NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Wow, what answer do you have for any of this?
I would love to see your source for this, because you are, pardon the pun, dead wrong.

I would love to see your source for this, because you are, pardon the pun, dead wrong.

You know what, I just checked the link and you are correct.

I read the national average one instead of miami florida

here is the link

http://www.bestplaces.net/crime/crime.aspx?Lcity=3651000&Rcity=1245000&=

You win that point, Miami is more than double as dangerous as NY

You still havent addressed my other points though. Do you care to?

Edit.

I made many more points than just NYC and Miami. Yet that was the only one you chose to respond to. As soon as you pointed out the error I corrected myself, I will say once again, do you plan on responding to the rest of the posts?

well, since CanuckHeaven has once again shown his penchant for not responding to posts that contradict him, I guess I will have to bumb this thread on the vague hope he will show some self respect by answering.

bump

After the abuse that you gave in a previous post I'm amazed he's botherig to respond to you at all

After the abuse that you gave in a previous post I'm amazed he's botherig to respond to you at allI haven't abused him, though!

I haven't abused him, though!

But I have.

Admittedly not entirely deserved either.

However, his logic is in my opinion extremely flawed and he repeatedly refuses to justify it.

Agreed Isanyonehome, but at least you can admit it was too much :fluffle:

But I have.I noticed, but I'm finding a notable amount of what I write unaswered, too. (Or am I missing the point?)

its the black people's fault.

because everyone knows black people are mean.

I noticed, but I'm finding a notable amount of what I write unaswered, too.

Yes, so have others with regards to this debate.

CanuckHeaven has chosen to ignore posts that he cannot fit into his version of reality rather than expand his version of reality.

This type of thinking is, in my limitted understanding, common of most people on the other side of the gun debate. The image of a gun is very strong in most cultures(perhaps from movies) where tough guys(good and bad) brandish and fire weapons. Many people do not care to think a little deeper.

They refuse to acknowledge that a 100 pound seniour citizen cannot defend themself against a 200 pound 20 yr old by beating them with their fists.

They dont understand that criminals are mostly rational and do not look for a fair fight, they look to find the weakest members in situations where the police will not be able to respond in time. You have to be a real dumass to commit a crime in front of a police officer.

They also refuse to believe that some people are just " bad". and that the only defense against them is to have more force. If that force is a baseball bat.. great. But my grandparents are too frail to wield baseball bats, yet they still deserve the same rights to safety and defense that a young heathy strong person does.

its the black people's fault.

because everyone knows black people are mean.

Dude, thats just fucked up.

You do realize that there is a huge differance between African Americans and Africans. Its got(in my opinion) nothing to do with race or genetics, but more so with culture. In America, there is a whole industry(A la Jesse Jackson) that thrives on exploiting American Blacks. African Americans that have come to America recently have the same rates of crime that white/hispanic/asian/every other fucking group do.

So explain me this.. A guy comes from South Africa, cant speak a word of english but has a higher chance of suceeding that a black guy that grows up here.

Okay, I pulled that stat out of my ass(and an article in the NYT years ago) but it seems true on the surface. Anyone gonna dispute it and actually make me look up stuff(I am old enough to remember having to go to the library to do that unlike now).

Yes, so have others with regards to this debate.

CanuckHeaven has chosen to ignore posts that he cannot fit into his version of reality rather than expand his version of reality.

This type of thinking is, in my limitted understanding, common of most people on the other side of the gun debate. The image of a gun is very strong in most cultures(perhaps from movies) where tough guys(good and bad) brandish and fire weapons. Many people do not care to think a little deeper.

They refuse to acknowledge that a 100 pound seniour citizen cannot defend themself against a 200 pound 20 yr old by beating them with their fists.

They dont understand that criminals are mostly rational and do not look for a fair fight, they look to find the weakest members in situations where the police will not be able to respond in time. You have to be a real dumass to commit a crime in front of a police officer.

They also refuse to believe that some people are just " bad". and that the only defense against them is to have more force. If that force is a baseball bat.. great. But my grandparents are too frail to wield baseball bats, yet they still deserve the same rights to safety and defense that a young heathy strong person does.

I'm very pro gun control, so I figure this is a good time to stop dicking around and hop on in.

1) a 100 pound person as frail as you describe would find it very difficult to use a gun; couldn't the recoil practically break the wrist of someone so 'frail?'

2) whether you're carrying a gun or not, the best defence against a mugger is to give them your money and present as small a threat as possible. then tell the cops. yeah, pretty pussy, but the chances of your being able to observe your spleen from the third person are drastically decreased. if you were at all smart in the first place, you won't have lost more than one or two hundred dollars.

3) if you're really incredibly frail, you should be bright enough to know that walking down dark alleys is a bad idea.

sorry to start out my arguments on such a dick note like 'if you guys were smarter you wouldn't have these problems,' but its a friday night and i'm at home sick. much bitterness.

Dude, thats just fucked up.

You do realize that there is a huge differance between African Americans and Africans. Its got(in my opinion) nothing to do with race or genetics, but more so with culture. In America, there is a whole industry(A la Jesse Jackson) that thrives on exploiting American Blacks. African Americans that have come to America recently have the same rates of crime that white/hispanic/asian/every other fucking group do.

So explain me this.. A guy comes from South Africa, cant speak a word of english but has a higher chance of suceeding that a black guy that grows up here.

Okay, I pulled that stat out of my ass(and an article in the NYT years ago) but it seems true on the surface. Anyone gonna dispute it and actually make me look up stuff(I am old enough to remember having to go to the library to do that unlike now).

i don't wanna put a stop to your fun, but, uh... it was sarcasm?

like, humor, yo.

1) a 100 pound person as frail as you describe would find it very difficult to use a gun; couldn't the recoil practically break the wrist of someone so 'frail?'

The recoil of a handgun depends on the size of the round. A .22 caliber handgun has almost no recoil because the round is so small. In contrast, a .50 caliber (Desert Eagle is probably the best example) handgun will break the wrist of a big strong guy if he doesn't know how to handle it.

If a 100lb senior citizen were using a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, then they probably wouldn't have too great a problem, since a 9mm's recoil isn't that bad. However, I wouldn't suggest using a .45 or .44 caliber handgun if I was a 100lb senior citizen, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some hard-as-nails types who can and do.

I'm very pro gun control, so I figure this is a good time to stop dicking around and hop on in.

