If they demanded that I do something that would put my life or the lives of people whom I am responsible for in danger, then I would have no hesitation in using my best available defense.

Losing property doesnt bother me, nor do I think does it bother most gun owners in the US. Its cheaper in any case to give up property than pay for the legal fees after you use your firearm.

What option do you have if you are disarmed by the govt and the criminal wants more than JUST your property? What choices do you have then? Personally, I would rather be in the position to choose than stick my head in the sand and hope it doesnt happen to me.

If I had a gun and someone demanded my wallet, I would give it to them. If they demanded my car keys I would give it to them. If they demanded that I do something that would put my life or the lives of people whom I am responsible for in danger, then I would have no hesitation in using my best available defense.

Losing property doesnt bother me, nor do I think does it bother most gun owners in the US. Its cheaper in any case to give up property than pay for the legal fees after you use your firearm.

What option do you have if you are disarmed by the govt and the criminal wants more than JUST your property? What choices do you have then? Personally, I would rather be in the position to choose than stick my head in the sand and hope it doesnt happen to me.

we accept it may happen, but would rather live in a society without guns. I am surprised that you seem unable to understand that.

we accept it may happen, but would rather live in a society without guns. I am surprised that you seem unable to understand that.

I understand "your"(collective UK) choice though I do not agree with it. I think "my"(collective US) choice is superior given the different circumstances and that is why I continue to defend it.

I understand "your"(collective UK) choice though I do not agree with it. I think "my"(collective US) choice is superior given the different circumstances and that is why I continue to defend it.

go for it, just don't bring that 'kill the fuckers' attitude over here. We're civilised.

go for it, just don't bring that 'kill the fuckers' attitude over here. We're civilised.
that's not the attitude but hey whatever if somebody breaks into my house he's gonna get wasted either way i can and will defend myself and my loved ones but on the other hand i have a responsiblity to safeguard innocent bystanders from that right.sollution- buy gun locks and a safe but keep one hot to trot.
and watch the cheapshot's-you guys might need us again.

go for it, just don't bring that 'kill the fuckers' attitude over here. We're civilised.
I guess that's why you've been torturing members of the IRA all these years.

You know how civilizing rubber bullets can be on a Sunday.

I guess that's why you've been torturing members of the IRA all these years.

You know how civilizing rubber bullets can be on a Sunday.

they've advanced to rubber bullets. now we're all in trouble

they've advanced to rubber bullets. now we're all in trouble

Well, aside from the 37mm hard plastic variety, the UK also invented the "plastic bullet", which is actually 1mm of plastic coating over a 13 gram steel ball.

Why people aren't happy with the UK ideas for less lethal ordnance is beyond me. After all, it isn't like the US Taser or Active Denial System, where someone is in excruciating pain but at low risk for death. Here with the UK plastic and rubber bullets, the police can "accidentally" kill someone and get off because they can say they didn't mean it.

now that is really scary i think i'll stay on this side of the ocean then.

For a good example of gun control's success, look up Kennesaw, Georgia (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=Kennesaw%2C+Georgia+crime+gun&btnG=Search).

Okay, so it's a different kind of gun control...:D

As I've said before in this thread, we don't have the death penalty. Maybe we just respect life more than Americans?

We're quite happy and safe here without guns. We don't want guns. Neither do we want all our police to have guns.

You can live in a world where if 'you ain't packing' you are an 'easy target' but we don't live like that.

Yes, I'm sure it's a paragon of society to have prison terms for murderers and rapists wherein they barely serve half their time. :rolleyes:

If I believe in the capability of the police to protect us in the UK, I would have no desire for weapons. However, crime here is on the increase, despite our tight gun control. Surely, therefore, this points against the idea of guns causing crime? Or at least it say that the absence of guns does not prevent crime.

On the other hand, the American rate of crime is falling in many, if not all, types of crime, violent crime most certainly. Does this then not seem to point to the fact that far from causing crimes, guns prevent them? Or at least, that widespread legal gun ownership doesn't necesarily cause more crime?

In honesty, I don't know how loose gun regulations would work over here. We don't actually go after criminals very hard, and our society is one of the flimsiest, most suggestable in the world. (After all, the chavs and townies are basically taking a media stereotype and actually following it; normally this is reserved for teenagers, but here in Britain it's fine for all ages.)

Actually, I've had a firearm pointed at me before - by the time I was 16. I can tell you from personal experience - I want guns. No, I really don't care about some thuggish criminal's life. I don't see why we should. They've forfeited their rights through crime. Now, you can say "But if the criminal thought you had a gun, he'd just have shot you :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:", but the truth seems to be* that if he thought I had a gun, he'd probably have not bothered at all.

* And that's not conjecture. WHEN you can refute the claims being made by multiple peer reviewed studies stating that guns are preventing crime, I will listen to what you have to say. Until then, I think I might have to leave this thread, because I'm getting a headache from all the :headbang: I'm not having any effect with.

But let's try again before we go.

There is no such thing as 'gun crime'. There is simply 'crime'. Criminals love a disarmed society, because they know there is very little risk of physical harm to themselves, and a few years in a comfy prison is NOT going to be heartbreaking for them. If a criminal looks at someone and tries to size up whether or not to rob them, he will be deterred if it is likely they have a gun. Slice the data how you like, because that is a fact. Now, if it was a rare case, or if the presence of guns greatly upped crime, I could accept the apprehension. But we're talking about 2.5 million crimes being prevented in the US per year thanks to guns. Even assuming this has been overestimated fivefold, that is still 500,000 crimes prevented per year due to the presence of firearms. Rather more than murders commited by firearms.

I'm getting tired of this pathetic attitude that all life is sacred. Rapists, child molesters, and murderers are not people we should have around. Ideally, we would ensure it always went to trial, and people were referred to a psychiatrist, because killing the mentally unstable is completely unfair*. But when someone is coming at you with whatever, an axe, a gun, a sword, their bare hands, you have the right to defend yourself and this is an inalienable right, common to every human being on the planet. The only situation in which you can't defend yourself is just that - one where you literally cannot overpower your enemy. Guns solve that problem in large part. I don't see the problem. I don't see how there is any cogent argument to that, save telling people the fact that they've been scarred for life by a violent beating and gang rape is more acceptable than them fighting off their enemies.

*Edit: Note, I'm not saying such people are mentally unstable, but there are cases where people are indeed damaged in some way by a mental deficiency, and in those cases mercy is preferable.

For a good example of gun control's success, look up Kennesaw, Georgia (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=Kennesaw%2C+Georgia+crime+gun&btnG=Search).

Okay, so it's a different kind of gun control...:D
You would think that this type of action would be against the Constitution of the US. Forcing a householder to have a gun would be a violation of an individuals human rights?

You would think that this type of action would be against the Constitution of the US. Forcing a householder to have a gun would be a violation of an individuals human rights?

How wonderful it is to see the shoe on the other foot. It was decided by the lawyers that the US constitution only applies to the federal Gov't and that the 14th can be "selectively" incorporated as to the bill of rights thereby allowing anti-gun laws in the states.

So no, it's not against the constitution as per the anti-gun legal community.

So forcing someone to give up their guns is not a violation but forcing them to have one is?

Yes, I'm sure it's a paragon of society to have prison terms for murderers and rapists wherein they barely serve half their time. :rolleyes:



Unfortunately, most of your country men on this board would rather sit "safely" in their homes while crime increases and the cameras encroach.

Not necessarilly calling you a liberal but the old saying " a Liberal is just a Conservative who hasn't been mugged" is very apt.

I've been waiting for this. The anti-gunners have set the precedent:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/protester_killed_lawsuit

Caterpillar is being sued because their equipment was involved in the death of a girl who SAT IN FRONT OF IT.

I wonder how many of the politicians who sabotaged the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms act will support measures to prevent lawsuits against other industries.

How wonderful it is to see the shoe on the other foot. It was decided by the lawyers that the US constitution only applies to the federal Gov't and that the 14th can be "selectively" incorporated as to the bill of rights thereby allowing anti-gun laws in the states.

So no, it's not against the constitution as per the anti-gun legal community.

So forcing someone to give up their guns is not a violation but forcing them to have one is?
Who said anything about giving up their guns? It is all about waiting periods, registering them, doing background checks, and storing them in safe locations.

BTW, how do Florida cities stack up in this list:

America's Best and Worst Cities for Crime (http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx)

Obviously not too well? They are way down the list.

BTW, it appear Texas (you can pack heat) cities are even further down!@! :eek:

Who said anything about giving up their guns? It is all about waiting periods, registering them, doing background checks, and storing them in safe locations.

BTW, how do Florida cities stack up in this list:

America's Best and Worst Cities for Crime (http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx)

Obviously not too well? They are way down the list.

BTW, it appear Texas (you can pack heat) cities are even further down!@! :eek:

All "reasonable measures" used to remove guns from Law Abiding citizens.
Registering - stop accepting registrations
Background checks - delayed indefinetely
"safe" storage - you have to have a $5,000 safe to store your $150 dollar gun , keep the bolt out and stored separately in another expensive safe and the ammo separately again in another expensive safe.

Your website is bogus. It shows Washington DC's murder rate at 9.4 amongst the other numbers which is a significant (up to 75% decrease) from 2000where the FBI UCR shows DC as increasing in murders and Violent crime.
Their "studies" are also not present. There's a reliable source for you.

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/fbi.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/crime02/crime_study1.asp

I've looked at three other cities, NY, Chicago, and Tucson. All the numbers were different from the UCR w/ NY and Chicago (Strict gun control) being lower on your posted site than the UCR and Tucson higher.

i'm sensing a fundamental difference between the brits here and the anti-gun-control Americans:

The Brits seem to have no problem with the prospect of a criminal breaking into their house, stealing their stuff and beating the shit out of them... they would rather be proud of their country's stance against (and banning of...) guns than to be able to defend themselves from violent criminals. Probably some of these Brits would invite the criminal(s) to sit for a spot of tea and crumpets while the hospitable victim bandages the cut above his eye and tries to re-attach his left index finger at the second knuckle.

The Americans who are anti-gun-control seem to NOT want that to happen and believe that owning a gun will greatly decrease a criminal's ability to perform above atrocities on their person or their home/property.Who wants to be beaten up? Nobody. Who'd rather be beaten up than shot? Me, for a start. Who thinks that giving bog-standard civilians greater access to guns to defend themselves against physically violent housebreakers won't give that self-same housebreaker (probably high on something, or coming down from it, because a rational housebreaker wouldn't target an occupied property without good reason) greater opportunity to gain armourment of his own? Nobody. Who thinks that it would merely escalate the situation? Me, for a start.

You would think that this type of action would be against the Constitution of the US. Forcing a householder to have a gun would be a violation of an individuals human rights?

You will notice that no one is suing.

Also, Canuck, you may not be familiar with our laws in the US.

We have background checks in EVERY state, in EVERY location. Not just Florida. And Florida does not have gun registration. Few places do. And waiting periods have never been shown to do anything to change rates of crime or murder.

Interestingly, http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258

NEW YORK – The most comprehensive study of the Brady Act finds the law has not cut handgun killings, researchers reported Tuesday. In fact, the law's main result is increased violence against women, another researcher has found.

"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday.

"In retrospect we would not expect Brady to be effective against violent crime. Increasingly homicides are committed by career criminals who do not get their guns in legal ways," said the Duke University researcher.

Cook and his co-author, Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute, projected that in 1996 there were eight fewer homicides as a result of 44,000 people being prevented from buying a handgun in the 32 states where Brady created waiting periods and background checks.

This figure is "too small to be identified with state-level vital statistics," the researchers say.

Their study of the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The two scientists compared gun crime and death rates in the 32 states in which the Brady gun-buying restrictions apply and compared them with the 18 states that already had laws equivalent to or stricter than Brady.

The researchers assumed that states in which Brady added rules would show how effective the legislation was. But reality intruded.

Cook said that when he and Ludwig looked at statistics from 1985 to 1997 they "found very little difference in trends in the two types of states."

not only to remove firearms from Law-Abiding Citizens but also to remove any notion of firearms in society, including Historical Re-Enactments, any type of military type clothing, including boots and heavy media censorship.

http://members.aol.com/ussportmen/hciplan.htm

And the NRA is an extremist organization?

Unfortunately, most of your country men on this board would rather sit "safely" in their homes while crime increases and the cameras encroach.

Not necessarilly calling you a liberal but the old saying " a Liberal is just a Conservative who hasn't been mugged" is very apt.

Heh, I'm in full agreement with you. I bet we'll see a sea-change in the next decade or two, as the numbers of people who were unable to defend themselves against violent criminals continues to rise.

I've been waiting for this. The anti-gunners have set the precedent:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/protester_killed_lawsuit

Caterpillar is being sued because their equipment was involved in the death of a girl who SAT IN FRONT OF IT.

I wonder how many of the politicians who sabotaged the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms act will support measures to prevent lawsuits against other industries.

Agreed, again. There's a case to be made against the IDF, perhaps, but suing Caterpillar is just an insane extension

Who wants to be beaten up? Nobody. Who'd rather be beaten up than shot? Me, for a start. Who thinks that giving bog-standard civilians greater access to guns to defend themselves against physically violent housebreakers won't give that self-same housebreaker (probably high on something, or coming down from it, because a rational housebreaker wouldn't target an occupied property without good reason) greater opportunity to gain armourment of his own? Nobody. Who thinks that it would merely escalate the situation? Me, for a start.

Good God, do you actually read these threads? Or do you just randomly point to one thing and then respond to that? This has been addressed over and over and over again; The numbers of crimes prevented by guns far outweights the number of crimes caused by guns.

Good God, do you actually read these threads? Or do you just randomly point to one thing and then respond to that? This has been addressed over and over and over again; The numbers of crimes prevented by guns far outweights the number of crimes caused by guns.

I've seen the quoted figures. 2.5 million crimes wasn't it? The fact that I'm having a hard time believing this figure I'll readily admit. I essentially think there's some kind of problem in comparison of what-means-what, but I'll let that figure go.

What I'm trying to convey to some people on this forum is that we in the UK don't sit in the hallway, kneeling on the floor with heads bowed awaiting the arrival of the next random criminal who will then hit us on the head with our own cricket bat, much the same as I imagine that an overwhelming number of US residents haven't set up sandbags in the hall as a gun emplacement, set up the rifle and prepared themselves to shoot the next person, be they criminal or pizza delivery boy, who so much as knocks at the door...

(BTW, I meant to say, for the third point "Nobody I know", sorry for any exageration/generalising there, it was a simple editing error...)

What I'm trying to convey to some people on this forum is that we in the UK don't sit in the hallway, kneeling on the floor with heads bowed awaiting the arrival of the next random criminal who will then hit us on the head with our own cricket bat, much the same as I imagine that an overwhelming number of US residents haven't set up sandbags in the hall as a gun emplacement, set up the rifle and prepared themselves to shoot the next person, be they criminal or pizza delivery boy, who so much as knocks at the door...

