NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWPOLICEAxeMon21Axeattack2n?source=

cause banning guns didn't work

Ha!

Maybe we should too. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_politics_story_skin/459547%3fformat=html

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWPOLICEAxeMon21Axeattack2n?source=

cause banning guns didn't work
I imagine that if another 15,000 axe murders happen in the UK (equivalent to number of gun deaths in US), then the UK will probably ban axes!! :eek:

time for the UK to ban axes?

Nobody made an 'axes of evil' joke yet, no? Good. Carry on.

Axes can be used for peaceful purpose. Therefore banning axes would prevent some people from using it for peaceful purposes. Therefore it should not be banned without some deep thinking about the consequences.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWPOLICEAxeMon21Axeattack2n?source=

cause banning guns didn't work

I'd read that entirely the opposite way - that this nutter grabbed the most destructive thing he could legally get then went on a rampage - christ knows what could have happened if he'd had a gun - we could have had another Hungerford. But anyway I don't want to turn it into a debate about gun control as you seem to be trying to.
Edit: yes i realise in this case it seems he only intended to attack one victim, but the potential was there, he obviously wasn't mentally stable.

^^^
Precisely.

I'd read that entirely the opposite way - that this nutter grabbed the most destructive thing he could legally get then went on a rampage - christ knows what could have happened if he'd had a gun - we could have had another Hungerford. But anyway I don't want to turn it into a debate about gun control as you seem to be trying to.
Edit: yes i realise in this case it seems he only intended to attack one victim, but the potential was there, he obviously wasn't mentally stable.

It sounds like he planned it pretty well to me, as the police said, he knew exactly what he was doin.

If he'd planned it why wait 20 years? Why kill him in the middle of a street, showing no regard for his own life or whether he was caught or not? You can't predict what a person like that is going to do.

not everybody is a good planner. :D

Banning anything that could be an offensive weapon can't stop serial killers and psycos - this guy could have garotted him with a shoe lace, for christ sakes. The point is stopping other murders - say someone was drunk, got pissed off and punched another punter; they'd probably be OK, if they were shot instead; they'd probably die.

You think if this 'average joe' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4345827.stm had an axe instead of a gun there would still have been 7 dead? Maybe somebody would have asked him why he is bringing an axe to the church..?

On a sidenote, an axe is far more masculine weapon if you're going on a rampage. It would be my weapon of choice.

Edit: And of course, if every Englishman carried a consealed axe, the number of these incidents would plummet.

More people are killed by guns than by axe every years, even in the UK. I don't understand how this story is relevant to the debate about gun laws.

I'd read that entirely the opposite way - that this nutter grabbed the most destructive thing he could legally get then went on a rampage - christ knows what could have happened if he'd had a gun - we could have had another Hungerford. But anyway I don't want to turn it into a debate about gun control as you seem to be trying to.
Edit: yes i realise in this case it seems he only intended to attack one victim, but the potential was there, he obviously wasn't mentally stable.
Exactly. If you read the article again, it says that two construction workers armed with metal pipes raced to stop the attack . If the nutter had a gun, it could easily have been 3 dead, not one.
But hey! Why let a little thing like logic get in the way of a rant against gun laws?

If he'd planned it why wait 20 years? Why kill him in the middle of a street, showing no regard for his own life or whether he was caught or not? You can't predict what a person like that is going to do.

Maybe something had finally made him do what he did? We'll have to wait and see, but my point was he knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't do it because he was ill. Or at least thats what the police have said.

Axes can be used for peaceful purpose. Therefore banning axes would prevent some people from using it for peaceful purposes. Therefore it should not be banned without some deep thinking about the consequences.

Guns can be used to stop crime and impose peace, therefore a ban would prevent some people from using them for those purposes.

Guns are used this way in the US 2.5 million times per year.

Exactly. If you read the article again, it says that two construction workers armed with metal pipes raced to stop the attack . If the nutter had a gun, it could easily have been 3 dead, not one.
But hey! Why let a little thing like logic get in the way of a rant against gun laws?

Why dont you take a closer look at the article. Pay special attention to the parts where it talks about the construction workers being too late to save the victim and the accused calmly handing himself over to the authorities. What can be reasonably inferred from this? How about that the guy killed his victim and then offered no violence to anyone else.

It didnt say the construction workers subdued the guy and waited for the police, it said he calmly handed himself over. So how do you figure there would have been 2 more dead people if he had a gun. Maybe if the victim or the construction workers had guns then only person dead would have been the guy with the axe.

Guns can be used to stop crime and impose peace, therefore a ban would prevent some people from using them for those purposes.

Guns are used this way in the US 2.5 million times per year.

:rolleyes: Here we go again...not getting at you WL, but this is the 10th thread in the past week or so on this topic...

If they ban axes then they might as well ban all sharp objects...i would die tho cos i rely on an axe to get me some kindling for our fire

:rolleyes: Here we go again...not getting at you WL, but this is the 10th thread in the past week or so on this topic...

Yes, it keeps coming up...

like the anti-Islam thread,
the gay marriage thread,
etc., etc., etc.

Why dont you take a closer look at the article. Pay special attention to the parts where it talks about the construction workers being too late to save the victim and the accused calmly handing himself over to the authorities. What can be reasonably inferred from this? How about that the guy killed his victim and then offered no violence to anyone else.

It didnt say the construction workers subdued the guy and waited for the police, it said he calmly handed himself over. So how do you figure there would have been 2 more dead people if he had a gun. Maybe if the victim or the construction workers had guns then only person dead would have been the guy with the axe.

Case in point:

The attack at the Appalachian State Law School by a crazed gunman was stopped by two students who had guns.

They didn't have to shoot - as soon as the gunman realized they were armed and confronting him, he peacefully surrendered. The students with guns were NOT police.

Had they not intervened, many more people would have been shot.

So just because someone uses a gun in defense, it does not mean that more people get shot. In most cases, it means that fewer people get hurt.

Yes, it keeps coming up...

like the anti-Islam thread,
the gay marriage thread,
etc., etc., etc.

Yeah...my point was mute really... :rolleyes:

Exactly. If you read the article again, it says that two construction workers armed with metal pipes raced to stop the attack . If the nutter had a gun, it could easily have been 3 dead, not one.
But hey! Why let a little thing like logic get in the way of a rant against gun laws?

Mainly because you seem to be missing that if either of them (The construction workers) had guns, if could have been one or even zero dead.

In most cases, it means that fewer people get hurt.

But apparently most is not enough. :rolleyes:

But apparently most is not enough. :rolleyes:

It's not a problem for me. I always have a gun with me.

I would have given him a chance to stop, and if he didn't he would have died.

It's not a problem for me. I always have a gun with me.

I would have given him a chance to stop, and if he didn't he would have died.

Me either, and I'd be the same, but the thinking here is that the prevention of horrific, violent crimes is less important than the lives of the criminals involved.

Case in point:

The attack at the Appalachian State Law School by a crazed gunman was stopped by two students who had guns.

They didn't have to shoot - as soon as the gunman realized they were armed and confronting him, he peacefully surrendered. The students with guns were NOT police.

Had they not intervened, many more people would have been shot.

So just because someone uses a gun in defense, it does not mean that more people get shot. In most cases, it means that fewer people get hurt.

I am not positive, but I believe in that case they stopped him(using their own guns) while he was reloading. Clearly he meant to go on killing, and would have if not stopped. I believe it took the police 45 minutes to arrive on the scene. Maybe it was 15 minutes, I am not too sure.

I wish people would stop repeatedly trying to push for the UK to allow guns to be carried freely. The government has decided that people are safer if guns limited. They have many good reasons for this decision, the strong drinking culture is undoubtedly one of them, also one needs only look at the problems Scotland has had with 'razor-gangs' to see that allowing people access to guns is not going to go well. Furthermore, while in America people are willing to carry guns around with them for their protection, in the UK which doesn't have the same strong gun culture, people on the whole would not want to carry or own guns, except for the nutters, who end up causing these sorts of incidents.
At the moment the UK is suffering from an increase in gun crime, partially fueled by the glorification of gun carrying in the entertainment sector, however I don't think that increasing Britons' access to guns would in any way improve this situation.

More people are killed by guns than by axe every years, even in the UK. I don't understand how this story is relevant to the debate about gun laws.
More people are killed by knives, specifically kitchen knoves than any other weapon.
Some one wanted to ban the sale of pointed knives, but that would actually involve some thought etc so ban it Blair was not interested.

Guns can be used to stop crime and impose peace, therefore a ban would prevent some people from using them for those purposes.

Guns are used this way in the US 2.5 million times per year.
Of course you derive said statistic when the amount of gun crime was over 1 million a year

I wish people would stop repeatedly trying to push for the UK to allow guns to be carried freely. The government has decided that people are safer if guns limited. They have many good reasons for this decision, the strong drinking culture is undoubtedly one of them, also one needs only look at the problems Scotland has had with 'razor-gangs' to see that allowing people access to guns is not going to go well. Furthermore, while in America people are willing to carry guns around with them for their protection, in the UK which doesn't have the same strong gun culture, people on the whole would not want to carry or own guns, except for the nutters, who end up causing these sorts of incidents.
At the moment the UK is suffering from an increase in gun crime, partially fueled by the glorification of gun carrying in the entertainment sector, however I don't think that increasing Britons' access to guns would in any way improve this situation.
So if it is just the guns why don't Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the Swis have as big a problem as the UK, when guns are more readily available in those countries legally than here.

That's almost exactly my point. Each country is different. In the US they have a strong gun culture therefore banning guns is not going to provide a solution. I'm saying that Britain would be a more dangerous place if you allowed guns to be more freely carried, the government agrees with me and I think the majority of British people agree with me. In Canada or Australia it is probably different, in fact I'm certain it is.