1) a 100 pound person as frail as you describe would find it very difficult to use a gun; couldn't the recoil practically break the wrist of someone so 'frail?'

1) no. as pro gun as you are, I guess you must have limitted experience with many modern firarms. Break someones wrist from recoil??? Have you every fired a firearm? Certainly no handgun is capable of doing this(though I have heard of some subcompact 40's that are a little "difficult" to fire. ut if you want a subcompact, why get it in 40? my 32 carry is perfect even though it doesnt have sights and I would never dream of using it beyond point blank. On the other hand, if I wore suits more often I woul have no problem carry my 45 cause while its longer, its also slimmer.. and well balanced to boot.



2) whether you're carrying a gun or not, the best defence against a mugger is to give them your money and present as small a threat as possible. then tell the cops. yeah, pretty pussy, but the chances of your being able to observe your spleen from the third person are drastically decreased. if you were at all smart in the first place, you won't have lost more than one or two hundred dollars.

No one really thinks its better to draw down vs giving up money/property. But what is better is that if the situation is gonna escalate, it is better than the law abiding citizen gets to decide how far it will go VS the criminal deciding.


3) if you're really incredibly frail, you should be bright enough to know that walking down dark alleys is a bad idea.


Okay, how about living at home. Are old and frail people not allowed that right? Should old people not be able to live in their own house? Do they not deserve the same rights as you or I? Because criminals target old people often. Why? Because they are weak and the crook will probably get away with it.

How about a young person who is not physically fit? Do they deserve no rights? Is it only strong able types who have rights?

Hey, I am all for FORCED evoltion. But I am conservative and I dont think libs want to jump on the same boat as me.

i don't wanna put a stop to your fun, but, uh... it was sarcasm?

like, humor, yo.

Ah.. oh. Sorry

Too much alcohol and too little brain wattage left. I just completely missed that.

The recoil of a handgun depends on the size of the round. A .22 caliber handgun has almost no recoil because the round is so small. In contrast, a .50 caliber (Desert Eagle is probably the best example) handgun will break the wrist of a big strong guy if he doesn't know how to handle it.

If a 100lb senior citizen were using a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, then they probably wouldn't have too great a problem, since a 9mm's recoil isn't that bad. However, I wouldn't suggest using a .45 or .44 caliber handgun if I was a 100lb senior citizen, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were some hard-as-nails types who can and do.

cool...

i don't really know much about guns, even though i'm obsessed with first person shooter video games and can name almost every gun in the allied arsenal circa WW2. despite their inherant awesomeness, i'd rather the lower chance of people being killed than lower the level of me not being able to get some awesome killing machine.

also, how well would an old frail 100lb senior citizen be able to aim? if they're that frail, i doubt they'd be able to grip something that well or really defend themselves.

Ah.. oh. Sorry

Too much alcohol and too little brain wattage left. I just completely missed that.

i was sober for st. patricks day. oh the shame.

i was sober for st. patricks day. oh the shame.


Is that legal? Isnt there a law or something? Should I be reporting you to the IRA or some such?

I'm very pro gun control, so I figure this is a good time to stop dicking around and hop on in.

1) a 100 pound person as frail as you describe would find it very difficult to use a gun; couldn't the recoil practically break the wrist of someone so 'frail?'

2) whether you're carrying a gun or not, the best defence against a mugger is to give them your money and present as small a threat as possible. then tell the cops. yeah, pretty pussy, but the chances of your being able to observe your spleen from the third person are drastically decreased. if you were at all smart in the first place, you won't have lost more than one or two hundred dollars.

3) if you're really incredibly frail, you should be bright enough to know that walking down dark alleys is a bad idea.

sorry to start out my arguments on such a dick note like 'if you guys were smarter you wouldn't have these problems,' but its a friday night and i'm at home sick. much bitterness.


1) You've obviously never fired a gun. my 60 yr old mother at about 100Lbs handles a 9mm (which I bought for her after my father passed away) w/o a problem. My 110 lb M-I-L can handle a 12 guage shotgun like an expert.

2) that's the myth the Brady Bunch pushed for years as crime just kept increasing. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. The classic line "A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet." is apt for that mentality. Why is it that the Dept of Justice has encouraged resistance since the early '90's?

3) What about in your home, the store, your car, or just walking down a regular street? where most crimes occur.

1) no. as pro gun as you are, I guess you must have limitted experience with many modern firarms. Break someones wrist from recoil??? Have you every fired a firearm? Certainly no handgun is capable of doing this(though I have heard of some subcompact 40's that are a little "difficult" to fire. ut if you want a subcompact, why get it in 40? my 32 carry is perfect even though it doesnt have sights and I would never dream of using it beyond point blank. On the other hand, if I wore suits more often I woul have no problem carry my 45 cause while its longer, its also slimmer.. and well balanced to boot.




No one really thinks its better to draw down vs giving up money/property. But what is better is that if the situation is gonna escalate, it is better than the law abiding citizen gets to decide how far it will go VS the criminal deciding.



Okay, how about living at home. Are old and frail people not allowed that right? Should old people not be able to live in their own house? Do they not deserve the same rights as you or I? Because criminals target old people often. Why? Because they are weak and the crook will probably get away with it.

How about a young person who is not physically fit? Do they deserve no rights? Is it only strong able types who have rights?

Hey, I am all for FORCED evoltion. But I am conservative and I dont think libs want to jump on the same boat as me.

1) desert eagles?

2) old and young people will be targetted anywhere, whether its denmark or sudan. i think we should prioritize better social services and better education in the government, so as to increase people's awareness of the world, the ramnifications of their actions, and hopefully their moral conscience. the social services would, in turn, decrease the neediness of the most desperately poor and thereby lower the chance that they will turn to crime as a way to get by.

i think the more undrestanding we make the populace of our nation, the lower crime will fall.


also, one point (dunno if its been noted in this thread): violent crime isn't gun crime. very, very different.

1) You've obviously never fired a gun. my 60 yr old mother at about 100Lbs handles a 9mm (which I bought for her after my father passed away) w/o a problem. My 110 lb M-I-L can handle a 12 guage shotgun like an expert.

2) that's the myth the Brady Bunch pushed for years as crime just kept increasing. Didn't work then, doesn't work now. The classic line "A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet." is apt for that mentality. Why is it that the Dept of Justice has encouraged resistance since the early '90's?

3) What about in your home, the store, your car, or just walking down a regular street? where most crimes occur.