I do find it amusing that although there is a limited right to self-defense in the UK, so many high profile news stories concerning the punishment of those who have defended themselves has forced the government to make public announcements that you are allowed to defend yourself.

I've seen the quoted figures. 2.5 million crimes wasn't it? The fact that I'm having a hard time believing this figure I'll readily admit. I essentially think there's some kind of problem in comparison of what-means-what, but I'll let that figure go.

What I'm trying to convey to some people on this forum is that we in the UK don't sit in the hallway, kneeling on the floor with heads bowed awaiting the arrival of the next random criminal who will then hit us on the head with our own cricket bat, much the same as I imagine that an overwhelming number of US residents haven't set up sandbags in the hall as a gun emplacement, set up the rifle and prepared themselves to shoot the next person, be they criminal or pizza delivery boy, who so much as knocks at the door...

(BTW, I meant to say, for the third point "Nobody I know", sorry for any exageration/generalising there, it was a simple editing error...)

Eh, that's fair enough for the most part. But if most people aren't suffering because of guns, that's another mark against the anti-gun movement.

In response to the first paragraph, however, I honestly don't see how you can rationally disagree. The studies have been peer reviewed, and as you can see one of the peer reviews was by someone who's very happy to have gun control. I can understand how you would think the studies are innacurate, or we are being mislead, but when such a person has stated such things, surely it has to be accepted that guns prevent a large number of crimes?

The NRA wants to sell guns in dollar stores, and their counterparts want to make sure that the only people who can own guns at all are the criminals. Neither of them would consider making sure that the only people running around with guns are law-abiding citizens because they both see it as an unacceptable compromise.

Personally, however, I prefer a good machete over any firearm.

The NRA wants to sell guns in dollar stores, and their counterparts want to make sure that the only people who can own guns at all are the criminals. Neither of them would consider making sure that the only people running around with guns are law-abiding citizens because they both see it as an unacceptable compromise.


That's must be why the NRA supports the NICS and has one of the most established training & safety courses in the country.

Actually, I've had a firearm pointed at me before - by the time I was 16. I can tell you from personal experience - I want guns. No, I really don't care about some thuggish criminal's life. I don't see why we should. They've forfeited their rights through crime. Now, you can say "But if the criminal thought you had a gun, he'd just have shot you :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:", but the truth seems to be* that if he thought I had a gun, he'd probably have not bothered at all.
You get it, man. Few muggers and rapists aspire to be murderers. Most criminals have a healthy fear of violence (against themselves), especially the immediate variety. They generally behave like electrons, following the path of least resistance. Only a suicidal psychopath would risk getting shot for your wallet.

No, the thing is, I want tougher regulation and harsher penalties for violating the regulations. Not really so much on gun owners as on distributers; attack the problem at its source.

You would think that this type of action would be against the Constitution of the US. Forcing a householder to have a gun would be a violation of an individuals human rights?Oh, sure, I'm against the law, but it shows that having lots of guns around doesn't increase crime rates.

Okay, I have been very patient and tolerant during this whole thread, but enough is enough. There has been so many links to the "unbiased ----cough----research???" of "pro gun" advocate John Lott, that I thought that it only would be fair to post some actual facts:

The gun lobby has contended for years that more guns make for less crime. That slogan is actually the paraphrased title of a book by Dr. John Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago, which claims that greatly easing restrictions on concealed-carry handguns led to large decreases in crime. Although flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature — and his findings dismissed by a growing list of prominent researchers — the gun lobby successfully used it to persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions in the mid-90's.

This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr) (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as follows:

For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen – but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities.

Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much — by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.

Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%.

Show me the money!! Refute these facts!!

Okay, I have been very patient and tolerant during this whole thread, but enough is enough. There has been so many links to the "unbiased ----cough----research???" of "pro gun" advocate John Lott, that I thought that it only would be fair to post some actual facts:
...
This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr) (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as follows:
...
Show me the money!! Refute these facts!!

And when has the Brady Bunch started dealing in facts? They are about as biased and anti-gun as you can get.

You get it, man. Few muggers and rapists aspire to be murderers. Most criminals have a healthy fear of violence (against themselves), especially the immediate variety. They generally behave like electrons, following the path of least resistance. Only a suicidal psychopath would risk getting shot for your wallet.

Precisely, and said suicidal psychopath is going to be killing people guns or otherwise.

No, the thing is, I want tougher regulation and harsher penalties for violating the regulations. Not really so much on gun owners as on distributers; attack the problem at its source.What problem are you attacking? Do you think gun dealers routinely violate gun laws? Or are you somehow concerned with gun makers? :confused:

I'd like to see figures on suiside and accidental shootings re: loosening/tightening gun laws. any one have any?

I'd like to see figures on suiside and accidental shootings re: loosening/tightening gun laws. any one have any?

If people are determined enough to commit suicide, they'll do it guns or not (Indeed if I remember correctly, women are much less likely to use a gun than an overdose.). Accidental shootings leads us once again into the argument that there are many, many other things which cause many more accidental injuries and dangers. With good education, many of those could be eliminated. Thus I personally do not believe those are particularly pertinent points - however, I do respect your wanting to know, unfortunately I don't know where to get said stats =/

This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr)The Brady Center, eh? Their AWB page has a lot of nonsense, so why should I expect them to provide the truth on this?
Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.How long before 1992? If it was 20 years prior, it doesn't matter. Also, by how much did it rise; a few huge increases in violent crime would to me be worse than several small increases. Another thing to consider is the specific urban areas in the different states.

I wonder which states they were referring to with the other quotes, and whether or not they took into account locations of major urban areas.
I'd like to see figures on suiside and accidental shootings re: loosening/tightening gun laws. any one have any?Here are two web pages (that AFAICT aren't quite what you're looking for) from different sides of the debate that I found in a quick Google for "gun control suicide rates" (not as a quote):
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/suicide/facts.htm

Edit: Another link from the pro-gun side:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=6223 (Search the page for "(9)" and read the two bits of text near the (9)s.)
Edit2: Another pro-gun one:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=11888

Okay, I have been very patient and tolerant during this whole thread, but enough is enough. There has been so many links to the "unbiased ----cough----research???" of "pro gun" advocate John Lott, that I thought that it only would be fair to post some actual facts:
...
John Lott is a mixed bag. His deductive logic is good. He seems to understand the actual cause and effect relationships involved fairly well. However, his statistical analysis is not all that impressive. Comparing the crime rates and gun laws of different countries is inherently problematic. Japan has no civilian gun ownership, and very little crime in comparison to the US. The US is home to 80-90 million privately owned firearms and much higher crime rates. What does this mean? What does it say about the cause and effect relationship between private firearm ownership and crime rates?

Nothing. There are so many factors contributing to the differences in crime rates that virtually no conclusions can be drawn. Even comparing differences between different times in the same country don't prove much. I remain unconvinced that relatively liberal concealed carry laws have had much effect on crime rates in the US. It does appear that the highly publicized Florida law may have had some initial effect, but I don't see much else. Lower crime rates in the US seem more to be the result of creative bookkeeping (http://www.vdare.com/misc/stix_urban_crime.htm). Gun bans, especially where confiscation and buy back programs are used do seem to have a noticable effect. Still, statisical corelations do not constitute proof. And you certainly cannot argue the moral case for the right to keep and bear arms from numbers.

[QUOTE=Battery Charger

Gun bans, especially where confiscation and buy back programs are used do seem to have a noticable effect. [/QUOTE]

You're right. They have the effect of increasing crime. Look at Washington DC.

There has been so many links to the "unbiased ----cough----research???" of "pro gun" advocate John Lott, that I thought that it only would be fair to post some actual facts:


This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr) (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong:

Translation: I'm going to refute this biased source w/ a source even more biased in the other direction.

The "flaws in his literature" have been peer reviewed. It has backed his evidence. Even the anti-gun CDC has backed off to the point to "continue research" on the issue.

I've already shown you before how innaccurate the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership is in their reporting and findings to the point of blatantly lying.

You're constantly accusing others of using "biased" information when you're cherry-picking the numbers even worse. Howsabout your "safecity" site that had DC as a relativelysafe place to live and that admitted it made up a good portion of its statistics? The FBI has it as the highest crime rate in the country. I refuted those "facts" so you ignored the post and cherry picked some more. You Cherry-picked the disaster center numbers and I countered those with a different analysis. You posted a site from a Univ. w/ "facts" about US gun ownership and crime that only sourced anti-gun groups and articles for its analysis of numbers. I just laughed at that one.

So now you cherry pick some more numbers from Brady and expect them to be taken seriously.

How about DC that has a murder rate 9 TIMES that of the national Avg. and is increasing while the rest of the country is decreasing.

How about Chicago at 4X and boasts over 90% of all Illinois murders w/ only 1/4 the population.

Howabout this, I'll throw you a bone. Let's say that Carry/Concealed Carry laws DON'T effect the crime rate like you've been argueing. What then, is the harm in letting Law-Abiding Citizens carry them?

Show me the money!! Refute these facts!!

Here ya' go:

Brady Campaign (Handgun Control, Inc.) on self-defense and RTC: Sarah Brady says, "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." (Tom Jackson, "Keeping the battle alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93.) Former HCI Chair, the late Pete Shields, said, "(If attacked) put up no defense - give them what they want." (Guns Don`t Die - People Do, N.Y.: Arbor House, 1981.) Brady Center`s Dennis Henigan says, self-defense is "not a federally guaranteed constitutional right." (USA Today, 11/20/91.) In Jan. 1999, HCI claimed that between 1992-1997 violent crime rates declined less in RTC states than in other states. (Previously, it claimed RTC caused crime to rise.) HCI`s errors: It categorized states according to whether they had RTC in 1997, though of the 31 states that had RTC in 1997, only 17 had it in 1992. Also, HCI calculated crime trends from 1992, which under-represented the impact of RTC laws on crime. By 1992, many states had RTC for many years and already experienced decreases in crime. Also, HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as "restrictive" states. Both states had decreases in crime, so HCI presumably wanted them out of the RTC group. HCI also credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states. But states that have restrictive carry laws have had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, and did so due to factors unrelated to guns.

Okay, I have been very patient and tolerant during this whole thread, but enough is enough. There has been so many links to the "unbiased ----cough----research???" of "pro gun" advocate John Lott, that I thought that it only would be fair to post some actual facts:



And if you don't care for Lott (who really hasn't been mentioned all that much lately) try Kleck & Gertz:

Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck found, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, 1997) Kleck and Marc Gertz found that firearms are used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.) The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" who would "eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police," said, "The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it....I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology." ("A Tribute to a View That I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.) A study for the Dept. of Justice found that 34% of felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and 40% of felons have not committed crimes, fearing potential victims were armed. (J. Wright and P. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, 1986.)

Although flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature ? and his findings dismissed by a growing list of prominent researchers ? the gun lobby successfully used it to persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions in the mid-90's.



Show me the money!! Refute these facts!!

Ok, show me this growing list...

* "Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media`s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn`t so bad after all." (David Kopel, "The Untold Triumph of Concealed-Carry Permits," Policy Review, July-Aug. 1996, p. 9.) "Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been." ("Should Michigan keep new concealed weapon law? Don`t believe gun foe scare tactics," Detroit News, 1/14/01.)

... And I'll show you mine.

Ok, show me this growing list...
Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

Well, I dont about the other guys but if they are as credible as Kellerman(though he was a doctor) then their opinions arent worth much. Kellerman is the guy who a)got his funding pulled because of shoddy research b)refused to submit his data to the peer review process. He is the guy famous for the 43-1 statistic regarding guns in the home and likelyhood of death.

Well, I dont about the other guys but if they are as credible as Kellerman(though he was a doctor) then their opinions arent worth much. Kellerman is the guy who a)got his funding pulled because of shoddy research b)refused to submit his data to the peer review process. He is the guy famous for the 43-1 statistic regarding guns in the home and likelyhood of death.
So in establishing people's credibility, you take one name on the list (who you distrust), and extrapolate that to assume that all people on the list are equal and therefore "their opinions arent worth much"?

That is sound reasoning?

Sort of the guilty by association mentality?

So in establishing people's credibility, you take one name on the list (who you distrust), and extrapolate that to assume that all people on the list are equal and therefore "their opinions arent worth much"?

That is sound reasoning?

Sort of the guilty by association mentality?
No, we just reject wackos with a political agenda.

The Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) tried to do a study on firearms laws and their effectiveness. They couldn't reach a conclusion. I can. I conclude the CDC could find no evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents.

On the converse side, they couldn't find evidence that CCW laws reduced crime, but that isn't exactly what I think we started out to discuss.

IMO, the UK and the US are too different in mind sets to guns and the Death penalty to be compared.

Yes there are those who agree with the US laws, but most don't.
In the UK the attitude is still that we would rather let 5 guilty live than kill 1 innocent.

The original post was wrong, and despite many posts attempting clarification of the situation on each side of the Atlantic, It is clear that few on either side are willing to accept the difference.

With regards to the US/Canada comparison. This is much more possible, as you do live next to each other and share many of the same influences.

While trying to remain impartitial I have perceived a greater intransigence on the side of the US Anti Control posters, who cannot consider that law-abiding people could miss-use guns, or that there may be better ways to deal with crime that to up-arm.

I completley acknolwledge that the UK does not have the answer, but I can not agree that we should get guns to make life safer.
For your information I have been threated, with a gun, and do not feel that if I had been armed the resolution could have come out better (no one was shot).
I could suggest that the increase in gun crime in the UK is down to people trying to "ape" the US and carry weapons, but I have no proof. Indeed there has been no real investigation as to why we are getting more criminals using guns.

Sorry if this appears preachy, but this is one of the issues that proves the differences between the UK and US, and we need to accept it.

Oh yes one last point, I am not and never have been a Liberal.

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

And people call Fareinheit 9/11 biased bullshit.

Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

There's no one to dispute Kleck.

In addition, more of your political hacks have lost their jobs. Belesiles, for instance, for making up history out of whole cloth and complete fabrications.

Belisiles is now the laughingstock of the historical community. Feel better now?

Then the 2.5 million crimes that were ordinarily prevented by civilians with legal firearms would occur.

Most of those violent crimes are not committed with a gun.

Are you saying, therefore, that a violent non-gun crime would not occur if we just banned guns?

That's ridiculous.
Do you know where criminals get their guns?
They don't buy them (thanks to Clinton Era gun control laws), they steal them. Also the 'oh no, he has a gun' factor can easily be replicated with a knife.

Traditionally, in the US, people who try to stop a violent crime from occurring, even if the felon is unarmed, typically end up wounded or dead.

I personally know a man in a wheelchair, who, despite cooperating with his attackers, was beaten on three separate occasions just for the hell of it.

Now he has a gun. I trained him in the use of it so he could get a carry permit.

