NationStates Jolt Archive

The Brady Law stimulated an increase in the purchase rate of firearms in general.

The "assault weapons" ban greatly stimulated an otherwise moribund sector of the firearms industry. Several new companies came into being just to provide semi-automatic rifles to fill the incredible demand.

100 million MORE guns owned than before. Many more semi-automatic rifles with large magazines than before.

Still waiting to hear why there wasn't a HUGE increase in crime because of the 100 MILLION MORE GUNS.

But he never said "More Guns = More Crime" remember?

But he never said "More Guns = More Crime" remember?
He's posted that so many times I can't count them all.

Bump

Again, though, you guys really are getting off subject...This is supposed to be about california's gun laws...

Bump

Again, though, you guys really are getting off subject...This is supposed to be about california's gun laws...

You are correct sir.... How about these...

More attempts to disarm firearm owners...

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33909~2843027,00.html

California hunters: Targeted again

Nava bill would impact have negative impa
ct on California sport hunting

By Gary Roussan

Groups against hunting will go to just about any measure to stop hunting in California. The latest attempt to do that is a new bill (AB1002) introduced by Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara). The bill would outlaw the use of lead bullets and lead shot statewide.

Surprisingly the Gov't did a smart thing and:

The commission called for more research into actual impacts before making a recommendation and voted "no" on both counts.

http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~29582~2851859,00.html

SB 357, obviously named after the magnum handgun round in a clever display of whit by the bill's author Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove, would mandate that all handgun ammunition have matching serial numbers on each bullet and bullet casing so ammunition used in crimes can be traced back to the original purchasers.

AB 352 is a similar bill by Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, only this legislation would mandate that all handguns have chambers micro-etched with the make, model and serial number of the gun so that this information is transferred to the cartridge casing when the gun is fired.

And to top it off, Homeland Security is telling CA thier proposed laws are inane:

The Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, Duncan Hunter, sent the following letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him to oppose SB 357 (Bullet Serialization)on the grounds that it would harm our national and homeland security.


http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/RepHunterLtr042505.pdf

You've been disproven several times on this point prior to this thread in particular. Why do you keep bringing it up? The crime rates started dropping 2-3 years before those laws were put into effect.
Statistically, the crime rate started to drop in 1993, when the VCR actually went down 1%. The Brady Bill was passed November 10, 1993, and whether it is coincidence or not, the crime rate started to fall. In 1994 it went down 4%, 4% again in 1995, 7% in 1996, 4% in 1997, and 7% in 1998, for a total reduction of 26% before the “sunset” provisions of the Brady Bill kicked in, and the requirement for a “waiting period” was no longer in effect.

The year after the “sunset” provision kicked in, the VCR still dropped another 8% in 1999. Perhaps 1999 was a residual affect? However, in the four years from 2000 to 2003, the VCR has only dropped 9.2%.

It should be noted that in the 5 years previous to the enactment of the Brady Bill, the VCR had gone up 18%.

It is interesting to note that on the US National Crime Rates 1984 to 2003 spreadsheet, that at the bottom, it is noted that between 1994 and 2003, the VCR dropped 33.4%, and between 1999 and 2003, the VCR only dropped 9.2%.

I wonder why they picked 1994 as a significant date? Could it possibly be to draw attention to the enactment of the Brady Bill???

"A Library of Congress study (1998) concluded, "it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes."
It may be "difficult", but NOT impossible. :eek:

I wonder why they picked 1994 as a significant date? Could it possibly be to draw attention to the enactment of the Brady Bill???
Okay, now look at the number of states that legalized various forms of CC between 1992 to 2003. As has been stated before, correlation does not imply causation, especially your attempt at somehow correlating the SAW ban with a decrease in crime. Even the Brady bill would have minimal effect at best. For that matter, it's highly probable the decrease in crime had something to do with the 100 million new weapons bought during the 1990's.

Statistically, the crime rate started to drop in 1993, when the VCR actually went down 1%.
I wonder why they picked 1994 as a significant date? Could it possibly be to draw attention to the enactment of the Brady Bill???

No, statistically the crime rate dropped from '91 - '92, the VCR also dropped . Two years before the Brady Bill. From '92 - '93 it dropped even farther.

maybe they chose it because it's halfway inbetween? (insert stupid emoticon)

It may be "difficult", but NOT impossible. :eek:

And now what about the BATFE, JAMA, CDC, DOJ, and NAS studies?

Why did ownership rise and crime drop? You've stated correlation. Where is it?

I've never needed more than 1 round from a rifle for any deer. But then again the deer is not shooting back at me and if it were the case of someone breaking into my home and possibly shooting at me I would want to have more than 10 rounds especially if there are 3 people doing so.

I've never needed more than 1 round from a rifle for any deer. But then again the deer is not shooting back at me and if it were the case of someone breaking into my home and possibly shooting at me I would want to have more than 10 rounds especially if there are 3 people doing so.

But if CA has its way, you won't be able to afford any more than one round. Of course the criminals will have all they want.

If someone was planning on invading the US would probably be the very first to know. An invasion of that scale is not something one can hide.


Yes, because the US insists on letting everone have a gun/guns

12 people did takeover Cuba back in the day. And they have been quite successful given that the U.S. has tried to assassinate their leader countless times and stage various coup attempts with terrible results for the attackers.

No, statistically the crime rate dropped from '91 - '92, the VCR also dropped . Two years before the Brady Bill. From '92 - '93 it dropped even farther.

maybe they chose it because it's halfway inbetween? (insert stupid emoticon)
I am looking at the VCR, and in 1990 it was 731.8, and in 1991, it increased to 758.1, and in 1992 there was a .001% drop to 757.5. In 1993, it dropped to 746.8, a drop of 1.4%.

Over the next 5 years, under the Brady Bill, the VCR dropped a whopping 26%.

In the 5 years after the emasculation of the Brady Bill, the VCR has only dropped 9.2%.

But if CA has its way, you won't be able to afford any more than one round. Of course the criminals will have all they want.

That is just plain scary, or the criminals will have knives. After Australia inacted its strict gun laws crime went up and there were more murders from stabbings after the ban than there were total murders before it.

But if CA has its way, you won't be able to afford any more than one round. Of course the criminals will have all they want.
Maybe California is headed in the right direction?

From 1994 to 2003, California's VCR has dropped 43%, and in Illinois it has dropped 42%. In gun happy Tennessee, it only dropped 8% over the same years.

In South Carolina, from 1987 to 2003, the VCR has actually increased 18%, and over the same years, Tennessee's VCR has increased 27%.

Maybe California is headed in the right direction?

From 1994 to 2003, California's VCR has dropped 43%, and in Illinois it has dropped 42%. In gun happy Tennessee, it only dropped 8% over the same years.

In South Carolina, from 1987 to 2003, the VCR has actually increased 18%, and over the same years, Tennessee's VCR has increased 27%.

Nice try. Next time try using the same years.

From 1994 to 2003 SC dropped 23%. It didn't enact CC until 1996. No causality.


Now let's look at RTC states created during that time:

1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee, and Wyoming.
1995: Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas; Nevada, Utah, and Virginia
1996: Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina

Since 1990, 28 states have enacted or improved CC laws. Why didn't that cause crime to increase like you have stated it should?

Crime "only" dropped 9%. Fine. Why did it continue dropping as ownership went up? Why did crime begin to drop before the Laws? That's right-No causality.

Why are the top 5 states CC? You never did get back to me on that one.

Shall we continue w/ the numbers game? Why are 76% of the CC states below the nat'l VCR while only 58% of non CC states are? According to your logic, they should all be below.

Why is Virginia's VCR 53% lower than California & 41% lower than NY. According to your logic, it should be higher.

(Since Canuck has declined to respond to this bit of hard data elsewhere)

Where I believe Canuck and other non-US "anti's" are coming from:

Where do non USians get their information about US gun ownership/use?

#1 From their Governments = Anti-civilian ownership
#2 From the UN = Anti-civilian ownership
#3 From the Media, US and Local = Anti-civilian ownership
#4 From the Film industry = Pro-graphic violence/Anti-civilian ownership
#5 From Global Anti-civilian ownership/activists (like George Soros)
#6 From US Anti-civilian ownership propagandists
#7 From US Pro-civilian ownership propagandists (often radical)
and finally
#8 From Non-radical Pro-Choice/civilian ownership bloggers/posters.

Why shouldn't non-USians have a bad opinion of firearms ownership? You have to take an active role in discussion to even get a slightly better than 1 in 8 chance of hearing/reading a non-radical POV. In that light, the non-USian anti-civilian ownership position is totally understandable. Wrong, but understandable.

Since we've often discussed violent crime statistics, lets approach a few other statistics: (link) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) (Note that despite the increase in firearm ownership and "shall issue" carry laws, firearm related crime is DOWN)

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2003, 449,150 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms.

Now, we'll look at this data and apply 4 assumptions, one a favorite of the "there's too many guns" position:

Assume the oft-touted statistic of "one gun per USian" - that puts ther number of US civillian held guns at 287,974,001 (+/-).
Assume that murders were not incuded inthe NVCS survey (victim is dead, can't respond) that means that in 2003 there were 460,207 crimes committed that involved a firearm.
Assume that for each of the above crimes, a different gun was used.(not true, some guns are used more frequently, but this assumption raises the bar)
Assume that only 10% of USians own guns. (also false, the best-guess stat is between 30% & 50%, but it is only a guess since people don't like to give that information to pollsters)

What do these assumptions show us?

Assuming the above "worst-case" scenerio, less than two tenths of a percent (.001598) of all firearms in the US were used in a crime in 2003.

Assuming the above "worst-case" scenerio, less than 2% (.015980) of US gun owners (legal and illegal) commit violent crimes with firearms.

Best-case (50%) = less than four tenths (.003196) of a percent of US gun owners (legal and illegal) commit violent crimes with firearms.

2002 Fatal gunshot injuries = 30,242 (CDC) = .10% (worst case) or .021% (best case) caused by US gun owners (legal and illegal).

2002 Non-Fatal gunshot injuries = 58,841 (CDC) = .2% (worst case) or .04% (best case) caused by US gun owners (legal and illegal).

Boy, for something so deadly, with no other purpose than to kill people, all those guns sure don't seem to be used that much...

But, I guess this just proves how bad private gun ownership in the US really is eh? Let's ban them WorldWide.

Why is Virginia's VCR 53% lower than California & 41% lower than NY. According to your logic, it should be higher.

He also hasn't explained why since 1995, when CC went into effect in Virginia, Fairfax County has had an over 40 percent (by total count) and over 60 percent (in terms of count per unit population) reduction in murder and rape.

Why there haven't been radical increases in gunfights in the street since the introduction of open carry last summer.

Why I see people every day carrying pistols in the open, and there's no problem.

Why the women I train are safer than the women who rely on the police for protection.

Why I've been able to stop three robberies without firing a shot.

Why murder has gone down when gun ownership in our area has skyrocketed and population has gone up as well - and when carrying guns is becoming more common.

By Canuck's logic, there should be a constant sound of gunfire, the shattering of glass, screaming people running everywhere, dead bodies laying in the street, and people walking around like pistoleros out of a bad Western movie, gunning down whoever they feel like.

I am convinced that Canuck has never, ever met a real concealed carry civilian in his life.

snip
good lord i wish common decency, and not the threat of red-hot death, was enough to keep people from raping and killing each other. stupid humanity.

good lord i wish common decency, and not the threat of red-hot death, was enough to keep people from raping and killing each other. stupid humanity.
Since when has decency been common?

After all, some 2000 years ago a guy got crucified for saying how wonderful it would be to be nice to people for a change... (thanks Douglas...)

Maybe California is headed in the right direction?

.

So you admit that you oppose all private gun ownership and hunting and support illegal immigration?

So you admit that you oppose all private gun ownership and hunting and support illegal immigration?
Yes, California is headed "in the right direction". It's one of the only states where women who are jogging can be eaten by mountain lions.

Yes, California is headed "in the right direction". It's one of the only states where women who are jogging can be eaten by mountain lions.
And where people cry foul when hunters are hired to kill feral pigs to save a nearly whiped out species.

I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.


I live in Texas, and I think Waco proves that strict gun laws are better then basically none at all.

I live in Texas, and I think Waco proves that strict gun laws are better then basically none at all.
Um, no. Since DK could have been arrested at many junctures before the "standoff", Waco (and Ruby Ridge) only proves how inept/criminal (entrapment) the DOJ was/is. Gotta love that Clinton Administration.

Um, no. Since DK could have been arrested at many junctures before the "standoff", Waco (and Ruby Ridge) only proves how inept/criminal (entrapment) the DOJ was/is. Gotta love that Clinton Administration.

The "best" part about Ruby Ridge was the shooting of an unarmed woman holding a baby - shot right through the head - by the FBI - and sniper Lon Horiuchi meant to shoot her- it was not an accident.

Sure, Canuck doesn't trust civilians, but he trusts law enforcement to ALWAYS make the right decision with firearms.

The "best" part about Ruby Ridge was the shooting of an unarmed woman holding a baby - shot right through the head - by the FBI - and sniper Lon Horiuchi meant to shoot her- it was not an accident.

Sure, Canuck doesn't trust civilians, but he trusts law enforcement to ALWAYS make the right decision with firearms.
You mean like that Mountie up at the "Top of the World Highway" border crossing in the Yukon who INSISTED I have, at a MINIMUM, a pump 12ga loaded with slugs befor I went soft-side camping there?

Bad Cop. No Donut. :rolleyes:

Where you all gun-crazy people come from?

In my country people truly needed guns for self defence over 60 years ago.

Not even police need to carry gun here every day.

I wonder how "civilized" people like Americans can even think that they´d shoot someone at their front doors. Don´t you have back doors in your houses?

Of course it´s fun to shoot with big guns. The largest one i´ve used was 130mm. But to even imagine that I´d truly shoot someone makes me sick.

Yuck!

who said we are civilized?

Somebody run up to Canada and dig Canuck out of tha pile of facts so we can get a response.

Drowning in data is so much more harsh than regurgitating hyperbole. Besides, I need a laugh.

Somebody run up to Canada and dig Canuck out of tha pile of facts so we can get a response.

Drowning in data is so much more harsh than regurgitating hyperbole. Besides, I need a laugh.

He'll come on about midnight, when he thinks noone else is here.

As for Gun Laws/Groups, I thought the Anti-Gunners were supposed to be trying to reduce crime:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=731965

The Brady Campaign and its political action committee have paid a $12,000 fine to settle a campaign finance case from the 2000 election. At issue were ads and endorsements by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its Brady Voter Education Fund involving various Democratic candidates in 2000.

This and the AG from Illinois who was busted w/ drugs and (get this) an illegal gun is really showing the true colors of the anti-rights fringe.

Even the BATFE has called HCI on its BS.

The "best" part about Ruby Ridge was the shooting of an unarmed woman holding a baby - shot right through the head - by the FBI - and sniper Lon Horiuchi meant to shoot her- it was not an accident.

Sure, Canuck doesn't trust civilians, but he trusts law enforcement to ALWAYS make the right decision with firearms.

Not to mention the fact that the supervisor broke quite a few FBI policies and issued what were in effect shoot to kill orders.That and the over $3M spent to arrest a guy for an (alleged) sawed off shotgun.


I won't defend the character of Weaver, he was/is an ass, but he wasn't a criminal until the Gov't made him one. That and the over $3M spent to arrest a guy for an (alleged) sawed off shotgun.

So you admit that you oppose all private gun ownership and hunting and support illegal immigration?
I really don't have a problem with private gun ownership, as long as the owners are responsible, and keep their guns under lock and key when not in use.

I also don't have a problem with private gun ownership, as long as there is a proper registration procedure, proper background checks, and a requiste waiting period.

As far as illegal immigration, it is not relevant to this thread, as far as I am concerned.