1) congrats, your mom's hardcore?

2) rape represents a tiny fraction of the possible outcomes of a mugging. i mean below 1% by a long shot. i don't think we should judge an occurance based the on lowest possible outcome, but (i think) the chance of being raped is about the same as the chance of getting run over by a car. should everyone be in cars 24/7 to make sure no one gets run over?

3) what about it?

1) desert eagles?

2) old and young people will be targetted anywhere, whether its denmark or sudan. i think we should prioritize better social services and better education in the government, so as to increase people's awareness of the world, the ramnifications of their actions, and hopefully their moral conscience. the social services would, in turn, decrease the neediness of the most desperately poor and thereby lower the chance that they will turn to crime as a way to get by.

i think the more undrestanding we make the populace of our nation, the lower crime will fall.


also, one point (dunno if its been noted in this thread): violent crime isn't gun crime. very, very different.

1)Are a joke. They're only a little more powerful than a .45. That gun is all hype.

2) I agree. Education is very important. But disarming the Law-Abiding public is not the answer.

3) It has been noted. Mostly it's been pointed out that gun crime is a part of violent crime and both have been reduced by allowing the citizenry to defend themselves.

1)Are a joke. They're only a little more powerful than a .45. That gun is all hype.

2) I agree. Education is very important. But disarming the Law-Abiding public is not the answer.

3) It has been noted. Mostly it's been pointed out that gun crime is a part of violent crime and both have been reduced by allowing the citizenry to defend themselves.

1) if you fire a desert eagle without knowing what you're doing, you are very likely to break your wrist. fact.

2) i think the key to really curbing gun crime is taking out the gun-smuggling organizations around the country. low cost unregistered guns are the biggest problem facing gun crime in povertystricken areas of the country. disarming the law-abiding public should only take place after that, should it be succesful.

3) however, there is a problem with the article noted in the first post on this thread. they talk about violent crime increasing, but never talk about gun crime. gun crime has steadily decreased in places like england. fact.

3) It has been noted. Mostly it's been pointed out that gun crime is a part of violent crime and both have been reduced by allowing the citizenry to defend themselves.Does "gun crime" refer to violent crime in which a gun is used, or would refusing to register your gun be "gun crime"? :\

1) desert eagles?

2) old and young people will be targetted anywhere, whether its denmark or sudan. i think we should prioritize better social services and better education in the government, so as to increase people's awareness of the world, the ramnifications of their actions, and hopefully their moral conscience. the social services would, in turn, decrease the neediness of the most desperately poor and thereby lower the chance that they will turn to crime as a way to get by.

i think the more undrestanding we make the populace of our nation, the lower crime will fall.


also, one point (dunno if its been noted in this thread): violent crime isn't gun crime. very, very different.

1)My favorite and most accurate gun is also my largest handgun; a Wilson custom protector. It is also my heaviest gun and has the least noticable recoil. I have never fired a desert eagle(but thats not a much larger round than my 45). What many people dont realize is that the larger the gun, generally the less the recoil is. Meaning.. I have more "kick" fro my featherweigth seecamp 32 carry piece than I do from my 45 which ways easily 4 times as much. I fired a subcompact russian 40 in the range(some guy had it and I was curious) and my hand was literally ringing. I have fired 40s from full sized glocks and not felt a thing.

2) Whatever the govt can do is great
(well, whatever) but my point is that old/frail/less strong people have the same rights towards self preservation as everyone else. But in practical terms, this means they need an equalizer(which is what a gun is)

3) Crime is crime, ome people feel the need to distinguish between a guy getting stabbed to death vs being shot. I dont understand relly whatthe differance is.

Does "gun crime" refer to violent crime in which a gun is used, or would refusing to register your gun be "gun crime"? :\

violent crime involving a gun.

1) congrats, your mom's hardcore?

2) rape represents a tiny fraction of the possible outcomes of a mugging. i mean below 1% by a long shot. i don't think we should judge an occurance based the on lowest possible outcome, but (i think) the chance of being raped is about the same as the chance of getting run over by a car. should everyone be in cars 24/7 to make sure no one gets run over?

3) what about it?

1) nope, I have to make her practice, but she lives alone and I want to make sure she can safely and effectively use it.

2) Muggings have litle or nothing to do w/ rape. A rape starts out as one, not as a mugging "gone bad". Rape accounts for over 6% of violent crimes in the US. 32/100K

3) You stated that people shouldn't be walking around in dark alleys. Most crimes aren't committed in places like that.

1)My favorite and most accurate gun is also my largest handgun; a Wilson custom protector. It is also my heaviest gun and has the least noticable recoil. I have never fired a desert eagle(but thats not a much larger round than my 45). What many people dont realize is that the larger the gun, generally the less the recoil is. Meaning.. I have more "kick" fro my featherweigth seecamp 32 carry piece than I do from my 45 which ways easily 4 times as much. I fired a subcompact russian 40 in the range(some guy had it and I was curious) and my hand was literally ringing. I have fired 40s from full sized glocks and not felt a thing.

2) Whatever the govt can do is great
(well, whatever) but my point is that old/frail/less strong people have the same rights towards self preservation as everyone else. But in practical terms, this means they need an equalizer(which is what a gun is)

3) Crime is crime, ome people feel the need to distinguish between a guy getting stabbed to death vs being shot. I dont understand relly whatthe differance is.

1) but that doesn't change the fact that desert eagles have a lot of recoil.

2) basically this whole debate comes down to whether or not people are likely to effectively use guns for their own protection in a responsible manner. i could throw statistics at you, you could throw statistics at me, blah. i can see this'll get tedious in the near future.

3) the difference is that the article deliberately misrepresented the change in crime rates after the banning of guns in other countries by not actually talking about gun crime. maaaaajor problem with accuracy.

1) nope, I have to make her practice, but she lives alone and I want to make sure she can safely and effectively use it.

2) Muggings have litle or nothing to do w/ rape. A rape starts out as one, not as a mugging "gone bad". Rape accounts for over 6% of violent crimes in the US. 32/100K

3) You stated that people shouldn't be walking around in dark alleys. Most crimes aren't committed in places like that.

1) oh.

2) source pls? and i never said that rapes were muggings gone bad.

3) i was under the impression that you were all for people carrying concealed weapons in case of crime in places like dark allies. my bad.

anyway, i'm gonna go play splinter cell (yeah the first one, yeah its awesome), so wahtever. dont' bother responding to anything if you don't feel like it; i prolly won't read it. peace.