Are you saying he should go around unarmed?
Its called a self defense course, if you get killed by an unarmed man, you are either a complete wimp or an idiot for going after a guy who could obviously kick your ass.

Its called a self defense course, if you get killed by an unarmed man, you are either a complete wimp or an idiot for going after a guy who could obviously kick your ass.

Yes, obviously, Leetonia, a man with no legs who can't get up out of a wheelchair should be able to beat up several young men who are not in wheelchairs.

I'll be sure to tell him today.

Very true. In Africa*, for instance, since they still have a very chaotic system, teaching gun safety is going to be difficult (of course, when the genocide pops up, having a gun to fight the armies off with would be nice...), while in Canada, guns are MORE COMMON, but LESS DANGEROUS, because of the culture there, that is, people don't go on as many shooting sprees in Canada.

The trick is, Brittain seems more likely to be between the US and Canada than between the US and Africa...


*I bring this country up due to having a book on Baboons in my recent memory, where the local Masai tribe did some crazy fricking stuff around the biologist who was studying the baboon troop, and for no other bias. Just noting.
Um, Dubya, Africa isn't a country.

Yes, obviously, Leetonia, a man with no legs who can't get up out of a wheelchair should be able to beat up several young men who are not in wheelchairs.

I'll be sure to tell him today.

nah he should load with hollow points and shoot to kill

Having interviewed many felons here in Fairfax County, Virginia, I can tell you that they know that the people in Virginia may be carrying a gun legally.

To them, it is simpler and easier - and far less dangerous - to drive to Montgomery County, Maryland, where the laws have essentially disarmed everyone. There, the victims are guaranteed to be unarmed, and it's only 10 minutes away.

This is why for the past few years, Fairfax County has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime that coincides with the beginning of concealed carry and the further introduction of open carry. At the same time, Montgomery County has seen a double digit increase in crime in each of the same years, and this past year, saw a 70 percent increase in armed robbery alone.

The interviews and the statistics bear out what they're thinking.
Hence the earlier argument that a gun ban would only be useful on a national level.

nah he should load with hollow points and shoot to kill

Which is what he does.

they can have my gun when they pull it out of my cold dead hand.
in respone to the national gun ban idea

Hence the earlier argument that a gun ban would only be useful on a national level.

How would that be useful? There would then be 2.5 million additional violent crimes per year.

Crimes that are, for the moment, stopped each year by civilians using guns as a threat.

2.5 million additional murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

Hmm?

there also would be a lot of people who would not stand for it. you would have a good amount of politicans who would not be getting re-elected the next time. they are accountable to the people who vote for them.

there also would be a lot of people who would not stand for it. you would have a good amount of politicans who would not be getting re-elected the next time.

Rather like this last time around.

Yes, obviously, Leetonia, a man with no legs who can't get up out of a wheelchair should be able to beat up several young men who are not in wheelchairs.

I'll be sure to tell him today.
If your friend was one of the people who was restricted to a wheelchair by unarmed assaliants, then he could have benefited from a Self Defense course before, you jackass.
Also, why bother with a gun, a can of mace works just as well, and is a lot more fun. Why kill a guy when you can drop him on his knees with every orifice on his face flooding over with mucus.

Trust me we keep stats on everyone.
Um, you do realize how stupid you're being right? FBI is purely domestic, now, the CIA might have these statistics, but the FBI only cares about other countries when a criminal is fleeing there in which case Canada and Mexico are much better choices than Australia (just due to price, course, if you made it to the Aussie Outback you could hide for years before someone would find you)

If your friend was one of the people who was restricted to a wheelchair by unarmed assaliants, then he could have benefited from a Self Defense course before you jackass.
Also, why bother with a gun, a can of mace works just as well, and is a lot more fun. Why kill a guy when you can drop him on his knees with every orifice on his face flooding over with mucus.

I teach self defense courses. There is no defense for a wheelchair-bound man against multiple assailants.

Mace isn't used here in the US, except by idiots, because it doesn't work. Pepper spray is better, but once again, not as good as a gun.

I and others that I have taught have used guns to defend themselves - without firing a shot. Pull the gun and people run. That's far more effective than pepper spray. Pull the pepper spray, and some will stay out of range, but they won't run away. You might hit one or two, but they will stay to beat the crap out of you.

When I've been threatened with assault and robbery, the mere broadcast of the intent to kill them along with the drawing of a gun has been quite sufficient to make them run. Much, much more effective than pepper spray.

If your friend was one of the people who was restricted to a wheelchair by unarmed assaliants, then he could have benefited from a Self Defense course before you jackass.
Also, why bother with a gun, a can of mace works just as well, and is a lot more fun. Why kill a guy when you can drop him on his knees with every orifice on his face flooding over with mucus.
because if he gets shot the stupid fool wont have the chance to go after some poor soul without the can of mace like some poor kids out on a date.

Rather like this last time around.
agreed

Then explain two counties in the US with nearly identical populations (ethnicity, affluence, etc) both suburbs of Washington D.C., both very high end in terms of wages - and one county a few years ago got concealed carry of firearms, and the other county has progressively restricted firearms.

Now explain why there have been double digit drops in violent crime (they both define violent crime in the same way) in the county that allows concealed weapons - and a double digit increase per year in the county that restricts firearms. Including a 70 percent increase in armed robbery this past year.

Felons I interview say that they feel uneasy and unsafe robbing people in Fairfax County. I have interviewed hundreds of them. They feel that it is much safer and simpler to drive the 10 minutes to Montgomery County, and rob, rape, or assault someone there. They know that their victim will be unarmed.Okay, I have an interesting question. What exactly do you do that you get to interview felons? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

Okay, I have an interesting question. What exactly do you do that you get to interview felons? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

Pro bono work as their attorney. I'm also a domestic violence counselor and do that work for free as well.

Interestingly, of the women that I've taught to shoot, and who obtain concealed carry permits, their ex-husbands have left them alone.

That's not something that can be said of the women who chose to remain unarmed, or go about with a can of pepper spray. There's something about the fear of death that draws what I call "a clear bright line" for the judgmentally impaired.

Do you know where criminals get their guns?
They don't buy them (thanks to Clinton Era gun control laws), they steal them. Also the 'oh no, he has a gun' factor can easily be replicated with a knife.

So before the Clinton Gun Laws (which have been shown already to have had no effect on crime) criminals could buy guns and now they can't? Right, sure. Prove that one.

And where are they getting stolen from?

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/fbi18_20010718.htm

WASHINGTON -- In a fresh embarrassment to the FBI, officials said Tuesday that 184 laptop computers are missing from the agency, along with 449 weapons.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/05/national/main517545.shtml

(REUTERS) The FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and three other Justice Department law enforcement agencies had at least 775 weapons and 400 laptop computers stolen, lost or missing over a recent two-year period, according to a report released Monday.

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1683610

LOS GATOS (BCN) -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking for the person or people responsible for stealing and torching an FBI-owned vehicle and making off with some guns.


Maybe only Gov't agencies should be banned from having guns. They seem to be the ones who are irresponsible w/ them.

knives just dont have that lethal nature to them that guns have because unless you get the drop on somebody and have it to their throat your screwed if they dont panic you ever been hit with a chair. ofcourse mops brooms and other normal objects also make it hard for people to keep a hold of their knives when your beating the crap out of them. been there done that have the scars to prove it guy thought the knife made him big an bad i ended up with the knife he ended up in the hospital. there fore knives are not good weapons for anyone to use. get a gun model 1911A1 is a good choice.

knives just dont have that lethal nature to them that guns have because unless you get the drop on somebody and have it to their throat your screwed if they dont panic you ever been hit with a chair. ofcourse mops brooms and other normal objects also make it hard for people to keep a hold of their knives when your beating the crap out of them. been there done that have the scars to prove it guy thought the knife made him big an bad i ended up with the knife he ended up in the hospital. there fore knives are not good weapons for anyone to use. get a gun model 1911A1 is a good choice.

You're lucky. Most people who spout the whole "I'ld rather have a knife" don't realize the situation you had could just as easily go the other way w/ the criminal getting hold of it. The whole point is to keep your distance.

The 1911A1 is an outstanding weapons. A little large though for many women. For that I recommend a 9mm Makarov. Smaller w/ a considerable punch and relatively inexpensive.

One of my assailants had a knife. He was waiting for me to give the "oh no, he has a knife".

When the 45 came out, there was an interesting, "oh shit, I brought a knife to a gunfight" look.

Interestingly, of the women that I've taught to shoot, and who obtain concealed carry permits, their ex-husbands have left them alone.

That's not something that can be said of the women who chose to remain unarmed, or go about with a can of pepper spray. There's something about the fear of death that draws what I call "a clear bright line" for the judgmentally impaired.

[sarcasm]But shouldn't the threat of a restraining order be enough. The police will come and arrest them afterwards.[sarcasm]

the criminal had the knife i beat the hell out of him he got 2 good hits in i had 12 stiches i broke his left arm left leg and cracked 3 ribs all the cops said was good job. distance was not an option at that point he was already to close sadly i was not as alert as i should have been considering where i was

One of my assailants had a knife. He was waiting for me to give the "oh no, he has a knife".

When the 45 came out, there was an interesting, "oh shit, I brought a knife to a gunfight" look.
never ever bring a knife to a gun fight

the criminal had the knife i beat the hell out of him he got 2 good hits in i had 12 stiches i broke his left arm left leg and cracked 3 ribs all the cops said was good job. distance was not an option at that point he was already to close sadly i was not as alert as i should have been considering where i was

I concur: Good Job

What I meant earlier was about people who spout "I'ld rather have a knife" for self -defense purposes. Not you.

[sarcasm] But you should have done the SNiVeL and noone would have gotten hurt. You violated his civil rights by beating him up. [sarcasm]

I concur: Good Job

What I meant earlier was about people who spout "I'ld rather have a knife" for self -defense purposes. Not you.

[sarcasm] But you should have done the SNiVeL and noone would have gotten hurt. You violated his civil rights by beating him up. [sarcasm]
if it had been just me i probably would have given him the 3 bucks i had then beat the hell out of him but as it stood i couldn't risk him getting any closer

btw thanks

No, we just reject wackos with a political agenda.
The NRA has a political, and monetary agenda.
John Lott has a political, and monetary agenda.

Anybody who is for gun control is a "wacko"?


The Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) tried to do a study on firearms laws and their effectiveness. They couldn't reach a conclusion. I can. I conclude the CDC could find no evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents.

On the converse side, they couldn't find evidence that CCW laws reduced crime, but that isn't exactly what I think we started out to discuss.
They also do not support by default one position or the other. It appears that people here would take the opinion that if nothing conclusive has been proven by the CDC, regarding gun control, therefore this would support the "pro gun" enthusiasts argument by default?

Their summary states:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Since you have quoted this "study", does that mean that "their" summary trumps the findings of the Bradey Centre or John Lott's findings?

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]The NRA has a political, and monetary agenda.
QUOTE]
the NRA is also made up of people on both sides of the debate. better education about guns is a good way to go.

Since you have quoted this "study", does that mean that "their" summary trumps the findings of the Bradey Centre or John Lott's findings?

Doesn't trump Kleck's study.

Additionally, no one has proven that the Braday law did anything to reduce crime. Everyone admits that now.

Doesn't trump Kleck's study.

Additionally, no one has proven that the Braday law did anything to reduce crime. Everyone admits that now.
No one will be able to prove the Brady bill did or didn't help until crime statistics come in for the next two years

No one will be able to prove the Brady bill did or didn't help until crime statistics come in for the next two years
Considering how long it's been in effect, and considering that studies by the government have already been completed, I'm not sure how you can say that.

Considering how long it's been in effect, and considering that studies by the government have already been completed, I'm not sure how you can say that.

I think IHC is confusing the Brady law w/ the other useless one, the AWB.

Probably

The NRA has a political, and monetary agenda.
John Lott has a political, and monetary agenda.

Anybody who is for gun control is a "wacko"?




No, anyone who blatantly lies (the brady campaign) in order to remove rights from law-abiding citizens are wacko's. Those who regurgitate their lies even after being shown are just clueless.

I can say it because of how long it has been in effect, it was just now removed so it will take a couple years of crimes statistics to prove it did or didn't help officially

What planet are you on? The Brady law is still in effect.

Last I checked, you still have the instant background check at the gun store. That's the Brady law.

As for the "assault weapons" ban (which is something different), it didn't reduce the number of "assault weapons" sold - in fact, there was a radical increase in sales of weapons with high capacity magazines.

It only made manufacturers rename the AR-15 into the M-4, and take some cosmetic features off. The gun retained its semiautomatic capability, and its small size, light weight, and ability to take 30-rd magazines. Same gun, different name.

If you're going to try to ban guns, you really should learn more about them.

What planet are you on? The Brady law is still in effect.

Last I checked, you still have the instant background check at the gun store. That's the Brady law.

As for the "assault weapons" ban (which is something different), it didn't reduce the number of "assault weapons" sold - in fact, there was a radical increase in sales of weapons with high capacity magazines.

It only made manufacturers rename the AR-15 into the M-4, and take some cosmetic features off. The gun retained its semiautomatic capability, and its small size, light weight, and ability to take 30-rd magazines. Same gun, different name.

If you're going to try to ban guns, you really should learn more about them.
It took me under a minute to change that post, hell it didn't even get an edit tag, yet you have this long diatribe?

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.



They spent two years looking at the effects of the over 20,000 gun laws in this country and couldn't find enough evidence that they were effective in reducing crime. They conclude w/ "research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury."

Translation: We know they don't work but we're going to keep looking anyway to find more excuses for gun laws.

never ever bring a knife to a gun fight

Drattit, lost my prior post due to timeout during writing, then overwrote the clipboard/paste-buffer with something else while navigating back...

In short (and losing a lot of what I actually did say), however, I agreed to the above statement, and that perhaps this is why I prefer the UK situation. You don't get criminals thinking they ought to prepare for a gun fight every time they strike (acknowledging that WL has been known to encounter ones that don't prepare for them in the US, of course), so they bring knives if they want to be armed, and even if you're not armed to the same standards (unlikely, unless you're up to no good or plain lucky) you have a better chance of escaping, or (should you be inclined to be a so-called 'have-a-go hero') wresting control of the blade from the criminal and reversing the threat. Doesn't help against gangs, people who want to kill you regardless of your attitude or general accidents from spooked perps, of course, but that's a whole other problem.