BTW, when are you going to stop trying to put words in my mouth, especially when they are false?

I live in Texas, and I think Waco proves that strict gun laws are better then basically none at all.
Really?

Read and learn

http://www.hardylaw.net/waco.html

The FOIA was good for something, although it's interesting that so many different recording devices at Waco failed at the same time. Waco was, in short, a fucking mess mostly caused directly by BATFE and FBI officials.

Gotta love that Clinton Administration.
Well there is lots to love? The crime rate went down every year that Clinton was in office, which might in part be due to low unemployment and the signing of the Brady Bill in 1993?

I really don't have a problem with private gun ownership, as long as the owners are responsible, and keep their guns under lock and key when not in use.

I also don't have a problem with private gun ownership, as long as there is a proper registration procedure, proper background checks, and a requiste waiting period.

As far as illegal immigration, it is not relevant to this thread, as far as I am concerned.

BTW, when are you going to stop trying to put words in my mouth, especially when they are false?

CA is on its way to ban all personally owned firearms by LAC's. You stated you thought that was the right way to go.

Who determines who is responsible? The gov't?.

Keeping them under "under lock and key when not in use" completely negates the ability to defend oneself. It is also one of the primary methods used to discourage ownership by anti-gunners. $5000 safe for a $100 gun.

There are already nat'l background checks, it's called the NICS. Why should there be a waiting period? What point does it serve?

Registration has always preceded confiscation. Being from Canada, you should know how well registration schemes work.

Illegal immigration is a primary factor in CA's crime rate. As anti-gunners regularly use crime rates to justify attempts to ban guns (kind of like what you do), it is completely relevant to this thread.

Well there is lots to love? The crime rate went down every year that Clinton was in office, which might in part be due to low unemployment and the signing of the Brady Bill in 1993?

You keep bringing the Brady Bill up even though no correlation has been found, and this coming from virulent anti-gun groups.

Well there is lots to love? The crime rate went down every year that Clinton was in office, which might in part be due to low unemployment and the signing of the Brady Bill in 1993?

It might also be due to fall of the soviet union, the introduction of the simpsons, or the Iraqi Gulf War. It might also be due to the fact that god decided to give America lower gun crime at that time.

Just out of curiosity, why the hell do you NEED more than 10 rounds? Hunting doesn't take THAT much amo and anyone you can't scare off with one shot is going to kill you no matter how many bullets you have. So what do you need them for?
Dont forget hollow tips. Can't hunt without blowing the prey into chunks now, can we?

It might also be due to fall of the soviet union, the introduction of the simpsons, or the Iraqi Gulf War. It might also be due to the fact that god decided to give America lower gun crime at that time.
There has been one, and only one political action with statistically significant enough impact on crime to be considered "causal" in its reduction. That political action was, I'm sad to say, a "Liberal" one. Observe: (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php)

Chapter 4: Where Have All the Criminals Gone?

What Nicolae Ceausescu learned-the hard way-about abortion . . . Why the 1960s were a great time to be a criminal . . . Think the roaring 1990s economy put a crimp on crime? Think again . . . Why capital punishment doesn't deter criminals . . . Do police actually lower crime rates? . . . Prisons, prisons everywhere . . . Seeing through the New York City police "miracle" . . . What is a gun, really? . . . Why early crack dealers were like Microsoft millionaires and later crack dealers were like Pets.com . . . The superpredator versus the senior citizen . . . Jane Roe, crime stopper: how the legalization of abortion changed everything.

Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.

In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.

This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.

It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes-the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.

How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?

One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.

In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.

But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s-when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime-which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.

There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link.

Guns, pro or conl had little to nothing to do with it. Better policing had a small impact. But only Abortion can be shown to have actually lowered Crime. (It wasn't efficient at doing so, but it worked. Margaret Sanger and her clot of Eugenicists would be proud.)

Find the Book and read it, for it is annoying - but good.

Dont forget hollow tips. Can't hunt without blowing the prey into chunks now, can we?

The sheer ignorance of bullet ballistics astounds me.

Dont forget hollow tips. Can't hunt without blowing the prey into chunks now, can we?

Hollow point is ideal for home/personal defense as it greatly reduces the risk of 'pass through".

Different rounds for different purposes. I also wouldn't use a .30-06 for varmint control.

The sheer ignorance of bullet ballistics astounds me.

That is the standard for those who are against firearms. Bullets are pointy things that are shot out of guns.

That is the standard for those who are against firearms. Bullets are pointy things that are shot out of guns.

Nah, they'd say that the entire cartridge was the bullet. :rolleyes:

I should start posting gelatin stats. :D

Dont forget hollow tips. Can't hunt without blowing the prey into chunks now, can we?
Hollow pointsare spectacularly ineffective in modern, high-powered rifles. They are a fabulous tool in Shotgun Slugs or Black Powder Conicals though.

If your quarry was "blown into chunks" you were using entirely the wrong caliber. A hollow point would have made no difference.

Modern rifle bullets are either Solid or semi-jacketed with a soft point to aid expansion. Some have "hollow cores" into which a plastic tip is inserted to force expansion.

Pistol bullets are under powered (so you don't over-penetrate and hit an innocent behind the guilty), and therefore usually illegal for hunting. But if they are too under powered to hunt a 200lb deer, how can they be useful on a 200+lb Two Legged Predator? They can be useful by using hydro-dynamics to maximize hydrostatic shock and kenetic energy transfer in an underperforming cartridge, thus, hollow point bullets.

Learn before you hyperbolize.

Nah, they'd say that the entire cartridge was the bullet. :rolleyes:

I should start posting gelatin stats. :D

Please do, Ild like to see them. (or at least links)

Hollow point is ideal for home/personal defense as it greatly reduces the risk of 'pass through".

Different rounds for different purposes. I also wouldn't use a .30-06 for varmint control.


Statistics show more people are killed by there own firearms when the criminal takes it from them and shots them. Do you want a hollow point round going through your chest?

Take martial arts the criminal can't steal that from you.

Hollow pointsare spectacularly ineffective in modern, high-powered rifles. They are a fabulous tool in Shotgun Slugs or Black Powder Conicals though.


Oh I don't know....they seem to do alright for match ammo. :) I know that's not what you meant, though.


If your quarry was "blown into chunks" you were using entirely the wrong caliber.


And possibly explosive-tipped ammo... :rolleyes:


Pistol bullets are under powered (so you don't over-penetrate and hit an innocent behind the guilty), and therefore usually illegal for hunting. But if they are too under powered to hunt a 200lb deer, how can they be useful on a 200+lb Two Legged Predator? They can be useful by using hydro-dynamics to maximize hydrostatic shock and kenetic energy transfer in an underperforming cartridge, thus, hollow point bullets.


I'd say they'd still be useful against a 200 lb two-legger since the object is still to stop them, not kill (says the guy that occasionally uses a 10mm as a carry weapon... :eek: ). You definitely want to kill the deer as quickly as possible, though.

I really hate the term "assault rifle".
Are most people aware of what the "assault rifle ban" actually made illegal??

Collapsable stocks, flash supressors, accessory mounts. None of these items have any effect on the power of the gun. Also, back when the lobbying for this bill was done, the news media was very inaccurate in showing what guns were going to be outlawed and also not showing the real power of the guns.

I'm not a gun-toting redneck. Heck I don't even own any guns. (at least not yet) I was brought up around guns and hunting, and have learned how to properly handle a gun. Most people that don't like guns, have probably never been around guns or had the opportunity to shoot a gun. I know that's the case with some of my friends.

oh well..I digress.
These laws only cause a hassle for the law-abiding gun citizens. if a criminal wants to get his/her hands on a gun. she/he will find a way.

Gun's don't kill people. Husbands who come home early do. - Larry the Cable Guy.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets Do.

:sniper:

Statistics show more people are killed by there own firearms when the criminal takes it from them and shots them. Do you want a hollow point round going through your chest?

Take martial arts the criminal can't steal that from you.

Do you have some sort of evidence for that assertion?

Until he shoots you or his accomplice hits you from behind. Unlike in the movies, the "bad guys" don't come at you one at a time or drop their weapons when you challenge them.

Statistics show more people are killed by there own firearms when the criminal takes it from them and shots them. Do you want a hollow point round going through your chest?

Take martial arts the criminal can't steal that from you.

Right....where exactly did you see that particular stat?

Just so we get this straight: Are you saying that of those that have their weapon taken from them are killed? Or are you saying that someone armed will most likely be disarmed and then shot with their own weaopn?

Do you want a hollow point round going through your chest?

Do you want any rounds going through your chest?

Please do, Ild like to see them. (or at least links)

Here's the stopping power article. There are several links at the bottom.

http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Stopping_power

Unfortunately, Ammolab has gone to a pay scheme. :(

Unfortunately, Ammolab has gone to a pay scheme. :(

{sheds tear}

<snip>I'd say they'd still be useful against a 200 lb two-legger since the object is still to stop them, not kill (says the guy that occasionally uses a 10mm as a carry weapon... :eek: ). You definitely want to kill the deer as quickly as possible, though.
Err, I thought I said that. Oh well, I'll chalk it up to a dying laptop battery and a 14.4 Cell connection.

Nice try. Next time try using the same years.

From 1994 to 2003 SC dropped 23%. It didn't enact CC until 1996. No causality.
South Carolina introduced CC in 1996, and in 2002, their VCR increased by 14%.

Between 1994 and 2003, the US VCR decreased 33%, yet South Carolina didn't keep up, with only a 23% drop. However, California's VCR declined 43%, and Illinois declined 42% during that same time span.

Additionally, from 1999 to 2003, South Carolina's VCR has declined only 12%, Tennessee 8%, Alaska 9%, and the US average was 16%, which was exceeded by California's 18% decline and Illinois's 31% decline.

Now let's look at RTC states created during that time:

1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee, and Wyoming.
1995: Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas; Nevada, Utah, and Virginia
1996: Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina

Since 1990, 28 states have enacted or improved CC laws. Why didn't that cause crime to increase like you have stated it should?
From the ones that I have looked at so far (your examples, my bolding), not one of them have exceeded the drop in National VCR. Perhaps if they had exercized better gun control, their rates would have dropped more than they did.

Crime "only" dropped 9%. Fine. Why did it continue dropping as ownership went up? Why did crime begin to drop before the Laws? That's right-No causality.
Why did other jurisdictions with gun control drop more?

VCR did not start dropping until 1993, when the US total went down 1%. In 1991, the VCR went up 3.6%, in 1992, it was virtually unchanged from 1991.

Why are the top 5 states CC? You never did get back to me on that one.
Those States are rural based populations, all nestled with their peaceful neighbours up in Canada. The highest population of those 5 States is Maine with a population of 1,305,728. They win by default?

Shall we continue w/ the numbers game? Why are 76% of the CC states below the nat'l VCR while only 58% of non CC states are? According to your logic, they should all be below.
A better question might be, why is it that the non CC States are closing the gap after enacting stricter gun control?

Why is Virginia's VCR 53% lower than California & 41% lower than NY. According to your logic, it should be higher.
Again, a better question might be, why are States such as New York, and California, and Illinois (which BTW have much larger cities and far more people than) Virginia, closing the gap? By your estimation, Virginia should be leading the way to zero crime?

Why is a person more likely to get murdered or raped in Virginia than in New York?

Since 1990, New York's VCR has declined 61%, compared to Virginia's 21% decline. I think that speaks volumes!!

Do you want any rounds going through your chest?
Actually, I would much prefer the round to go through my chest than to stop within it. That means that the bullet did not deform, did little significant tissue damage and maintained a large portion of its kenetic energy on exit.

I can survive that. :p

<SNIP>From the ones that I have looked at so far (your examples, my bolding), not one of them have exceeded the drop in National VCR. Perhaps if they had exercized better gun control, their rates would have dropped more than they did. No, if they had had more abortions in the 70s, their rate would be similar.

Why did other jurisdictions with gun control drop more? They were on the leading edge of the Abortion trend.

VCR did not start dropping until 1993, when the US total went down 1%. In 1991, the VCR went up 3.6%, in 1992, it was virtually unchanged from 1991. And just when did Roe v. Wade come into play? Ohh, Ohh, let me guess... How about precisely ONE CRIMINAL GENERATION before 1993!

Those States are rural based populations, all nestled with their peaceful neighbours up in Canada. The highest population of those 5 States is Maine with a population of 1,305,728. They win by default?

The better question is: Should they Lose because the majority of Animals make their homes in the Urban Areas?

A better question might be, why is it that the non CC States are closing the gap after enacting stricter gun control? Again, a better question might be, why are States such as New York, and California, and Illinois (which BTW have much larger cities and far more people than) Virginia, closing the gap? By your estimation, Virginia should be leading the way to zero crime?

A still better question would be "Why does Canuck seem to have a vested interest in ignoring some data while championing others?

Why is a person more likely to get murdered or raped in Virginia than in New York? State or City? New York State is pretty large and has a large non-criminal, non-violent population to offset the Animals in the City. Apples and Oranges.

Since 1990, New York's VCR has declined 61%, compared to Virginia's 21% decline. I think that speaks volumes!!
I think it speaks more to the fact that less people LIVE in Virginia and are less likely to abort their low SES, criminally inclined children.

But, by all means, continue to ignore the data, then tell me why the Mounties insisted I carry a gun in the Yukon.

South Carolina introduced CC in 1996, and in 2002, their VCR increased by 14%.

Between 1994 and 2003, the US VCR decreased 33%, yet South Carolina didn't keep up, with only a 23% drop. However, California's VCR declined 43%, and Illinois declined 42% during that same time span.

Additionally, from 1999 to 2003, South Carolina's VCR has declined only 12%, Tennessee 8%, Alaska 9%, and the US average was 16%, which was exceeded by California's 18% decline and Illinois's 31% decline.


From the ones that I have looked at so far (your examples, my bolding), not one of them have exceeded the drop in National VCR. Perhaps if they had exercized better gun control, their rates would have dropped more than they did.


Why did other jurisdictions with gun control drop more?

VCR did not start dropping until 1993, when the US total went down 1%. In 1991, the VCR went up 3.6%, in 1992, it was virtually unchanged from 1991.


Those States are rural based populations, all nestled with their peaceful neighbours up in Canada. The highest population of those 5 States is Maine with a population of 1,305,728. They win by default?


A better question might be, why is it that the non CC States are closing the gap after enacting stricter gun control?


Again, a better question might be, why are States such as New York, and California, and Illinois (which BTW have much larger cities and far more people than) Virginia, closing the gap? By your estimation, Virginia should be leading the way to zero crime?

Why is a person more likely to get murdered or raped in Virginia than in New York?

Since 1990, New York's VCR has declined 61%, compared to Virginia's 21% decline. I think that speaks volumes!!


NY again. We've already discussed this. What gun laws were enacted that caused this decline. Which, once again, started before the BB or CAWB.

IL : Chicago and one or two suburbs are the ONLY places where guns are actually banned. In Chicago, murder rates increased till '02.

You have stated "more guns=more crime" . 38 states have or have enacted CC laws and crime has dropped nationwide. 29 of these are below the nat'l averages.

I never stated that CC was the only reason for crime reduction. I'ld like you to prove that I did. You, however, have stated that more guns increases crime. You have yet to prove that.

You've also stated that the CAWB banned the sale of "Assault Weapons". Show me the proof.

So now we're getting into demographics again for differences? So why did two nearly identical counties have such different crime levels?

You want to play the rural game? Fine. Why did the VCR's in Nebraska & Kansas, both restrictive states, go up from '02 to '03? Why are you more likely to be raped in either state that Virginia.

What gun laws have been enacted by non CC states that have reduced crime?

But, by all means, continue to ignore the data, then tell me why the Mounties insisted I carry a gun in the Yukon.
Because the polar bears are vicious!! :eek:

~~snip~~
Let's put this all in perspective.