1) if you fire a desert eagle without knowing what you're doing, you are very likely to break your wrist. fact.

2) i think the key to really curbing gun crime is taking out the gun-smuggling organizations around the country. low cost unregistered guns are the biggest problem facing gun crime in povertystricken areas of the country. disarming the law-abiding public should only take place after that, should it be succesful.

3) however, there is a problem with the article noted in the first post on this thread. they talk about violent crime increasing, but never talk about gun crime. gun crime has steadily decreased in places like england. fact.

1) source it.

2. Taking out the crime organizations would benefit more. Gangs/criminals are the biggest problems facing poverty strcken areas. Why should a law-abiding citizen be disarmed?

3) source it.

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

As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. "If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.

1) oh.

2) source pls? and i never said that rapes were muggings gone bad.

3) i was under the impression that you were all for people carrying concealed weapons in case of crime in places like dark allies. my bad.

2) "rape represents a tiny fraction of the possible outcomes of a mugging."
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

3) I am. and also in stores, on the street, in their cars, and to be able to defend their homes.

[B]
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?

Vermont has a VC index of 48th highest and a total crime at 44th and you say that's higher than it should be?

Seems like a "glowing example" to me.

Show me where I have stated this. I know some Canadians still refuse to obey the law regarding registration.

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/30/gun_registry030630

At least six provinces are either considering or have decided to leave enforcement of gun registration laws up to federal officials. Those provinces are Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Ontario.

1) if you fire a desert eagle without knowing what you're doing, you are very likely to break your wrist. fact.




Thats a little too weird for me to believe without asking for a source.

I find it ironic that the article this whole post was made about doesn't include the murder figures for America in relation to the murder figures to the UK or Canada for example. People need to realize that although if that supporting article is true the American crime rate is decreasing and the UK's is increasing the figures are staggering in relation to one another. The American murder rate is in the thousands I think it's something like 10,000 a year which I think is a generous figure. While Canada's is something like 150 or 200. Taking into consideration the population differences if one thing, I understand. But the murder ration if completely out of wack it's so high in the United States and the main reason that is, is because there are a huge number of unregistered guns.

You know what, I just checked the link and you are correct.

I read the national average one instead of miami florida

here is the link

http://www.bestplaces.net/crime/crime.aspx?Lcity=3651000&Rcity=1245000&=

You win that point, Miami is more than double as dangerous as NY
Hey this is great.....we are getting somewhere!! I appreciate your honesty and posting the correction.

These stats seem to validate what I have been saying all along? Although Miami has RTC laws, New York is a far safer city.

Another RTC city is Dallas, Texas and when compared to New York City (http://www.bestplaces.net/city/cccrim.aspx?Lcity=4819000&Rcity=3651000&), NYC wins hands down again.

You still havent addressed my other points though. Do you care to?
I do have a life other than Nation States, but I do post when I can.

I made many more points than just NYC and Miami. Yet that was the only one you chose to respond to. As soon as you pointed out the error I corrected myself, I will say once again, do you plan on responding to the rest of the posts?
I was tending to ignore your posts that were outright ad hominen attacks, but I couldn't refuse the point you raised about Miami versus New York City crime.

Even Chicago compares favourably with Miami.

2) old and young people will be targetted anywhere, whether its denmark or sudan. i think we should prioritize better social services and better education in the government, so as to increase people's awareness of the world, the ramnifications of their actions, and hopefully their moral conscience. the social services would, in turn, decrease the neediness of the most desperately poor and thereby lower the chance that they will turn to crime as a way to get by.

i think the more undrestanding we make the populace of our nation, the lower crime will fall.
This is the most sane rational response in this whole thread!! Kudos to you!! :cool:


also, one point (dunno if its been noted in this thread): violent crime isn't gun crime. very, very different.
However, many violent crimes are committed with a gun. Somehow, I think I am missing the point you are raising here?

Vermont has a VC index of 48th highest and a total crime at 44th and you say that's higher than it should be?

Seems like a "glowing example" to me.
I erred there. I put Rhode Islands stats into the equation by accident. :eek:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/30/gun_registry030630

At least six provinces are either considering or have decided to leave enforcement of gun registration laws up to federal officials. Those provinces are Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Ontario.

Okay, that is far different than the assertion made by Whispering Legs:

"several provinces absolutely refuse to enforce any of the provisions of registration"

I do believe that if a Province does elect not to enforce the registration laws, then that Province would be in violation of the law itself.

However, many violent crimes are committed with a gun.I don't know about elsewhere, but according to the U.S. Department of Justice and as of 2001, only about 10% of violent crime in the USA is committed with a firearm.

It's 66% with no weapon, 10% with a firearm (8/10 with a handgun), 6% with a sharp object, 4% with a blunt object, 5% with another weapon, 1% with an unknown weapon, and in 8% of the victimizations whether or not there was a weapon is unknown.

Source (PDF) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf)

I don't know about elsewhere, but according to the U.S. Department of Justice and as of 2001, only about 10% of violent crime in the USA is committed with a firearm.

It's 66% with no weapon, 10% with a firearm (8/10 with a handgun), 6% with a sharp object, 4% with a blunt object, 5% with another weapon, 1% with an unknown weapon, and in 8% of the victimizations whether or not there was a weapon is unknown.

Source (PDF) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf)
I do believe that you did not read the tables accurately? Or should I say applied them to the most serious crime of murder?

From Table 1:

In regards to homicides, 70% of the victims were killed by a firearm.

Since there were 16,503 homicides in the US in 2003, that means that approximately 11,552 involved the use of a firearm.

In regards to robbery, 27% involved the use of a firearm.

Hey this is great.....we are getting somewhere!! I appreciate your honesty and posting the correction.

These stats seem to validate what I have been saying all along? Although Miami has RTC laws, New York is a far safer city.

And has been said repeatedly, looking at just a few cases does not prove your point. Especially when there are plenty of cases that show the opposite. Yet you continually refuse to address that.



I was tending to ignore your posts that were outright ad hominen attacks, but I couldn't refuse the point you raised about Miami versus New York City crime.

Even Chicago compares favourably with Miami.