Edit: and regarding knives, it is in fact illegal to carry knives around in Scotland at least.

Guns can be used to stop crime and impose peace, therefore a ban would prevent some people from using them for those purposes.

Guns are used this way in the US 2.5 million times per year.

I would like to say:

a) you can't impose peace. you can impose temporary cessation of hostilities, but that isn't the same thing

b) one person with a gun can have a good go at imposing temporary cessation of hostilities where no-one else has a gun. but when everyone has a gun, having a gun isn't really an advantage.

c) how do you know? is there a form to fill in when you've used a firearm to thwart a crime?

That's almost exactly my point. Each country is different. In the US they have a strong gun culture therefore banning guns is not going to provide a solution. I'm saying that Britain would be a more dangerous place if you allowed guns to be more freely carried, the government agrees with me and I think the majority of British people agree with me. In Canada or Australia it is probably different, in fact I'm certain it is.

Edit: and regarding knives, it is in fact illegal to carry knives around in Scotland at least.

and in england and wales, i believe the burden of proof is on the carrier to show legitimate purpose for carrying the knife.

I wish people would stop repeatedly trying to push for the UK to allow guns to be carried freely. The government has decided that people are safer if guns limited. They have many good reasons for this decision, the strong drinking culture is undoubtedly one of them, also one needs only look at the problems Scotland has had with 'razor-gangs' to see that allowing people access to guns is not going to go well. Furthermore, while in America people are willing to carry guns around with them for their protection, in the UK which doesn't have the same strong gun culture, people on the whole would not want to carry or own guns, except for the nutters, who end up causing these sorts of incidents.
At the moment the UK is suffering from an increase in gun crime, partially fueled by the glorification of gun carrying in the entertainment sector, however I don't think that increasing Britons' access to guns would in any way improve this situation.

Most gun owners in the US are not "nutters". Especially those that have concealed carry permits - they are, on the whole, more law abiding than even the police. They are also more competent with their weapons than the police, and on a shooting-by-shooting basis, less likely than the police to be involved in an unjustified shooting.

The UK is the UK. The US is the US. Up until the 19th century, Britain did have a gun culture - the National Rifle Association in the US was modeled on the same organization in the UK. WW I seems to have had the greatest effect on eliminating the gun culture of the UK - largely by eliminating a population of young men, and turning the survivors off the idea of shooting. Additionally, the UK approach to law enforcement has been based on the idea of a traditionally unarmed policeman - there are more and more exceptions to this today (hence the MP5 submachinegun in the boot of the police car), but it seems to be an expectation by the UK criminal and the UK public that the police in general are not out to shoot - and indeed, the UK policeman seems to have given up his right to live if it means that he dies in order that a criminal not die while being apprehended.

Here in the US, the police want to live to see retirement. And that rescinds nearly all other priorities concerning the criminal's life. We have the same philosophy in most states concerning self-defense - to submit to a criminal is to submit to personal slavery or worse - and the use of a firearm to prevent bodily harm is enshrined in our laws at most levels.

Here in the US, we've made it harder for criminals to get guns (though not impossible). But we've made the compromise in most jurisdictions that these limits should not prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining one.

It seems to work here - our crime rates are dropping in the states where we allow concealed carry, and our crime rates are going up in the urban areas where guns are forbidden. Here, unlike the UK, if you don't like guns, you can certainly move to a place like Massachusetts where guns are very limited (although gun crime is high). And if you like guns, you can move to a place like Vermont or Virginia where guns are allowed to be carried by civilians (and gun crime is low).

Quite unlike the UK, where one size fits all. I guess if you're in the UK and you want to be a gun hobbyist, or defend yourself, you can always move to another country.

Why dont you take a closer look at the article. Pay special attention to the parts where it talks about the construction workers being too late to save the victim and the accused calmly handing himself over to the authorities. What can be reasonably inferred from this? How about that the guy killed his victim and then offered no violence to anyone else.

It didnt say the construction workers subdued the guy and waited for the police, it said he calmly handed himself over. So how do you figure there would have been 2 more dead people if he had a gun. Maybe if the victim or the construction workers had guns then only person dead would have been the guy with the axe.

I'm not quite sure how a gun would have helped the victim: presumably, if the victim was able to carry a gun, so too would the attacker, who would simply have shot him without giving him a chance to defend himself.

Mainly because you seem to be missing that if either of them (The construction workers) had guns, if could have been one or even zero dead.



But apparently most is not enough. :rolleyes:
Again, if any of those involved were able to carry guns, it would be sensible to assume that they all could. In which case, the victim would have been killed far too quickly for anyone to do anything about it.

maybe they should ban any "weapons of opporotunity". I was taught to use the closest thing available-a stapler off of a desk, a house key, a ballpoint pen-a chair.
Or maybe they should just prosecute the crime commited a little more vigorously, with more severe penalties. Otherwise, we will have housewives submitting to backround searches when purchasing poultry shears.

I was more disturbed by the side story that Pierce Brosnan is no longer playing James Bond.

Here, unlike the UK, if you don't like guns, you can certainly move to a place like Massachusetts where guns are very limited (although gun crime is high). And if you like guns, you can move to a place like Vermont or Virginia where guns are allowed to be carried by civilians (and gun crime is low).

Quite unlike the UK, where one size fits all. I guess if you're in the UK and you want to be a gun hobbyist, or defend yourself, you can always move to another country.

I'd like to see figures on deaths of police officers on duty in the UK and US.

The UK is pretty tiny compared to the US. We can't really have gun and non-gun areas because there's no room. Of course we partake in the EU, which is big enough to allow varying gun laws. I don't think it does though. And any UK citizen who wants a gun is welcome to leave. The UK olympic handgun shooting team practises in Switzerland.

I'm not quite sure how a gun would have helped the victim: presumably, if the victim was able to carry a gun, so too would the attacker, who would simply have shot him without giving him a chance to defend himself.

Statistically, in the US, your attacker is not likely to be armed with a gun during a violent crime.

Even if your attacker is armed with a gun, your chance in a fight with him is still on the 50/50 mark if you have one also - it's zero if you don't have one.

At least that's the way it works out here in the US. In terms of average skill, the typical armed law abiding civilian is a much better shot that the typical felon, who in turn is a much better shot than the average policeman. That's been the state of things here in the US.

Guns here in the US stop 2.5 million violent crimes per year - and that's not the action of the police - it's the action of armed civilians. It's not a flurry of gunfights, either. This is stopping violent crime without firing a shot.

Guns, in order to have a deterrent effect, or a stopping effect, do not have to be fired. The mere presence and visibility of a gun has an extremely moderating effect on most felons here.

It's not time for us to ban guns, it's time to give more funding to the police force to stop guys like this. He was obviously insane and just grabbed whatever was on hand, if he had beaten 'em to death with a rubber chicken, would we be banning them? It's not the weapon, it's the crime we should be worried about.

I'd like to point out that even before the gun ban very few British people owned a gun, and most even disagreed with the very concept of having a firearm in their house. This has not changed.

Making firearms legal again would not instantly mean that everyone would rush out, buy firearms and then there would be no more violent crime. Very few citizens would buy guns, and so there would be no more chance of them using a gun to stop a crime than there was before. It would just make things even more dangerous as the odd nutter (such as the one who eventually helped accelerate a gun ban in the first place) could get hold of them all that more easily.

I blame alcohol for the statistical increase in violent crime; just walk around any inner-city street, or just any street near any form of nightlife whatsoever, at night and you'll see what I mean. Binge drinking is a major cause of the increase in violent crime you see in statistics. And the last thing you want to be in the hands of someone completely bladdered and looking for a fight is a firearm.

The crime in question with this thread, however, is completely irrelevant to the subject of firearms. Completely. Even if both men had been armed with handguns (how many Americans walk the streets with a handgun tucked into their belts, anyway? While I'm sure there are a worrying number, I doubt it is phenomenally high, certainly not a majority), the victim would still have been a victim -- primarily, because the victim would have been taken by surprise, whereas the attacker had planned this, and would have been ready for him. That old man would have been gunned down before he could even reach for his weapon. There is no defence against a gun short of a bullet proof vest (an object I doubt many people carry around with them). There are plenty of defences that can be used against a melee weapon such as an axe, however, though it seems doubtful that this man would have known or been able to use any.

Here in the US, we've made it harder for criminals to get guns (though not impossible). But we've made the compromise in most jurisdictions that these limits should not prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining one.

Harder than what? How can it be hard for anyone to get a gun in a country where there are how many guns? 50 million? I have no idea, but it is a lot isn't it. If I've got one gun, I can certainly point it at someone's head and say "gimme your gun" a few times, until I've got lots.

It's not time for us to ban guns, it's time to give more funding to the police force to stop guys like this. He was obviously insane and just grabbed whatever was on hand, if he had beaten 'em to death with a rubber chicken, would we be banning them? It's not the weapon, it's the crime we should be worried about.

No, no. You have to realize that in a "nanny" state, where the government knows what's good for you, you are too stupid to be accountable for your actions. Obviously, the man needed help. If he had received proper mental health care, this would never have happened. It's objects that cause crime - never the mind of the person involved.

Intelligent criminals have no problem finding illegal firearms and in fact prefer to use illegal firearms because they're harder to trace back to the criminal, so you may prevent the average moron from committing a crime by banning guns from the general public, but you make it all the more easy for the intelligent ones who already own or know how to obtain an illegal one.

And the one thing criminals fear the most is that their victims will be carrying a gun as well.