In 2003, there was 548 murders in all of Canada, with a population of 34 Million people. Approximately 1/3 (or 182) were killed by firearms, and since you like Virginia, it would only take Richmond Virginia (population 200,000) just over two years at their current rate to equal that number.

We are talking about one tiny city in the whole of the USA!!

Hello McFly!!!!

Let's put this all in perspective.

In 2003, there was 548 murders in all of Canada, with a population of 34 Million people. Approximately 1/3 (or 182) were killed by firearms, and since you like Virginia, it would only take Richmond Virginia (population 200,000) just over two years at their current rate to equal that number.

We are talking about one tiny city in the whole of the USA!!

Hello McFly!!!!

You seem to forget that the person who said that kept falling into shit.

Here's the demographics again. You bitch endlessly about two places being different and not being able to compare them. Then you do crap like this. Do you remember the whole Switzerland/UK debacle? You brought it up, then when the numbers were called, you whined about them being different. You're the one hyping Virginia the most. Howabout Fairfax? Two nearly identical counties and you dismiss them. You just stated that the 5 safest states were rural and shouldn't be figured in.

Let's play your game though. Washington DC. A pupulation of 563K. It would take them just over a year to equal Canada. Change to Canada Pop, That's over 14,000 murders.

Or howabout this. Baltimore, MD. Pop 644,554, One year. Over 14,000 murders.

Or this: Cape Coral, FL: Pop 115K, Murders: 1 Time: 182 years. Adjusting it to Canada Pop. , and they're over 200 less murders

Or let's try Switzerland again: Gun murders :40 Population 7M. Bring it up to Canada, and they are almost equal gunwise. Include all murders and they're over 200 less.

You want to keep playing this game? Are you actually going to answer some of the questions? Like why did Nat'l crime start dropping before the "bans"and keep dropping even though ownership increased? You have stated causality that "more guns = more crime". This shouldn't have happened according to you.

Why did the VCR's in Nebraska & Kansas, both restrictive states, go up from '02 to '03? You have stated causality. Therefore this shouldn't have happened according to you.

Why are you more likely to be raped in either state that Virginia(since you keep bringing it up)?

What gun laws were enacted in CA, NY, & IL that caused the drops? You have stated that the gun laws in these states improved crime rates. Since they followed nat'l trends till 1992 (including NY), by your logic, they must have passed laws then that started it. What are they?

What gun sales did the AWB actually ban?

Why do the BATFE, NAS, JAMA, & CDC all admit that "Gun Control" laws have no effect on crime?

Im not a hunter. There isnt a big need for me to hunt game. I like guns. Is that such a bad thing? I would like an AK-series weapon. I would like a nice weapon, incase of any...foreign problems. I would like to shoot guns, and as I'm soon to be joining the national guard, I would like a weapon to immediatly defend myself, if needed.

you sir are a sad deprived indevidual

Err, I thought I said that. Oh well, I'll chalk it up to a dying laptop battery and a 14.4 Cell connection.

It is entirely possible that I missed it, too.

you sir are a sad deprived indevidual

Deprived of his right to keep and bear arms. He should be sad.

you sir are a sad deprived indevidual
Why do you say that? He enjoys shooting as a passtime, and he wants the opportunity to defend himself against would be attackers. What is sad is that there are people who wish to make him helpless against those same attackers because "it just isn't right to hurt those poor economically challanged individuals who are simply exorcising their right to redistribute wealth via unlawful aquisition of another's assets". :rolleyes:

Why do you say that? He enjoys shooting as a passtime, and he wants the opportunity to defend himself against would be attackers. What is sad is that there are people who wish to make him helpless against those same attackers because "it just isn't right to hurt those poor economically challanged individuals who are simply exorcising their right to redistribute wealth via unlawful aquisition of another's assets". :rolleyes:

Ditto. :)

Deprived of his right to keep and bear arms. He should be sad.
Given his general inability to spell, I think that was supposed to be depraved.

Because the polar bears are vicious!! :eek:
ROTFLMAO!!! :rolleyes: Are you REALLY that niaeve about your own country and its wildlife!? Try getting out more.

There are no "polar bears" in inland Yukon. Polar bears are virtually semi-aquatic - they live, eat and breed on Ice Floes.

There ARE Brown and Black bears, ase well as other onrey critters in the Yukon and THAT is what the Mountie was concerned about.

But, in a way, you are right - I carry a gun to defend myself from vicious creatures. The most vicious creature in existence is Man. Thanks for validating my position.

you sir are a sad deprived indevidual

Im more sad than the man who has to resort to personal attacks to make a point? If you say so. Have fun at the bottom levels of maturity.

ROTFLMAO!!! :rolleyes: Are you REALLY that niaeve about your own country and its wildlife!? Try getting out more.

There are no "polar bears" in inland Yukon. Polar bears are virtually semi-aquatic - they live, eat and breed on Ice Floes.

There ARE Brown and Black bears, ase well as other onrey critters in the Yukon and THAT is what the Mountie was concerned about.

But, in a way, you are right - I carry a gun to defend myself from vicious creatures. The most vicious creature in existence is Man. Thanks for validating my position.
Actually the Yukon (http://listingsca.com/maps.asp) is not entirely inland. It goes as far north as the Beaufort Sea, and there are actually polar bears in the Yukon (http://www.taiga.net/wmac/consandmanagementplan_volume3/polar.html), and no they don't just breed on ice floes.

Apologies will be accepted up until midnight tonight. Anything after that would be stale dated!! :eek:

Actually the Yukon (http://listingsca.com/maps.asp) is not entirely inland. It goes as far north as the Beaufort Sea, and there are actually polar bears in the Yukon (http://www.taiga.net/wmac/consandmanagementplan_volume3/polar.html), and no they don't just breed on ice floes.

Apologies will be accepted up until midnight tonight. Anything after that would be stale dated!! :eek:

Why should he apologize. He was completely accurate. He entered on the "Top of the World Highway", which connects Alaska to Dawson City, Yukon. That, BTW, is inland Yukon. Nowhere in his post does he say "land-locked".

From your own site:

the actual number ranging off the coast of the Yukon is unknown and presumed to vary.


Catch that "off the coast"

and: "They are generally associated with pack-ice where they can travel and hunt."

and: "The occurrence of polar bears on the coast during the summer tourist season is uncommon and unpredictable,
"

Catch that " on the coast"

Why should he apologize. He was completely accurate. He entered on the "Top of the World Highway", which connects Alaska to Dawson City, Yukon. That, BTW, is inland Yukon. Nowhere in his post does he say "land-locked".

From your own site:

the actual number ranging off the coast of the Yukon is unknown and presumed to vary.


Catch that "off the coast"

and: "They are generally associated with pack-ice where they can travel and hunt."

and: "The occurrence of polar bears on the coast during the summer tourist season is uncommon and unpredictable,
"

Catch that " on the coast"
With Syniks, I was having some fun, especially about the apology. As far as you are concerned, try reading the whole article, especially "habitat features".

With Syniks, I was having some fun, especially about the apology. As far as you are concerned, try reading the whole article, especially "habitat features".

So you're saying that PB's travel over 600km inland?

So you're saying that PB's travel over 600km inland?
You have an extremely bad habit of trying of trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that polar bears travel inland. I will make this a little more simple for you, so you can follow along:

then tell me why the Mounties insisted I carry a gun in the Yukon.

Because the polar bears are vicious!! :eek:

Syniks did not say where he was going in the Yukon. Now are you up to speed?

You have an extremely bad habit of trying of trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that polar bears travel inland. I will make this a little more simple for you, so you can follow along:





Syniks did not say where he was going in the Yukon. Now are you up to speed?

Hmm. Top of the World highway and inland Yukon.

You implied that that the officer was concerned w/ his encountering PB's in the Yukon. Synik stated there are no PB's in inland Yukon. You replied to that with that "there actually are Polar Bears in the Yukon" and that I should read the whole article when I stated they stay near the coast. That sure sounds like you saying there are PB's in inland Yukon. Your own site says that they're an 'uncommon" occurrence and a tourist attraction when they are spotted on the coast. Do you really think the officer would recommend carrying a 12ga shotgun for an uncommon occurrence? I thought you said Canadian gun laws were strict on ownership and carrying.

Keep grasping at straws, Biff.

First, the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. :sniper:

Second, if criminals obeyed laws, they wouldn't be criminals. :headbang:

And third, for the person from the country that hasn't needed firearms for 60 years, you don't say what country that is,but I'm willing to bet it was one of the countries whose ass we saved in several world wars and probably a country whose ass we kicked out of our country. :eek: :mp5:

You seem to forget that the person who said that kept falling into shit.
Yes but McFly had to go into the future to fix the problem. Perhaps you could rise to the occasion and look what is happening with the largest cities in America, such as L.A., Chicago, and New York where the murder rates are falling due to a combination of gun control, enforcing the laws, and beefing up policing. Those cities are trying their best to keep guns off the street, and not make they more available. Chicago's murders have dropped from 646 in 2002 to 598 in 2003, down to 445 in 2004. That is a drop of 32% in 2 years.

But unlike McFly, you seem rooted in the past. Perhaps you would rather go back to the days of the old wild west and carry a gun on your hip, and where so many took the law into their own hands. Perhaps you could even identify with Biff in Back to the Future 3? Kinda sad really.

Here's the demographics again. You bitch endlessly about two places being different and not being able to compare them. Then you do crap like this. Do you remember the whole Switzerland/UK debacle? You brought it up, then when the numbers were called, you whined about them being different.
"Bitch endlessly"? You really are into the dramatics huh? The only commonality that the US shares with Switzerland, is that they both have a high ratio of gun ownership and the majority of murders are committed with firearms. And yes, the UK and Switzerland have something in common…..a far lower murder rate than the US.

You're the one hyping Virginia the most. Howabout Fairfax? Two nearly identical counties and you dismiss them.
Firstly, I believe that the county to county hype is not worth the powder to blow it to hell. Secondly, I did address the distinct differences between Montgomery County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia and I even posted a link backing up my point. Perhaps you have forgotten or choose to disregard that fact?

You just stated that the 5 safest states were rural and shouldn't be figured in.
I didn’t say they “shouldn't be figured in”, I stated that they “win by default” due to their low population density. You would assume that the less people there are in a State, the less crime there would be on a normal basis?

Not that these States don’t have their own problems. Vermont has a high rate of burglaries, and South Dakota and New Hampshire have extremely high rates of rape.

You want to keep playing this game? Are you actually going to answer some of the questions? Like why did Nat'l crime start dropping before the "bans"and keep dropping even though ownership increased? You have stated causality that "more guns = more crime". This shouldn't have happened according to you.
There was a nationwide downward trend in crime starting in 1993. In 1993. the Brady Bill became law and in 1994 was the AWB. As stated above, the States with large urban populations that are trying to keep guns off the streets, are having a far better downward trend in VCR. Therefore, less guns = less crime.

Why did the VCR's in Nebraska & Kansas, both restrictive states, go up from '02 to '03? You have stated causality. Therefore this shouldn't have happened according to you.
Yet since 2000, Texas’s murder rate has gone up 8%, and VCR has gone up 1.3%. According to you this shouldn’t happen? Between 2000 and 2003, Kansas’s murder rate has dropped 28.6%.

Why are you more likely to be raped in either state that Virginia(since you keep bringing it up)?
Why has Virginia’s rape rate increased 5.2% since 2000? Why has Alaska’s (which has full gun rights) rape rate increased 31.5% from 2000 (70.3) to 2003 (92.5)? Why has Alaska’s murder rate increased 39.5% over the same period? This shouldn’t happen according to you?

What gun laws were enacted in CA, NY, & IL that caused the drops? You have stated that the gun laws in these states improved crime rates. Since they followed nat'l trends till 1992 (including NY), by your logic, they must have passed laws then that started it. What are they?
National crime rates started to drop in 1993, the same year that the Brady Bill was enacted and the year before the AWB was enacted. It is interesting to notice that since the Brady Bill “sunset” in 1998, the National crime rate has gone down only 9.2% (1999 to 2003), yet from the time the Brady Bill was enacted, the National VCR went down 33.4% (1994 to 2003). During the 5 years that the Brady Bill was in full force and effect, the US VCR dropped 24.1%.

Why do the BATFE, NAS, JAMA, & CDC all admit that "Gun Control" laws have no effect on crime?
Please provide links to support those claims.

What gun sales did the AWB actually ban?

Q: What are the provisions of the ban? (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb)

A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher

Pistols
Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

I notice that nuclear weapons are not on the list. Stock up now?

I notice that nuclear weapons are not on the list. Stock up now?

Hell yeah! :D ;)

1.Yes but McFly had to go into the future to fix the problem. Perhaps you could rise to the occasion and look what is happening with the largest cities in America, such as L.A., Chicago, and New York where the murder rates are falling due to a combination of gun control, enforcing the laws, and beefing up policing. Those cities are trying their best to keep guns off the street, and not make they more available. Chicago's murders have dropped from 646 in 2002 to 598 in 2003, down to 445 in 2004. That is a drop of 32% in 2 years.

2.But unlike McFly, you seem rooted in the past. Perhaps you would rather go back to the days of the old wild west and carry a gun on your hip, and where so many took the law into their own hands. Perhaps you could even identify with Biff in Back to the Future 3? Kinda sad really.


3."Bitch endlessly"? You really are into the dramatics huh? The only commonality that the US shares with Switzerland, is that they both have a high ratio of gun ownership and the majority of murders are committed with firearms. And yes, the UK and Switzerland have something in common?..a far lower murder rate than the US.


4.Firstly, I believe that the county to county hype is not worth the powder to blow it to hell. Secondly, I did address the distinct differences between Montgomery County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia and I even posted a link backing up my point. Perhaps you have forgotten or choose to disregard that fact?


5.I didn?t say they ?shouldn't be figured in?, I stated that they ?win by default? due to their low population density. You would assume that the less people there are in a State, the less crime there would be on a normal basis?

Not that these States don?t have their own problems. Vermont has a high rate of burglaries, and South Dakota and New Hampshire have extremely high rates of rape.


6.There was a nationwide downward trend in crime starting in 1993. In 1993. the Brady Bill became law and in 1994 was the AWB. As stated above, the States with large urban populations that are trying to keep guns off the streets, are having a far better downward trend in VCR. Therefore, less guns = less crime.


7.Yet since 2000, Texas?s murder rate has gone up 8%, and VCR has gone up 1.3%. According to you this shouldn?t happen? Between 2000 and 2003, Kansas?s murder rate has dropped 28.6%.


Why has Virginia?s rape rate increased 5.2% since 2000? Why has Alaska?s (which has full gun rights) rape rate increased 31.5% from 2000 (70.3) to 2003 (92.5)? Why has Alaska?s murder rate increased 39.5% over the same period? This shouldn?t happen according to you?


8.National crime rates started to drop in 1993, the same year that the Brady Bill was enacted and the year before the AWB was enacted. It is interesting to notice that since the Brady Bill ?sunset? in 1998, the National crime rate has gone down only 9.2% (1999 to 2003), yet from the time the Brady Bill was enacted, the National VCR went down 33.4% (1994 to 2003). During the 5 years that the Brady Bill was in full force and effect, the US VCR dropped 24.1%.

1. If "gun control" was a factor, why did they keep following the nat'l trends? Except for Chicago that increased till '02. Just a few posts ago, you were hyping Illinois as a state. Now it's just Chicago. Could that be that I showed you accurate information on Il. gun laws? What happened to your "extensive research"?

2. That made no sense whatsoever. It did however claim the "Wild West" arguement again. And Biff in 3 was a criminal. Are you now calling me a criminal because I choose to defend my rights? Let's play Canuck math. MM went into the past 3 times to fix it and the future only once. So 66% more crimes are solved by going into the past than the future.