Pointing out that you used RI instead of VT is an attack? Pointing out that it is foolish to look at total crime instead of violent crime is an attack? Saying why it is foolish to look at state data vs county data because in many states the county sets the gun laws not the state. You conveniently forgot to address these points.

you also claim that NYC's recent success has to do with gun laws, yet NYC's gun laws have been in place for decades(since the 70s I believe) with no impact on crime(other than crime got worse for most of that time)

Gun laws didnt clean up NYC, Rudy Giuliani did. Along with 40,000 police officers(I think that makes NYC no1 police per capita in the country..not positive about that though) and a complete crackdown on whether it was graffiti or murder.

1) but that doesn't change the fact that desert eagles have a lot of recoil.
.

I believe that is because Desert Eagles fire "HOT" rounds, well magnums, but that is still pretty "HOT". If a person felt uncomfortable with this then they can a) use a lighter round or b) buy a different gun.

I have fired plenty of guns where there is no recoil whatsoever. .22 target shooters come to mind(not so good for home defense). But your basic 9mm in a full sized handgun has next to no real kick, a child could properly hold and fire one. Assuming of course that they dont want to do stupid things like shoot one handed with the gun held sideways like in the movies. I wonder if people who fire their guns this way realize that its a good way to get hit in the face with a very hot spent cartridge.

That's why you should point the ejector slot downward.

That's why you should point the ejector slot downward.

Its why you should shoot properly instead of trying to look cool(that and the minor detail of actually hitting what you are aiming at instead of spraying bulets and hoping to get lucky)

However, many violent crimes are committed with a gun. Somehow, I think I am missing the point you are raising here?

That's entirely dependant on which country you're in. In Britain, most violent crime is carried out using workmen's tools. Wrenches for preference, then hammers.

Gun crime in the UK has actually stayed about the same as it was before the ban, since we had decent gun controls anyway. The ban was a pointless and needless piece of legislation, since the only people with 'dirty' guns were criminals anyway.

This is just another example of prohibition failing miserably to achieve it's aims. Now the black market gets a bit more business, the government loses a handy slice of licence cash and tax money, and absolutely nothing changes.

Even Chicago compares favourably with Miami.
? Yes and no. Chicago is much more fatal than Miami, however. As for rape statistics, I suspect they are higher but finding anything reliable given the way chicago keeps it's statistics on such is so far impossible.

http://www.allaroundyourhouse.org/reference/crime_statistics/city_crime_statistics/chicago/

Chicago Crime Statistics
Crime Rate (crimes/100,000 people) n/a
Crime Rate Rank (1 is best, highest is worst) 1
Murders 22.9
Rapes n/a
Robberies 633.3
Assaults 877.2
Burglaries 892.1
Thefts 3,349.60
Motor Vehicle Thefts 951.5

http://www.allaroundyourhouse.org/reference/crime_statistics/city_crime_statistics/miami/

Miami Crime Statistics
Crime Rate (crimes/100,000 people) 9,490.30
Crime Rate Rank (1 is best, highest is worst) 56
Murders 17.7
Rapes 31.7
Robberies 731.2
Assaults 1,158.20
Burglaries 1,672.10
Thefts 4,473.40
Motor Vehicle Thefts 1,405.90


As a side note, most of your robberies, assaults, buglaries and thefts would not be commited with a firearm. MVT's might be, but only if it's a carjacking so most of those aren't either.

I do believe that you did not read the tables accurately? Or should I say applied them to the most serious crime of murder?Huh? Look at the top-left of page two. Table one has an even lower number for firearm use in violent crime.
From Table 1:

In regards to homicides, 70% of the victims were killed by a firearm.

Since there were 16,503 homicides in the US in 2003, that means that approximately 11,552 involved the use of a firearm.

In regards to robbery, 27% involved the use of a firearm.You didn't say anything about homicide or robbery. You wrote of violent crime, so I wrote of violent crime.

Gun crime in the UK has actually stayed about the same as it was before the ban, since we had decent gun controls anyway. The ban was a pointless and needless piece of legislation, since the only people with 'dirty' guns were criminals anyway.


WHAT BAN! The only recently significent ban on firearms was post Dunblain and all that did was remove the right of premisis such as clubs and bars and other places to keep fire arms. There hasn't been a significent piece of legislation regarding guns in Britian for a long time. And guess what? Britian has a far, far lower gun crime and homicide rate per 10,000 than America! It always has.

WHAT BAN! The only recently significent ban on firearms was post Dunblain and all that did was remove the right of premisis such as clubs and bars and other places to keep fire arms. There hasn't been a significent piece of legislation regarding guns in Britian for a long time. And guess what? Britian has a far, far lower gun crime and homicide rate per 10,000 than America! It always has.

Right, post Dunblain banned the private ownership of 80% of handguns in the UK. You don't think that's significant?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/28/briefs/britain.handguns/index.html

Right, post Dunblain banned the private ownership of 80% of handguns in the UK. You don't think that's significant?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/28/briefs/britain.handguns/index.html

Not in the slightest. 200,000 hand guns from a population of 56 million back then? The guns were (mainly) recriational and not for home defense. I'd safely say that most of the owners didn't even think of home defense when they got those guns in the first place. So using the banning of privatly owned handguns as any basis for crime rate (be it a rise or fall) is pointless. Might as well use the crime figures for when marathon became snickers and see if that caused and increase/decrease :p

bump

Right, post Dunblain banned the private ownership of 80% of handguns in the UK. You don't think that's significant?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/28/briefs/britain.handguns/index.html

80% of 10 is 8. Check statistics more carefully.

80% of 10 is 8. Check statistics more carefully.

Well we now know you don't know numbers passed 10. Take off your shoes if it will help.

200,000 is probably beyond you or are you saying 2 people committed 3,685 crimes in '99/'00?

2) whether you're carrying a gun or not, the best defence against a mugger is to give them your money and present as small a threat as possible. then tell the cops. yeah, pretty pussy, but the chances of your being able to observe your spleen from the third person are drastically decreased. if you were at all smart in the first place, you won't have lost more than one or two hundred dollars.You're high. Submission is no solution. If you have the means to resist a violent crime, you should. I cannot say for mugging, but I know for sure that the best bet to survive an attempted rape is to violently resist with whatever means are available.

Well we now know you don't know numbers passed 10. Take off your shoes if it will help.

200,000 is probably beyond you or are you saying 2 people committed 3,685 crimes in '99/'00?

*sigh* you're saying that 80% is alot however he is making the point that the actual number isn't that many. Example:

80% in UK = 200,000
80% in USA = 240,000,000 (I don't know handgun statistics I'm just basing it on somoene saying gun ownership was about 300 million)

Do you see the difference??? 80% is still 80% but the actual number is pitiful incomparison. You were just being told that percentages don't tell the full picture.