Statistically, in the US, your attacker is not likely to be armed with a gun during a violent crime.I don't think even petty criminals come that stupid in the UK. And why do you need a gun to defend yourself from someone who hasn't got a gun?

Even if your attacker is armed with a gun, your chance in a fight with him is still on the 50/50 mark if you have one also - it's zero if you don't have one.Nonsense. If your attacker is sensible, he isn't going to kill you. If he's mad, he isn't going to be put off by your gun. If everyone has a gun, there's a good chance that a random shootout will ensue.

Guns here in the US stop 2.5 million violent crimes per year - and that's not the action of the police - it's the action of armed civilians. It's not a flurry of gunfights, either. This is stopping violent crime without firing a shot.Still wondering how you know that.

Guns, in order to have a deterrent effect, or a stopping effect, do not have to be fired. The mere presence and visibility of a gun has an extremely moderating effect on most felons here.You must have some pretty lame felons then. And how come they don't have guns?

Maybe something had finally made him do what he did? We'll have to wait and see, but my point was he knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't do it because he was ill. Or at least thats what the police have said.


Its likely we'll find out the victim was involved in some heinous act against the killer or his family. Its those circumstances that produce an attack like this. This killer had no concerns about escape or attacking anyone else it seems.

Most gun owners in the US are not "nutters".

I never even tried to suggest that they were. I tried to point out that in the UK fewer people will want to carry guns, so proportionately the nutters among them are going to be greater. Therefore the tendency is going to be more for incidents like Hungerford and Dunblane and less for those incidents you quote of people preventing crime. That's just the way it is, so it was better, for the UK at least to ban guns. If the UK were to allow more access to guns all that would mean is that the criminals would be more likely to be able to get their hands on them rather than having to rely on converted Brockock air-pistols.

As for opportunities for people to fire guns, I would have no problem with some system of strictly reguulated firing ranges, probably under the auspices of the military (it would probably good for recruitment), but I don't really think it's necessary.

Its likely we'll find out the victim was involved in some heinous act against the killer or his family. Its those circumstances that produce an attack like this. This killer had no concerns about escape or attacking anyone else it seems.

That was what I was thinking, especially as the guy let it build up for 20 years.

I don't think even petty criminals come that stupid in the UK. And why do you need a gun to defend yourself from someone who hasn't got a gun?

You must have some pretty lame felons then. And how come they don't have guns?


I dont have the statisics on hand, but I think most women that are sexually assaulted face a male attacker, usually armed with only a knife. The five attackers that met up with Bernie Goetz in NY years ago all had sharpened screwdrivers. Its was one against 4 or 5 and they most likely would have given him a good beating ar stabbing even if he submitted to robbery. He didnt because he was armed and knew how to use the gun. He shot each one of all his attackers and no innocent bystanders or their property were damaged. his main problem was that he didnt obtain the gun legally, so he did time in jail.

I don't think even petty criminals come that stupid in the UK. And why do you need a gun to defend yourself from someone who hasn't got a gun?

Nonsense. If your attacker is sensible, he isn't going to kill you. If he's mad, he isn't going to be put off by your gun. If everyone has a gun, there's a good chance that a random shootout will ensue.

Still wondering how you know that.

You must have some pretty lame felons then. And how come they don't have guns?

Felons here have a hard time obtaining guns because of the Brady Act - you have to pass a computer background check (it takes about a minute). That seems to deter most from attempting to buy them. It's a 10 year mandatory sentence for trafficking in guns, or trying to go around the background check - something that no anti-gun person in the US will let you know.

Violent crime is dropping:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence

Weapon use: 24% of violent crimes involve "a weapon", which doesn't necesarily mean a firearm. 67% of homicides are done with firearms.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

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

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

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

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

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

The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.

That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases.

That was what I was thinking, especially as the guy let it build up for 20 years.


Yeah-it doesnt seem this killer hasnt just been sitting around licking the axe looking for a victim. Time will tell, but he may come out looking like a good guy.

Felons here have a hard time obtaining guns because of the Brady Act - you have to pass a computer background check (it takes about a minute). That seems to deter most from attempting to buy them. It's a 10 year mandatory sentence for trafficking in guns, or trying to go around the background check - something that no anti-gun person in the US will let you know.

I expect the 10 year mandatory penalty really acts a deterrent, like the death penalty for murder, and the penalties drug traffickers get. Oh, no they don't do they?

And you don't have to pass a computer background check. You have to say hey homes sell me your gun man.

1) Is 2.5 million an average?
2) I could better challenge if records went back further than 1991

I expect the 10 year mandatory penalty really acts a deterrent, like the death penalty for murder, and the penalties drug traffickers get. Oh, no they don't do they?

And you don't have to pass a computer background check. You have to say hey homes sell me your gun man.


Your time in prison should be spent working hard, long days with the proceeds going to your victim or their family as well as your own upkeep. None of this BS getting a law degree at the taxpayer's expense, a whiling away the days lifting weights and learning new tricks from more experienced criminals.

Your time in prison should be spent working hard, long days with the proceeds going to your victim or their family as well as your own upkeep. None of this BS getting a law degree at the taxpayer's expense, a whiling away the days lifting weights and learning new tricks from more experienced criminals.

it still wouldn't be a deterrent. nobody thinks "shall i commit this crime? i wonder what going to prison would be like". well maybe 1% of criminals do.

1) Is 2.5 million an average?
2) I could better challenge if records went back further than 1991

Yes, it is. Not only did the two separate studies validate it, but raw data from 15 other surveys afterwards show the same trend.

You'll be beating your head against the wall if you try to challenge the veracity of the study. The peer reviewers couldn't find any holes in it. What chance do you think you have?

I expect the 10 year mandatory penalty really acts a deterrent, like the death penalty for murder, and the penalties drug traffickers get. Oh, no they don't do they?

And you don't have to pass a computer background check. You have to say hey homes sell me your gun man.

The deterrent does exist. Most guns on the street are not bought at gun stores. Most of them are stolen and then resold. Most gun store owners are not going to risk their business to go around the background check.

Most of the guns in 40 caliber on the street in Washington, D.C. were stolen from the DC Police. I've seen an idiot with one of these trying to buy an extra magazine in a gun store - he was captured by the armed store owner and arrested by the police.

I'm not quite sure how a gun would have helped the victim: presumably, if the victim was able to carry a gun, so too would the attacker, who would simply have shot him without giving him a chance to defend himself.

Maybe, maybe not. We wont ever know. What we do know is the following

The victim was unarmed yet he still died.
The bystanders were unarmed yet the victim still died
The people willing to help the victim armed themselves(but not with guns) and the victim still died.

Maybe changing the equation a little bit would not have helped, but maybe it would have. If the victim or bystanders or the construction workers had guns it could have been very different. As it is, a young guy took advantage of an older man(he even had the foresight to bring a weapon(axe)) and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

I prefer leaving the choice to potential victims over leaving it to potential attackers.

it still wouldn't be a deterrent. nobody thinks "shall i commit this crime? i wonder what going to prison would be like". well maybe 1% of criminals do.

It may help deter the more average person-like me. Putting a violent criminal in prison is good in one way because you figure while they are in, they wont hurt anyone on the outside. But they should still have to produce. The cost of keeping them locked up is absurd, and then feeding,clothing and climate control too? They also get medical and dental attention. I am not saying they should be denied any of these things and the quality is probably not up there, but thats the point of prison-its not pleasant. But neither is a young female jogger minding her own business being raped, robbed and beaten withing an inch of dying.
Prison could be involved in manufacturing. Inmates would work longer days than on the outside and longer weeks too. They would get lower wages and their salary would be divided to go toward-their food and upkeep, their victim and maybe a share toward the welfare/social security system. Direct mandatory contributions toward society. Not just wasting time looking for entertainment.

Yes, it is. Not only did the two separate studies validate it, but raw data from 15 other surveys afterwards show the same trend.

You'll be beating your head against the wall if you try to challenge the veracity of the study. The peer reviewers couldn't find any holes in it. What chance do you think you have?
I can challenge it based on the average number of gun related violent crime per year IF I could get something gonig back past 1991

I can challenge it based on the average number of gun related violent crime per year IF I could get something gonig back past 1991
Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

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

I'm don't want to challenge the data, I want to make a conclusion comparison.

I don't think even petty criminals come that stupid in the UK. And why do you need a gun to defend yourself from someone who hasn't got a gun?

A) the bad guy might be physically bigger/stronger than you
b) there might be more than 1 bad guy
c)Why the hell should I be on a level playing field with a criminal?


Nonsense. If your attacker is sensible, he isn't going to kill you. If he's mad, he isn't going to be put off by your gun. If everyone has a gun, there's a good chance that a random shootout will ensue.

He might rape/assault you.. I dont mind giving up my property so much, but I do mind subjecting myself and my family to harm even if that harm isnt murder.

If he isnt sensible, he might not be put off by a gun but at least I will have the means to do something about him. Maybe you feel that it is wise to reason with someone who isnt scared by is victim having a firearm. Or maybe you think that it is reasonable to let such a person decide whether they will harm you or not. Because, that is what you are advocating.

Random shootouts are not to be afraid off. They happen so rarely as to be an insignificant threat.


Still wondering how you know that.


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

how many times does this need to be posted?


You must have some pretty lame felons then. And how come they don't have guns?

maybe because the jail time increases so much if you use a gun while commiting the crime yet the reward stays constant. Even criminals are rational.

Maybe because drug addicts spend the money they would used on a gun for drugs.

Who knows why? But what is...IS.

I'm don't want to challenge the data, I want to make a conclusion comparison.

The reviewers couldn't even arrive at a different conclusion.

The reviewers couldn't even arrive at a different conclusion.
You don't even know what I want to show, bequiet now.