3. and since you have stated "more guns = more crime" Switzerland is proof that is not true. The UK has also historically had lower crime rates even before it started banning guns.

4. You posted no link. You posted a cutnpaste that you admitted you didn't remember where it came from. You still try comparing areas that are vastly more different than those two as your "proofs". The only reason you dismiss it is because it shows your hypothesis of " more guns = more crime" to be wrong. Yet you'll keep comparing places that are vastly more different (including cities to countries) as your "proof". Nice how you deleted My version of your city to country comparison from the reply.

5. Win by default? convienent excuse. Notice how you lmost completely ignore the KN,NE rates. KN's VCR increased from 1999. How about MD. Why is their VCR 703.9? Why is their murder rate increasing?

6. There was a nationwide drop starting in '92. Two years before either of the bans took effect. If less guns = less crime, why did DC's crime rate reverse one year after it's ban took effect? Why did Chicago's not start dropping until '02 when they banned handguns in '82?

7. Once again, I've never claimed causality. That would be you. Along those lines, NY's rape rate has gone up as well. Explain that please. I accept other factors besides firearm ownership in relation to crime. Kansas's VCR has gone up since '99. NE VCR & murder rate increased from '02 to '03. You have claimed causality. Why did they increase. NE has a similar population to Maine and has 3x the crime rate. KN is a little over twice the population and 3x the crime rate. That means 6x the actual numbers of crimes. Explain that please. Can you , or are you just going to throw out more cherry picked numbers?

8. and once again you're wrong. Crime rates started dropping in '92. VCR's in '92 with a bigger drop in '93. The BB wasn't enacted until Feb 28, 1994. It was signed into law in Dec, '03. 18 states plus DC were exempt from the BB and 13 more added during the time. There were also dozens of CC states that were added between '92 & '98. I've never claimed causality. You however have stated that more guns = more crime. You have yet to explain how nat'l ownership has gone up while crime has gone down.

Please provide links to support those claims.



Q: What are the provisions of the ban? (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb)

A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher

Pistols
Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

I notice that nuclear weapons are not on the list. Stock up now?


I thought you've done "extensive research"? Seems like you have to have quite a bit of information spoon fed to you.

Here's one on the CDC:


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/03cdcguns.html;COXnetJSessionID=19oLRvAe3C9kW0GqLBAbsaI1Umgx4aLMGN7cO9oEUPqYrDYF76lm!-284502201?urac=n&urvf=10651833712170.30317300770861355

You posted from the Brady Campaign? That's classic.

So it only banned a small percentage of weapons w/ certain attachments made during a certain amount of time.

You notice how it stated only weapons w/ attachments were not allowed to be manufactured/sold unless grandfathered?
Did you know an AK-47 is not an "assault weapon"?
Did you know that an pre-ban AR-15 and post ban AR-15 fire exaclty the same round in exactly the same way at exactly the same rate?
The same for every other "banned" semi-auto rifle produced during that period?
Did you know that the "conventional military round" that the site hypes is less powereful than an average hunting round?

Here's a little article for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24guns.html

Here's an interesting little tidbit about the much hyped "Brady Bill":

18 states and DC were EXEMPT from the BB standards upon signing. This included NY, CA,FL and IL. They were exempt as they already had stricter standards than BB requirements. These 18 states and DC accounted for 63% of violent crime in the US,including 57 of murders. Since the law took effect and its sunset in '98, 13 more states became exempt.

CA had a 15 day waiting period: it's violent crime & murder rates were 55% & 44% higher.

of the 12 states above the nat'l VCR average, 8 were exempt due to local laws.

The Virginia State Police report that between Nov. 1989 and June 1997 the state`s Instant Check system led to the arrest of 3,234 individuals, including 456 wanted persons. On the second day of Virginia`s Instant Check, an arrest was made leading to theconviction of three individuals for a murder in New Jersey.
On Dec. 24, 1997, the Dept. of Justice, citing statistics from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, stated that during Fiscal Years 1994-1997 only 599 individuals were convicted of providing false information on either federal forms 4473 (used to document retail firearms purchases) or Brady handgun purchase application forms. During this period, a minimum of 75 of those convicted provided false information on Brady forms. (Letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.)

Nationally only 3 out of 10 Violent crimes are committed w/ guns. about 66 of all homicides are. Yet in DC: exempt from the BB w/ handguns banned since '78:
In 1990, 380 of the city`s 382 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1991, 383 of 385 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. Between 1976 and 1991, D.C.`s homicide rate tripled. In 1993 all of the city`s 368 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1994, all of the city`s 350 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1994, all of the city`s 350 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1995, 304 of the city`s 309 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. (FBI and D.C. police.)

Chicago, also exempt due to an '82 handgun ban had, by 1993, 65% of homicides committed w/ handguns alone and had the 3rd highest murder rate in the country. Over double the amount of murders since '82 and an INCREASE in handgun use by 27%.


Other people/groups admitting the BB didn't do much:

"Brady may not directly result in measurable reductions of gun-related crimes." (General Accounting Office,"Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO/GGD-96-22 Gun Control, January 1996, p. 8)

** "It is hard to see the Brady law, heralded by many politicians, the media, and Handgun Control, Inc. as an important step toward keeping handguns out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible persons, as anything more than a sop to the widespread fear of crime....There is little reason to accept the claim that Brady is preventing 40,000 dangerous and irresponsible persons per year from obtaining handguns." (New York University professors James B. Jacobs and Kimberley A. Potter, "Keeping Guns Out Of The `Wrong` Hands: The Brady Law And The Limits Of Regulation," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Vol. 86, No. 1, Fall 1995)

** Only 7% of armed career criminals obtain firearms from licensed gun shops. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms "Protecting America: The Effectiveness of the Federal Armed Career Criminal Statute," 1992, p. 28)

** Only 7% of "handgun predators" obtain firearms from licensed gun shops. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi for the Department of Justice,"Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Study of Felons and Their Firearms," 1986, p. 187.)

** 85% of police chiefs believe that the Brady Act has not stoppedcriminals from obtaining handguns. (Membership poll, National Association of Chiefs of Police, May 1997)

** Brady`s 5-day wait "does not cut off to prohibited purchasers all avenues to handguns." ("Denying Handguns To Prohibited Purchasers: Quantifying The Impact Of The Brady Law," Douglas Weil, Handgun Control, Inc.`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, August 26, 1996)


So to sum up, the states exempt were high crime to begin w/ and already had tougher laws. Yet their crime changes followed the nat'l averages.



So where's the causality?

But unlike McFly, you seem rooted in the past. Perhaps you would rather go back to the days of the old wild west and carry a gun on your hip, and where so many took the law into their own hands. Perhaps you could even identify with Biff in Back to the Future 3? Kinda sad really.

Actually, the danger of the "wild west" is greatly exaggerated. Most cities today in the US including New York are more dangerous than places like Dodge City, so going back to that would be perfectly fine by me.

Actually, the danger of the "wild west" is greatly exaggerated. Most cities today in the US including New York are more dangerous than places like Dodge City, so going back to that would be perfectly fine by me.

Biff would have liked a disarmed public. Kind of like.....

Isn't it interesting to note that CH uses movies as accurate representations of US history. I wonder if he thinks "The Blair Witch" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" really happened?

Actually, a really good comparison for the effectiveness of gun control involves MD and the surrounding states since they are largely similar.

MD is consistently higher in crime rate except for DC and Delaware. DC, of course, basically bans guns. As for Delaware it is similar to Maryland in that both states are "May issue" states for concealed carry, which means that only "important" people end up getting CCW permits. There are less murders in Delaware, but a shocking number of rapes. Their other stats are essentially identical. As for the other states surrounding Maryland, suprise, suprise, they are all at least "shall issue" states. Care to refute any of this?

Actually, a really good comparison for the effectiveness of gun control involves MD and the surrounding states since they are largely similar.

MD is consistently higher in crime rate except for DC and Delaware. DC, of course, basically bans guns. As for Delaware it is similar to Maryland in that both states are "May issue" states for concealed carry, which means that only "important" people end up getting CCW permits. There are less murders in Delaware, but a shocking number of rapes. Their other stats are essentially identical. As for the other states surrounding Maryland, suprise, suprise, they are all at least "shall issue" states. Care to refute any of this?

CH: oh but those states have (insert minor differences here) so you can't compare them but this state has these stats in comparison to this city.

or

CH: (ignores post ) but NY is low and (insert cherry here) is high so causality is proven.

The "best" part about Ruby Ridge was the shooting of an unarmed woman holding a baby - shot right through the head - by the FBI - and sniper Lon Horiuchi meant to shoot her- it was not an accident.

Sure, Canuck doesn't trust civilians, but he trusts law enforcement to ALWAYS make the right decision with firearms.

Hey!!! of course it is justified that the government can use a sniper to kill a woman. Come on, her husband bought a gun from a government agent that was 1/16 of an inch below the legal limit and he refused to testify against his friends. This in itself is justification for govt snipers to put bullets into the head of unarmed women.

BTW: canuckheaven is an idiot, why do you bother to argue with him?

Hey!!! of course it is justified that the government can use a sniper to kill a woman. Come on, her husband bought a gun from a government agent that was 1/16 of an inch below the legal limit and he refused to testify against his friends. This in itself is justification for govt snipers to put bullets into the head of unarmed women.

BTW: canuckheaven is an idiot, why do you bother to argue with him?

Partially incorrect. He sold a shotgun that was alledgedy short (some dispute as to whether he cut it or not) to an undercover agent who repeatedly asked him to do it. AKA entrapment.

It's fun to see how many times he can change numbers to fit his arguement and how often he ignores posts by posting those numbers again ad nauseum.

Do you have some sort of evidence for that assertion?
That statistic, iirc, comes from one examination of a county in Washington state. It's oft repeated, but I wouldn't exactly call it scientific. More like a very interesting statistical cluster which demands a more rigorous examination.

It's a pretty dubious place to be arguing from.

That said, if the guy you just shot has a buddy sneaking up on you, the stopping power of the particular weapon isn't terribly important at that point.

That statistic, iirc, comes from one examination of a county in Washington state. It's oft repeated, but I wouldn't exactly call it scientific. More like a very interesting statistical cluster which demands a more rigorous examination.

It's a pretty dubious place to be arguing from.

That said, if the guy you just shot has a buddy sneaking up on you, the stopping power of the particular weapon isn't terribly important at that point.

Ahh, the famous Kellerman 43-1 study. Actually that "study" did not include anything about your gun being taken away.

"Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households"

as for the other, Not necessarily.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=31186

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Two teens were shot at The Preserves Apartments in Paradise Island on the Southside Saturday, during an apparent robbery gone bad. One of those teens died.

Police say four teens tried to rob a man at gunpoint in the parking lot of the apartment complex.

Investigators say the victim of the robbery was also armed with a gun. They say, as he tried to get away, a fight started. That's when the victim apparently pulled out his own gun and fired several shots, hitting two of the suspects.

David U. McCray, 16, was killed. Aaron J. Muhammad, 17, was also shot and injured. The two other teens allegedly involved, Carl A. Jones, 15, and Oren A. Louder, 18, are in police custody.

As for the ammo serialization SB 357: the CA attorney General has stated that :

" the industry has test-fired serialized bullets to ensure the technology works."

However, according to SAAMI, the group that sets ammo standards for the industry has stated"

No major firearms manufacturer, or SAAMI--the nation`s leading authority, which sets standards followed by every ammunition maker--participated in any testing of serialized ammunition. SAAMI has serious questions regarding the practicality of reading the number from a laser engraving on a bullet after it has been subjected to the pressures and deformation involved in firing a handgun. In any case, General Lockyer was misleading in suggesting the industry has participated in testing this process.


For more of CA's BS on SB357:

http://www.saami.org/news/CA_ammoSer040505.htm

Actually the Yukon (http://listingsca.com/maps.asp) is not entirely inland. It goes as far north as the Beaufort Sea, and there are actually polar bears in the Yukon (http://www.taiga.net/wmac/consandmanagementplan_volume3/polar.html), and no they don't just breed on ice floes.

Apologies will be accepted up until midnight tonight. Anything after that would be stale dated!! :eek:
I'm glad you don't find it necessary for me to appoligize since I did NOT say "there are no polar bears in the Yukon", nor did I suggest the Yukon was entirely inland. I said, "there are no polar bears in the inland Yukon" ... you know, where the roads and border crossings are... like there are no polar bears in inland Alaska. However, I crossed the border Alaska and the Yukon at the northernmost border crossing, the 60mile, Taylor Highway, Yukon Highway 9, "Top of the World Highway". No polar bears there, even though the don't, as you say, JUST bread on ice floes.

Not too many people drive to, then go soft-side camping on, the Beaufort Sea. But you knew that.

Thanks for being mindlessly pendantic.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need
guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict
gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but
statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just
statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime
rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear
of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if
shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense
- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman
Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a
computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard,
which was created 112 years later, in 1903.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land,
using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right
of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of
certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by
the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the
states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but
"the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should
ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th
Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of
course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't
"military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault
rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and
1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores,
gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no
background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were
no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a
"don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the
typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only
has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with
a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings
at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns,
which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but
the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the
Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare
hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts
of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other
parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who
is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns
that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says
the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but
police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers
of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on
their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the
wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

-------------------

(snip lot's of fun stuff :D )
-------------------
:p

In 1987, Florida enacted laws to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. In 1987, the Violent Crime Rate (VCR) in Florida was 1024.4. Over the next 3 years, Florida's VCR increased to 1244.3.

In 2000, After 13 years with having the dubious "right" to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), Florida was blessed with the following results:

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.

Florida’s 44.2 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 7th highest.

In 1987, New York State's (VCR) was 1008.1, which is very similar to Florida's 1987 rate.

How does New York compare with Florida in 2000?

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.

New York’s 18.6 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 48th highest.

Florida's VCR in 2003 was 730.2

New York's VCR in 2003 was 465.2 (now less than National average)

Net change in Florida's VCR 1987 to 2003 = 28.2% reduction

Net change in New York's VCR 1987 to 2003 = 53.9% reduction

Net difference in Florida VCR and New York VCR in 1987 = Florida + 1.6%

Net difference in Florida VCR and New York VCR in 2003 = Florida + 56.9%

United States VCR in 1987 was 609.7

United States VCR in 2003 was 475.0

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is
due to the lack of gun control.

You might want to start with a bit more honesty? In 2003, Washington DC's murder rate was 44.2 per 100,000. In 1991, it was 80.6, so it is improving.

You might want to start focusing on Richmond, Virginia which has a rate 47 per 100,000?

You are going to need to find a new city to pick on since L.A, Chicago, and New York's numbers are dropping?

You might want to start with a bit more honesty? In 2003, Washington DC's murder rate was 44.2 per 100,000. In 1991, it was 80.6, so it is improving.

You might want to start focusing on Richmond, Virginia which has a rate 47 per 100,000?

You are going to need to find a new city to pick on since L.A, Chicago, and New York's numbers are dropping?

WHAT caused them to drop? It wasn't their own gun laws as they were established for years and crime rose and dropped w/ the nat'l averages. It wasn't the Brady Bill as all of those cities were exempt. It wasn't the AWB as that banned effectively nothing.

You might want to start with a bit more honesty? In 2003, Washington DC's murder rate was 44.2 per 100,000. In 1991, it was 80.6, so it is improving.

You might want to start focusing on Richmond, Virginia which has a rate 47 per 100,000?

You are going to need to find a new city to pick on since L.A, Chicago, and New York's numbers are dropping?


Let's start with honesty. The gun laws in Washington, D.C. (in the city) have not changed since the Gun Control Act of 1968. All weapons that can propel ANY kind of projectile are illegal - even a slingshot. You can't get a carry permit - period. You can't own a gun - period. Far more restrictive than New York City - and a constant. So by your logic, there should be a constant decrease in murder.