Quick question for the UK folks...

Here in the US, a Supreme Court decision enshrined the notion that the police are not under any duty to protect any private individual from the predations or attacks of any other private individual(s). They have a "general" duty to protect the public, but may never be held accountable for an event where they fail to respond to a call for help, or fail to prevent an act of violence.

This is a rock solid notion here in the US. You can't sue the police, or hold them accountable in any way, if they fail at any time, in any way, to protect you.

The case is Warren vs. District of Columbia.
In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a. m. call with the proper degree of urgency; Page 3 the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.

The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.


How does it work in the UK? If you call for the police, and they never show up, and you're mercilessly raped over and over again, can you hold the police accountable? Sue them? Anything?

Not that I'm aware of. We just seem to get a grudging appology and the promise of an investigation. Without googling I don't know if there have been any police forces taken to court about it, but if there have then it's not set any precedence (yet)

Not that I'm aware of. We just seem to get a grudging appology and the promise of an investigation. Without googling I don't know if there have been any police forces taken to court about it, but if there have then it's not set any precedence (yet)


I'm just curious. There seems to be a philosophical mindset that is different from the UK - here, we have known since the late 1970s that the taxes we pay to fund the police we expect to protect us are a complete waste of money - if you call, no policemen are obligated by duty to respond. Thus, you are explicitly on your own - probably rooted somewhere in the loose concept of "American individualism".

In the UK, it would be interesting to know if the state both restricts your individual options for self-defense (even with your bare hands, as I take it) AND imposes a duty on police to prevent and stop violence in all individual cases. Or, are the police similarly off the hook - and the individual's hands are literally and legally tied up?

Our right to defend ourselves (reasonable force) seems to basically we can do what is needed to stop being attacked. We can push them away and we can hit, but if they break off the attack (or you can prove they intended to hurt you) you can't chase after them. Things may be changing with regards to that and I'm sure someone who knows the law better can correct it, but that's my understanding.

As for the police having a duty to protet us, I am trying to look for you now.

Edit - Had a quick look and without spending more time I can't give you an answer, maybe sombody else can.

Our right to defend ourselves (reasonable force) seems to basically we can do what is needed to stop being attacked. We can push them away and we can hit, but if they break off the attack (or you can prove they intended to hurt you) you can't chase after them. Things may be changing with regards to that and I'm sure someone who knows the law better can correct it, but that's my understanding.

As for the police having a duty to protet us, I am trying to look for you now.

I think there's even a different perception in self-defense based on the idea of when an attacker "constitutes a lethal threat".

Here in the US, a knife-wielding suspect who is moving towards you is considered a lethal threat within 18 feet. Rough rule of thumb, based on a concept that police use to justify (over and over again) the use of lethal force in the form of a firearm. In some US states, you have an obligation to retreat under certain circumstances. And in others, you have a right to defend yourself and others in your immediate vicinity from an immediate lethal threat.

If you're moving towards someone with a knife, drawn and ready, and you're within 18 feet of me or your intended victim, if we're standing in Virginia I can draw and shoot - and shoot until you fall on the pavement.

In the UK I am feeling that the idea of someone constituting a "lethal threat" is much, much harder to prove. I would imagine that it's more a matter of identical weaponry, and a verbally communicated threat in front of multiple witnesses, and an actual attack - the attacker has to have a clean hit on you first with that hit being unquestionable later in court. If you have a knife and I have a gun, even if I'm a policeman, I'm betting that I couldn't do anything but try and wrestle with you.

WL, I can't provide a definitive answer to that question. We do seem to make a song and dance about it if police fail in their duty, but we don't really seem to get many results - either the police never fail in a similar manner to that described in the US, or we hear much more about racism than we do about failure to defend the public.

I will point out now that I am making no defense for the hideous lack of competence on the police's part, but I would suspect the judges felt it necessary to protect the police from more spurious charges, or failings which are percieved rather than real. Again, I make no excuses, that is reprehensable, but I do offer a possible explanation.

On one of two other notes; did Warren or Taliaferro have any firearms? If so, why were they not used, if not, does it not seem likely that they might have been able to repel the attackers, had they had superior weaponary?

On the second of the other notes;

In the UK I am feeling that the idea of someone constituting a "lethal threat" is much, much harder to prove. I would imagine that it's more a matter of identical weaponry, and a verbally communicated threat in front of multiple witnesses, and an actual attack - the attacker has to have a clean hit on you first with that hit being unquestionable later in court. If you have a knife and I have a gun, even if I'm a policeman, I'm betting that I couldn't do anything but try and wrestle with you.

As far as I am aware, until a hit is landed, you would indeed be the criminal. I doubt it is entirely as clear-cut as that, but I've always been told never to strike the first blow. (If I remember rightly, you are legally required to tell an attacked three times if you are versed in any martial arts before you do any fighting. This may just be an urban legend or some such though.) It is quite patently ridiculous, and I honestly don't see how we're not heading for a major review of self-defence laws in the next decade.

The women in the lawsuit above were not armed, as they were residents of the District of Columbia.

You can be arrested for felony possession of a firearm if you have a paintball gun or bow and arrow in the District of Columbia.

Unless you're Carl Rowan, and shoot a youngster in your pool, of course. Prominent liberals in the city are given an off-the-record look-the-other-way pass when they get caught with a gun or end up using it.

You're high. Submission is no solution. If you have the means to resist a violent crime, you should. I cannot say for mugging, but I know for sure that the best bet to survive an attempted rape is to violently resist with whatever means are available.
Your "best bet" advice doesn't necessarily coincide with what the police advise. Your "best bet" advice might get someone killed?

There are several ways to react to a sexual assault... (http://www.hendersonville-pd.org/PreventionTips/RapePreventionTips.html)

The best resistance you can use against an attacker is your common sense. Think! Don't panic. The most important element to remember is that you are not trying to fight the attacker, but are attempting to divert the person long enough to get away. Always look for a way to escape. If the attacker has a weapon, use your common sense.

Break away and run toward areas with people. Be observant so that you will be able to remember and identify the assailant.

Sometimes, people are unqualified in giving advice and if in doubt, check it out.

Your "best bet" advice doesn't necessarily coincide with what the police advise. Your "best bet" advice might get someone killed?