You don't even know what I want to show, bequiet now.

Here's a page you might like:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

It has links to crime stats by state (and at the bottom of each page, stats per 100,000 population, concerning Part 1 crime).

Maybe not useful in your current challenge, but you should take a look at various states and see what you see.

As a comparison, you could look at Maryland and Virginia.

Here's a page you might like:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

It has links to crime stats by state (and at the bottom of each page, stats per 100,000 population, concerning Part 1 crime).

Maybe not useful in your current challenge, but you should take a look at various states and see what you see.

As a comparison, you could look at Maryland and Virginia.
Stop cherry picking. If I wanted to cherry pick I could point out the states with gun control that have less crime than other states without gun control, but I'm not going to be that much of an ass.

A) the bad guy might be physically bigger/stronger than you
b) there might be more than 1 bad guy
c)Why the hell should I be on a level playing field with a criminal?



He might rape/assault you.. I dont mind giving up my property so much, but I do mind subjecting myself and my family to harm even if that harm isnt murder.

If he isnt sensible, he might not be put off by a gun but at least I will have the means to do something about him. Maybe you feel that it is wise to reason with someone who isnt scared by is victim having a firearm. Or maybe you think that it is reasonable to let such a person decide whether they will harm you or not. Because, that is what you are advocating.

Random shootouts are not to be afraid off. They happen so rarely as to be an insignificant threat.



http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

how many times does this need to be posted?



maybe because the jail time increases so much if you use a gun while commiting the crime yet the reward stays constant. Even criminals are rational.

Maybe because drug addicts spend the money they would used on a gun for drugs.

Who knows why? But what is...IS.

and what IS is - rape, assault and murder are all MORE prevalent in the US than in the UK. Mugging and burglary are more prevalent in the UK. I'd rather be mugged thatn murdered.

and what IS is - rape, assault and murder are all MORE prevalent in the US than in the UK. Mugging and burglary are more prevalent in the UK. I'd rather be mugged thatn murdered.

Rape, assault, mugging, and burglary are all more prevalent in US areas where guns are nearly prohibited or severely restricted.

Violent crime in the US is lower in the states that have concealed carry liberalized.

In the US, there is a direct connection between rates of legal gun ownership and the drop in violent crime.

Rape, assault, mugging, and burglary are all more prevalent in US areas where guns are nearly prohibited or severely restricted.

Violent crime in the US is lower in the states that have concealed carry liberalized.

In the US, there is a direct connection between rates of legal gun ownership and the drop in violent crime.

Because it's not hard to grab a gun in a state where it's legal and then run off to a state where they aren't legal and have some fun with your gun.

Violent crime in the US is lower in the states that have concealed carry liberalized.
lower than what?

lower than what?
Lower than the states that do not.

There is a link between areas of the US that have strict gun laws, and an increase in violent crime and murder.

There is a link between areas of the US that have strict gun laws, and an increase in violent crime and murder.

I repeat:
it's not hard to grab a gun in a state where it's legal and then run off to a state where they aren't legal and have some fun with your gun.

I repeat:
it's not hard to grab a gun in a state where it's legal and then run off to a state where they aren't legal and have some fun with your gun.

Most criminals in DC favor the .40 caliber version of the Glock, because it's what they steal from the DC Police.

It's not hard to grab a gun from the police in DC. They've lost hundreds of them per year.

It's not hard to grab a gun from the police in DC. They've lost hundreds of them per year.

I'm not trying to play a game of "It's not hard to...".
My point is that if a criminal can get a gun in a state where gun laws are relaxed (lets face it, it's alot easier for a criminal to get a gun in the US than the UK) he can then travel to another state where gun control is tighter secure in the knowledge that his victims will not be carrying firearms. Therefore - I find your statistics unreliable.

Guns can be used to stop crime and impose peace, therefore a ban would prevent some people from using them for those purposes.
And do you know why guns have such a powerful influence? Because they are solely used to impose death upon another.

Can guns be used to cut wood, like an axe? Can guns be used to hammer nails, like a hammer? Can a gun be used for anything but shooting and intimidating? No. Just so happens that an axe can be used to cut wood or a hammer can be used to hammer nails, but unfortunately they can also be used to hurt others.

What else can a gun be used for, other than violence and intimidation? Nothing.

Your argument is irrelevant. Have a nice day.

a) you can't impose peace. you can impose temporary cessation of hostilities, but that isn't the same thing
No, peace = cessation of hostilities, regardless of how long.
Heard of the Pax Romana? Rome was at peace for a long period of time after the reign of Augustus Caesar. Why? Because they beat the crap out of anybody that could oppose them. Hence, peace.

No, peace = cessation of hostilities, regardless of how long.
Heard of the Pax Romana? Rome was at peace for a long period of time after the reign of Augustus Caesar. Why? Because they beat the crap out of anybody that could oppose them. Hence, peace.

peace = cessartion of hostilities? that's not my definition of peace. pax romana is ironic.

and what IS is - rape, assault and murder are all MORE prevalent in the US than in the UK. Mugging and burglary are more prevalent in the UK. I'd rather be mugged thatn murdered.


And what does that have to do with guns? have never claimed that the US has less crime or violence, what I do believe howeer is that US crime rates would be significantly higher if there were less firearms in private hands.

There are many ways you can slice this pie, the best way would have to do with drug crime. You remove the drug related violence and property crimes and the US's crime rate is equal to or lower than that of Europe's.

What does this mean? I have no idea, but I think the war on drugs should be re thought.

And what does that have to do with guns?Well, if you read the preceding thread, you might notice that it has a "thread". Ideas and arguments are developed throughout the thread. My post was a response to another post. Read that too. I may even have quoted it in my post.

Rape, assault, mugging, and burglary are all more prevalent in US areas where guns are nearly prohibited or severely restricted.

Violent crime in the US is lower in the states that have concealed carry liberalized.

In the US, there is a direct connection between rates of legal gun ownership and the drop in violent crime.
This absolutely not true and you know it. :eek:

Florida has had "carry conceal" since 1987?

What is Florida's status in regards to "violent crime"? (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm)

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people.

This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index.

For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,882.7 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 3rd highest.

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.

For every 100,000 people there were 1,081.8 Burglaries, which ranks Florida as having the 3rd highest standing among the states.

Florida has had the right to carry a concealed weapon for 15 years and yet it has the MOST Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 people in the whole USA!!

Your argument falls to pieces on the above facts.

There are many ways you can slice this pie, the best way would have to do with drug crime. You remove the drug related violence and property crimes and the US's crime rate is equal to or lower than that of Europe's. if you also remove the drug-related crime from Europe's crime rate?

And what does that have to do with guns?

That it is being argued guns help prevent crime, yet the US has I believe the highest crime rate in the Western World?

And do you know why guns have such a powerful influence? Because they are solely used to impose death upon another.

Can guns be used to cut wood, like an axe? Can guns be used to hammer nails, like a hammer? Can a gun be used for anything but shooting and intimidating? No. Just so happens that an axe can be used to cut wood or a hammer can be used to hammer nails, but unfortunately they can also be used to hurt others.

What else can a gun be used for, other than violence and intimidation? Nothing.

Your argument is irrelevant. Have a nice day.
No, your argument is irrelevant. What does it matter whether or not guns are used for other things? If somone wants to kill somebody enough, they'll go out of their way to illegally acquire a gun. Now, if you're the person they intend to shoot, wouldn't you much rather have a gun to protect yourself, knowing well that your adversary has gotten one? I know I would.

This is the essential thing people forget when they want to ban guns: guns will still exist, even if they are illegal. Who commits murder? Criminals. Do criminals care if they break the law? Obviously not, or they wouldn't be criminals. So are they going to care that a gun is illegal? Hell no! They will go out of their way to get guns. And knowing that only they have guns, they can be confident in their ability to commit the crime. But if they knew that other people, the police, and possibly even their intended victim also had a gun, and could possibly shoot and kill the would-be murderer, then criminals will be less likely to risk their lives.

Got it?

And you have a nice day too. :)

And do you know why guns have such a powerful influence? Because they are solely used to impose death upon another.

Can guns be used to cut wood, like an axe? Can guns be used to hammer nails, like a hammer? Can a gun be used for anything but shooting and intimidating? No. Just so happens that an axe can be used to cut wood or a hammer can be used to hammer nails, but unfortunately they can also be used to hurt others.

What else can a gun be used for, other than violence and intimidation? Nothing.

Your argument is irrelevant. Have a nice day.


So you're saying that 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year by armed civilians to prevent violent crime is irrelevant?

The prevention of 2.5 million murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults through intimidation alone is irrelevant?

I hope that the next time I meet a person who was raped, robbed, or assaulted, I can tell them your real name, and that you felt it was just fine that they were victimized - and if only they had had a gun it would never have happened.

snip!

And yet, the US *still* has a higher crime rate than the UK, even though you can merrily gun down anyone who tries to commit a crime.

I hope that the next time I meet a person who was raped, robbed, or assaulted, I can tell them your real name, and that you felt it was just fine that they were victimized - and if only they had had a gun it would never have happened.
Go ahead: The name's Dmitri Burch.

peace = cessartion of hostilities? that's not my definition of peace. pax romana is ironic.
Then, in my opinion, your definition of peace is flawed.
But what do you consider to be peace? Everybody being all nice and happy and getting along with one another and always agreeing and fairly deliberating matters?
I mean, that's nice and all, but it'll never happen.
At least my kind of peace is attainable. And yes, war can be a means to peace.

And yet, the US *still* has a higher crime rate than the UK, even though you can merrily gun down anyone who tries to commit a crime.
Unfortunately, I cannot speak for the entire American population, most of which does not own a gun. And some of those who do have guns are too squeamish to use them.