Let's see. From the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., Crime Statistics - we'll start some time after 1968 - you would think that guns would be less of a problem if we move up to 1985 - you know, the gun law would have been in effect for so long:
1985 148
1986 194 why is it rising?
1987 225
1988 369
1989 434 even higher?
1990 474
1991 482 here's the peak!
1992 443 oh, it's going down, but Brady wasn't passed yet!
1993 454
1994 399
1995 360 people start fleeing the city to PG County
1996 397
1997 301
1998 260
1999 241
2000 242
2001 233
2002 262
2003 248
2004 198

I'll give you a hint as to the cause - there was a mass exodus of people from the city as a result of the crime peak of the mid-1990s - to Prince George's County, Maryland (where you can't carry a gun legally, either).

Prince George's County is the highest crime and murder area in Maryland now.

It's not the gun laws. It's the people who are already willing to violate the law and kill people who are the problem.

That, and in both of those areas, a law abiding person cannot defend themself.

In 1987, Florida enacted laws to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. In 1987, the Violent Crime Rate (VCR) in Florida was 1024.4. Over the next 3 years, Florida's VCR increased to 1244.3.

In 2000, After 13 years with having the dubious "right" to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), Florida was blessed with the following results:

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.

Florida?s 44.2 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 7th highest.

In 1987, New York State's (VCR) was 1008.1, which is very similar to Florida's 1987 rate.

How does New York compare with Florida in 2000?

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.

New York?s 18.6 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 48th highest.

Florida's VCR in 2003 was 730.2

New York's VCR in 2003 was 465.2 (now less than National average)

Net change in Florida's VCR 1987 to 2003 = 28.2% reduction

Net change in New York's VCR 1987 to 2003 = 53.9% reduction

Net difference in Florida VCR and New York VCR in 1987 = Florida + 1.6%

Net difference in Florida VCR and New York VCR in 2003 = Florida + 56.9%

United States VCR in 1987 was 609.7

United States VCR in 2003 was 475.0


FL & NY. Canucks standard fallback.

MD's 2003 VCR is also in the 700's. It's a highly restrictive state and it's increasing. NE & KN (highly restrictive states) are increasing and have 3 times the VCR of Maine ( a mostly rural state w/ liberal gun laws) yet Maine is decreasing.

You've yet to explain that.

FL still dropped. Yet there are more gun owners. You've stated that should cause an increase. There's also been an increase in drug wars, illegal immigration, gangs, etc there as well. Oh wait, you don't feel things like these are related to discussions on firearms and crime.

You might want to start with a bit more honesty? In 2003, Washington DC's murder rate was 44.2 per 100,000. In 1991, it was 80.6, so it is improving. You might want to start focusing on Richmond, Virginia which has a rate 47 per 100,000? You are going to need to find a new city to pick on since L.A, Chicago, and New York's numbers are dropping?
(oooh, and have been dropping since 1991, in accordance with the decline of live low SES urban births...)

How about a little honesty and addressing the actual statistical points I brought up from the DOJ and Stephen Levitt rather than focusing, as usual, on the fairly unimportant but pithy commentary.

Yes, it is easy to refute bits of pithy commentary (which I did not write, BTW) and it is easy to get pedantic about the lifestyles of polar bears in the Yukon. It is aparantly HARD to argue to the facts or logical inconsistancies of your position.

If you are so hot to address the pithy commentary, why don't you try refuting them one by one. It's shouldn't be too hard for someone of your immense research skills. :rolleyes:

(snip lots of fun stuff):p
I have probably 200-300mb of "RKBA fun stuff". Some of it is thematically/logicaly valid even though statistically questionable, but it is all interesting.

I suppose I should compile it all into one place.

I have probably 200-300mb of "RKBA fun stuff". Some of it is thematically/logicaly valid even though statistically questionable, but it is all interesting.

I suppose I should compile it all into one place.


im not really a fan of one liners, but this is the biggest ive come across to date

http://www.handguncontrolinc.com/hci_credo.htm (its a parody site BTW, not the real HCI)

im not really a fan of one liners, but this is the biggest ive come across to date

http://www.handguncontrolinc.com/hci_credo.htm (its a parody site BTW, not the real HCI)

That site is great! I love the games section.

That site is great! I love the games section.
I love Mike. IIRC he lives down in Indy, about 4 hours from me. I have to go visit his knife shop sometime.

You might want to start with a bit more honesty? In 2003, Washington DC's murder rate was 44.2 per 100,000. In 1991, it was 80.6, so it is improving.

You might want to start focusing on Richmond, Virginia which has a rate 47 per 100,000?

You are going to need to find a new city to pick on since L.A, Chicago, and New York's numbers are dropping?
Hey Canadia boy, care to explain Maryland and Delaware? Or is that too hard because it soundly fucks over your current position?

Hey Canadia boy, care to explain Maryland and Delaware? Or is that too hard because it soundly fucks over your current position?
Methinks I doth detect a severe case of tender nerve endings. By all means bring forth your position on Maryland and Delaware, and then we can debate the relative points.

If you are so hot to address the pithy commentary, why don't you try refuting them one by one. It's shouldn't be too hard for someone of your immense research skills. :rolleyes:
I really do not have any desire to engage you in a "pithing" contest. However, if you would like to bring forth material that you would like to debate in a straight forward, honest manner than by all means, be my guest.

This "debate" is exactly why opponants of gun control are going to have it cramed down their throats. Two sides, arguing by selection bias. While tonight on the news I'm going to see a story about someone who was shot to death somewhere in the Seattle area. Guess what's going to be more persuasive in influencing how people estimate their risk for being shot?

There is a real public saftey risk, many people are pointlessly shot to death. Cities are rich, and are home to many voters. And they're only growing bigger, and richer. Politicians are amoral whores. That's the math you should concern yourselves with, not violent crime rates.

I fully understand why an argument by selection bias develops. It's extremely difficult to tease out the effect of gun control legislation. Which isn't a particular condemnation of the legislation as much as it is an endorsement of the freedoms so transparently afforded by our great nation.

Methinks I doth detect a severe case of tender nerve endings. By all means bring forth your position on Maryland and Delaware, and then we can debate the relative points.

Translation: pick out one or two numbers that "prove" his entire hypothesis.

He already did post his position, read his next to last post.

This "debate" is exactly why opponants of gun control are going to have it cramed down their throats. Two sides, arguing by selection bias. While tonight on the news I'm going to see a story about someone who was shot to death somewhere in the Seattle area. Guess what's going to be more persuasive in influencing how people estimate their risk for being shot?

There is a real public saftey risk, many people are pointlessly shot to death. Cities are rich, and are home to many voters. And they're only growing bigger, and richer. Politicians are amoral whores. That's the math you should concern yourselves with, not violent crime rates.

I fully understand why an argument by selection bias develops. It's extremely difficult to tease out the effect of gun control legislation. Which isn't a particular condemnation of the legislation as much as it is an endorsement of the freedoms so transparently afforded by our great nation.

I guess that's why 27 states have passed Concealed Carry laws in the past 15 years w/ more in the works, why NRA supported candidates won overwhelmingly, why "Gun Control" groups like the MMM went bankrupt and had to join HCI to stay afloat, why HCI has resorted to blatant lying to try have more guns banned.

Many of the cities are actually growing smaller and poorer as the middle class and upper middle class go to the suburbs or rural to escape.

The CDC has already completed a multi-year study on gun control legislation: they're conclusion" There is no evidence that gun control legislation has had any effect on crime rates"

I guess that's why 27 states have passed Concealed Carry laws in the past 15 years w/ more in the works, why NRA supported candidates won overwhelmingly,
Are you are suggesting that "NRA supported candidates" are more than likely to get elected because they are endorsed by the NRA?

Are you are suggesting that "NRA supported candidates" are more than likely to get elected because they are endorsed by the NRA?

Nice way to ignore the rest of the post and take what I said out of context.

In the real world it means that more politicians are supporting the RKBA than opposing it.

Of course having the support of a group w/ over 4 million members never hurts.

But of course the NRA is "evil" and no other nat'l organization endorses politicians, right?

The CDC has already completed a multi-year study on gun control legislation: they're conclusion" There is no evidence that gun control legislation has had any effect on crime rates"
Are those the "exact words" used and in what context was it used?

From a "pro gun" site, I found this buried at the bottom, in the Bibliography:

"It should be noted that Dr. John’s Lott research—made widely available in More Guns, Less Crime (see supra note 4)—was part of the data examined by the CDC. The agency concluded there was no evidence to support the idea that "shall issue" carry laws reduce crime."

BTW, what exactly is your stand on all of this? That carrying a concealed weapon laws reduce crime?

Are those the "exact words" used and in what context was it used?

From a "pro gun" site, I found this buried at the bottom, in the Bibliography:

"It should be noted that Dr. John?s Lott research?made widely available in More Guns, Less Crime (see supra note 4)?was part of the data examined by the CDC. The agency concluded there was no evidence to support the idea that "shall issue" carry laws reduce crime."

BTW, what exactly is your stand on all of this? That carrying a concealed weapon laws reduce crime?

I've already posted the links. Haven't you done your research?

What 'pro-gun' site was it?

I believe CC laws improve the capabilities of LAC's to defend themselves against crime and that , along w/ measures actually aimed at criminals instead of LAC's, can reduce crime. As always, I've never claimed causality, that would be you.

BTW, what exactly is your stand on this? That carrying a concealed weapon laws increase crime?

I've already posted the links. Haven't you done your research?
I am working on it. :D

What 'pro-gun' site was it?
<<<cough>>>GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/2004_gun_control_facts.htm)<<<cough>>>

I believe CC laws improve the capabilities of LAC's to defend themselves against crime and that , along w/ measures actually aimed at criminals instead of LAC's, can reduce crime. As always, I've never claimed causality, that would be you.
Then you are claiming that your "cause", combined with appropriate laws, can "effect" a reduction in crime?

BTW, what exactly is your stand on this?
That effective, meaningful gun control, combined with effective laws and law enforcement will significantly reduce crimes, and unnecessary deaths/injuries. It will also lead to lower health care costs and/or free up medical personnel to provide better healthcare services.

That carrying a concealed weapon laws increase crime?
Absolutely.

Since you like to use the CDC as an example, I found this interesting article:

Health Objectives for the Nation Weapon-Carrying Among High School Students -- United States, 1990 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015300.htm)

From 1980 through 1989, more than 11,000 persons died in the United States as a result of homicides committed by high school-aged youth using firearms, cutting instruments, or blunt objects (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Supplementary Homicide Report Files, unpublished data, 1980-1989). Firearm-related homicides accounted for more than 65% of these fatalities. Immediate access to a potentially lethal weapon, especially a firearm, may increase the likelihood that a lethal event would result from a violent altercation (1,2). This article presents the prevalence and incidence of self-reported weapon-carrying among high school students in grades 9-12 in the United States during 1990. ...........

One of the national health objectives for the year 2000 is to "reduce by 20 percent the incidence of weapon-carrying by adolescents aged 14 through 17" (objective 7.10) (5). The 1990 YRBS baseline data indicate that 71 weapon-carrying episodes occurred per 100 students during the 30 days preceding the survey. To achieve the year 2000 objective, this incidence rate must be reduced to 57 episodes per 100 students per month.

Plans to achieve this national objective and prevent weapon-related deaths and injuries among youth should address the following considerations. First, because most weapon-carrying incidents are attributed to a relatively small proportion of adolescents, programs to reduce weapon-carrying should target frequent weapon carriers, as well as their peers and families. Second, because firearms, particularly handguns, are the weapon most highly associated with fatal events, weapon-related fatalities will be prevented most effectively by reductions in firearm-carrying. Third, because the risk for being assaulted is an important motivation for weapon-carrying (6), programs should attempt to reduce the perceived or actual risk for victimization that underlies the need many students feel to carry weapons for self-protection.

Interesting stuff to say the least?

The CDC has already completed a multi-year study on gun control legislation: they're conclusion" There is no evidence that gun control legislation has had any effect on crime rates"

Are those the "exact words" used and in what context was it used?

I've already posted the links. Haven't you done your research?

A couple of posts ago, you accused me of taking your words "out of context", and yet you quoted the CDC "out of context" to support your argument. So after some digging, I found the CDC Summary:

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury.

The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Not only did you take the words out of context, you did not use the "exact words". There is a huge difference between "insufficient evidence" and "no evidence", which you claimed as your truth. You also conveniently ignored that the summary also stated that there was insufficient evidence in regards to ""shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws".

More interesting stuff?

1.I am working on it. :D


2.<<<cough>>>GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (http://www.wisconsingunowners.org/2004_gun_control_facts.htm)<<<cough>>>


3.Then you are claiming that your "cause", combined with appropriate laws, can "effect" a reduction in crime?


4.That effective, meaningful gun control, combined with effective laws and law enforcement will significantly reduce crimes, and unnecessary deaths/injuries. It will also lead to lower health care costs and/or free up medical personnel to provide better healthcare services.


5.Absolutely.

6.Since you like to use the CDC as an example, I found this interesting article:

Health Objectives for the Nation Weapon-Carrying Among High School Students -- United States, 1990 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015300.htm)

From 1980 through 1989, more than 11,000 persons died in the United States as a result of homicides committed by high school-aged youth using firearms, cutting instruments, or blunt objects (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Supplementary Homicide Report Files, unpublished data, 1980-1989). Firearm-related homicides accounted for more than 65% of these fatalities. Immediate access to a potentially lethal weapon, especially a firearm, may increase the likelihood that a lethal event would result from a violent altercation (1,2). This article presents the prevalence and incidence of self-reported weapon-carrying among high school students in grades 9-12 in the United States during 1990. ...........

One of the national health objectives for the year 2000 is to "reduce by 20 percent the incidence of weapon-carrying by adolescents aged 14 through 17" (objective 7.10) (5). The 1990 YRBS baseline data indicate that 71 weapon-carrying episodes occurred per 100 students during the 30 days preceding the survey. To achieve the year 2000 objective, this incidence rate must be reduced to 57 episodes per 100 students per month.

Plans to achieve this national objective and prevent weapon-related deaths and injuries among youth should address the following considerations. First, because most weapon-carrying incidents are attributed to a relatively small proportion of adolescents, programs to reduce weapon-carrying should target frequent weapon carriers, as well as their peers and families. Second, because firearms, particularly handguns, are the weapon most highly associated with fatal events, weapon-related fatalities will be prevented most effectively by reductions in firearm-carrying. Third, because the risk for being assaulted is an important motivation for weapon-carrying (6), programs should attempt to reduce the perceived or actual risk for victimization that underlies the need many students feel to carry weapons for self-protection.

Interesting stuff to say the least?

1. But you've previously stated you've DONE extensive research and yet you didn't know state CC laws, the realities of the BB, CAWB, or most published studies.

2. Thank you. It's interesting to note you considered one cite out of 215 "buried at the bottom" as if they're trying to hide something. Who's doing the spin here?

3. There's already ovber 20,000 "gun control" laws . Laws do nothing. Actually going after criminals reduces crime. CC allows people to defend themselves against crime.

4. Notice your phrase "effective law enforcement". So w/ gun laws already on the books, the law was unable/unwilling to prevent crimeand are not obligated to protect people. Yet you want to give them more authority as to whom is able to own a firearm. From the same site you linked :Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves."46

5. Then why hasn't the Nat'l crime rate increase in proportion to firearm ownership & CC states? Oh wait, you'll cite a few cherry picked numbers from Florida again or maybe Virginia, both of which have dropped, then ignore the fact that most CC states are below the nat'l VCR avg. and have continued to drop even after CC laws were passed and the top 5 are historic CC states. Then you'll point out a few cities. FL by the way, still dropping after issuing over 1 million CC licenses. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%;29 I still don't claim causality but why hasn't it increased like you stated?