Here in the US, the Department of Justice hands out a pamphlet. I hand this pamphlet out in self-defense classes.

Simply put, it tells us that by cooperating with your attacker, and giving them what they want, you raise the odds that you will be abused or killed. What may start as a simple robbery or request for money will escalate if you cooperate.

The further you cooperate, the higher the risk. For instance, if you agree to be tied up, the odds are extremely high that you will be killed.

People who resist by hand (typical self-defense), or with pepper spray or other non-lethal weapon, or a knife, are likely to be injured - and suffer the same odds of injury as someone who attempts to run away.

People who resist with a firearm are the least likely to be injured.

Our police tell us this. The local city police. The county police. And our Justice Department.

Here in the US, the Department of Justice hands out a pamphlet. I hand this pamphlet out in self-defense classes.

Simply put, it tells us that by cooperating with your attacker, and giving them what they want, you raise the odds that you will be abused or killed. What may start as a simple robbery or request for money will escalate if you cooperate.

The further you cooperate, the higher the risk. For instance, if you agree to be tied up, the odds are extremely high that you will be killed.

People who resist by hand (typical self-defense), or with pepper spray or other non-lethal weapon, or a knife, are likely to be injured - and suffer the same odds of injury as someone who attempts to run away.

People who resist with a firearm are the least likely to be injured.

Our police tell us this. The local city police. The county police. And our Justice Department.

Dont forget that so do our statisticians. If you have a weapon, use it. If you only have your hands and are a women..well your fucked(literally). At least try to yell fire though, maybe you will get lucky.

Outlawing guns is usually a bad idea, because then, by definition, only outlaws will have guns.

How could banning guns increase crime? It could just be the way crime is going anyway, these statistics. If it wasn't banned, then the outcome could have been the same, or worse; there's no way of telling. One result doesn't prove anything.

Outlawing guns is usually a bad idea, because then, by definition, only outlaws will have guns.

Nice and overly simplistic. So tell me, why is the UK with banned guns so much safer than the US?

Nice and overly simplistic. So tell me, why is the UK with banned guns so much safer than the US?
That is a good question that the gun enthusiasts will have difficulty in answering.

Question number 2......why is Canada, with gun control so much safer than the US?

Because they had few guns to begin with.

Now, I support RESTRICTIONS on guns, but banning them outright seems kinda silly.

Why is Canada, where there is actually higher per capita of guns, so much safer than the US? How is it that in a city just north of me, Edmonton, had around 39 murders in 2004. A city of over one million people. 39 people died, mostly through involved means. Gang wars, drug money, jealous rages, crimes of passion. So far, they've had under five killings this year. This is one of the major metropolitan areas of Canada, mind you.

It appears that the news just never ends when it comes to gun violence?

Ten deaths in Minnesota community shooting (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1111449223773_8?hub=topstories)
CTV.ca News Staff

Ten deaths have been reported following a shooting at a Red Lake, Minn. high school and a residence, authorities say.

Up to 15 other people were reportedly wounded in the incident, which occurred Monday afternoon, FBI spokesman Paul McCabe told a news conference in Minneapolis.

The eight dead at the school include a female teacher, a male security officer and six students. All but the security guard were found in one room.

One of the six dead students is believed to be the teenaged shooter. He was believed to be acting alone. Despite that, the school was cleared of students and staff for security reasons after the shooting.

In addition, two more people were found dead at a residence.

Well according to CNN last time I checked, he used his grandfather's police issued weapon(s).


So any anti-gun arguement to come of this would likely be along the lines that the police should not have firearms either.

That is a good question that the gun enthusiasts will have difficulty in answering.

why is the UK with banned guns so much safer than the US?

Question number 2......why is Canada, with gun control so much safer than the US?

Historically, the UK was safer even before it's gun bans. One questions the need for it then.

As for the US, WL has emphasized the drug problem. I agree w/ that. The immigration problem also plays a major part in it. Are the UK & Canadian police prevented from enforcing immigration policy by "sanctuary laws"?

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back704.html

excerpts:

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where crime from these lawbreakers is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of gang members from a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have snuck back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, shootings, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should an LAPD officer arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is the officer who will be treated as a criminal by his own department ? for violating the LAPD?s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD?s ban on immigration enforcement is replicated in immigrant-heavy localities across the country ? in New York, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston, for example. These so-called ?sanctuary policies? generally prohibit a city?s employees, including the police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.


n Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

I asked the Miami Police Department?s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about his employer?s policy on illegal law-breakers. In September 2003, the force had arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven terrifying rapes. The previous year, Miami officers had had the suspect, Reynaldo Elias Rapalo, in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense. ?We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with immigration issues,? explains Detective Moss, choosing his words carefully, ?because of our large immigration population."

It appears that the news just never ends when it comes to gun violence?


[/i]

Technically, it wasn't Minn.

And you never seem to hear about episodes like these:

Gloria Turner remembers firing with one hand and dialing 911 with the other. Turner and her husband, Bobby Doster, had owned their grocery store for eight years and, although they were prepared for the worst, they did not expect it. But one evening, while the Turners were stocking their shelves, two teens walked in and demanded money. Turner recounts, ?I was about to give it to them when the first guy said, ?You?re not moving fast enough? and pulls out a gun.? The robber aimed at Doster and fired, missing him. When their attackers? gun jammed, the couple had enough time to retreat behind the counter and grab their own guns. A gun battle erupted in the store. When it was over, both robbers were dead. Sheriff Mike Smith said that the store owners would not be charged, adding that, ?People have a right to protect their lives and their property.? (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, GA, 01/26/05)

As Clyde Colley looked down at the gunshot wound in his leg and then up at his wife, he decided that if he did not do something, they would both die. Almost two hours earlier, two men had broken into their Sandlick, Va., home, shot Mr. Colley and ordered the elderly couple to get on the floor. As one of the intruders held the couple at gunpoint, the other ransacked the house. Finally, Colley said that he was not feeling well and needed to go to lie down. This excuse gave him enough time to get to his gun, which he fired twice, killing one intruder and sending the other fleeing into the night. As their phone lines had been cut, Mrs. Colley was forced to run down the driveway and flag down help. Police later apprehended the surviving intruder, Mazel Sexton, and charged him with numerous felony counts. Colley was not expected to be charged in the death of the intruder, who was identified as Hubert Howard, Jr. (The Dickenson Star, Clintwood, VA, 12/22/04)


A Hollis, N.H., man was
awakened one night to the sounds of screaming in his back yard. The homeowner, Donald Narkis, grabbed his gun and headed downstairs when he heard glass breaking in the kitchen. Narkis fired in the direction of the intruder, who, undeterred, continued to advance as he screamed and smashed furniture. Together with his armed daughter, Narkis ordered the intruder onto the floor, but the man wouldn?t stay down. Narkis fired again, but the shot hit next to the intruder?s leg. When police arrived on the scene, the intruder, identified as Peter Camplin, complained, ?that psycho tried to shoot me.? Camplin, who
had moved into the neighborhood only months previously, was found to have a significant amount of cocaine and alcohol in his system. (The Telegraph, Nashua, NH, 01/19/05)

Historically, the UK was safer even before it's gun bans. One questions the need for it then.