I'm trying to wind my participation up, advance warning, because I'm not easily able to access the forums next week and feel the need to bow out gracefully. Even so, I imagine there are loose ends in the above argument that need tying up by someone (or being tugged on to reveal a fray in the argument), and I'll try to uphold my side in the meantime.

in my case i had no choice but to be as you put it a have-a-go hero if i had not acted when i did i would have put one of my friends in danger i have no problem risking myself but i wll NOT risk one of my friends to a punk.
and as to gangs a scatter-gun would work quite well and thanks to US gun laws i have one in my car. ie i only had to hold him of long enough for my friend to draw her gun.

in my case i had no choice but to be as you put it a have-a-go hero if i had not acted when i did i would have put one of my friends in danger i have no problem risking myself but i wll NOT risk one of my friends to a punk.So you were inclined to be one. (BTW, "have-a-go hero" isn't my term, but a UK media one. Depending on the outlet and situation, it can be derogatory or congratulatory but I'm definitely not dissing you or anyone else for acting in that manner, I was just going through the options. Sounds like you dealt well with a situation that I have yet to encounter and measure my self-worth against. And don't see myself doing, either, but perhaps if I lived in one of the roughest UK places area I might. Who knows.)

and as to gangs a scatter-gun would work quite well and thanks to US gun laws i have one in my car. ie i only had to hold him of long enough for my friend to draw her gun.And without your friend being there you could have just fled the scene and away. I see the main downside to that being that the gang remained uninjured and fit to terrorise the next person who came along, with a few whatifs of course.

They spent two years looking at the effects of the over 20,000 gun laws in this country and couldn't find enough evidence that they were effective in reducing crime. They conclude w/ "research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury."

Translation: We know they don't work but we're going to keep looking anyway to find more excuses for gun laws.
Your translation, is exactly that....YOUR translation. You put your own spin on it because you are obviously biased as far as ownership of guns is concerned. You will try and refute any argument that would support gun control.

Perhaps you can explain this chart for me?

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/16/2summer1999/atab3.gif

Almost 70% of all murders are committed by firearms, 40% of robberies, and 20% of aggravated assaults.

In 1983, the numbers were 58.3% for murders, in 1983 it was 33.0% for robberies, and in 1984 it was 21.1% for aggravated assault.

More guns = more crime?

Can you explain how most of the highs were reached in 1993/4, and then started to drop off? Could this not be attributed to the Brady Bill enactment and the control of the sale of "assault weapons"?

Can you explain how most of the highs were reached in 1993/4, and then started to drop off? Could this not be attributed to the Brady Bill enactment and the control of the sale of "assault weapons"?

No, it could be attributed to the fact that in the 1990s (and it keeps going), Americans increased their ownership of guns from 200 million to 300 million guns. Also, starting around the same time, 33 states enacted "shall issue" permits for concealed carry.

Violent crime is lower in my state (a gun favoring state) than in the neighboring state of Maryland (a gun restricting state). We're talking 60 percent less in all categories of Part 1 violent crime - on a per 100,000 population basis.

Of course, you're going to say it's all lies. But the effect starts in Virginia when our concealed carry went into effect - and the figures show it.

You keep thinking that "assault weapons" were somehow controlled. And yet, they were not. The manufacturers merely renamed the weapons and took off bayonet lugs and flash hiders, and the weapons sold like hotcakes.

Addtionally, "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime - now or then.

Here's what a 1995 federal study investigating juvenile crime found after looking at 20,000 randomly selected households:
Relationship between type of gun owned and
percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.

Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%


"The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place 'on the street.'"
"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents.
The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.

Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

With the federal assault weapons ban sunsetting on Monday at midnight, the gun-control movement has a lot to fear, but not what most people think. Despite claims that letting the 10-year-old ban on some semiautomatic weapons expire will result in a surge in gun crimes and police killings, the fact is that letting the law expire will probably just show the uselessness of gun-control regulations. A year from now it will be obvious to everyone that all the horror stories about the ban — a cornerstone of the gun-control movement — were wrong.

Life without the ban is being painted as a frightening state of affairs. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun-control advocates, warns that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis."

Ratcheting up the fear factor to an entirely new level, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) claims the ban is one of "the most effective measures against terrorism that we have."

Yet, despite the rhetoric, there is not a single published academic study showing that the ban has reduced any type of violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the ban's effect on gun violence "has been uncertain." When those same authors released their updated report in August looking at crime data up through 2000 — the first six full years of the law — they stated, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

The reason for these findings is simple: There is nothing unique about the guns that are banned under the law. Though the phrase "assault weapon" conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.

The firing mechanisms in semiautomatic and machine guns are completely different. The entire firing mechanism of a semiautomatic gun has to be gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun. This law had nothing to do with machine guns.

In recent weeks, at least one gun-control group has begun to change its tune. A spokesperson for the Violence Policy Center said, "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass." The center argues that the law involved only "minor changes in appearance."

Why the sudden conversion? Probably because the group knows its credibility is on the line.

A year from now, when it becomes obvious to everyone that all the hype about a resurgence of "assault weapons" was wrong, gun-control advocates want to be able to claim that they never thought the law really mattered.

Too bad they didn't admit this a decade ago.

No, it could be attributed to the fact that in the 1990s (and it keeps going), Americans increased their ownership of guns from 200 million to 300 million guns. Also, starting around the same time, 33 states enacted "shall issue" permits for concealed carry.

Violent crime is lower in my state (a gun favoring state) than in the neighboring state of Maryland (a gun restricting state). We're talking 60 percent less in all categories of Part 1 violent crime - on a per 100,000 population basis.

Of course, you're going to say it's all lies. But the effect starts in Virginia when our concealed carry went into effect - and the figures show it.

You keep thinking that "assault weapons" were somehow controlled. And yet, they were not. The manufacturers merely renamed the weapons and took off bayonet lugs and flash hiders, and the weapons sold like hotcakes.

Addtionally, "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime - now or then.
Perhaps you can explain this then:

There were 152 homicides by firearms in Canada in 2002, according to federal statistics, compared with 11,829 homicides by guns in the United States for that same year. BTW, that is a 77 to 1 ratio. :eek:

A 1995 federal firearms law in Canada requires every firearm in the country be registered and each gun owner licensed.

Perhaps you can explain this then:

There were 152 homicides by firearms in Canada in 2002, according to federal statistics, compared with 11,829 homicides by guns in the United States for that same year. BTW, that is a 77 to 1 ratio. :eek:

A 1995 federal firearms law in Canada requires every firearm in the country be registered and each gun owner licensed.
Which should be happening in the US. Thoguh gun people like to argue that would be an infringment on some right or another which I don't understand. Last time I checked you needed a license to drive a car, and a tag for it, and paperwork to prove you have insurance...

Which should be happening in the US. Thoguh gun people like to argue that would be an infringment on some right or another which I don't understand. Last time I checked you needed a license to drive a car, and a tag for it, and paperwork to prove you have insurance...

Last time I checked, several provinces were refusing to enforce the registration of guns in Canada - without any repercussions. It seems that the Federal government forgot to allocate more than a billion dollars to cover the costs - and the provinces don't want to take up the slack on something they didn't pass themselves.

New York City has gun registration and licensing. It doesn't work there.

We might see it as an infringement because historically, it's been a prelude to confiscation.

To add to that, Senator Metzenbaum tried to put forth legislation to register and then confiscate guns - and he used a literal word for word translation from the law Hitler put forth in 1934 for the same purpose in Germany.

Gives you pause to hear that the people who want to take your guns like copying Hitler word for word.

Last time I checked, several provinces were refusing to enforce the registration of guns in Canada - without any repercussions. It seems that the Federal government forgot to allocate more than a billion dollars to cover the costs - and the provinces don't want to take up the slack on something they didn't pass themselves.

New York City has gun registration and licensing. It doesn't work there.

We might see it as an infringement because historically, it's been a prelude to confiscation.

To add to that, Senator Metzenbaum tried to put forth legislation to register and then confiscate guns - and he used a literal word for word translation from the law Hitler put forth in 1934 for the same purpose in Germany.

Gives you pause to hear that the people who want to take your guns like copying Hitler word for word.

Irrelevant to the point

Irrelevant to the point: Thoguh gun people like to argue that would be an infringment on some right or another which I don't understand.

How is our fear irrelevant to your "not understanding"?

Last time I checked, several provinces were refusing to enforce the registration of guns in Canada - without any repercussions. It seems that the Federal government forgot to allocate more than a billion dollars to cover the costs - and the provinces don't want to take up the slack on something they didn't pass themselves.

New York City has gun registration and licensing. It doesn't work there.

We might see it as an infringement because historically, it's been a prelude to confiscation.

To add to that, Senator Metzenbaum tried to put forth legislation to register and then confiscate guns - and he used a literal word for word translation from the law Hitler put forth in 1934 for the same purpose in Germany.

Gives you pause to hear that the people who want to take your guns like copying Hitler word for word.
I find it amazing that people will go to any lengths to protect their "toys", even to the extent of comparing gun control as a "Hitler" type initiative. Incredible.

I find it amazing that people will go to any lengths to protect their "toys", even to the extent of comparing gun control as a "Hitler" type initiative. Incredible.

I don't have to "compare". Metzenbaum said he admired Hitler for doing it - that's why he chose Hitler's legislation.

New York City has gun registration and licensing. It doesn't work there.

NYC THE SAFEST LARGE CITY IN THE U.S.

Crime Rate, Including Murder Rate, Drops to Lowest Level Since 1960s, According to New FBI Statistics (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091)

Dropping murder rate surprises NYC (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/25/usat-nycrime.htm)

You were saying?

NYC THE SAFEST LARGE CITY IN THE U.S.

Crime Rate, Including Murder Rate, Drops to Lowest Level Since 1960s, According to New FBI Statistics (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091)

Dropping murder rate surprises NYC (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/25/usat-nycrime.htm)

You were saying?


Let's see how it compares to where I'm living. It's nearly impossible to get a gun permit in NYC, so theoretically, there shouldn't be any violent crime compared to where I live (by your theory).

Addtionally, "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime - now or then.
How about:

Still a Threat to Police—One in Five Law Enforcement Officers Slain in the Line of Duty is Killed With an Assault Weapon

The gun industry's evasion of the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines continues to put law enforcement officers at extreme risk. Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.8 Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

NYC THE SAFEST LARGE CITY IN THE U.S.

Crime Rate, Including Murder Rate, Drops to Lowest Level Since 1960s, According to New FBI Statistics (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091)

Dropping murder rate surprises NYC (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/25/usat-nycrime.htm)

You were saying?
Fairfax County, Virginia
Population 1,000,405
Murder 9
Rape 80
Robbery 540
Aggravated assault 399

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf
Population 8,115,135
Murder 572
Rape 1732
Robbery 24,105
Aggravated Assault 18157

Fairfax County, Virginia 2003

0.9 murders per 100,000
8 rapes per 100,000
54 robberies per 100,000
40 assaults per 100,000

New York City, New York 2003

7 murders per 100,000
21 rapes per 100,000
297 robberies per 100,000
223.7 assaults per 100,000

So, we might conclude that:

Murder is 7 times higher in New York City
Rapes are nearly three times more likely in New York City
Robberies are nearly six times more likely in New York City
Assaults are more than five times more likely in New York City

If what you said was true about New York City's gun laws, then they should at least have a violent crime rate lower at all levels than a place of high population where many, many people are walking around the streets carrying guns.

Fairfax County, Virginia
Population 1,000,405
Murder 9
Rape 80
Robbery 540
Aggravated assault 399

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf
Population 8,115,135
Murder 572
Rape 1732
Robbery 24,105
Aggravated Assault 18157

Fairfax County, Virginia 2003

0.9 murders per 100,000
8 rapes per 100,000
54 robberies per 100,000
40 assaults per 100,000

New York City, New York 2003

7 murders per 100,000
21 rapes per 100,000
297 robberies per 100,000
223.7 assaults per 100,000

So, we might conclude that:

Murder is 7 times higher in New York City
Rapes are nearly three times more likely in New York City
Robberies are nearly six times more likely in New York City
Assaults are more than five times more likely in New York City

If what you said was true about New York City's gun laws, then they should at least have a violent crime rate lower at all levels than a place of high population where many, many people are walking around the streets carrying guns.
You can't compare apples and oranges.

You can't compare apples and oranges.

It's not apples and oranges.

We're talking about two high population areas. No major city in the US doesn't have gun laws - they are all as strict or more so than New York City.

That's why their violent crime is all higher than it is where I live. A high population suburban area where we own and carry guns.

Violent crime is lower in my state (a gun favoring state) than in the neighboring state of Maryland (a gun restricting state). We're talking 60 percent less in all categories of Part 1 violent crime - on a per 100,000 population basis.

But your state hasn't stopped the crimes as such you've admitted yourself that it's just displaced them. Now assuming every state adopts the same gun laws as you currently have and given the ease of which it is possible to get an illigal gun everyone will be armed and I'm fairly certain that the mortality/murder rate will go up since no-one is going to attempt a crime without a gun anymore.

But your state hasn't stopped the crimes as such you've admitted yourself that it's just displaced them. Now assuming every state adopts the same gun laws as you currently have and given the ease of which it is possible to get an illigal gun everyone will be armed and I'm fairly certain that the mortality/murder rate will go up since no-one is going to attempt a crime without a gun anymore.

We've only displaced ones on the border of Maryland. Are you saying that the rest of the state displaced ALL of its crimes to Maryland?

Really? Criminals in Roanoke drive all the way to Maryland?

You know what, it's not as easy to get an illegal gun as you think. Otherwise, we wouldn't have so many unarmed felons.

Besides, most felons know the difference in sentence between strongarm robbery and armed robbery. It's measured in years - even if you get paroled partway through your sentence.

And if that was true about going to get more guns, then by now, a lot of felons in Virginia would have done that - they've had 10 years to start.

It doesn't seem to be happenning. Your model of what a felon does and how a felon thinks doesn't seem to apply to reality.

We've only displaced ones on the border of Maryland. Are you saying that the rest of the state displaced ALL of its crimes to Maryland?

Really? Criminals in Roanoke drive all the way to Maryland?

You know what, it's not as easy to get an illegal gun as you think. Otherwise, we wouldn't have so many unarmed felons.

Besides, most felons know the difference in sentence between strongarm robbery and armed robbery. It's measured in years - even if you get paroled partway through your sentence.

And if that was true about going to get more guns, then by now, a lot of felons in Virginia would have done that - they've had 10 years to start.

It doesn't seem to be happenning. Your model of what a felon does and how a felon thinks doesn't seem to apply to reality.

I was basing it on what you said earlier. You didn't specify just the borders, you just said felons you've interviewed admitted travelling in order to commit crimes. And technically 1st time offenders could have legal weapons correct? It's also being pointed out that weapons have been stolen in the past.

And even having 10 years to get their own gun there is no need to since they can travel to get an easier unarmed target and even if they do get caught they won't get as harsh a sentence because they didn't have a gun. I stated that you wouldn't see that unless everywhere had the same laws as your state. Until that happens we simply won't know.

So in establishing people's credibility, you take one name on the list (who you distrust), and extrapolate that to assume that all people on the list are equal and therefore "their opinions arent worth much"?

That is sound reasoning?

Sort of the guilty by association mentality?