However, if everyone in the USA had a gun and would use it to prevent crime, the rate of violent crimes would plummet. Of course, that'll never happen, but the point is guns = less crime, if and only if the general populace is willing to use them to prevent crime.

Go ahead: The name's Dmitri Burch.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/StLouisDGURTC.html

Yes, we see how much the people in St. Louis, MO agree with you now, after years of gun violence and no way to defend themselves, they changed the laws and now they are defending themselves.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/StLouisDGURTC.html

Yes, we see how much the people in St. Louis, MO agree with you now, after years of gun violence and no way to defend themselves, they changed the laws and now they are defending themselves.
Hurray.

Of course, that'll never happen, but the point is guns = less crime, if and only if the general populace is willing to use them to prevent crime.
So what you're saying is guns aren't doing squat.

While we're changing things that can't be changed though, if no one was willing to be a criminal, we'd have less crime.

So what you're saying is guns aren't doing squat.

While we're changing things that can't be changed though, if no one was willing to be a criminal, we'd have less crime.

Most crime in the US - violent or otherwise - has its roots in the war on drugs.

Legalize drugs, and the majority of violent crime would stop in the US.

Most theft and burglary would stop if you subsidized drugs for the poor.

So what you're saying is guns aren't doing squat.

While we're changing things that can't be changed though, if no one was willing to be a criminal, we'd have less crime.
There will always be those who are willing to be criminals, you can't change that. Although, if more people were willing to use guns to protect themselves, less people would be willing to be criminals.

And yes, guns are doing something. Just see the link posted above.

Most crime in the US - violent or otherwise - has its roots in the war on drugs.

Legalize drugs, and the majority of violent crime would stop in the US.

Most theft and burglary would stop if you subsidized drugs for the poor.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Hold it.

Although that may be true, legalizing drugs is a bit extreme [although not unthinkable], and government subsidizing things is a big no-no in my book.

And on a humorous note, that post made me think of the episode of Monk where he went to Mexico, and the local police insisted that everything had to do with drugs.

yes why dont we ban everything PWN TEHM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHIFT111111111

but seriously thats silly

Well, until the problem is solved, I'm carrying my pistol.

Other people may not be safe. Indeed, other people may choose not to be safe.

But I am safe.

Well, if you read the preceding thread, you might notice that it has a "thread". Ideas and arguments are developed throughout the thread. My post was a response to another post. Read that too. I may even have quoted it in my post.

That it is being argued guns help prevent crime, yet the US has I believe the highest crime rate in the Western World?


Do you guys like read the first line and not even make an attempt to respond to what the poster is trying say?

The whole statement about "what does that have to do with guns" in regards to US and UK overall violent crimes rates is trying to emphasis that it is silly to compare the disparty between the two simply to gun ownership/controls.

The US NON-GUN murder rate is higher that the UK's TOTAL murder rate. So how do you explain that in light of your views on guns. Why dont you simply understand that the US is simply a more violent place and it has nothing to do with guns. If you want to understand the impact of gun legistlation/lack thereof then you have to look within the US or within the UK and not compare the two on the same field.

In the US, it is my belief(along with many others including many scholars) that the crime rate would be worse if there were less guns. I also believe the same of the UK. What doesnt make sense is to say that the US allows more guns therefore it has a higher crime rate than the UK(because of the guns).

Does the UK have a lower murder rate than the US..YES
Is this because of gun policies? Absolutely not.
Why absolutely not? because the US non gun murder rate still exceeds the UK. Ill explain for thse of you that havent understood.

The MURDER rate WITHOUT guns in the US is HIGHER than that the UK's TOTAL murder rate. Clearly there is something going on other than gun ownership. How would you explain this using the "guns cause more murders argument?" You cant! What needs to be addressed is the underlying issue, not the surface argument. I beleve that underlying issue to be the war on drugs.

We can argue that if you like, but that would be another thread.

Looking at country by country and then focusing on guns is so silly. You leave out so many more significant factors.

Most crime in the US - violent or otherwise - has its roots in the war on drugs.

Legalize drugs, and the majority of violent crime would stop in the US.

Most theft and burglary would stop if you subsidized drugs for the poor.

No need to subsidize, even with all the DEA's efforts, real drug prices are falling faster than any other commodity. If all it took was a field to grow whatever and maybe some sort of ad hoc lab, drugs would be way cheaper than cigarettes in the USA.

Statistically, in the US, your attacker is not likely to be armed with a gun during a violent crime.

Even if your attacker is armed with a gun, your chance in a fight with him is still on the 50/50 mark if you have one also - it's zero if you don't have one.

At least that's the way it works out here in the US. In terms of average skill, the typical armed law abiding civilian is a much better shot that the typical felon, who in turn is a much better shot than the average policeman. That's been the state of things here in the US.

Guns here in the US stop 2.5 million violent crimes per year - and that's not the action of the police - it's the action of armed civilians. It's not a flurry of gunfights, either. This is stopping violent crime without firing a shot.

Guns, in order to have a deterrent effect, or a stopping effect, do not have to be fired. The mere presence and visibility of a gun has an extremely moderating effect on most felons here.

Well, this is not the US, and this is a specific situation we are discussing, not a vague statistic or violent crime in general.

Surely you cannot be suggesting that the attacker would still have used an axe, not a gun, if there was one available to him and he knew the victim was likely to have one? He clearly intended to kill his victim, and was so desperate for his victim to die that he completely disregarded the consequences to himself; would a man this intent on killing someone jeapodise their revenge by choosing an inferior murder weapon? I think not!

Maybe, maybe not. We wont ever know. What we do know is the following

The victim was unarmed yet he still died.
The bystanders were unarmed yet the victim still died
The people willing to help the victim armed themselves(but not with guns) and the victim still died.

Maybe changing the equation a little bit would not have helped, but maybe it would have. If the victim or bystanders or the construction workers had guns it could have been very different. As it is, a young guy took advantage of an older man(he even had the foresight to bring a weapon(axe)) and there was nothing anybody could do about it.

I prefer leaving the choice to potential victims over leaving it to potential attackers.
No, once again: if the victim or bystanders were likely to have guns, the killer would probably have used a gun, in which, the man would likely have been dead before anyone could even think about helping him.

Well, this is not the US, and this is a specific situation we are discussing, not a vague statistic or violent crime in general.

Surely you cannot be suggesting that the attacker would still have used an axe, not a gun, if there was one available to him and he knew the victim was likely to have one? He clearly intended to kill his victim, and was so desperate for his victim to die that he completely disregarded the consequences to himself; would a man this intent on killing someone jeapodise their revenge by choosing an inferior murder weapon? I think not!

Who knows what he would have used? Here in the US, knives and baseball bats are still employed on a frequent basis to kill people. Why didnt they go out and get a gun?

Most killers are not nutjobs, like this man appears to be.

He could have been armed with a brick, for all it matters.

If this had happened right where I am standing, the story would have ended slightly differently.

They would be describing what his squashed head looked like, instead of the victim's.

No, once again: if the victim or bystanders were likely to have guns, the killer would probably have used a gun, in which, the man would likely have been dead before anyone could even think about helping him.


So you CLAIM about the perp deciding to use a gun or not. Doesnt matter though, because even in this case without guns the victim was still dead and couldnt do anything about it. How much worse could it have been if everyone(perp included) was armed with a gun? Maybe more than 1 person would have died, maybe not. I think it more likely that the perp would have a)avoided the situation or B) been disabled by either the victim or the bystanders before anyone was killed.

The victim is still dead, but maybe he would have had a chance. It isnt like his life was SAVED because he wasnt allowed to own a gun.

Most killers are not nutjobs, like this man appears to be.

He could have been armed with a brick, for all it matters.

If this had happened right where I am standing, the story would have ended slightly differently.

They would be describing what his squashed head looked like, instead of the victim's.

And:
Who knows what he would have used? Here in the US, knives and baseball bats are still employed on a frequent basis to kill people. Why didnt they go out and get a gun?

Hate smileys though I do, nothing says it better: :headbang:

I am not talking about other killers, or violent crime in general - I am arguing about this specific instance. It seems eminently likely that, IN THIS INSTANCE, with the attacker setting out solely to kill his victim, that the presence of guns would probably have made not a jot of difference. It would surely be very easy to kill someone with a gun without them having a chance to do anything about it - Washington sniper, anyone?

So you CLAIM about the perp deciding to use a gun or not. Doesnt matter though, because even in this case without guns the victim was still dead and couldnt do anything about it. How much worse could it have been if everyone(perp included) was armed with a gun? Maybe more than 1 person would have died, maybe not. I think it more likely that the perp would have a)avoided the situation or B) been disabled by either the victim or the bystanders before anyone was killed.

The victim is still dead, but maybe he would have had a chance. It isnt like his life was SAVED because he wasnt allowed to own a gun.
Well, I ask you then: if you were desperate to kill someone, and you knew they had a gun, and you had plenty of time to plan and prepare ("you've had this coming for twenty years!" or whatever it was) - given all of that, would you confront the person you hated so much armed only with an axe, knowing full well that they might be able to shoot you and rob you of your revenge? Or would you get a gun of your own and try to kill them swiftly, before they had a chance to do anything about it?

And if such was the case, how would the bystanders have time?

And:


Hate smileys though I do, nothing says it better: :headbang:

I am not talking about other killers, or violent crime in general - I am arguing about this specific instance. It seems eminently likely that, IN THIS INSTANCE, with the attacker setting out solely to kill his victim, that the presence of guns would probably have made not a jot of difference. It would surely be very easy to kill someone with a gun without them having a chance to do anything about it - Washington sniper, anyone?