As for the US, WL has emphasized the drug problem. I agree w/ that. The immigration problem also plays a major part in it. Are the UK & Canadian police prevented from enforcing immigration policy by "sanctuary laws"?

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back704.html

excerpts:

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where crime from these lawbreakers is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of gang members from a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have snuck back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, shootings, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should an LAPD officer arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is the officer who will be treated as a criminal by his own department ? for violating the LAPD?s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD?s ban on immigration enforcement is replicated in immigrant-heavy localities across the country ? in New York, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston, for example. These so-called ?sanctuary policies? generally prohibit a city?s employees, including the police, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.


n Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

I asked the Miami Police Department?s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about his employer?s policy on illegal law-breakers. In September 2003, the force had arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven terrifying rapes. The previous year, Miami officers had had the suspect, Reynaldo Elias Rapalo, in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense. ?We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with immigration issues,? explains Detective Moss, choosing his words carefully, ?because of our large immigration population."
Already the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world and that still isn't enough? Perhaps if there was zero tolerance for gun related crimes, and a gun control environment, then the crime rate could be reduced?

WASHINGTON – More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

It's the first time the US government has released estimates of the extent of imprisonment, and the report's statistics have broad implications for everything from state fiscal crises to how other nations view the American experience.

Already the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world and that still isn't enough? Perhaps if there was zero tolerance for gun related crimes, and a gun control environment, then the crime rate could be reduced?
Wanna make a guess how many are in for shit like possession of marijuana? Or other relatively victimless crimes? And how many more are in because they grew up surrounded by drug-running gangs, no real role models and fatherless? I'm not saying they're blameless, but it is a biiiiig contributor to the problem.

Question number 2......why is Canada, with gun control so much safer than the US?
Greater social stability and homogenousness, less population spread out over a larger area. Not as many asshats like Jesse Jackson.

Already the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world and that still isn't enough? Perhaps if there was zero tolerance for gun related crimes, and a gun control environment, then the crime rate could be reduced?



How does that have anything to do w/ being allowed to use their immigration status as a means to apprehend and deport criminals?

What you're saying is that we arrest/imprison too many people already but we should imprison more and make more laws to imprison people with?

I agree w/ you on the zero tolerance for gun related crimes however a "gun control environment" just means removing firearms from Law Abiding Citizens. And yes, that IS the ultimate purpose of "reasonable measures" pushed by such groups such as HCI and the MMM.

Perhaps if the police/authorities were actually allowed to do their job and held accountable for it and criminals were held accountable and acually punished instead of constantly being recirculated into society after a slap on the wrist, the crime rate might go down. SCOTUS did the crime world a massive favor by striking down the juvenile death penalty. Now all the gang bangers need to do is get 16 or 17 yr old to do the killing as there aren't many consequences for them.

I'll ask again since you ignored it the first time: Are the UK & Canadian police prevented from enforcing immigration policy by "sanctuary laws"?

How does that have anything to do w/ being allowed to use their immigration status as a means to apprehend and deport criminals?
Are you suggesting that your illegal immigrants are still getting a free pass in light of 9/11?

What you're saying is that we arrest/imprison too many people already but we should imprison more and make more laws to imprison people with?
I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if the laws regarding use of a weapon are made more stringent, then the criminal might be less likely to commit the crime and/or use deadly force?

I agree w/ you on the zero tolerance for gun related crimes however a "gun control environment" just means removing firearms from Law Abiding Citizens. And yes, that IS the ultimate purpose of "reasonable measures" pushed by such groups such as HCI and the MMM.
Gun control is not about removing the means of purchasing guns by "law abiding" citizens, it is about identifying who these "law abiding citizens" are and regulating how they should store their guns when not using them.

Perhaps if the police/authorities were actually allowed to do their job and held accountable for it and criminals were held accountable and acually punished instead of constantly being recirculated into society after a slap on the wrist, the crime rate might go down. SCOTUS did the crime world a massive favor by striking down the juvenile death penalty. Now all the gang bangers need to do is get 16 or 17 yr old to do the killing as there aren't many consequences for them.
Well I am entirely against the death penalty, so this is an improvement in the way others view your country.

I'll ask again since you ignored it the first time: Are the UK & Canadian police prevented from enforcing immigration policy by "sanctuary laws"?
The only sanctuary would be for those claiming refugee status. All others would be deported.

Are you suggesting that your illegal immigrants are still getting a free pass in light of 9/11?

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if the laws regarding use of a weapon are made more stringent, then the criminal might be less likely to commit the crime and/or use deadly force?

Gun control is not about removing the means of purchasing guns by "law abiding" citizens, it is about identifying who these "law abiding citizens" are and regulating how they should store their guns when not using them.

Well I am entirely against the death penalty, so this is an improvement in the way others view your country.

The only sanctuary would be for those claiming refugee status. All others would be deported.

Did you not read the article or even the excerpts? I many places where illegal immegrants are heaviest, police are PREVENTED from arresting and deporting them.

There's over 20,000 laws on the books now and you think more would deter them? Once again, if these would actually be enforced instead of trying to disarm the public, crime rate would go down.

In the US "Gun Control" IS about removing firearms from Citizens with "identification" and "safe storage" laws made so difficult, very few can purchase them.

So Canadian and UK police ARE allowed to arrest based on immigration status?

edit: and as for the lack of youth accountability, it goes way beyond street crime:

HANOVER?Dartmouth College?s Tuck School of Business has accepted some applicants who hacked into a Web site this month to get a sneak peek at the school?s admissions decisions.

The school says the applicants showed poor judgment, but the offense was not serious enough to cause it to reject them all.