What parts of "Dont know about the other guys" and "if" did you not understand? I suppose this is indicative of the same reasoning that causes you to compare NY and Florida yet refuse to compare Illinois and Vermont. Or Vermont and anywhere. Or Washington DC and anywhere.

Or the same reasoning that lets you exclude all the other factors such as the drastic per capita increase in police officers in NYC vs Florida. Or that gun control laws started to magically take effect half a decade after they were enacted(despite the fact that these FEDERAL laws did not increase the gun control laws in the states you selected).

Tell me exactly what the Brady bill and AWB ban added to NY and especially NYC laws with regards to guns? Please, name me one thing more restrictive that happened in NYC because of these laws. If you cant name anything, why do believe they had some effect on crime? What form of logic is that? Oh, I see, its the Canuckheaven logic. thankfully thats a small circle.

Um, Dubya, Africa isn't a country.

No, its the last left before hell.

Which is what he does.

Hope he is using mag safe rounds, cause when reaching out and touching someone, nothing compares to a fist sized hole at 25ft. And they dont even go through drywall. Can we say perfect home defense round(except of course for the sound of chambering a round in a pistol grip 12 gauge)

You're lucky. Most people who spout the whole "I'ld rather have a knife" don't realize the situation you had could just as easily go the other way w/ the criminal getting hold of it. The whole point is to keep your distance.

The 1911A1 is an outstanding weapons. A little large though for many women. For that I recommend a 9mm Makarov. Smaller w/ a considerable punch and relatively inexpensive.

Little large maybe, but so perfectly balanced. I have a Wilson custom protecter 1911a1. Its my largest caliber handgun, its also by far my most pleasant to fire. It also Blows away anything else with regard to accuracy. I almost feel like i am a decent shot when I use it. Gimme 4 magazines and I will erase all the black without touching the white. (Unfortunately I am nearsighted in my main eye(-0.75 left) so this only applies to 25ft.)

I think IHC is confusing the Brady law w/ the other useless one, the AWB.

The only thing the AWB did was make me pay $100 for 2 17rd clips for my berreta. Bouth them from a retired NYC police officer too(while I was in florida). He was kind enough to drive them down to Boca and we bullshitted a bit(his sons never visit so he was happy to talk to a "youngster" who admires the police and grew up ashamed of hippies)

All that and I am a minority too, wow, racism must be rampant in the US. Come to India, Ill show you what racism/religious tolerance/caste/state tolerance is all about. We still kill kids here if they associate with the wrong religion/caste..not often, but we still do it often enough.

Cant stand idiots who know so little of the real world that they think college ideals carry over to reality. There are good people , there are bad ones and then there are those that are completely misguided. If you think guns or society is to blame, you are sadly mistaken. Personally, I would rather be in the first two categories than the last. At least then I could hold my self to blame or reward.

Which should be happening in the US. Thoguh gun people like to argue that would be an infringment on some right or another which I don't understand. Last time I checked you needed a license to drive a car, and a tag for it, and paperwork to prove you have insurance...

Last I checked, driving on public roads was a privelege extended by the govt while(in the USA anyway) self defense(and the right to bear arms) is an intrinsic right granted by our creator(in whom I do not believe). There is no law requiring a licence or permits or inspections if you use your vehicle on private property. Further, every US state and most countries extend this privilege to people who are licensed in others states and countries. If these same freedoms were extended to gun possesion and carry, I could carry concieled in every state and could even take my guns to Europe. I am licensed and state qualified and when I lived in Florida I used to fire over 1000rds per week. Are you sure you want to extend your drivers license argument any further, because by your standards I would be able to carry my arms anywhere in Europe and Asia..not to mention the US.

edit:
Dumbass

do you really think a govt priviledge is more sacred than an inherant right?

NYC THE SAFEST LARGE CITY IN THE U.S.

Crime Rate, Including Murder Rate, Drops to Lowest Level Since 1960s, According to New FBI Statistics (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091)

Dropping murder rate surprises NYC (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/25/usat-nycrime.htm)

You were saying?

You are really an idiot, or extremely ignorant. I grew up in New York City. I also went to college in New York City. It has been almost impossible for a non politically connected person to get a firearm(let alone a handgun) legally in NYC for the past 30 fucking years? Why are you pointing to the drop in violence relatively recently? Why didnt this drop happen in the mid to late 70s or eightees? Crime was crazy then. In the 50-60s, NYC high school used to have shooting clubs. Kids used to bring rifles on the subways to high school. Not much crime then, lots of crime later. Are you so clueless that you keep talking about crime and NYC and gun bans without the slightest clue?

For that matter, why didnt this drop happen in the early nineties when I was in college and Dinkins was the mayor? or the Como Koch years? Guns were still basically prohibitted. Crime was also rampant. giuliani cleaned up the city, and the overall economy helped(guns were still prohibitted then too)

Ill tell you a secret, while I could never have gotten a legal handgun in NYC, I could have gotten an illegal one since I was in high school if I so chose. Would have only taken a couple of days, less when I was in college.

You can't compare apples and oranges.

Oh, so I see.. when you compare a state that is the entry point of the bulk of drugs into the country with a mature North East state with an established economy is comparing like to like

But when WL compares 2 demographically identical counties or two high population zones its comparing apples to oranges

makes perfect sense now.

BTW: Do you debate like this in real life?

Its called a self defense course, if you get killed by an unarmed man, you are either a complete wimp or an idiot for going after a guy who could obviously kick your ass.
I'm a 175 lb man in half-decent physical condition. I'd be a fool to think I could defend myself against any single person in without a weapon, and a total lunatic to think I could do so against multiple attackers. Only a stupid asshole would blame a murder victim for their own murder.

Also, why bother with a gun, a can of mace works just as well, and is a lot more fun. Why kill a guy when you can drop him on his knees with every orifice on his face flooding over with mucus.Are you high? A shot of mace causes a painful burning sensation in the face. The only thing stopping the the assailant is the pain. Pain can be overcome, and mace has been shown not to stop some people. A gunshot can damage or destroy vital organs and potentially cause near-instant death. Such wounds cannot be overcome.

How about:

Still a Threat to Police—One in Five Law Enforcement Officers Slain in the Line of Duty is Killed With an Assault Weapon

The gun industry's evasion of the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines continues to put law enforcement officers at extreme risk. Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.8 Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.So what?

You are really an idiot, or extremely ignorant.....
~~SNIP~~

Well I do think the debating on this subject was on a fairly intelligent level, until now that is. :eek:

So what?

Canuck doesn't know what the definition of "assault weapon" is in the study, either.

Previously, pistols weren't included in the definition of "assault weapon". After the assault weapon ban was passed, anything - and I mean anything - with a high capacity magazine (more than 10 rounds and removable) was an "assault weapon".

Since most semiautomatic pistols at the time held more than 10 rounds, suddenly there were numerous "assault weapons".

Prior to that, virtually no one used an AK or AR-15 as a weapon against police. It's still true today.

Note that technically, an "assault weapon" is a military-style rifle.
"Assault Weapon" Statistics

What was crime like before the ban? The following summary of police statistical surveys is excerpted from David B. Kopel. (Kopel's paper contains the citations for these surveys and lists a few more studies as well.)

* California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."
* Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."
* Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.
* Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."
* Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.
* Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.
* Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."
* New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.
* New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.
* New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.
* San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.
* San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.
* Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."
* National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.

You are really an idiot, or extremely ignorant. ...

Ill tell you a secret, while I could never have gotten a legal handgun in NYC, I could have gotten an illegal one since I was in high school if I so chose. Would have only taken a couple of days, less when I was in college.
Let me provide a contrast to the crime we find in large cities that ban guns. I live in a medium sized town near Atlanta. We have a law that requires the head of each household to own a firearm. In the last 14 years that I have lived here, there has not been a single incident involving violent crime in a residence that I can remember. Does mandatory gun ownership play a factor in that? Probably so. Why would someone risk life and limb to rob the house with a gun when they can go down the street to the Circle--K?

Hum, I'm from Belgium, I'm 24 and I think I've never seen a real weapon in my life.


I've not read the entire post, juste pages 1->5 and 46, but I now understand why banning guns in US is not necessarily an easy thing. It's a cultural question, it's 'natural' to own a gun,...


Driving is dangerous. But we don't ban cars for that reason. If we want to be logic, we can't ban weapon because they are dangerous. They are necessary to certain people, and as we have driving race, why not a gun sport ? But having them in everyday's life ?

It's not the weapon itself, it's the person who pull the trigger, yeah, i'v already hear that. But a gun IS dangerous. Guns are made to kill, no? Even if people are calm, don't use it for fun, can keep their cold blood, an 'accident' is so easy...

It's maybe like driving too fast: some driver can drive very fast. It's illegal, but they could argue (some with reason) "I CAN drive fast. If it exist a test to prove that, I can pass it" but if they could, have they the right to ? Speed increase damage considerably IN CASE OF accident. Could they take the decision to take a risk for the other victims ? Why driving faster than legal ?

Guns are clearly not the origine of crime in US, but it's not a valuable answer to crime either. We can't give a weapon to everyone like it was the best way to avoid death as we can't forget about speed limitation under pretext of let each one find its natural speed. Banning them was not a good idea either. But we must absolutely not see them as a solution.

Even if some people could effectively prevent or stop a violent crime by having a gun, it would be better not to have a crime, no? And how many people cause a crime instead of stopping one ?

If some country can have a low crime rate (with or without guns), why not the USA ? (or Australia, or Great Britain, or...)

I think —but I've never put a feet in US, I have just an intuition about that— that it's partially because of the climat. Guns are in everydays'life in US: almost everyone could have one gun, could use one (and are encouraged to) to protect himself or his relative, they could see the heros in movie using gun and triomph (bad guys seems to never learn to shoot), and news talk about weapon, crime, insecurity, dead people maybe?... Maybe if guns where not so present, we would think less often to use them.

It's been proven that if a child is raised in a home where guns are legally owned and used, and the child receives training from the parent in the legal use of the gun, then the socialization received has a positive effect. That child is less likely to use drugs or become a criminal, or engage in violent crime in his lifetime.

For families where a child learns his guns on the street, the risk of drug use, crime, and violence goes way, way up.

Curiously, a child who is exposed to no guns while growing up is at higher risk for drug use, becoming a criminal, or engaging in violence than the child who was raised with legal guns.

That's in the US. So, in a gun culture where you receive proper socialization, you know what a gun is for, and you don't do stupid things. If you never see a gun growing up, you learn your socialization from the movies, which is stupid. And if you grow up on the rough streets, you're fucked.

It has less to do with the guns and more to do with the socialization. But gun opponents are Never Going To Acknowledge the personal responsibility factor.

As an American currently in high school I think I can vouch for the fact that there are a great deal of truly idiotic youths in America. I can't speak for other nations, but perhaps this has something to do with it? Guns are not the problem, it's the people. So then we arrive at the solution many others have suggested: better education. Ok, I can go along with that. Write us a check and we'll get right on it. In the meantime we need to eliminate drains on the budget, for instance trying to be the world's peacekeepers and (some) social programs here at home, so that we can get rid of some of the current deficit and have money to spend on Americans as it should be.

Did anyone read my response to CanuckHeaven? >_>
Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.What about the other four of five? Surely four deaths is more significant than one. Perhaps it was only one in five because the murderers knew the extra cost of "assault weapons" wouldn't help them in commiting the crimes.
Previously, pistols weren't included in the definition of "assault weapon". After the assault weapon ban was passed, anything - and I mean anything - with a high capacity magazine (more than 10 rounds and removable) was an "assault weapon".It's a lot more complicated than that. Strangely, some of the features that could make something an assault weapon would actually be an inconvenience to a potential criminal; the ban also had no effect on machine guns...You could get a machine gun with all the assault weapon features, but if you converted it into a semiautomatic rifle it would suddenly become illegal!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html
Note that technically, an "assault weapon" is a military-style rifle.Are you thinking of the selective-fire assault rifle?

Regarding the weapons used in crimes:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

It's been proven that if a child is raised in a home where guns are legally owned and used, and the child receives training from the parent in the legal use of the gun, then the socialization received has a positive effect. That child is less likely to use drugs or become a criminal, or engage in violent crime in his lifetime.

For families where a child learns his guns on the street, the risk of drug use, crime, and violence goes way, way up.

Curiously, a child who is exposed to no guns while growing up is at higher risk for drug use, becoming a criminal, or engaging in violence than the child who was raised with legal guns.

That's in the US. So, in a gun culture where you receive proper socialization, you know what a gun is for, and you don't do stupid things. If you never see a gun growing up, you learn your socialization from the movies, which is stupid. And if you grow up on the rough streets, you're fucked.

It has less to do with the guns and more to do with the socialization. But gun opponents are Never Going To Acknowledge the personal responsibility factor.
Have you got any links to back up this gun culture theory?

Well I do think the debating on this subject was on a fairly intelligent level, until now that is. :eek:

So in your definition of high level argument, repeating NYC and florida and the brady bill and the AWB is high level argument? Especially given that the Brady Bill had zero, let me repeat ZERO impact on NY laws? I mean really, how does a 1 minute background check increase control measures in a place that already has a 1 year long full FBI/local police background check where they interview people you know. And even then refuse(despite court orders) to issue permits unless you are politically connected. You must live in some bizarre fairy tale land or you deliberatelychoose to ignore anything that might mean you are wrong.

As to the AWB ban, how is that going to impact a place where you need a special permit to purchase long arms that arent even covered by the AWB ban? You cannot buy a breach loading single shot rifle in NYC without a special permit, forget about a magazine fed SEMI automatic rifle. God(in whom I do not believe) help you if it is an "assault weapon" that might have a folding stock.

High level argument?? You are an idiot who doesnt even know the definitions of the terms or laws you are arguing for or against. How else does someone describe such a person other than calling them a fool or an idiot? Good debater who is conversant on the subject is certainly not the way I would define a person like that.

It is interesting to note, that for the most part, crime rates started to drop around that time. Coincidence? Discussion?
Actually, the decline started in '92-3. Before the Brady bill or that craptastic SAW bill. If I remember correctly at least 9 states legalized concealed-carry on a wide scale in the 90's.


I was wrong.

More RTC states, less crime. The nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and in 2002 hit a 23-year low. In the same period, 17 states adopted and 13 states improved RTC laws. RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

So in your definition of high level argument, repeating NYC and florida and the brady bill and the AWB is high level argument? Especially given that the Brady Bill had zero, let me repeat ZERO impact on NY laws? I mean really, how does a 1 minute background check increase control measures in a place that already has a 1 year long full FBI/local police background check where they interview people you know. And even then refuse(despite court orders) to issue permits unless you are politically connected. You must live in some bizarre fairy tale land or you deliberatelychoose to ignore anything that might mean you are wrong.

As to the AWB ban, how is that going to impact a place where you need a special permit to purchase long arms that arent even covered by the AWB ban? You cannot buy a breach loading single shot rifle in NYC without a special permit, forget about a magazine fed SEMI automatic rifle. God(in whom I do not believe) help you if it is an "assault weapon" that might have a folding stock.