As you point out, there is a big difference between someone who just snaps, runs out, and immediately assails someone - as compared to someone who comes up to you with axe in hand and makes some sort of criminal demand or threat.

The Washington sniper took all of his shots from ridiculously short ranges, and I've stood in all of the sites he chose to shoot from. Most were public parking lots. One was a wooded area. None were more than 100 yards from the target, and none was more than 35 yards from a potential witness.

Hypothetically, if you place me in either scenario, I'm not likely to save either victim at that one instance. But I am likely to stop the perpetrator from leaving the scene.

As you point out, there is a big difference between someone who just snaps, runs out, and immediately assails someone - as compared to someone who comes up to you with axe in hand and makes some sort of criminal demand or threat.

The Washington sniper took all of his shots from ridiculously short ranges, and I've stood in all of the sites he chose to shoot from. Most were public parking lots. One was a wooded area. None were more than 100 yards from the target, and none was more than 35 yards from a potential witness.

Hypothetically, if you place me in either scenario, I'm not likely to save either victim at that one instance. But I am likely to stop the perpetrator from leaving the scene.
Which is rather the point, isn't it? If the attacker is determined to kill the person, and plans properly, then they are likely - not certain, but likely - to succeed. And stopping him leaving was not an issue, either - he gave himself up quite calmly to the police.

I don't think we disagree as much as we thought we did - I can see how you would disagree with me if you thought I was generalising about violent crime in general, but I am not doing that at all.

I am not talking about other killers, or violent crime in general - I am arguing about this specific instance. It seems eminently likely that, IN THIS INSTANCE, with the attacker setting out solely to kill his victim, that the presence of guns would probably have made not a jot of difference. It would surely be very easy to kill someone with a gun without them having a chance to do anything about it - Washington sniper, anyone?

See I completely disagree with you on this. I think that in this particular instance guns would have made a HUGE differance. I think that in the Washington sniper case guns would have not made a differance at all. The victims didnt even know what was going on until they were shot at long range.

Who knows what really happened, but it appears that the axe wielder had some sort of "issue" with the victim. Unless the perp was just nuts. Even then a gun might have made a differance because the victim MIGHT have been able to do more than use his head to play catch with an axe.

Did the perp threaten the victim before? how about right before the incident? or did he walk up behind him with an axe and start chopping away? This type of info is important in determining whether a gun would have made a differance.

I think that in the Washington sniper case guns would have not made a differance at all. The victims didnt even know what was going on until they were shot at long range.


I'll repeat - none of the "sniper" shots were at long range. Most were within rock throwing range.

I've seen each and every one of the shooting sites up close. Most of them had witnesses standing MUCH closer than the victim. Like the one in the Bob Evans parking lot shooting across a street to a Sunoco gas station.

If I had been in the Bob Evans parking lot, he would have been dead.

Many people have a grave misconception about how far a real sniper would shoot from - it would be a minimum of three hundred yards for a US military sniper. Less than a hundred yards is not sniping - it's the work of an amateur.

See I completely disagree with you on this. I think that in this particular instance guns would have made a HUGE differance. I think that in the Washington sniper case guns would have not made a differance at all. The victims didnt even know what was going on until they were shot at long range.

Who knows what really happened, but it appears that the axe wielder had some sort of "issue" with the victim. Unless the perp was just nuts. Even then a gun might have made a differance because the victim MIGHT have been able to do more than use his head to play catch with an axe.

Did the perp threaten the victim before? how about right before the incident? or did he walk up behind him with an axe and start chopping away? This type of info is important in determining whether a gun would have made a differance.
Yes, but you are still assuming that the "perp" would have carried out his attack in precisely the same way whether or not the victim had a gun; it would seem much more likely that he would have carried it out radically differently. I agree, had he carried it out in precisely the same manner, it is quite possible that he would have been stopped - but would he really be so daft?

Did they ever figure out why he went off with the axe?

Please BAN AXES NOW!

And stop the tree genocide!

=========

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

=========

Please BAN AXES NOW!

And stop the tree genocide!

=========

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

=========
?!?!

No one has really answered one of the more important questions. Do laws banning or restricting the ownership of firearms really prevent law-abiding citizens from having them. It is, after all, only illegal if the man hastles you about it. If you carry around a banned concealed weapon how would the police wouldn't know without searching you. They wouldn't search you if you were minding your own business, staying out of trouble, and acting normally. Therefore, there is no reason that a law abbiding citizen can't confidently carry a banned concealed weapon without fear of arrest so long as he doesn't do anything that any other law abiding citizen wouldn't do.

The real problem comes if that weapon has to be used in self defense, but that can be corrected by simply killing all witnesses, wiping the gun free of fingerprints, and getting rid of it.

No one has really answered one of the more important questions. Do laws banning or restricting the ownership of firearms really prevent law-abiding citizens from having them. It is, after all, only illegal if the man hastles you about it. If you carry around a banned concealed weapon how would the police wouldn't know without searching you. They wouldn't search you if you were minding your own business, staying out of trouble, and acting normally. Therefore, there is no reason that a law abbiding citizen can't confidently carry a banned concealed weapon without fear of arrest so long as he doesn't do anything that any other law abiding citizen wouldn't do.

The real problem comes if that weapon has to be used in self defense, but that can be corrected by simply killing all witnesses, wiping the gun free of fingerprints, and getting rid of it.


A law abiding citizen by definition isn't going to break the law and carry illegally.

Additionally, these things never remain perfectly concealed.

Nor can you practice with a banned weapon.

And you don't "kill all witnesses". That would make a great show at the football stadium, mid-match.

cause banning guns didn't work

Are you one of these people that has this strange idea that the UK banned guns recently? Let me tell you, the gun laws that we have at the moment have been in place for well over 100 years.

Stop cherry picking. If I wanted to cherry pick I could point out the states with gun control that have less crime than other states without gun control, but I'm not going to be that much of an ass.
However, you can use the link to compare a gun control State such as New York (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm) and compare it to a non gun control State, such as Florida (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) and you will be amazed to see that New York State, actually has a lower rate of violent crime than Florida, even though Florida has had a right to conceal weapon law since 1987.

And you can also note these two amazing differences:

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime New York had a reported incident rate of 553.9 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 12th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

If anything, this clearly indicates that gun control is far superior to a system that promotes a poliferation of weapons and allowing citizens to walk around armed and dangerous.

Are you one of these people that has this strange idea that the UK banned guns recently? Let me tell you, the gun laws that we have at the moment have been in place for well over 100 years.

Oh, like the ban they passed after Dunblaine?

Seems to me that was a remarkable change.

Not that a lot of UK people owned guns before, but you can't spout inaccuracies like that and get away with it.

However, you can use the link to compare a gun control State such as New York (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm) and compare it to a non gun control State, such as Florida (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) and you will be amazed to see that New York State, actually has a lower rate of violent crime than Florida, even though Florida has had a right to conceal weapon law since 1987.

And you can also note these two amazing differences:

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime New York had a reported incident rate of 553.9 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 12th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

If anything, this clearly indicates that gun control is far superior to a poliferation of weapons and allowing citizens to walk around armed and dangerous.

An overall study of the US, and a county by county comparison across the whole US, proves you wrong.

While you are cherry picking your data, they were not.

While your statements are not peer reviewed by experts, theirs were.

"Confirming More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, American Enterprise Institute, published through the Social Science Research Network.

Abstract:
Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.


BTW, you can see this effect in the yearly data for Virginia. They passed the concealed carry in 1995. Watch the figures go down from there - when they were going up before the law was passed.

An overall study of the US, and a county by county comparison across the whole US, proves you wrong.

While you are cherry picking your data, they were not.

While your statements are not peer reviewed by experts, theirs were.

"Confirming More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, American Enterprise Institute, published through the Social Science Research Network.

Abstract:
Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.


BTW, you can see this effect in the yearly data for Virginia. They passed the concealed carry in 1995. Watch the figures go down from there - when they were going up before the law was passed.

Uhh the AEI is a pro-business right wing think tank and the Social Science Research Network exists for the purpose of publishing papers so that they may be researched by subscribers. I don't see anything that necessarily makes that a 'peer review'. Now that I've read a few of Lott's other abstracts it's quite clear he speaks for a political agenda.

Uhh the AEI is a pro-business right wing think tank and the Social Science Research Network exists for the purpose of publishing papers so that they may be researched by subscribers. I don't see anything that necessarily makes that a 'peer review'. Now that I've read a few of Lott's other abstracts it's quite clear he speaks for a political agenda.

He's been peer reviewed in other journals as well. That's a follow on study - after the initial one called More Guns, Less Crime.

The research by Kleck (which is also peer reviewed, and one of the peer reviews I posted here) is also supportive of the same conclusions.

He's been peer reviewed in other journals as well. That's a follow on study - after the initial one called More Guns, Less Crime.

The research by Kleck (which is also peer reviewed, and one of the peer reviews I posted here) is also supportive of the same conclusions.

I found this article intersting.

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births

Abstract:
Abortion may prevent the birth of "unwanted" children, who would have relatively small investments in human capital and a higher probability of crime. On the other hand, some research suggests that legalizing abortion increases out-of-wedlock births and single parent families, which implies the opposite impact on investments in human capital and thus crime. The question is: what is the net impact? We find evidence that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent. Previous estimates are shown to suffer from not directly linking the cohorts who are committing crime with whether they had been born before or after abortion was legal.

So no gun regulation has no effect on crime but legalized abortions do. :confused:

:D

I still haven't heard what made the axe guy do what he did. Are there any interviews with his friends and family about his state of mind (or lack thereof)?