6. "weapon-related fatalities will be prevented most effectively by reductions in firearm-carrying". Yep, that's worked. That's why NY's increased until the 90's, Chicago's increased until 2002, and DC's actually went from dropping to increasing , peaking out at 80/100k with over 95% of it's murders by handguns.

"the incidence of weapon-carrying by adolescents aged 14 through 17": as this is illegal anyway, how are more laws going to effect it.

"most weapon-carrying incidents are attributed to a relatively small proportion of adolescents, [B]programs to reduce weapon-carrying should target frequent weapon carriers, as well as their peers and families." Target the criminals, like I've been saying.

A couple of posts ago, you accused me of taking your words "out of context", and yet you quoted the CDC "out of context" to support your argument. So after some digging, I found the CDC Summary:

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury.

The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Not only did you take the words out of context, you did not use the "exact words". There is a huge difference between "insufficient evidence" and "no evidence", which you claimed as your truth. You also conveniently ignored that the summary also stated that there was insufficient evidence in regards to ""shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws".

More interesting stuff?

From a group that has opposed personal firearm ownership for many years, "insufficient evidence" means none. And you know what, before you even try to claim bias, I take Lott's numbers w/ a grain of salt as well. One of the few I rarely question is Kleck due to the fact the prominent anti-gunners have vilified his findings. Now you're going to ask who?

Here's the difference CH, I've never claimed causality. That would be you. You have stated "more guns = more crime" & "less guns = less crime" yet you've never been able to prove it beyond a few cherry picked numbers.

You also claimed that the BB effected crime rates in NY, DC & Chicago. You claimed it as "your truth" . I notice you've never gotten back to me on that one.

California is a state that has no idea what is going on in the real world!!!

In the United States of America we have the right to bare arms. that doesn't mean tank tops. it means the right to have guns. just because some guns are illegal, does that mean that you can't get your hands on one??? no. the citizens should have firearms to protect themselves and their families from the scum of society.

I have over 15 guns in my house right now. i also have 2 young children. the guns are hidden where the kids can not find them and the ammo is out of all but one gun.

Thank god we live in a free country where we can have all the guns we care to have!!!!!!!

From a group that has opposed personal firearm ownership for many years, "insufficient evidence" means none. And you know what, before you even try to claim bias, I take Lott's numbers w/ a grain of salt as well. One of the few I rarely question is Kleck due to the fact the prominent anti-gunners have vilified his findings. Now you're going to ask who?

Here's the difference CH, I've never claimed causality. That would be you. You have stated "more guns = more crime" & "less guns = less crime" yet you've never been able to prove it beyond a few cherry picked numbers.

You also claimed that the BB effected crime rates in NY, DC & Chicago. You claimed it as "your truth" . I notice you've never gotten back to me on that one.

Kecibukia, canuck, etc, is it possible to take this to another thread? I didnt mind it at first, but you are in a whole 'nother argument...

While i generally agree with most of you on the lack of necesity for firearms in modern america, there is a maxim which one of the founding fathers put forth which i live by,

Men with guns are citizens and men without are subjects. I don't think every man woman and child needs to own or possess a firearm, but the right should be there because it is the right to make our own choices that keeps us free. Just my two cents worth...

Kecibukia, canuck, etc, is it possible to take this to another thread? I didnt mind it at first, but you are in a whole 'nother argument...

I apologize. I keep trying to put it back on CA.

Howabout this? Did you know that the rifle that the CA police used in their display to ban .50 cals. as what was commonly available, was already banned?

No spin there, nosiree.

FYI, if you want to help retain your rights:

Assembly Bill 352 was not heard today. Instead, AB 352 is now expected to be heard on the Assembly floor this Thursday, May 12. AB 352 expands the definition of "unsafe handguns" to include semi-automatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with an array of microscopic characters, which identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched into the interior surface or internal working parts, which are then transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

Please continue to contact members of the Assembly before Thursday, May 12, asking them to oppose AB 352. Assembly Members can be reached at (916) 319-20 then your district number. You can find further contact information on your elected officials by using NRA-ILA`s "Write Your Representatives" feature.

Senate Bill 357 would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The manufacture, transfer, and possession of non-serialized handgun ammunition after July 1, 2007 would be considered a crime. SB 357 would also require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice. This anti-gun legislation is waiting to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please continue to contact members of the committee at (916) 651-4101 and urge them to oppose SB 357.

(Pardon me if I'm repeating someone else's post here...but reading through all near-400 posts would give me a headache. ;))

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was so that citizens could protect themselves...mainly from the possible threat of a government gone tyrannical. That's it. No more. No less.

What surprises me is that the idiots screaming about how tyrannical our government is (remember the idiots quiverring in fear that Bush was going to declare martial law in order to suspend the 2004 elections? :rolleyes: ) are the very same ones who think that citizens shouldn't be able to protect themselves with firearms.

I will never understand the willingness of those on a certain side of the aisle to make themselves slaves to the whims of their government.

Any guess what one should expect if they were to try to correlate those states with concealed carry laws with population density?

As for the growing an shrinking of cities, even if the per capita income does go down their over all wealth will still go up. People don't live in cities because the love the enviroment, they live there because it makes all kinds of commercial activities cheaper. Were cities motivated to vote in similar rates as more rural voters, Bush would have been crushed. That's the danger. Cities already have it won, should they ever decide to flex their muscle. As the options are exhausted, and the problem presents itself more seriously, that is the inevitability. As for the suburbs, yeah, surrounding cities. And a great many of those voters differ strongly with the administration on certain key issues, not the least of which is gun control. Soccer moms don't want their next door neighbor selling guns out of his house. The rub is do you want to participate in a sensible solution, or have a non-sensical one imposed upon you?

How many variables did the CDC controll for? Oh that's the whole problem isn't it? And why you're here arguing by selection bias. In fact just that gun control legislation did effect the supply of guns necessitates that there must have been *some* effect on gun violence. The CDC is simply admitting that the effect wasn't profound enough to be measured by the techniques they employed which in all likelyhood weren't as clever as they might have been. (It's very hard to be very clever, without being too clever (which is far worse than not being clever).)

Any guess what one should expect if they were to try to correlate those states with concealed carry laws with population density?

As for the growing an shrinking of cities, even if the per capita income does go down their over all wealth will still go up. People don't live in cities because the love the enviroment, they live there because it makes all kinds of commercial activities cheaper. Were cities motivated to vote in similar rates as more rural voters, Bush would have been crushed. That's the danger. Cities already have it won, should they ever decide to flex their muscle. As the options are exhausted, and the problem presents itself more seriously, that is the inevitability. As for the suburbs, yeah, surrounding cities. And a great many of those voters differ strongly with the administration on certain key issues, not the least of which is gun control. Soccer moms don't want their next door neighbor selling guns out of his house. The rub is do you want to participate in a sensible solution, or have a non-sensical one imposed upon you?

How many variables did the CDC controll for? Oh that's the whole problem isn't it? And why you're here arguing by selection bias. In fact just that gun control legislation did effect the supply of guns necessitates that there must have been *some* effect on gun violence. The CDC is simply admitting that the effect wasn't profound enough to be measured by the techniques they employed which in all likelyhood weren't as clever as they might have been. (It's very hard to be very clever, without being too clever (which is far worse than not being clever).)

It's a mix. Some low density non CC states have rising crime while some don't and so forth.


Do you actually have numbers to back up the rural/urban voting rates?

Income goes down and wealth goes up? What?

What city do you live in that commercial activities are cheaper? Every city I've been in in the US (including CA) have been more expensive that living in average suburban/rural areas. Most factories/production are rural as land/taxes are generally cheaper. Food is cheaper, gas, housing, etc.

The CDC report has been linked. It accounted for dozens of variables.

How did and what gun control legislation effected the supply of guns to criminals? LAC's are by definition, not criminals.

BTW "soccer mom's" are one of the fastest growing demographics of gun owners. I guess the whole "let yourself get robbed/raped" mantra by the anti-gunners has worn off.

Right, it's a complicated mix of variables which isn't exactly easy to tease out. Particularly without the use of models which themselves will inevitably be based on assumptions to argue over.

It was a fairly often remarked observation during the election. In fact one of the notable polling organizations based their prediction of Bush's sound defeat on the basis that the city dwellers were going to buck the trend and vote in at more comparable rates. This, of course, did not happen. Which is probably to be expected as long as the economy stays reasonably healthy. Economies do experience periodic down turns of course, and with those violent crime increases. That kind of synergy could really have a swift impact on the appeal of gun control legislation. And as an aside, I was half right, a man did get shot (by a 70 old coot who drove here from Arizona no less) but he did survive.

Per capita income might decrease, even population growth might decrease, but property values will generally continue to appreciate unless there's major economic turmoil, or a mass exoudus. Cities have huge economic footprints.

Start factoring the price of gas, and how much time you waste trying to do anything, and that's how cities are cheaper. Not to mention, essential services which benefit from economies of scale such as phone etc. So much so that cities subsidise the communications infrastructure of people living more rural settings. Why do you think people live near/in cities?

Not to be a dick or anything, I know you're arguing what you consider to be a insightful, carefully considered, and ultimately accurate position, (and you're doing marvelously) but from your own link:Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws...
The CDC is simply admitting that the effect wasn't profound enough to be measured by the techniques they employed which in all likelyhood weren't as clever as they might have been.
Any gun control law will tend to reduce supply. Even a waiting period, which was associated with a statistically significant reduced rate of suicide in your linked report. Something like the California laws will sharply affect supply between the time the law is passed and when it goes into effect. The people who'd like to own those weapons will suck them off the market into their typically responsible hands in anticipation of the legislated shortage. After the law goes into effect, there will still be a significant, though more muted effect as the market is forced outside of some geographic region. If you're not an individual living near the boarder of such a region, getting a banned weapon is now a slightly more involved affair. Now a plan to get a weapon like an Ak (why not go with the thread topic?) is competing with plans that might have been visualized to be equivalent ends, but are in actuallity less threatening, especially to law enforcement (high muzzel velocity, or rate of fire, in a small package). That said, a law like Californias does do significant harm to a market. In the end, the question of whether a major reduction in the market for relatively high margin fire arms is totally offset by expected reduced police costs ala North Hollywood, eventual lowered insurance rates, and a very difficult to determine number of reduced fatalities isn't something we should expect an answer too. In fact it was something of an anemic hope of desperate and fearful politicians to begin with. But as populations of cities swell, and the nightly murder coverage becomes more common, the people will demand something be done.

Look at the 1930's People thought bankrobbers were daring, and even admirable figures. Until they went too far, and which time the people were fine with little better than government sponsored murder. Now maybe the AFT won't take notice of you. But remember their was a time when the FBI didn't give people the option of dropping their weapons. And that's the way the public liked it. (Not that we haven't seen a little leaning that way as is.)

Fastest growing? Tricks with math. Let me illustrate how meaningless that information is without a basis for comparison. I'll postulate a population of 1,000,000 people. 10 of them own guns now. Next year a new John Woo movie comes out featuring a brand new, and very cool looking Beretta that comes with free dove trained to fly in slow motion, so 100 people buy guns. That's a 1000% increase. And your odds of running into a gun owner still aren't likely by any stretch of the imagnination. But back to the soccer moms: Is that women who are buying guns themselves? Or women who's husbands are buying guns for them?

All I've ever said, is now is the time to make sensible choices that people who fully understand and appreciate guns can live with. Play the all or nothing game, when the pendulum swings (and that's what pendulums do) and there's a good chance gun owners will be on the outside of the discussion shouting in. It's a polarized world, policy is made from the fringes, and there aren't enough centrists to make a difference. Maybe that's cynical, but somehow I doubt it.

This "debate" is exactly why opponants of gun control are going to have it cramed down their throats. Two sides, arguing by selection bias. While tonight on the news I'm going to see a story about someone who was shot to death somewhere in the Seattle area. Guess what's going to be more persuasive in influencing how people estimate their risk for being shot?


I guess my question would be: Why do the opponents of gun control have to have it shoved down their throats? Why not the other way around? 40 people dying a day, around the country, from the effects of a gun shot wound vs. the massive number of automobile accidents (and other causes of death that greatly outstrip a gun shot wound). It's the media and organizations like HCI and the Bradys that are villifying an inanimate object. We need to stop the lies perpetuated by such organizations. It sounds to me like those that wish to extend gun control need the truth pushed down THEIR throats. After all, it's those that want to put more laws in that are trying to control others.


There is a real public saftey risk, many people are pointlessly shot to death.


The only public safety risk is those that would do murder--regardless of the weapon.


Cities are rich, and are home to many voters. And they're only growing bigger, and richer. Politicians are amoral whores. That's the math you should concern yourselves with, not violent crime rates.


And yet Bush still got in. If the large cities actually controlled as much as you say they do, Kerry would be in office. Don't get me wrong, cities are powerful, but not as powerful as you think they are. Politicians are indeed amoral whores who will do whatever they can to stay in office as long as they can. I believe that violent crime is still the math I need to be concerned with, as well as the slimy politicians, and major media outlets that never tell the straight truth and use actual facts.

In the US, if you look county by county and compare gun ownership rate and gun laws, you'll find that the locations with the highest firearm murder rates and highest violent crime rates are those locations that have the strictest gun laws and the least legal gun ownership.

It's been proven over and over again in the US.

Yes, but is that not because of the people in the counties with high gun ownership are coming into counties with low gun ownership and shooting them?

The reason that the people who use guns in crime have them is because it is so easy to get them in you backward, frontier-mentality country. I'm not saying that the most determined people won't get guns even if you ban them, but it will mean that half-wit chancers won't be very likely to get them.

Gun crime in the UK is negligible. As for violent crime...I don't really know the figures between the US and the UK, but it's not exactly a warzone out here. Most violent crime in the UK, as far as I'm aware tends to occur between drunken idiots in the city centres, and I'm sure that adding guns into the bargain would be a FABULOUS idea!!

AS for guns and self-defence - Most armed criminals are more likely to use their weapon when the realise that their victim is armed. You see most criminals aren't out just to shoot people up for the sake of it (and if they are, you're pretty much screwed either way, since most vitims will only use their weapons as a last resort, by which point it will be too late). Thus, waving a gun at them is only more likely to get you shot.

Yes, but is that not because of the people in the counties with high gun ownership are coming into counties with low gun ownership and shooting them?


No. 84 percent of guns used in crime are not purchased - not even by the strawman method.

The vast majority of legally owned firearms are NEVER used in a crime.

In Washington, D.C., for example, nearly half the guns used in murders are from the police department - they "lose" guns at a terrific rate.

Battery, in all of your arguments, considering that you are a fellow Phoenix resident, I am surprised that you didnt point out the current invasion that is being stopped by a group of well armed gun toting americans. The Minuteman Project is making an impact on illegal immigration.

Let us also not forget that certain dissenting groups such as MEChA have openly stated that Mexico will take certain states back from the US person by person, house by house, block by block. If that statement and the flood of illegals isnt a slow invasion, what the hell is?

Look, it is the federal government's sworn duty to protect us as a nation. That also means our borders. But when they are undermanned and underequipped, it falls to the citizens to pick up the slack.

Additionally, look at the SSgt who was recently released after he stopped a group of illegals with an armed citizens arrest.

Armed Private Citizens are making a difference, especially on the border states. Taking away their ability to be armed how they see fit prevents the overall ability of a nation as large as ours from defending itself. This is especially true since we dont have mandatory military/civil service.

Oh, and if you dont want bullets to go too far or through walls and what not, use softer bullets that mushroom earlier.

OH FANTASTIC!!!

Where's your sense of common humanity?