High level argument?? You are an idiot who doesnt even know the definitions of the terms or laws you are arguing for or against. How else does someone describe such a person other than calling them a fool or an idiot? Good debater who is conversant on the subject is certainly not the way I would define a person like that.
Did I say “high level argument”? No I did not. In fact I stated that …”the debating on this subject was on a fairly intelligent level, until now.”, in regards to your poor attempt to insult my intelligence. In a debate (not argument), people present their points of discussion and weigh the relative merits of those points as they pertain to the subject matter.

In a normal debate, hopefully, both sides will learn something from the points that are brought forward. Calling someone an “idiot” tends to diminish any “facts” that you would like to present.

Having said all that, what I hope to gain from all these points of discussion, is a better understanding of the “gun culture” in the US. The country I live in (Canada), had a total of 152 murders in 2002, in which firearms were used. Considering the population of Canada (33,000,000 people), 152 gun related murders is equivalent to .46 gun related murders per 100,000 people. While Canada does have a lot of firearms, we also have very strict gun control laws in place. So far, I do not buy the concept that more guns = less crime.

Not compared to a country without guns you dont.
Without turning america into an extremely strict police state it would be impossible to remove the guns. Just ask Canada about their gun registration debacle. They aren't even confiscating the guns and the initiative's failing. Now take how badly that failed and add the fact that whether the lawmakers pay attention to it or not we do have the 2nd amendment. Also, logistically keeping guns out of America is a much greater problem than in the UK. The UK is an island. There wasn't a preexisting source of guns. Therefore, guns are not a problem. On the other hand america is huge. Keeping gun runners out that would ship to the inevitable black market that would spring up would be nearly impossible with our borders. We have between 4-5 times your population but the size of our country is 3,537,441 square miles vs your 93,000 square miles. Therefore the presence of guns is inevitable. Therefore the question becomes what is the most reliable way to reduce crime where guns are commonly avalaible to the criminals. The answer is to make guns commonly avaliable to the Law-Abiding citizen and allow him to carry. Also, get rid of the War on Drugs as has been noted before in this thread.

Their summary states:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Whoever wrote that summary needs to be taken out back and beaten with a stick. If you cannot find evidence for the effectiveness of something it is by definition ineffective. It may not exacerbate the problem, but it is ineffective in solving the problem.

[quote]Quote:
More RTC states, less crime. The nation`s violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and in 2002 hit a 23-year low. In the same period, 17 states adopted and 13 states improved RTC laws. RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average: 24% lower total violent crime, 22% lower murder, 37% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. The five states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI)

However, it is interesting to note that Florida, which has had a RTC law since 1987, recorded increases in crime:

Total Crime Index:

1987: 1,022,335
1993: 1,142,338

Violent Crime Index:

1987: 123,168
1993: 164,975 (41% increase)

Property:

1987: 899,167
1994: 991,105

Murder:
1987: 1,371
1988: 1,416

Forcible Rape:

1987: 6,032
1997: 7,599 (25.9% increase)

Robbery:

1987: 42,869
1991: 53,083 (23.8% increase)

Aggravated Assault:

1987: 72,896
1993: 107,479 (47% increase)

Where has the RTC law been beneficial here?

This whole debate is stupid. Yes, that's all I have to say

[QUOTE=Armed Bookworms]



However, it is interesting to note that Florida, which has had a RTC law since 1987, recorded increases in crime:


Where has the RTC law been beneficial here?

Let's cherry pick those numbers some more....

Per capita:

Crime index :

?87-8503
?93-8351
-152 before the AWB and brady bill

Property

?87-7478.7
?94-7103

-375

Murder

?87 11.5
?88 11.5

No change while rest of country increased
down to 8.3 by ?94

Robbery

?87-356.6
?94-328.8

Assault

?87-606.3
?00-562.2


Once again WL, since you're arguing that CC laws have not affected crime, what is the harm in letting law-abiding citizens carry?

I find it amazing that people will go to any lengths to protect their "toys", even to the extent of comparing gun control as a "Hitler" type initiative. Incredible.

Since you don't know much on American history beyond what the VPC or HCI tells you:

In 1968, based on the exact translation of Hitler's 1938 Gun Control Act, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-Conn.) pushed into law the 1968 Gun Control Act. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Strom Thurmond (D-SC) helped Dodd pass the bill into law ( http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm)

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi?s from the gun control law.
Gave Nazi?s unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.18

United States Gun Control Act of 1968

Introduced term "sporting purpose"
Exempted government entities from the controls, which applied to law-abiding citizens.
Age restrictions of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition. (The above comparative information was provided to us by the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. It can be read in Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny by Aaron Zelman).19

Unfortunately, this list goes on and includes literally hundreds of restrictions that were undoubtedly taken directly from Hitler?s Weapons Law. One merely has to read the line by line comparison of the USGCA of 1968 and the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938. The actions of Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd and those who support his law must raise serious questions from all survivors of the Holocaust. (To see the exact line by line comparison of the Nazi Weapons Act of March 18, 1938, purchase "Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny" in our Book Section of our Catalogue).

can give you a whole history of these acts if you want though I'm sure you'll just call it biased and post something from the Brady Bunch.

This whole debate is stupid. Yes, that's all I have to say

We should be so lucky.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]

Let's cherry pick those numbers some more....

Per capita:

Crime index :

?87-8503
?93-8351
-152 before the AWB and brady bill

Property

?87-7478.7
?94-7103

-375

Murder

?87 11.5
?88 11.5

No change while rest of country increased
down to 8.3 by ?94

Robbery

?87-356.6
?94-328.8

Assault

?87-606.3
?00-562.2


Once again WL, since you're arguing that CC laws have not affected crime, what is the harm in letting law-abiding citizens carry?
You forgot:

Violent Crime:

1987: 1.024.4
1990: 1,244.3 (21.4% increase)

Perhaps you can explain this chart for me?


Can you explain how most of the highs were reached in 1993/4, and then started to drop off? Could this not be attributed to the Brady Bill enactment and the control of the sale of "assault weapons"?

I'll explain the chart as soon as you explain why their numbers don't match the UCR which they say they cited a report based on it.

Can you explain how/why thier numbers differ from the UCR showing that crime peaked nationwide in '91, three years before AWB or BB?

Could you explain how the Brady bill and the AWB controlled the sale of "assault weapons" as the BB dealt w/ handguns and the AWB only stopped the importation and production of certain types of firearms?

Since you don't know much on American history beyond what the VPC or HCI tells you:

In 1968, based on the exact translation of Hitler's 1938 Gun Control Act, Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-Conn.) pushed into law the 1968 Gun Control Act. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Strom Thurmond (D-SC) helped Dodd pass the bill into law ( http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm)

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi?s from the gun control law.
Gave Nazi?s unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.18

United States Gun Control Act of 1968

Introduced term "sporting purpose"
Exempted government entities from the controls, which applied to law-abiding citizens.
Age restrictions of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition. (The above comparative information was provided to us by the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. It can be read in Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny by Aaron Zelman).19

Unfortunately, this list goes on and includes literally hundreds of restrictions that were undoubtedly taken directly from Hitler?s Weapons Law. One merely has to read the line by line comparison of the USGCA of 1968 and the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938. The actions of Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd and those who support his law must raise serious questions from all survivors of the Holocaust. (To see the exact line by line comparison of the Nazi Weapons Act of March 18, 1938, purchase "Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny" in our Book Section of our Catalogue).

can give you a whole history of these acts if you want though I'm sure you'll just call it biased and post something from the Brady Bunch.
Wow!! You sure tried to make a lot of parallels:

Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny, Hitler, Nazi Weapons Act, Holocaust, Democrats.

So if the Democrats succeed in controlling weapons, then a tryannical gateway will have opened that could lead to a Hitler type regime, replete with a Nazi agenda, that will lead to the persecution of Jews and Holocaust 2.

Do you really think that is the agenda?

Did I say “high level argument”? No I did not. In fact I stated that …”the debating on this subject was on a fairly intelligent level, until now.”, in regards to your poor attempt to insult my intelligence. In a debate (not argument), people present their points of discussion and weigh the relative merits of those points as they pertain to the subject matter.

In a normal debate, hopefully, both sides will learn something from the points that are brought forward. Calling someone an “idiot” tends to diminish any “facts” that you would like to present.

Having said all that, what I hope to gain from all these points of discussion, is a better understanding of the “gun culture” in the US. The country I live in (Canada), had a total of 152 murders in 2002, in which firearms were used. Considering the population of Canada (33,000,000 people), 152 gun related murders is equivalent to .46 gun related murders per 100,000 people. While Canada does have a lot of firearms, we also have very strict gun control laws in place. So far, I do not buy the concept that more guns = less crime.

So now are you sidestepping the fact that NYC and Florida had nothing to do with the points you brought up for the last half dozens pages?

Are you sidestepping that after you were repeatedly told what the assault weapon ban and brady bill did and did not cover you repeatedly brought up NY and florida yet ignored other states/cities that would have invalidated your point?

So now you regress to Canada and the US. Why do you think that there is an equal comparison? Shall I be politically incorrect? What is your black population compared to ours. Why does this this matter? because the UsSs white/hispanic/asian murder/violent crime rate is less than or least on par with Europes's.

Why is this fact important? because a certain fraction of our society feels disenfranchised from the rest and certain leaders(Jesse Jackson ect) make a living encouraging this. You think this is Non PC bullshit..fine whatever. Oh, BTW.. I am not white. But I have never been scared of a white man on the streets while I have been scared and assaulted by a few that werent white.

PC = Bullshit.

You tell a person that no matter how hard he works he wont amount to shit then wtf do you think will become of him

my parents/leaders in my community told me I could achieve whatever I wanted, and if people didnt do something because of my skin color, well then it was their fault and the best way to prove them wrong was by my success, not handouts

BTW: You are the worst type of pathetic person, you will never admit you are wrong, rather you will change the subject. Oh, lets forget NY and Florida, I dont want to compare illinois and NY or Vermont and anywhere. I am right because HCI says I am right. Lets move on to Canada and the US. I dont want to talk about Washington DC or LA.

You pathetic Fuck.

Rational Discourse? why should I bother? you are Canadian and almost by definition you will meekly follow America's lead while bitching about it.

If you could do otherwise, you would, but hey.. you are after all only canadian. So bitch and whine, at the end of the day your opinions are basically not worth more than the air that it takes to express them. You have no economy outsides of exports to the US(our largest trading partner its true) and you have no military..well at all. Havent invented anything..since maple syrup but you guyd are pretty nice people, little defensive when it comes to marlboros but still pretty nice. Especially the road police. Guy actually told me I could rip up the tickets cause I had NY plates.

have fun being a lapdog. because thats what your govt has basically made you. Used to be something, nor you guys are just sock puppets. good job BTW.

Oh, Thanks for your public healthcare. My pops just set up another MRI lab in Buffalo for all the people you guys cant serve in Toronto. Your govt pays full price for them too, thank you again dumbasses. There was a mobile service up there, but appartantly the gvt is so stupid and paid them so little that they shut down so instead they come to us at twice the costs to your govt. Smart, real smart.

Average wait for non critical MRIs in toronto = 6 months
average wait for non critical MRIs in Queens Ny, = I came in on a sunday because the guy called on friday and we were booked up on Saturday(2 yrs ago). paid the tech extra.

gotta love public healthcare.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
You forgot:

Violent Crime:

1987: 1.024.4
1990: 1,244.3 (21.4% increase)

Oops I missed a cherry.

How about

VC: 1990/1994-
1244/1146

Still a drop before the AWB and BB.

Nice how you ignore the rest of the post.

Let's cherry pick some more:

Washington DC crime

'94- 63,186
'95- 67,441

Went up after the AWB. How could that be?

Murder :

'93-78.5
94- 70.0

Dropped before AWB went into effect. How could that be.

'00-41.8
'02- 46.24

It's increasing? with all thier laws to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them?

~~SNIP~~
You pathetic Fuck.
~~SNIP~~

Excellent discussion point? :eek:

Wow!! You sure tried to make a lot of parallels:

Gun Control, Gateway to Tyranny, Hitler, Nazi Weapons Act, Holocaust, Democrats.

So if the Democrats succeed in controlling weapons, then a tryannical gateway will have opened that could lead to a Hitler type regime, replete with a Nazi agenda, that will lead to the persecution of Jews and Holocaust 2.

Do you really think that is the agenda?

This is your most pathetic dodge to date. You called into question the fact that the US 1968 Gun control act was directly based off of the German 1938 act. I show you the evidence. You can't deny the evidence so you try and state that I'm comparing Democrats to Hitler.

Here's a question, why does the Alaska gun crime site and the safecity site differ so much in their numbers yet you've posted both of them as "facts"?

Excellent discussion point? :eek:

While completely ignoring the rest of the post questioning why you're dodging the issues.

This is your most pathetic dodge to date. You called into question the fact that the US 1968 Gun control act was directly based off of the German 1938 act. I show you the evidence. You can't deny the evidence so you try and state that I'm comparing Democrats to Hitler.

Here's a question, why does the Alaska gun crime site and the safecity site differ so much in their numbers yet you've posted both of them as "facts"?

He is an idiot, come to terms with it. Start having fun in arguments with him.

Reason will get you nowhere. He is after all Canadian.

Logic and reason is wasted, only beer and hockey carries weight.

Strange brew was a damn good movie though. Only decent thing Canada has contributed to the world.

well, that and beer and hockey.

but lets not nitpick.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]

Oops I missed a cherry.

How about

VC: 1990/1994-
1244/1146 (8.5% decrease)

Florida: Violent Crime: 1994: 1146, 2000: 812.0 (41.1% decrease)

New York: Violent Crime: 1990: 1,180.9, 1994: 965.6 (22.2% decrease)

New York: Violent Crime: 1994: 965.6, 2000: 553.9 (57.3% decrease)

Still a drop before the AWB and BB.

Nice how you ignore the rest of the post.

Let's cherry pick some more:

Washington DC crime

'94- 63,186
'95- 67,441

Went up after the AWB. How could that be?

Murder :

'93-78.5
94- 70.0

Dropped before AWB went into effect. How could that be.

'00-41.8
'02- 46.24

It's increasing? with all thier laws to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them?
Bolding is mine. Notice the significant drops AFTER AWB and Brady Bill. However, gun controlled New York, fared better than RTC Florida. Why is that?

So far, I do not buy the concept that more guns = less crime.Back to Kennesaw, Georgia...All you said before was:
You would think that this type of action would be against the Constitution of the US. Forcing a householder to have a gun would be a violation of an individuals human rights?
That doesn't address the drop in crime, but the goodness of the law. Where did that huge drop in crime come from?

I am still trying to figure out Washington DC. It is definitely an anomaly, however, it is surrounded by areas that have fairly lax gun laws.