I'll repeat - none of the "sniper" shots were at long range. Most were within rock throwing range.

I've seen each and every one of the shooting sites up close. Most of them had witnesses standing MUCH closer than the victim. Like the one in the Bob Evans parking lot shooting across a street to a Sunoco gas station.

If I had been in the Bob Evans parking lot, he would have been dead.

Many people have a grave misconception about how far a real sniper would shoot from - it would be a minimum of three hundred yards for a US military sniper. Less than a hundred yards is not sniping - it's the work of an amateur.

amateur/pro is irrelevant. The victims were shot from farther than point blank range. The "sniper" was also hidden in the trunk of a car with a hollowed out hole for his rifle.

Why is point blank range important? Because when someone walks up to someone and shoots them, the people around know where to look. In the sniper case, people had no idea. Thats why I think guns would have made no differance. Even if people were armed, how many feel comfortable using their handguns outside of 10-25 feet. Except in a range or in the woods, I dont think I would ever fire beyond that if there were innocent people around. My carry piece doesnt even have sights, logic being that if the target is beyond 10 feet then I have other options beyond shooting.

amateur/pro is irrelevant. The victims were shot from farther than point blank range. The "sniper" was also hidden in the trunk of a car with a hollowed out hole for his rifle.

Why is point blank range important? Because when someone walks up to someone and shoots them, the people around know where to look. In the sniper case, people had no idea. Thats why I think guns would have made no differance. Even if people were armed, how many feel comfortable using their handguns outside of 10-25 feet. Except in a range or in the woods, I dont think I would ever fire beyond that if there were innocent people around. My carry piece doesnt even have sights, logic being that if the target is beyond 10 feet then I have other options beyond shooting.

I regularly practice out to 75 yards. With a .45. In rapid fire.

Standing anywhere in the parking lot of the Bob Evans (one of their firing positions), if I was in the same parking lot (or even across the street) and saw the muzzle flash, you would get a lead shampoo. You had better shoot me first - if you can determine if I'm armed - because if I spot you, I'm going to empty the magazine into you in just a couple of seconds.

Yes, but you are still assuming that the "perp" would have carried out his attack in precisely the same way whether or not the victim had a gun; it would seem much more likely that he would have carried it out radically differently. I agree, had he carried it out in precisely the same manner, it is quite possible that he would have been stopped - but would he really be so daft?

Who is to say he would have known if his victim had a gun or not. Maybe the knowledge of him having a gun would have detered the crime entirely. Maybe he was in such a rage he would not care. All I am saying is that the results couldnt be worse, at least with guns the results could have been better.

However, you can use the link to compare a gun control State such as New York (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm) and compare it to a non gun control State, such as Florida (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) and you will be amazed to see that New York State, actually has a lower rate of violent crime than Florida, even though Florida has had a right to conceal weapon law since 1987.

And you can also note these two amazing differences:

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime New York had a reported incident rate of 553.9 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 12th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

If anything, this clearly indicates that gun control is far superior to a system that promotes a poliferation of weapons and allowing citizens to walk around armed and dangerous.

Why do you keep bringing up Florida and New York? Why dont you bring up Vermont and New York?

Why do you refuse to ackwoledge other factors such as the changes in the economy, police force any number of other significant issues? You stubbornly continue with New york and Florida, New York and Florida like you have figured out the secret to life .

Who is to say he would have known if his victim had a gun or not. Maybe the knowledge of him having a gun would have detered the crime entirely. Maybe he was in such a rage he would not care. All I am saying is that the results couldnt be worse, at least with guns the results could have been better.
Like maybe the bystanders killing him after he had killed his victim? Great idea!

Why do you keep bringing up Florida and New York? Why dont you bring up Vermont and New York?

Why do you refuse to ackwoledge other factors such as the changes in the economy, police force any number of other significant issues? You stubbornly continue with New york and Florida, New York and Florida like you have figured out the secret to life .

I had two demographically identical counties, and data for ten years for each, and he said they weren't statistically valid.

The only demographic difference in my two counties was their gun laws.

He's not interested in seeing any real comparison.

Like maybe the bystanders killing him after he had killed his victim? Great idea!

Doesnt sound bad to me.

but how about the bystanders killing him BEFORE he had killed his victim.

Even better would be bystanders shooting him in the leg when he raised his leg in a menacing fashion.

Even better than that would be bystander pointing their guns at him and forcing him to lie down on the ground until the police arrived After he raised his axe in menacing manor yet BEFORE anyone was hurt.

I had two demographically identical counties, and data for ten years for each, and he said they weren't statistically valid.

The only demographic difference in my two counties was their gun laws.

He's not interested in seeing any real comparison.

Yeah, Ive noticed. he also completely disregards information regarding how the Brady laws and AWB could not possibly have any impact on NY because NY laws were already stricter. That and Florida already had a back ground check system in place.

Why doesnt anyone want to talk abot Chicago or Washington DC with regards to the wonders of gun control? Or even Philadelphia for that matter.

An overall study of the US, and a county by county comparison across the whole US, proves you wrong.

While you are cherry picking your data, they were not.
States don't make laws county by county. The overall picture, says I am right. If the whole State is under gun control, it is much easier to measure. At one time, New York City was one of the unsafest cities in the US, and now it is among one of the safest.

While your statements are not peer reviewed by experts, theirs were.

"Confirming More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, American Enterprise Institute, published through the Social Science Research Network.

Abstract:
Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.
In regards to the John Lott:

Recently, a study published by John Lott (a Law Professor at the University of Chicago) and David Mustard (a U. Chicago graduate student) has indicated that recently enacted laws in states allowing the legal carry of concealed weapons has reduced violent crime in those states. However, there are numerous problems with this study that have not been addressed, even when directed to Professor Lott himself.

For example, when asked under the rubric of causality, how the falling crime rates affects their study, Lott said "The general changes in crime rates is not a problem for our paper since we control for individual year dummies which take out any year-to-year changes that are occurring in crime rates." What this ignores is that the year-to-year changes are precisely what is important, and if crime rates are already dropping, then adding the laws they defend and pointing to their success in lowering crime rates begs the question of causality, which they never demonstrate.
If one county has gun control and another does not, then the criminals just shift their focus on the non gun control counties. That would be difficult to do on a State by State basis. That is why New York and New Jersey have lower overall crime rates according to their size and population than say Florida or Louisiana, which have carry concealed laws but have an overall higher Violent Crime Rate.

u can see the blood on the floor in one of the pics...O_o

States don't make laws county by county. The overall picture, says I am right. If the whole State is under gun control, it is much easier to measure. At one time, New York City was one of the unsafest cities in the US, and now it is among one of the safest.

In regards to the John Lott:

Recently, a study published by John Lott (a Law Professor at the University of Chicago) and David Mustard (a U. Chicago graduate student) has indicated that recently enacted laws in states allowing the legal carry of concealed weapons has reduced violent crime in those states. However, there are numerous problems with this study that have not been addressed, even when directed to Professor Lott himself.

For example, when asked under the rubric of causality, how the falling crime rates affects their study, Lott said "The general changes in crime rates is not a problem for our paper since we control for individual year dummies which take out any year-to-year changes that are occurring in crime rates." What this ignores is that the year-to-year changes are precisely what is important, and if crime rates are already dropping, then adding the laws they defend and pointing to their success in lowering crime rates begs the question of causality, which they never demonstrate.
If one county has gun control and another does not, then the criminals just shift their focus on the non gun control counties. That would be difficult to do on a State by State basis. That is why New York and New Jersey have lower overall crime rates according to their size and population than say Florida or Louisiana, which have carry concealed laws but have an overall higher Violent Crime Rate.
And they have higher rates than Vermont. so what is your point? and chicago has much higher rates despite strict gun control, once again, how are you going to prove a point by cherry picking data and fitting it to your claims?

EDIT:
and oh, btw: County by county is very relevant because with regards to gun control, that is how things work. NYC and NY STATE have very different gun control laws as do the Nassau, Sulfok and westshester counties(all in NY). The laws and practices regarding guns is very different in Nassau than it is in NYC. If you dont know how the laws in New York, or any other US state work, why do you keep bringing up refferances that have little bearing?

Like maybe the bystanders killing him after he had killed his victim? Great idea!

Given the circumstances, and the fact that he was perfectly happy to hand himself over once he had done his thing, I would suppose he is in sound mental condition. Ergo, if he thought the old man might have been carrying a gun, he might have been dissuaded. This is not a guarantee. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the old man wouldn't have seen it coming.

Which is probably better than being beaten about the head with an axe for awhile, but yanno.

I'm failing to see much in the way of statistics. A single exmaple - Florida - with rising crime rates is not proof that gun control works. It is an anomaly. If you people are qualified to dispute a peer review, please provide your arguments. If you people can demonstate large-scale failure of right-to-carry laws, across a number of states of varying demographics and population makeups, please provide your data.

If you can't, please go and re-read the thread.

Ok, on a more personal note: I'm from England, but I feel much more at home in the US. Specifically, in the St. Charles and St. Peters areas of Missouri, right next to St. Louis. A lot of people I love very dearly are there, and whilst I'm not supposing they're at great risk, I'm happy to know that it's possible someone nearby will be armed and able to deter a criminal, or the knowledge in the criminal's mind that his victims could be armed - and I'm talking mainly about short, light females here - would deter him entirely. Not guaranteed. But much better than the police turning up a half hour after someone gets raped and beaten to within an inch of their life. Police are an after-the-fact deterrant. People believe they can outwit the police. Oftentimes, they do. Guns are an immediate deterrant, and a defence as well. Nobody thinks they can outwit a gun, the only thing they can even try is a surprise attack, and even then someone else could pull out a firearm and take them down.