These people are trying to escape hardship and feed their families back home and you're actually advocating shooting them??? ONly conspiracy theory nuts would think that it's an invasion - they're just people like yourselves trying to make a living.

Do you not actually stop to think that these people have families back home who will end up without a parent or the main breadwinner of their families?

It's not the role of private citizens to patrol the borders - it's the state's job. I'm sure that your state army wouldn't resort to shooting people - they're not Stazi border guards are they? And I damn well hope that any of those "Minutemen" hicks who actually do shoot anyone get put in jail for a long, long time.

Yes, but is that not because of the people in the counties with high gun ownership are coming into counties with low gun ownership and shooting them?

The reason that the people who use guns in crime have them is because it is so easy to get them in you backward, frontier-mentality country. I'm not saying that the most determined people won't get guns even if you ban them, but it will mean that half-wit chancers won't be very likely to get them.

Gun crime in the UK is negligible. As for violent crime...I don't really know the figures between the US and the UK, but it's not exactly a warzone out here. Most violent crime in the UK, as far as I'm aware tends to occur between drunken idiots in the city centres, and I'm sure that adding guns into the bargain would be a FABULOUS idea!!

AS for guns and self-defence - Most armed criminals are more likely to use their weapon when the realise that their victim is armed. You see most criminals aren't out just to shoot people up for the sake of it (and if they are, you're pretty much screwed either way, since most vitims will only use their weapons as a last resort, by which point it will be too late). Thus, waving a gun at them is only more likely to get you shot.


Why are they going into counties w/ low gun ownership and shooting them? Because the people there aren't armed. Criminals tend not to like armed victims.

There's a difference between the US & UK criminals. More criminals here don't care wether you're armed or not, they'll still hurt/kill you for the fun of it. "Waving" a gun will get you shot. Pointing and shooting the gun will get them shot.

Yes, but is that not because of the people in the counties with high gun ownership are coming into counties with low gun ownership and shooting them?


No, legal gun owners tend to NOT shoot people.


AS for guns and self-defence - Most armed criminals are more likely to use their weapon when the realise that their victim is armed.


Not according to actual criminals interviewed, they're not. They want to get away from the situation because they know armed citizens will shoot, where a police officer may or may not, due to the stringent restrictions placed upon officers of the law.


You see most criminals aren't out just to shoot people up for the sake of it (and if they are, you're pretty much screwed either way, since most vitims will only use their weapons as a last resort, by which point it will be too late). Thus, waving a gun at them is only more likely to get you shot.

Heh, you really don't know the criminal mind in the US, then. They don't want the citizens armed--they're scared of the concept.

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

No. 84 percent of guns used in crime are not purchased - not even by the strawman method.

The vast majority of legally owned firearms are NEVER used in a crime.

In Washington, D.C., for example, nearly half the guns used in murders are from the police department - they "lose" guns at a terrific rate.

Or ones stolen from private individuals.

So...if you didn't have so many lying about in your society, then criminals wouldn't be able to get hold of them at all?

No, legal gun owners tend to NOT shoot people.



Not according to actual criminals interviewed, they're not. They want to get away from the situation because they know armed citizens will shoot, where a police officer may or may not, due to the stringent restrictions placed upon officers of the law.



Heh, you really don't know the criminal mind in the US, then. They don't want the citizens armed--they're scared of the concept.

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

OH, STATISTICS from a website called "GUNOWNERS.ORG" I bet they'll be REALLY NEUTRAL!!!

"Even most anti-gun Clinton researchers say...."

OH, do they indeed?? Yes, i can see the amazing depth of research they went into there.

This "debate" is exactly why opponants of gun control are going to have it cramed down their throats. Two sides, arguing by selection bias. While tonight on the news I'm going to see a story about someone who was shot to death somewhere in the Seattle area. Guess what's going to be more persuasive in influencing how people estimate their risk for being shot?
And Today (5/10) in the Chicago suburb of Zion, there is an investigation into the brutal bludgeon/stabbing murder or two teenage girls. Emotionalisim is no reason to attempt to write laws that can only be implemented through police-state tactics.

There is a real public saftey risk, many people are pointlessly shot to death. And stabbed to death, and run over, and drowned, and and and... What I want to know is, how does the gun in my pocket put the general public in danger? I should be afraid that someone with a gun is going to go on a rampage, but my carring a gun to have the capacity to stop just such an event is paranoia. I just don't get it.

Cities are rich, and are home to many voters. And they're only growing bigger, and richer. Politicians are amoral whores. That's the math you should concern yourselves with, not violent crime rates.
Yah, and those cities are trying to impose the "Urban Values" of submission to violent crime on the rest of us in the US. Frankly I'd just as soon wall off most Urban centers a'la "Excape from New York" and let them kill each other off while the rest of us get on with living our low-crime-rate lives.

I fully understand why an argument by selection bias develops. It's extremely difficult to tease out the effect of gun control legislation. Which isn't a particular condemnation of the legislation as much as it is an endorsement of the freedoms so transparently afforded by our great nation.

You know, it's funny. When I submit raw data and a position on the reduction in the rate of crime that has no "selection bias", it gets roundly ignored, but when I use admittedly biased material (I won't stoop to calling it all "data") THAT is what gets attention and argument mfrom the people who think they should have trhe ability to tell me how to live.

Right, it's a complicated mix of variables which isn't exactly easy to tease out. Particularly without the use of models which themselves will inevitably be based on assumptions to argue over.

It was a fairly often remarked observation during the election. In fact one of the notable polling organizations based their prediction of Bush's sound defeat on the basis that the city dwellers were going to buck the trend and vote in at more comparable rates. This, of course, did not happen. Which is probably to be expected as long as the economy stays reasonably healthy. Economies do experience periodic down turns of course, and with those violent crime increases. That kind of synergy could really have a swift impact on the appeal of gun control legislation. And as an aside, I was half right, a man did get shot (by a 70 old coot who drove here from Arizona no less) but he did survive.

Per capitaincome might decrease, even population growth might decrease, but property values will generally continue to appreciate unless there's major economic turmoil, or a mass exoudus. Cities have huge economic footprints.

Start factoring the price of gas, and how much time you waste trying to do anything, and that's how cities are cheaper. Not to mention, essential services which benefit from economies of scale such as phone etc. So much so that cities subsidise the communications infrastructure of people living more rural settings. Why do you think people live near/in cities?

Not to be a dick or anything, I know you're arguing what you consider to be a insightful, carefully considered, and ultimately accurate position, (and you're doing marvelously) but from your own link:

Any gun control law will tend to reduce supply. Even a waiting period, which was associated with a statistically significant reduced rate of suicide in your linked report. Something like the California laws will sharply affect supply between the time the law is passed and when it goes into effect. The people who'd like to own those weapons will suck them off the market into their typically responsible hands in anticipation of the legislated shortage. After the law goes into effect, there will still be a significant, though more muted effect as the market is forced outside of some geographic region. If you're not an individual living near the boarder of such a region, getting a banned weapon is now a slightly more involved affair. Now a plan to get a weapon like an Ak (why not go with the thread topic?) is competing with plans that might have been visualized to be equivalent ends, but are in actuallity less threatening, especially to law enforcement (high muzzel velocity, or rate of fire, in a small package). That said, a law like Californias does do significant harm to a market. In the end, the question of whether a major reduction in the market for relatively high margin fire arms is totally offset by expected reduced police costs ala North Hollywood, eventual lowered insurance rates, and a very difficult to determine number of reduced fatalities isn't something we should expect an answer too. In fact it was something of an anemic hope of desperate and fearful politicians to begin with. But as populations of cities swell, and the nightly murder coverage becomes more common, the people will demand something be done.

Look at the 1930's People thought bankrobbers were daring, and even admirable figures. Until they went too far, and which time the people were fine with little better than government sponsored murder. Now maybe the AFT won't take notice of you. But remember their was a time when the FBI didn't give people the option of dropping their weapons. And that's the way the public liked it. (Not that we haven't seen a little leaning that way as is.)

Fastest growing? Tricks with math. Let me illustrate how meaningless that information is without a basis for comparison. I'll postulate a population of 1,000,000 people. 10 of them own guns now. Next year a new John Woo movie comes out featuring a brand new, and very cool looking Beretta that comes with free dove trained to fly in slow motion, so 100 people buy guns. That's a 1000% increase. And your odds of running into a gun owner still aren't likely by any stretch of the imagnination. But back to the soccer moms: Is that women who are buying guns themselves? Or women who's husbands are buying guns for them?

All I've ever said, is now is the time to make sensible choices that people who fully understand and appreciate guns can live with. Play the all or nothing game, when the pendulum swings (and that's what pendulums do) and there's a good chance gun owners will be on the outside of the discussion shouting in. It's a polarized world, policy is made from the fringes, and there aren't enough centrists to make a difference. Maybe that's cynical, but somehow I doubt it.


That's a nice post but it still doesn't give any actual numbers or citations.

As for SM's. Both. and it doesn't matter which because the women then own the firearm thereby becoming "gun owners". You can also look at range statistics, group memberships, etc.

Um... NO. Don't know many Felons, do you? If an attacker sees you're UNARMED, he's going to have a little fun with you. If you're armed (and can shoot back) he'll keep moving until he finds someone who [i]isn't[i].


Oh, well how come there aren't people hunting each other for sport outside my window in Glasgow right now??

It's all about the sort of society you want to create.

If you want one where people think that everyone's a nutter out to get them, then by all means, give everyone guns, and shoot anyone you don't know who comes within a 100 yard radius of your home.

But, If you want a pleasant society, where people work towards the common good, etc, and aren't scared to walk down the street because every half-wit has lethal weapon on them, then ban guns.

Or ones stolen from private individuals.

So...if you didn't have so many lying about in your society, then criminals wouldn't be able to get hold of them at all?

You're under the mistaken assumption that crime is caused by guns.
Or that crime = guns.

76 percent of violent crime (Part I felonies) is committed with NO WEAPON AT ALL.

Of the remaining 24 percent, that includes all types of weapons - not just guns.

Add to that the fact that over 2 million violent crimes a year are stopped by the legal use of firearms, and you're left with an interesting situation.

If all legal guns were absent, the number of crimes committed with guns would not necessarily go down - in fact, the majority of violent crime (about 2 million events per year) would still take place.

But you could add the 2 million violent crimes that otherwise would have been legally prevented from occurring.

Which would effectively double the number of violent crimes in the US.

It's the effect they're seeing in Montgomery County, Maryland. They've gradually restricted firearms more and more - and the only people being disarmed are legal gun owners. The violent crime in that county has gone up more than the violent crime has gone down in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Demographically identical locations, except for the ownership and carry of guns.

I can and do carry a pistol every day in Fairfax. The criminals here are well aware of the fact that unknown individuals are legally carrying - and it's had a pronounced effect on violent crime here - it's gone down dramatically since 1995. At the same time, violent crime has gone dramatically UP (more than 60 percent) in Montgomery County, Maryland, where felons I've talked to say they have no fear of any regular civilian - they know the civilian can be overwhelmed by bare hands with no risk.

You should talk to felons - they'll tell you what they fear. It's the "unknown armed person". It makes the risk unacceptable to most of them.

OH, STATISTICS from a website called "GUNOWNERS.ORG" I bet they'll be REALLY NEUTRAL!!!

"Even most anti-gun Clinton researchers say...."

OH, do they indeed?? Yes, i can see the amazing depth of research they went into there.

Now try looking at the citation:

21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
22Id.
23

Can you cite anything to refute it?

Oh, well how come there aren't people hunting each other for sport outside my window in Glasgow right now??

It's all about the sort of society you want to create.

If you want one where people think that everyone's a nutter out to get them, then by all means, give everyone guns, and shoot anyone you don't know who comes within a 100 yard radius of your home.

But, If you want a pleasant society, where people work towards the common good, etc, and aren't scared to walk down the street because every half-wit has lethal weapon on them, then ban guns.

You know, it's interesting to note that a certain country where citizens are issued fully automatic weapons and the state sponsors nat'l youth shooting competitions, and ammuntion, has a lower level of crime per capita than the UK.

Banning guns does not reduce crime. You need to go after the source.

Canada isnt the threat.

We dont know what the threat is. Does that mean its non-existant? Possibly. Can we know if its non-existant? No. Even if it isnt here now, it could be soon. In 1860, germany was a number of unorganized, weak states(Im not sure if it was still 300, or if they had already started grouping by 1860). In 1860, the United states was in a civil war, with little power projection. In 1860, the powerful nations of the world were just starting to colonize africa extensively.

In 1870, germany had many of its states combined, and headed successful wars under the name of prussia. France, one of the strongest nations in the world, was quickly defeated by this new state, which they had kept down for hundreds of years.

In 1898, the US defeated Spain, and taken a number of its colonies. Its primary victory was naval, despite its weak naval history(Gunboats were the major US ship before civil war).

1914, germany has united under a strong leader, and lead strong attacks on four of the other large power in europe(Britain, France, Russia, and Italy joins in later).

Things change. With wars being quicker and revolutions faster, things can change in an instant. Maybe nothing will happen; maybe we will live in a world where the US is a superpower forever. Maybe, soon, we will be in conflict, or invaded, or oppressed, or anything else. If I own a weapon, it wont hurt anyone, even if nothing big happens. If I dont own a weapon, and something happens, I am screwed. I would rather be safe than sorry.


Gun-toting nutters anyone??? Hmmm...Omagh?

Perhaps even the evil Al-Queada who have managed to get guns because....you sell them at supermarkets?

OH, STATISTICS from a website called "GUNOWNERS.ORG" I bet they'll be REALLY NEUTRAL!!!

"Even most anti-gun Clinton researchers say...."

OH, do they indeed?? Yes, i can see the amazing depth of research they went into there.

Evidently, you didn't see the footnotes....nice job. :rolleyes: I posted the link for a reason--so you could RESEARCH. Way to go.

I'm certainly not going to cite false statistics created by HCI and the Bradys.

You wil NEVER find anyone neutral on the topic of gun legislation--even the governments have their own agendas. Finding the sort of information you're looking for is quite the futile effort.

<snip>
All I've ever said, is now is the time to make sensible choices that people who fully understand and appreciate guns can live with. Play the all or nothing game, when the pendulum swings (and that's what pendulums do) and there's a good chance gun owners will be on the outside of the discussion shouting in. It's a polarized world, policy is made from the fringes, and there aren't enough centrists to make a difference. Maybe that's cynical, but somehow I doubt it.
I would agree... to a point. The difficulty with this position is the stated policy of to "Nothing" contingent. They have specifically deliniated a policy of incrementalisim in firearms legislation. First this "sensible choice" then that "sensible choice" untill there are no more choices to be made.

Since that is their stated policy to impolement their "nothing" position, it doesn't make sense to try to work with them... their efforts for "sensible choices" are disengenuous from the get-go.

Gun-toting nutters anyone??? Hmmm...Omagh?

Perhaps even the evil Al-Queada who have managed to get guns because....you sell them at supermarkets?

You're sadly misinformed. We don't sell guns at supermarkets.

Here's something of interest for you.

I assist women who are victims of domestic abuse. When they leave their abusive men, the odds of them being killed nearly double - and they are the victims of stalking and repeated attack.

The number one method such a man uses to kill his wife is beating and strangulation. It's very rare for it to be a shooting.

I have trained (now over 100) women to carry firearms - and use them.

Of the women I've trained, none have been attacked again. The men know the women are armed. The men have been disarmed by a protective order of the court (and can never buy a firearm again).

Compared to the women who rely on the protective order alone, my group is doing astonishingly well. Not one has been stalked or even attacked. In the regular group of unarmed women, several women have already been killed this year, and most of them have been attacked at least once.

You're going to tell me that's a bad way to deal with the problem?