However, we could compare say Louisiana and New Jersey, or Tennessee and New York. The problem is that there are not too many States that are under strict gun control, making other comparisons more difficult.

Excellent discussion point? :eek:

Is that how you avoid the salient points in an otherwise derogotary post?

You do understand that I and possibly others are smart enough to realize that you are basically a monkey by now. Well, monkey isnt the right word sheep is probably better.

Talk all you want, if you come up with a piece of insight maybe my opinion of you will increase but it is unlikely. I am sure you probably throught like you you dont care about my opinion, but..whatever. You have made your cognitive ability available to all.

Oh the joys of the internet....Canadians proving themselves as pathetic as they actually are...day after day.

Do you live in Totonto? cause there is a dim sum place there that I really like.

Back to Kennesaw, Georgia...All you said before was:

That doesn't address the drop in crime, but the goodness of the law. Where did that huge drop in crime come from?
You are talking about a town of 23,000 people. How much crime do you get in your small towns down there?

I am still trying to figure out Washington DC. It is definitely an anomaly, however, it is surrounded by areas that have fairly lax gun laws.

However, we could compare say Louisiana and New Jersey, or Tennessee and New York. The problem is that there are not too many States that are under strict gun control, making other comparisons more difficult.

How about because your analysis is flawed. You do realize that New Jersey does not even require than you register your handguns? When I briefly moved there I called up the police because I was unsure, they informed me that there was a voluntary registration program but the police officer actually told me that he "didnt recomend it" I told him I had just come from florida and I wanted to make sure I was legal. He said no problems, I could even go to the range ect.

why dont you figure out your facts before posting, or are you too dense? You havent gotten one state law correct yet

This is your most pathetic dodge to date. You called into question the fact that the US 1968 Gun control act was directly based off of the German 1938 act. I show you the evidence. You can't deny the evidence so you try and state that I'm comparing Democrats to Hitler.

Here's a question, why does the Alaska gun crime site and the safecity site differ so much in their numbers yet you've posted both of them as "facts"?
Then, may I ask, why did you try to draw those parallels between Nazi Germany and gun control in the US?

As far as the Alaska gun crime site is concerned, those numbers are fairly close together. As far as the safe city site is concerned, do the other numbers jive or is it that Washington numbers were inaccurate. I throw those out for discussion, and if they are wrong then I won't use them if I think they are wrong. I have stuck fairly close to the FBI crime stats as best as possible.

You are talking about a town of 23,000 people. How much crime do you get in your small towns down there?Well, the year before the gun ordnance was passed (1981) there were 5,242 people in the town, 54 burglaries, and 228 "Part 1" crimes. The year the ordnance passed (1982) the population was up to 5,308 (+1%), but burglaries were down 35% to 35 and Part 1 crimes down 27% to 165. In 1998 the population was 19,000 (+275% compared to 1981), there were 36 burglaries (down 33%), and 227 Part 1 crimes (one fewer than in 1981). The rate of burglaries was down from one per 97 residents in 1981 to one per 152 residents in 1982, and by 1998 it was down to one per 528. Part 1 crimes went from one per 23 to one per 32 to one per 84.

Okay, I listed some of the crime rates. What caused that change?

.

Cannuck, I have fallen in love with you. If you were a woman I would make you my wife!

I don't have another 4 hours to read this whole thread, but you are all of intelligent, informed, and polite. And patient.

Here's a thought...why would forcing someone to register their gun promote violent crime? Why would making sure someone is not a felon promote violent crime? What is their basic theory anyway? Where in the US is it absolutely illegal to own a gun, making the store keeper unable to brandish it? What the hell are they talking about?

That 2.5 million figure of vrime prevention is preposterous. How could it possibly be counted?? How many times has the brandished weapon been taken and used in one of the 11k gun murders each year?

Once again, I love you!

Cannuck, I have fallen in love with you. If you were a woman I would make you my wife!

I don't have another 4 hours to read this whole thread, but you are all of intelligent, informed, and polite. And patient.

Here's a thought...why would forcing someone to register their gun promote violent crime? Why would making sure someone is not a felon promote violent crime? What is their basic theory anyway? Where in the US is it absolutely illegal to own a gun, making the store keeper unable to brandish it? What the hell are they talking about?

That 2.5 million figure of vrime prevention is preposterous. How could it possibly be counted?? How many times has the brandished weapon been taken and used in one of the 11k gun murders each year?

Once again, I love you!
You raise very interesting questions and to be honest with you, I think they are having a difficult time defending their positions.

The county by county comparison just does not cut it, and the RTC States do not have very good stats to back their argument. NYC used to be one of the most dangerous cities in North America, and now it is one of the safest.

For the most part, the southern RTC States have the worst Violent Crime Rates (rape, murder, and aggravated assault). Gun control is the answer but good luck asking these guys to make the world a little safer and kinder.

Brotherly love!! :cool:

Well, the year before the gun ordnance was passed (1981) there were 5,242 people in the town, 54 burglaries, and 228 "Part 1" crimes. The year the ordnance passed (1982) the population was up to 5,308 (+1%), but burglaries were down 35% to 35 and Part 1 crimes down 27% to 165. In 1998 the population was 19,000 (+275% compared to 1981), there were 36 burglaries (down 33%), and 227 Part 1 crimes (one fewer than in 1981). The rate of burglaries was down from one per 97 residents in 1981 to one per 152 residents in 1982, and by 1998 it was down to one per 528. Part 1 crimes went from one per 23 to one per 32 to one per 84.

Okay, I listed some of the crime rates. What caused that change?
All the criminals do their shopping in nearby towns now?

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
Bolding is mine. Notice the significant drops AFTER AWB and Brady Bill. However, gun controlled New York, fared better than RTC Florida. Why is that?

Notice the numbers you bolded for NY were NOT for violent crime.

It's already been shown that the BB and AWB did not affect NY because of their already strict gun control and was attributed to other factors like going after criminals. New York still had crime comparable to florida and yet Florida still had a significant decrease.

I am still trying to figure out Washington DC. It is definitely an anomaly, however, it is surrounded by areas that have fairly lax gun laws.



Chicago, Detroit, LA to name a few. Are they all "anomolies"?

Please explain:

Also in the year 2000 New York had 5.0 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 23rd highest rate for Murder. New York’s 18.6 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 48th highest. The state also had 316.7 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 20th highest position for this crime among the states.

Also in the year 2000 New Jersey had 3.4 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 30th highest rate for Murder. New Jersey’s 16.1 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 50th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, New Jersey’s rate was 161.1 which ranked the state as having the 11th highest for Robbery. The state also had 203.2 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 35th highest position for this crime among the states.

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. Louisiana’s 33.5 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 21st highest. The state also had 466.6 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 6th highest position for this crime among the states.

Also in the year 2000 Florida had 5.6 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 21st highest rate for Murder. Florida’s 44.2 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 7th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Florida’s rate was 199.0 which ranked the state as having the 5th highest for Robbery. The state also had 563.2 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 2nd highest position for this crime among the states.

How about Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, etc????

Then, may I ask, why did you try to draw those parallels between Nazi Germany and gun control in the US?

As far as the Alaska gun crime site is concerned, those numbers are fairly close together. As far as the safe city site is concerned, do the other numbers jive or is it that Washington numbers were inaccurate. I throw those out for discussion, and if they are wrong then I won't use them if I think they are wrong. I have stuck fairly close to the FBI crime stats as best as possible.

Did you even look at the website that was from? Don't you think they would naturally be concerned w/ a law that was directly translated from a law used to wipe out millions of them?

Fairly close together? anywhere from several off to thousands.

I checked almost a dozen cities on the safecity site and thier numbers varied considerably. None were accurate.

You've cherry picked whatever numbers you felt would support your arguement and presented them as facts:

Brady Center numbers-
"Show me the money!! Refute these facts!!"

I did.

Biased college paper-
"See what happens when you DON'T ban guns:"

Only cited Brady & pals.

That was shown as incorrect.

America's Best and Worst Cities for Crime-
BTW, how do Florida cities stack up in this list:
Obviously not too well? They are way down the list.

Numbers were mostly wrong and/or made up.

"Can you explain how most of the highs were reached in 1993/4, and then started to drop off? "

Wrong. National levels decreased starting in '91.

"However, it is interesting to note that Florida, which has had a RTC law since 1987, recorded increases in crime:"

By cherry picking certain numbers at certain dates.

These are the "facts' youve been presenting and not in a way to promote 'discussion" but to skew the data to your opinion.

All the criminals do their shopping in nearby towns now?By "shopping" do you mean "burgling" and other crimes? If so, do you mean high gun ownership diverts crime to nearby towns on this scale but will be harmful on a larger scale?

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]

Notice the numbers you bolded for NY were NOT for violent crime.

It's already been shown that the BB and AWB did not affect NY because of their already strict gun control and was attributed to other factors like going after criminals. New York still had crime comparable to florida and yet Florida still had a significant decrease.
I went back and fixed the numbers. Sorry about that. Still significant reductions to say the least.

By "shopping" do you mean "burgling" and other crimes? If so, do you mean high gun ownership diverts crime to nearby towns on this scale but will be harmful on a larger scale?
Perhaps on a small scale? However, if everyone had guns, people are going to take what they want and the murder rates/injury rates would probably increase greatly. But since both your question and my answer are hypothetical, we don't know what the true answer is?

Cannuck, I have fallen in love with you. If you were a woman I would make you my wife!

I don't have another 4 hours to read this whole thread, but you are all of intelligent, informed, and polite. And patient.

Here's a thought...why would forcing someone to register their gun promote violent crime? Why would making sure someone is not a felon promote violent crime? What is their basic theory anyway? Where in the US is it absolutely illegal to own a gun, making the store keeper unable to brandish it? What the hell are they talking about?

That 2.5 million figure of vrime prevention is preposterous. How could it possibly be counted?? How many times has the brandished weapon been taken and used in one of the 11k gun murders each year?

Once again, I love you!


Sorry to interrupt your love fest but:

1.forcing someone to register their gun promote violent crime? Always leads to ending registration thereby a defacto gun ban on Law-Abiding Citizens, which, unless criminals are prosecuted more, prevents many people from defending themselves.

2. Why would making sure someone is not a felon promote violent crime? Who argued this? Gun advocates normally support the NICS. Do you maybe mean the fabled "gun show loophole" which is presented to effectively close down gunshows and decrease the industry?

3. Where in the US is it absolutely illegal to own a gun, making the store keeper unable to brandish it? DC, Chicago, Detroit, MA, and most places in CA it is illegal to own most types of firearms or to use them in defense.

4.How could it possibly be counted?? This has already been shown multiple times. It's been peer reviewed and accepted except by groups like HCI.

5. How many times has the brandished weapon been taken and used in one of the 11k gun murders each year? Effectively never.

Sorry to interrupt your love fest but:

1.forcing someone to register their gun promote violent crime? Always leads to ending registration thereby a defacto gun ban on Law-Abiding Citizens, which, unless criminals are prosecuted more, prevents many people from defending themselves.

2. Why would making sure someone is not a felon promote violent crime? Who argued this? Gun advocates normally support the NICS. Do you maybe mean the fabled "gun show loophole" which is presented to effectively close down gunshows and decrease the industry?

3. Where in the US is it absolutely illegal to own a gun, making the store keeper unable to brandish it? DC, Chicago, Detroit, MA, and most places in CA it is illegal to own most types of firearms or to use them in defense.

4.How could it possibly be counted?? This has already been shown multiple times. It's been peer reviewed and accepted except by groups like HCI.

5. How many times has the brandished weapon been taken and used in one of the 11k gun murders each year? Effectively never.

I don't want to lower the level here much, but have to say you're full of it.

I've worked with cops before, and heard many stories about people being shot with their own weapons. It happens all the time. All the cops that have ever expressed an opinion to me about private gun ownership, have been against it. They KNOW that most gun owners aren't sufficiently trained with their weapons. (Of course, you'd be against laws that require training.)

It's ridiculous to think you can count the number of people that brandish weapons and prevent crime. Gun-nuts would report an incident every week of their life. Show me 2.5 million video tapes - I've got the time to watch them.

NOWHERE in the US is it absoultely illegal to own a gun. Who cares if a 17-clip semi-automatic with a long barell and a scope is outlawed in Chicago? For every outlawed firearm, there are 10 more that are still legal.

And the first two are your basic argument to start this thing. That all these horrid gun laws have prevented people from doing things like brandishing a weapon. What a load. Of course they haven't. After all, 2.5 million people brandish these weapons to prevent crimes every year! Trust me, I counted them all!

I don't mean to be a hater, but anyone who thinks that more dangerous weapons is the way to prevent crime with dangerous weapons is a dangerous weapon! Please, you can keep your guns, just let me regulate them at least as much as we do cars.

Please explain:

Also in the year 2000 New York

Also in the year 2000 New Jersey had

Also in the year 2000 Louisiana

Also in the year 2000[B] Florida
How about Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, etc????

New Jersey has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country and it had the best scores of the four.

Louisiana didn't get RTC until '96 and had a nearly 30% drop by '00"

As for the others: they didn't get RTC until the late '90's early '00s

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=125


What about Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, & NH? All RTC states.

Sorry to interrupt your love fest but:

1.forcing someone to register their gun promote violent crime? Always leads to ending registration thereby a defacto gun ban on Law-Abiding Citizens, which, unless criminals are prosecuted more, prevents many people from defending themselves.

2. Why would making sure someone is not a felon promote violent crime? Who argued this? Gun advocates normally support the NICS. Do you maybe mean the fabled "gun show loophole" which is presented to effectively close down gunshows and decrease the industry?

3. Where in the US is it absolutely illegal to own a gun, making the store keeper unable to brandish it? DC, Chicago, Detroit, MA, and most places in CA it is illegal to own most types of firearms or to use them in defense.

4.How could it possibly be counted?? This has already been shown multiple times. It's been peer reviewed and accepted except by groups like HCI.

5. How many times has the brandished weapon been taken and used in one of the 11k gun murders each year? Effectively never.

Hey - what do you mean about the "fabled" gun show loophole? I remember a bill that was shot down trying to force background checks at gun shows - can't you just walk in and buy a gun, or am I missing something??

I don't want to lower the level here much, but have to say you're full of it.

I've worked with cops before, and heard many stories about people being shot with their own weapons. It happens all the time. All the cops that have ever expressed an opinion to me about private gun ownership, have been against it. They KNOW that most gun owners aren't sufficiently trained with their weapons. (Of course, you'd be against laws that require training.)

It's ridiculous to think you can count the number of people that brandish weapons and prevent crime. Gun-nuts would report an incident every week of their life. Show me 2.5 million video tapes - I've got the time to watch them.

NOWHERE in the US is it absoultely illegal to own a gun. Who cares if a 17-clip semi-automatic with a long barell and a scope is outlawed in Chicago? For every outlawed firearm, there are 10 more that are still legal.