Consider: I shoot someone in the middle of a mall, where nobody else is armed. Everyone hits the ground, ducks for cover, etc. If I screwed it up and hit my target in the shoulder, I can calmly walk up and plug another three rounds into them, then stroll out unchallenged and make my escape. I'll probably be caught later, but I doubt that does much good to the victim.

On the other hand, I shoot someone in the middle of a mall, screw it up and hit them in the shoulder, and get a bullet severing my spinal column before I can utter a profanity.

I concede that it would hardly be the norm, but nonetheless it is something to consider. Guns mitigate damage, except to the perpatrator. Personally, I think if someone is willing to rape and kill, they don't deserve life.

Edit: Just read the article again, and I noticed witnesses said the attacker yelled "You've had this coming for 20 years" before he attacked. I dunno about you guys, but most take that as a direct threat. More to the point, he would have been aware of the threat. A 61 year old ain't gonna outrun an angry young man, but he might have had fast enough reactions to save himself.

And they have higher rates than Vermont. so what is your point? and chicago has much higher rates despite strict gun control, once again, how are you going to prove a point by cherry picking data and fitting it to your claims?
I think picking county by county is exactly that...."cherry picking".

Look at the WHOLE picture? Laws are not passed on a county by county basis so how can you evaluate the effectiveness of a program without looking at the overall State picture.

You mention Chicago (http://www.ccchronicle.com/back_new/2004_fall/2005-01-18/citybeat.php?id=589)? Well it appears that that city has attained a 30 year low in homicides, and violent crime is down on the whole as well:

In 2004, The Associated Press reported that the city recorded 445 murders in Chicago, the lowest number in more than three decades. Through November, the most recent months’ numbers available from the Chicago Police Department, violent crime dropped more than 7.1 percent citywide

Is this an indication that gun control is working? It would be even better if the whole State had gun control.

I think picking county by county is exactly that...."cherry picking".

Look at the WHOLE picture? Laws are not passed on a county by county basis so how can you evaluate the effectiveness of a program without looking at the overall State picture.

You mention Chicago (http://www.ccchronicle.com/back_new/2004_fall/2005-01-18/citybeat.php?id=589)? Well it appears that that city has attained a 30 year low in homicides, and violent crime is down on the whole as well:

In 2004, The Associated Press reported that the city recorded 445 murders in Chicago, the lowest number in more than three decades. Through November, the most recent months’ numbers available from the Chicago Police Department, violent crime dropped more than 7.1 percent citywide

Is this an indication that gun control is working? It would be even better if the whole State had gun control.

1) it is not Cherry picking is you analyze ALL counties instead of only those wth over 100,000. Lott and Kleck analyzed ALL counties.

2) you are mistaken about how gun laws work in the US with regard to counties yet you keep repeating it. gun gun laws in MOST states are based on a county by county level. Florida is not one of those states, NY, Ill and Pensalvanyia are. You are either ignorantly disregarding this or intentionally. Personally I believe the latter.

3) Why arent you comparing Chicago to other cities/states like you want to do wih NY and Florida? Both NYC and Chicago have had draconian gun laws since before my birth(late 60s) why do you point to their decreases now? Why didnt the decreases happen when they enacted these gun laws(30+ years ago?)

4) How do states like Vermont and the Dakotas fit into your hypothosis? How do you justify Vermont being the the 49th state with regards to crime yet have none..I mean zero laws regaring ownership and carry of firearms?

5)How do you justify Washington DC being the murder capitol of the country yet ALL guns are forbidden by law?

6)why do you disregard peer reviewed studies that dispute your claim? are you an economist who has done studies on gun ownership and crime? have you factored in all the variables? If not, why do you believe your opinion superceeds those that are skilled and have spent time examining the issue?

7) Why do you believe that Sarah Brady(whose husband was shot) is more trustworthy than an economist who started out anti gun but became pro gun?

8) what do you say to the surveys that claim 2 - 3.5 million crimes prevented because of guns. Do you disbelieve them? If so why? What basis do you have to believe that these surveys are innacurate?

More people are killed by guns than by axe every years, even in the UK. I don't understand how this story is relevant to the debate about gun laws.

yes, but more people are killed by bludgeoning opjects such as baseball bats or sharp objects like knives or axes than guns. saying more people get killed by guns than axes is like saying more people get killed by sharp objects than getting killed by M-16A2s w/ 20 inch barrell and 6x starlight scopes. but if you keep the debate in a broader subject like cutting tools vs. firearms, then it is a fairer debate

Better yet, why do Canuck and Neo believe a woman (Sarah Brady) who violated her own law by secretly buying her son a rifle (a "strawman" purchase)?

Evidently they don't know what we know - that every anti-gun politician in the US buys guns.

Even Dianne Feinstein does what I do - she has a concealed carry permit, and she carries a pistol...

Maybe what the anti-gun politicians think here is that guns are OK for them, but not for anyone else...

More people are killed by guns than by axe every years, even in the UK. I don't understand how this story is relevant to the debate about gun laws.
Of course you can not understand it. This thread has long since gone the different way. You still think they want to ban axes in britain..? No mon ami. It was a clever wittisism. So very clever. Now they are just comparing apples to grenades. You see.. the whole point in here is gun control discussion in the US. Somebody just thought it could be brought over the pond 1X1. Forget the cultural differences. United Kingdom must be armed.

No, really. If you think that one gun murder is too many, and therefore guns should be banned, it is not a stretch in the slightest to believe that since we have had one horrific axe murder, we should ban axes.

Japan, for instance, has had the equivalent of the Dunblaine massacre - except that the man did it with a kitchen knife.

You guessed it - you can't own a knife longer than a few inches in Japan now except by special permit. The government knows when you buy a knife.

I can't wait for the UK to enact an axe ban. After all, who needs an axe in the UK? Who chops wood? No one in the city, I can tell you. They should only be used by licensed gardeners.

And no, I'm not joking.

No, really. If you think that one gun murder is too many, and therefore guns should be banned, it is not a stretch in the slightest to believe that since we have had one horrific axe murder, we should ban axes.

Of course not. We should allow consealed axes. Problem solved. Just like in Virginia.

Of course not. We should allow consealed axes. Problem solved. Just like in Virginia.

That would work until someone had to sit down. Then you have a problem.

Good market for axe manufacturers as well.

Really, what does someone in London use an axe for? Carving? Cutting a deck of cards? A game of darts?

We should go through a list of potentially lethal hand tools and make sure that no one in the UK has one - unless they are licensed to use one.

Imagine what a man on the Tube at the peak of rush hour could do with a compact chainsaw. I bet he could kill more people than died in Dunblaine.

Indeed WL. I wonder what are you doing in this sorry excuse of a thread arguing UK should un-ban guns? I can see why you would argue that in 'USA should never have gun control' threads...

There's a slight cultural difference.

Indeed WL. I wonder what are you doing in this sorry excuse of a thread arguing UK should un-ban guns? I can see why you would argue that in 'USA should never have gun control' threads...

There's a slight cultural difference.

Yes, there's a slight cultural difference. The last time the typical UK resident knew how to shoot was at the Creedmoor match. And I believe those were Irishmen that the Yanks beat. Nineteenth century, if I'm not mistaken.

Axes, though...

:rolleyes: That would work until someone had to sit down. Then you have a problem.

Good market for axe manufacturers as well.

Really, what does someone in London use an axe for? Carving? Cutting a deck of cards? A game of darts?

We should go through a list of potentially lethal hand tools and make sure that no one in the UK has one - unless they are licensed to use one.

Imagine what a man on the Tube at the peak of rush hour could do with a compact chainsaw. I bet he could kill more people than died in Dunblaine.

outlawing axes is the dumbest crap ive heard in a long time. you can kill anybody with anything. a baseball bat, a shoelace, a pencil, a chair, a book, an areosol can, aare you going to ban those too because somw wacko killed someone by tying them down and sprayed deoderant in the persons face untill the person suffocated to death? :rolleyes:

Indeed WL. I wonder what are you doing in this sorry excuse of a thread arguing UK should un-ban guns? I can see why you would argue that in 'USA should never have gun control' threads...

There's a slight cultural difference.

whats that supposed to mean?

whats that supposed to mean?

She's saying that the typical UK resident is nothing like those Scots you had in Iraq who did a successful bayonet charge against 20 or so insurgents and killed the insurgents using the blades.

I just wanted to post up this link, it seemed relivant to the subject. ;)

Read it and weep! (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html)

whats that supposed to mean?
What it is supposed to mean is:
I live in a country that has the highest per capita rate of official firearm ownership in the EU at 39 per 100 people. We have very low firearm crime rate.

The average gun ownership rate in the EU is 17.4 guns per 100 people.

In the USA that number is 100/100 more or less. (not everyone has a gun, i know)

So it means, if you come here and say that you should have armed yourselves with firearms dear Britons, cos axe killers are at loose, is stupid.

Different cultures, different crime rates.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Which could, in all probability, be a fallical comparison

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Exactly! And a very unique culture. (considering violence)

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.
Surely you are not saying it's because every Swiss male is reguired to have a gun?

Surely you are not saying it's because every Swiss male is reguired to have a gun?
No, I would say it's because of their German obedience genes.

No, I would say it's because of their German obedience genes.
Oh, that's cute.

Well, people, risks are the price you have to pay for liberty. And liberty is the greatest thing there is.

Why don't we just ban cars? Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Yeah, ban everything. Then we can be truly free, in our sterilized cardboard boxes.

Which could, in all probability, be a fallical comparison

>>-CLICK THE FREAKING LINK! YA THIS ONE-<< (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html)