And the first two are your basic argument to start this thing. That all these horrid gun laws have prevented people from doing things like brandishing a weapon. What a load. Of course they haven't. After all, 2.5 million people brandish these weapons to prevent crimes every year! Trust me, I counted them all!

I don't mean to be a hater, but anyone who thinks that more dangerous weapons is the way to prevent crime with dangerous weapons is a dangerous weapon! Please, you can keep your guns, just let me regulate them at least as much as we do cars.

"but have to say you're full of it." There's a good arguement.

You've "talked to cops"? They "know" most gun owners aren't trained? It happens all the time?OK, sure. Source it.

Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, "From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems in the community from people arming themselves with concealed weapons.

Most gun owners train on their firearms considerably more than the police and are more accurate shots.

I'm against training? Nice to assume. I strongly support gun safety courses as long as they are not used as an excuse to prevent LAC's from realistically obtaining them.

You apparently don't know Chicago's laws.

You can denounce the Gleck study all you want. It still doesn't make you right.

Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck found, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, 1997) Kleck and Marc Gertz found that firearms are used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.) The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" who would "eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police," said, "The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it....I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology." ("A Tribute to a View That I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.) A study for the Dept. of Justice found that 34% of felons had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim," and 40% of felons have not committed crimes, fearing potential victims were armed. (J. Wright and P. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, 1986.)

You regulate guns in your home all you want. I'll keep mine. I'ld also like you to show me where there is a Constitutional right to cars.

Hey - what do you mean about the "fabled" gun show loophole? I remember a bill that was shot down trying to force background checks at gun shows - can't you just walk in and buy a gun, or amI missing something??

No, you still have to follow all local/state/federal laws and the federal dealers already perform the NICS. If you illegally buy/sell one by providing false information, you are committing a crime. According to the Gov't, less than 1% of all guns used in crimes are acquired from these shows.

The "loophole" laws are an attempt by the gun-banners to make transactions so difficult for anybody at the shows as to shut them down.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780543236&path=%21editorials&s=1045855934983

You raise very interesting questions and to be honest with you, I think they are having a difficult time defending their positions.

The county by county comparison just does not cut it, and the RTC States do not have very good stats to back their argument. NYC used to be one of the most dangerous cities in North America, and now it is one of the safest.

For the most part, the southern RTC States have the worst Violent Crime Rates (rape, murder, and aggravated assault). Gun control is the answer but good luck asking these guys to make the world a little safer and kinder.

Brotherly love!! :cool:

You seem to be the one that's ignoring the posts showing you wrong.

You've only been looking at the places/stats you want and have ignored the rest (NE RTC states). Washington DC was on it's way to decreasing crime then became THE most dangerous city in NA and is getting worse, opposite of National trends.

Crime control is the answer but good luck trying to make the world a little safer and kinder.

However, if everyone had guns, people are going to take what they want and the murder rates/injury rates would probably increase greatly.

Everyone as in more LAC's or are you trying to argue that people supporting gun rights want to give guns to criminals?

It's apparently ok for you to slippery slope w/ the 'cowboy shootout' arguement but you throw a fit when registration is connected to confiscation.

You raise very interesting questions and to be honest with you, I think they are having a difficult time defending their positions.

The county by county comparison just does not cut it, and the RTC States do not have very good stats to back their argument. NYC used to be one of the most dangerous cities in North America, and now it is one of the safest.

For the most part, the southern RTC States have the worst Violent Crime Rates (rape, murder, and aggravated assault). Gun control is the answer but good luck asking these guys to make the world a little safer and kinder.

Brotherly love!! :cool:

I guess that's why NO ONE has been able to contest the Kleck study results.

Your argument about NYC doesn't cut it, either. Same laws over time, and the crime is still many times higher than pro-gun regions. Many times.

You don't have any effect at all for 30 years - the murder just kept going and going - and now because it's dropped, you suddenly claim an effect for 30-year old laws.

I have (and Kleck has incontrivertible evidence) that our laws loosening concealed carry reduce crime - within a year's time - and for a lasting effect.

No one has been able to find a single crack in the county by county comparison across the US - over 3,000 counties - and you say it's not valid? Are you more qualified than the nation's most respected anti-gun researcher who did the peer review?

I think not.

This may have been said already, but in Canada, we haven't banned guns. We simply introduced the gun registry, which is/was completely useless. For one thing, why would a criminal register his gun in accordance with the law? He's a criminal.

This may have been said already, but in Canada, we haven't banned guns. We simply introduced the gun registry, which is/was completely useless. For one thing, why would a criminal register his gun in accordance with the law? He's a criminal.

CanuckHeaven seems to think that every Canadian has already registered their guns.

Despite the fact that several provinces absolutely refuse to enforce any of the provisions of registration, due to the fact that the Federal government didn't allocate enough money to do the registration.

Over a billion dollars short, IIRC.

CanuckHeaven seems to think that every Canadian has already registered their guns.
Show me where I have stated this. I know some Canadians still refuse to obey the law regarding registration.

Despite the fact that several provinces absolutely refuse to enforce any of the provisions of registration, due to the fact that the Federal government didn't allocate enough money to do the registration.

Over a billion dollars short, IIRC.
Could you point me to a link that supports your claim that "several provinces absolutely refuse to enforce any of the provisions of registration", which would in itself be a violation of Federal law.

For the most part, the southern RTC States have the worst Violent Crime Rates (rape, murder, and aggravated assault). Gun control is the answer but good luck asking these guys to make the world a little safer and kinder.
According to that logic Vermont should have the greatest amount of crime in the country. Other than federal regs there are NO gun laws. It has one of if not the lowest crime rates in the country. Chicago, L.A., and D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws on the books and are the most violent areas. Crime is societal in nature. What one must do to stop crime is to either remove the gangs or completely change the way they work. The quickest way to do this would be firstly to stop the stupid war on drugs. That is the first major step. Remove the source of revenue for the outside drug cartels and one of the biggest reasons for many of the gangs' existence ceases to be.

NOWHERE in the US is it absoultely illegal to own a gun. Who cares if a 17-clip semi-automatic with a long barell and a scope is outlawed in Chicago? For every outlawed firearm, there are 10 more that are still legal.

Erm.. Do you live in or near Chicago? I do, and guns in chicago are almost completely outlawed, unless you are Donald Trump and/or have licensed bodyguards, which are allowed to carry fully automatic weapons. You can get shotguns and stuff for home defense, but handguns are nigh impossible to get and there is no right to carry. Guns are completely banned in DC unless you rate licensed bodyguards. L.A. is a little bit stricter than chicago, I think.

Hey - what do you mean about the "fabled" gun show loophole? I remember a bill that was shot down trying to force background checks at gun shows - can't you just walk in and buy a gun, or am I missing something??

You are missing something.

Every FFL dealer must perform a background check for every gun sale regardless of whether or not he is in a gun show.

What you are thinking about is private individuals buying or selling guns to each other, in which case a background check is NOT required regardless of whether or not they are in a gun show.

So where is the loophole? Dealers always have to perform a background check and private individuals never have to.

Now, you will probably quote HCI or someone who says that most sales at gun shows are by non licensed people. While this is true, what they are not telling you is that most things bought and sold at gun shows are not guns, or even related to guns. I am not even sure why gun shows are called "GUN" shows. General merchandise would be a more appropriate term. You would know all this if you have ever been to a gun show.

But since both your question and my answer are hypothetical, we don't know what the true answer is?I was asking what you thought about something that started in 1982.
For one thing, why would a criminal register his gun in accordance with the law? He's a criminal.Well, I think someone who isn't yet a criminal and owns a gun might think twice about that murder if his gun is registered, but I really don't know...Would your average future murderer illegally buy himself an extra gun, or would he not care enough after he's brought back to reality for a moment? And would he realize the police might be able to track him down, or just go kill someone?

According to that logic Vermont should have the greatest amount of crime in the country. Other than federal regs there are NO gun laws. It has one of if not the lowest crime rates in the country. Chicago, L.A., and D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws on the books and are the most violent areas. Crime is societal in nature. What one must do to stop crime is to either remove the gangs or completely change the way they work. The quickest way to do this would be firstly to stop the stupid war on drugs. That is the first major step. Remove the source of revenue for the outside drug cartels and one of the biggest reasons for many of the gangs' existence ceases to be.
According to that logic Vermont should have the greatest amount of crime in the country. Other than federal regs there are NO gun laws. It has one of if not the lowest crime rates in the country. Chicago, L.A., and D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws on the books and are the most violent areas. Crime is societal in nature. What one must do to stop crime is to either remove the gangs or completely change the way they work. The quickest way to do this would be firstly to stop the stupid war on drugs. That is the first major step. Remove the source of revenue for the outside drug cartels and one of the biggest reasons for many of the gangs' existence ceases to be.

In the year 2000 Rhode Island had an estimated population of 1,048,319 which ranked the state 43rd in population. For that year the State of Rhode Island had a total Crime Index of 3,476.4 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 33rd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Rhode Island had a reported incident rate of 297.7 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 35th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

Let's see now....43rd in population (608,827), yet they had a Violent Crime Index (35th highest) that is equal to a State the size of Utah with a population of 2,233,169, which is approximately 3.67 times the population.

So I don't know if Vermont would bode well for your argument, seeing that the Violent Crime Index is much higher than it should be for its relative size.

Especially interesting, considering the following:

In 1990 Vermont was the most rural state in the nation. More than two-thirds (67.8%) of the Vermont's population was rural according to the census taken in 1990. The Census Bureau defines a place as rural if it has fewer than 2,500 people living there. Vermont also has the smallest population of all the New England states.

Not a glowing example of RTC again?

Man, that is kinda wrong... I know that i live in a country where owning weapons is not a civil right and the crime rate here is very low. Especialy violent ones.

In the year 2000 Rhode Island had an estimated population of 1,048,319 which ranked the state 43rd in population. For that year the State of Rhode Island had a total Crime Index of 3,476.4 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 33rd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Rhode Island had a reported incident rate of 297.7 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 35th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

Let's see now....43rd in population (608,827), yet they had a Violent Crime Index (35th highest) that is equal to a State the size of Utah with a population of 2,233,169, which is approximately 3.67 times the population.

So I don't know if Vermont would bode well for your argument, seeing that the Violent Crime Index is much higher than it should be for its relative size.

Especially interesting, considering the following:

In 1990 Vermont was the most rural state in the nation. More than two-thirds (67.8%) of the Vermont's population was rural according to the census taken in 1990. The Census Bureau defines a place as rural if it has fewer than 2,500 people living there. Vermont also has the smallest population of all the New England states.

Not a glowing example of RTC again?

a) we are talking about VERMONT not Rhode Island.

While NY and Vermont have roughly the same number of crimes as each other(3099.6NY vs 2986.9VT per capita 2000 data), Vermont has 113.5 VIOLENT crimes per 100,000 while NY has 553.9 VIOLENT crimes per 100,000(thats 5 TIMES more violent crime in NY) . Vermont has more property crime per capita, and that makes sense because criminals who fear an armed victim (assuming they wish to continue a life of crime) will switch to crimes where there is less interaction with a victim e.g. robbing a house when no one is home.

Vermont has roughy 1/5th the violent crime as NY and 12% more property crime .... per capita.


b) Why are you looking at total crime? Why do you continually choose to look at TOTAL crime?

Is a gun going to stop a robber from burglarizing a home when no one is there? Or will a gun stop someone from stealing a car? Carjacking maybe but not vehicle theft off the streets. It makes no sense to talk about TOTAL crime because criminals can switch between violent and property depending on the risks and rewards. I believe you are smart enough to understand this distinction, so I can only assume that you Willfully ignore it

c) looking a little closer at RI(Rhode Island)
RI has 12% more crime than NY, YET has only 50% of the violent crime that NY does. I just checked RIs gun laws, they dont have any except a permit if you want to carry concealed. I bet its probably a "Shall issue " state too.

d) Why you dismiss county by county analysis is beyond me. Lets look at a state like NY. NYC with a large amount of the states population has draconian gun laws. But the other parts of the state have far less stringent gun laws. There is more to NY than just NYC.

So, a reasonable person would normally want to see where the crimes are taking place and what the gun laws are in that particular area. Why is that you do not want to see such information? Is it because you are afraid that the lack of crime in the more gun friendly parts of NY are offsetting the crime in the more gun unfriendly parts? A state by state comparison would hide this, but it would show up in a county by county comparison.

e) There is more to crime than just guns or the lack thereof. Many factors need to be accounted for which you simply cannot do by looking at only the raw number of crimes committed per capita. But you dismiss the studies that take these factors into account. Surely the number of police per capita and average prison sentances and conviction rates, the economy ect. have an impact on crime, so why do you dismiss the studies that take these things into account and champion information that does not?


edit
PLEASE IGNORE
I just checked out Miami, FL vs New York City,NY (2002 data) and guess what, NYC has almost DOUBLE the violent crime rate and 58% more murders per capita. Miami allows all guns(easy to get a concealed carry) while NY doesnt allow any.
END IGNORE

Wow, what answer do you have for any of this?

Will you even answer? I doubt it because people like you tend to ignore information if it doesnt correspond with your preconcieved notions.


edit 2: Ignore the Miami vs NYC info because I read the wrong damn column and Miami is in fact much more dangerous than NY

Let's see now....43rd in population (608,827), yet they had a Violent Crime Index (35th highest) that is equal to a State the size of Utah with a population of 2,233,169, which is approximately 3.67 times the population.



What exactly is the logic behind using an index that is already adjusted for population size then using it to compare the state to another of larger population?

1) You are either arguing that population(not population DENSITY) but simple population has an impact on crimes per capita(you do understand what that means I hope). The index is already population weighted and you go on comparing to a state with a larger population. Why?

Or

2) You had an off moment and didnt realize the comparision you were making.

Or

3) You really lack any sort of usefull cognitative ability.

I am willing to bet it wass the second reason, but given your inability to deal with simple information that contradicts your views, WHO KNOWS. Maybe you are missing a couple of tools from the tool chest.

BTW, if you are in fact making the argument in case 1, do you have any idea how poorly Canada would rank against the US? We have I think 10x your population. We have(I am guessing) far less than 10x your per capita crime rate. See how foolish case 1 would be, or are you still missing it?

edit:

By the way, you are using RI crime index with Vermont's population. dont know the logistics of how someone could mess that up given that the info is on separate web pages, but hey you managed to find a way and coincidently it would have enhanced your point(if your underlying point had actually made any sense).

RI has 1,048,319 people as of 2000 Vt only had 608,827

edit 2:

As far as rankings go, do you have any information regarding the gun laws in states that had more favourable crime rankings? I mean if they all freely allowed guns, what sense would your point make?
e.g.
Gun cause crime as can be clearly demonstrated because state A which allows guns has more crimes than state B which also allows guns. Are you getting an idea of how foolish it is to make the claim you did without knowing if the other states allowed guns or not?