I think you should take a look at the UK - where a woman is killed every three days for attempting to leave. The police are evidently powerless to prevent the killing.

What would you tell the women I've trained - that's it's morally superior to let your abusive spouse beat and kill you?

Or ones stolen from private individuals.

So...if you didn't have so many lying about in your society, then criminals wouldn't be able to get hold of them at all?

They're out there now. There's no way to get them back. Even if we could, murder would still continue--just with different weapons.

Gun-toting nutters anyone??? Hmmm...Omagh?

Perhaps even the evil Al-Queada who have managed to get guns because....you sell them at supermarkets?

So basically your arguement is :We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

As for AQ: I'm sure their organization will be well supplied w/ .22 rifles and shotguns if your theory is true. According to that logic we should regulate/ban the sale of box cutters to non-licensed individuals.

Gun-toting nutters anyone??? Hmmm...Omagh?

Perhaps even the evil Al-Queada who have managed to get guns because....you sell them at supermarkets?

Funny, the stores you're talking about don't sell pistols or automatic weapons. They sell hunting rifles and shotguns.

Boy, you sure do know a lot about the firearms situation in the US. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should come back after you've actually done your vaunted RESEARCH.

You're sadly misinformed. We don't sell guns at supermarkets.

Yeah, the only thing I could come up with was the super-walmarts that have a food section.

The vast majority of legally owned firearms are NEVER used in a crime.

Tsch. WL, when I posted the DOJ raw numbers on this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8824096&postcount=267), it was ignored. Why should they pay any attention now?

(psst, BTW, in summary, if every "gun crime" in the us in 2003 used a different gun, that means that less than two tenths of one percent (.001598) of civillian held guns were used ina crime... but don't pay attention to me.)

You know, it's interesting to note that a certain country where citizens are issued fully automatic weapons and the state sponsors nat'l youth shooting competitions, and ammuntion, has a lower level of crime per capita than the UK.

Banning guns does not reduce crime. You need to go after the source.


ASSAULTS

Map & Graph: Crime: Assaults (per capita) (Top 50 Countries)
View all countries View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description

Definition: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1000 population.

Amount
1. South Africa 12.51 per 1000 people
2. Montserrat 10.67 per 1000 people
3. Mauritius 8.90 per 1000 people
4. Seychelles 8.69 per 1000 people
5. United States 7.70 per 1000 people
6. New Zealand 7.63 per 1000 people
7. United Kingdom 7.50 per 1000 people
8. Zimbabwe 7.39 per 1000 people
9. Canada 7.25 per 1000 people

Admittedly, not that good for the UK, but still....


RAPE

Map & Graph: Crime: Rapes (per capita) (Top 50 Countries)
View all countries View this stat: Totals Show map full screen

Country Description

Definition: Total recorded rapes. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1000 population.

Amount
1. South Africa 1.23 per 1000 people
2. Seychelles 0.79 per 1000 people
3. Australia 0.79 per 1000 people
4. Montserrat 0.77 per 1000 people
5. Canada 0.74 per 1000 people
6. Jamaica 0.48 per 1000 people
7. Zimbabwe 0.44 per 1000 people
8. Dominica 0.34 per 1000 people
9. United States 0.30 per 1000 people
10. Iceland 0.25 per 1000 people
11. Papua New Guinea 0.24 per 1000 people
12. New Zealand 0.21 per 1000 people
13. United Kingdom 0.14 per 1000 people
14. Spain 0.14 per 1000 people
15. France 0.14 per 1000 people

MURDER -

24. United States 0.04 per 1000 people
46. United Kingdom 0.01 per 1000 people

MURDER WITH FIREARMS
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
32. United Kingdom 0.00 per 1000 people



Admittedly, UK burglaries were higher than the US, but you can't win them all. C'est La Vie! Personally, I'd rather be burgled than shot or otherwise murdered.

Burglaries
7. United Kingdom 13.91 per 1000 people
16. United States 7.23 per 1000 people

Yeah, the only thing I could come up with was the super-walmarts that have a food section.

That's the only one I could think of. Syniks, I think you need to repost your "foriegn gun notions" post again.

Or ones stolen from private individuals.

So...if you didn't have so many lying about in your society, then criminals wouldn't be able to get hold of them at all?
Hmm, unless you consider being inside a 1,200lb safe "lying about..."

Are people irresponsible with their guns? Yeah, some. But then, some people leave their keys in the ignition or above the sun-shade in their autos too.

Admittedly, UK burglaries were higher than the US, but you can't win them all. C'est La Vie! Personally, I'd rather be burgled than shot or otherwise murdered.

Here where I live, the women I've trained to defend themselves against domestic abuse are, to a woman, unabused at this point. And all alive.

Quite unlike the women who are relying on the police for protection.

And quite unlike the women in the UK - 1 UK woman dies every three days at the hands of an abusive spouse.

Of course, she can't even defend herself there, and the police can never arrive in time to stop someone from being beaten to death.

Why am I expected to give a reason for my gun ownership? I have several reasons, but my ultimate reason for owning guns is because it is a RIGHT (in America at least......I feel sorry for you Brits), kiddies and as a right I will exercise it. If you choose not to, more power to you, no one is forcing you to buy one, so allow me my right to own one.

Rob :mp5:

Snip

That's all well and good. I never said the UK had higher crime. I was lower even before gun bans started.

I notice that in none of your lists, that certain country was not present.

Yeah, the only thing I could come up with was the super-walmarts that have a food section.

That's the ones...who cares what kind of gun it is. A guns' a gun.

And the difference between them and box-cutters is the following -

1) Box cutters have a use for something other than killing. (I mean cutting boxes, not throwing them at stupid targets in the distance)

2)Box cutters can't do as much damage with one swipe as guns can from one shot, nor have they as far a range.

3) In any case, if you fired a gun at someone with a box cutter on a plane, you would pierce the side of the plane, the disparate pressure would cause it to disintegrate, and you'd end up with just as bad a disaster on your hands

4) Someone with a box-cutter can't kill as many people as someone with a semi- or otherwise automatic weapon AND they are likely to be over-powered before they injure more than one person

5) A swipe from a box-cutter is less likely to be fatal than a shot from a gun

Secular obviously believes that a woman strangled to death by her abusive ex-husband while she was waiting for the police to respond is morally superior to a live woman who managed to live her life in freedom because her ex-husband knows she has a gun and she knows how to use it.

Yeah, the only thing I could come up with was the super-walmarts that have a food section.
Yah, but we all know WalMart is Evil and bent on world domination, so that's not a good example... :rolleyes:

Secular obviously believes that a woman strangled to death by her abusive ex-husband while she was waiting for the police to respond is morally superior to a live woman who managed to live her life in freedom because her ex-husband knows she has a gun and she knows how to use it.

In Scotland, you are only allowed to use reasonable self-defence AND you have to use all practical means to escape before you are allowed to defend yourself. A shot from a gun is NEVER reasonable defence in Scots Law - defence must be proportional. Non-lethal force is all you should use.

I think you should take a look at the UK - where a woman is killed every three days for attempting to leave. The police are evidently powerless to prevent the killing.

Oh really? And where, pray tell, did you find this wonderful titbit of misinformation?

In Scotland, you are only allowed to use reasonable self-defence AND you have to use all practical means to escape before you are allowed to defend yourself. A shot from a gun is NEVER reasonable defence in Scots Law - defence must be proportional. Non-lethal force is all you should use.

That's why my women are alive - every last one of them. And why my women (the ones I have trained) are all free of abuse and stalking.

And why 1 woman is killed in the UK every three days.

I'll also note that none of my women have shot anyone, either. The mere presence of an armed and trained woman seems to scare the crap out of abusive men.

That's the ones...who cares what kind of gun it is. A guns' a gun.

And the difference between them and box-cutters is the following -

1) Box cutters have a use for something other than killing. (I mean cutting boxes, not throwing them at stupid targets in the distance)

2)Box cutters can't do as much damage with one swipe as guns can from one shot, nor have they as far a range.

3) In any case, if you fired a gun at someone with a box cutter on a plane, you would pierce the side of the plane, the disparate pressure would cause it to disintegrate, and you'd end up with just as bad a disaster on your hands

4) Someone with a box-cutter can't kill as many people as someone with a semi- or otherwise automatic weapon AND they are likely to be over-powered before they injure more than one person

5) A swipe from a box-cutter is less likely to be fatal than a shot from a gun


Ahh, you've just shown how little you know about guns.

You honestly don't know think there's a difference between a .22 Singleshot and a military issue M-16 or AK-47?

1) sure they are, just like guns. I've never killed anyone/thing w/ my guns. I target shoot, re-enact, & collect. Thankfully I've not had to use it in home defense yet.

2. Depends on who's using it.

3. Depends on the gun/ammo. Many won't. This isn't the movies where one round from a pistol makes the car explode.

4. Really? 3K people dead, remember that? All resulting from the use of about a dozen box cutters.

5. Once again, depends on whose using it.

Secular obviously believes that a woman strangled to death by her abusive ex-husband while she was waiting for the police to respond is morally superior to a live woman who managed to live her life in freedom because her ex-husband knows she has a gun and she knows how to use it.

The thing is, if you don't have guns this really doesn't become an issue. I'm afraid it's one evil against another and the few number of occassions in which this senario would be an issue don't compare to the threat caused by guns.

Thankfully, I live in a state where there is a huge campaign to ban even air-guns just now :)

That's the ones...who cares what kind of gun it is. A guns' a gun.

And the difference between them and box-cutters is the following -

1) Box cutters have a use for something other than killing. (I mean cutting boxes, not throwing them at stupid targets in the distance)

Autos are specifically designed to be as non-lethal as humanly possible, yet they are causal in far more deaths than those "designed to be lethal" guns...

2)Box cutters can't do as much damage with one swipe as guns can from one shot, nor have they as far a range. unless you get them on a plane full of sheeple.

3) In any case, if you fired a gun at someone with a box cutter on a plane, you would pierce the side of the plane, the disparate pressure would cause it to disintegrate, and you'd end up with just as bad a disaster on your hands Go read some engineering/aerodynamics manualsbefore you make such inane assertions. "Catastrophic depressurization" by bullet is a movie effect. (Actually, "Twilight Zone" got it closest to right). You have to lose structural integrety for that to occur.

4) Someone with a box-cutter can't kill as many people as someone with a semi- or otherwise automatic weapon AND they are likely to be over-powered before they injure more than one person 9/11. Putz.

5) A swipe from a box-cutter is less likely to be fatal than a shot from a gun
Hey, somthing you said is actuallly true. One out of five isn't bad.

In Scotland, you are only allowed to use reasonable self-defence AND you have to use all practical means to escape before you are allowed to defend yourself. A shot from a gun is NEVER reasonable defence in Scots Law - defence must be proportional. Non-lethal force is all you should use.

So while, you're determining what the criminals are going to do and how you can escape, they can overpower you, beat you, and rape your wife?

"Oh, you only want my possessions? You won't hurt me? I guess I can't do anything to you then. Feel free. Would you like a scone?"

The thing is, if you don't have guns this really doesn't become an issue. I'm afraid it's one evil against another and the few number of occassions in which this senario would be an issue don't compare to the threat caused by guns.

Thankfully, I live in a state where there is a huge campaign to ban even air-guns just now :)

It is an issue especially if you don't have guns.

Are you not reading? These men are killing their wives with their bare hands.

If there were no guns, the only difference would be that the women would not be able to defend themselves.

The thing is, if you don't have guns this really doesn't become an issue. I'm afraid it's one evil against another and the few number of occassions in which this senario would be an issue don't compare to the threat caused by guns.

Ask the women it happened to. Oh wait, you can't. Maybe they're families.

In Scotland, you are only allowed to use reasonable self-defence AND you have to use all practical means to escape before you are allowed to defend yourself. A shot from a gun is NEVER reasonable defence in Scots Law - defence must be proportional. Non-lethal force is all you should use.
And what is proportional defense when they have cricket bats/lead pipes/chains/knives and you don't?

"Pardon me, don't attack yet, I have to look in my bag for the correct proportional weapon of defence..."

Feh.

Ahh, you've just shown how little you know about guns.

You honestly don't know think there's a difference between a .22 Singleshot and a military issue M-16 or AK-47?

NOt when you're shot by one

1) sure they are, just like guns. I've never killed anyone/thing w/ my guns. I target shoot, re-enact, & collect. Thankfully I've not had to use it in home defense yet.


Like I said, no other useful purpose than killing.

Target-shooting - practice for killing/unnecessary leisure activity which could easily be banned for the greater good.

Re-enactment - can be done without real guns and in any case is a total waste of time

Collection - Why?

Home Defence - Killing.


2. Depends on who's using it. .

Better watch out for that team of ninja-boxcutter experts who move so fast that noone sees them till the boxcutter is in their throat.

Seriously though...generally, box-cutters can't cause as much damage as any gun.


3. Depends on the gun/ammo. Many won't. This isn't the movies where one round from a pistol makes the car explode..

No...a pistol would make the car explode if you aimed accurately at the petrol tank and managed to avoid the chassis of the car etc. Very unlikely to happen.

BUT, have you ever seen a dissection of the "skin" of an aircraft? Most standard bullets would pierce it easily and the resulting CHANGE IN PRESSURE would cause the aircraft to disintegrate. You see...the inside of the cabin is pressurised, the outside isn't, even the smallest hole to the skin during flight can be devastating.


4. Really? 3K people dead, remember that? All resulting from the use of about a dozen box cutters...

Err...no? Really??? That wasn't what I was referring to in the previous point AT ALL!! ;)

The previous point was addressing the aircraft 9/11 issue, this one is about generally on the ground.

The point again

4) Someone with a box-cutter can't kill as many people as someone with a semi- or otherwise automatic weapon AND they are likely to be over-powered before they injure more than one person

(bearing in mind I'm talking about generally, on the ground. I mean, in the aircraft I could cause as much destruction if I fed a peanut to a pilot who had an allergy to them and then locked myself in the cockpit. People with guns would only make the situation worse due to the aforementioned pressurise disparaty issue)

And what is proportional defense when they have cricket bats/lead pipes/chains/knives and you don't?

"Pardon me, don't attack yet, I have to look in my bag for the correct proportional weapon of defence..."

Feh.


What if you've forgotten to take your gun with you? What is a proportional defence then? Who's to say you don't have a cricket bat on you anyway? Maybe you were playing cricket. Don't ask silly questions!

Mace them or something. Run away very fast, jump into your car.

Personally, I wouldn;t mix with people who carry cricket bats/leadpipes etc.

It's all down to your society. If you have people who go about doing this sort of thing for fun, there's obviously something very wrong with your society and high gun ownership is just a symptom of that

BUT, have you ever seen a dissection of the "skin" of an aircraft? Most standard bullets would pierce it easily and the resulting CHANGE IN PRESSURE would cause the aircraft to disintegrate. You see...the inside of the cabin is pressurised, the outside isn't, even the smallest hole to the skin during flight can be devastating.


This is an urban myth. You're not a firearms expert, either.

And what is proportional defense when they have cricket bats/lead pipes/chains/knives and you don't?

"Pardon me, don't attack yet, I have to look in my bag for the correct proportional weapon of defence..."

Feh.


You could hit them with your bag :)

This is an urban myth. You're not a firearms expert, either.

Why don't you try it out the next time you're on a plane then?

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_1738.php

The hour begins with a look at special bullets designed to stop hijackers but leave aircraft unscratched. The "frangible" bullet's amazing ability to disintegrate on impact with a hard surface means it will not pierce the fuselage or harm passengers by ricocheting. From this unique sample of the modern bullet, viewers will see how the search for the ultimate bullet began with iron and bamboo tubes shooting stones and round lead balls. For 500-years, the

Why exactly is there a need to design special bullets for safety on planes if this isn't the case?

You could hit them with your bag :)
This does not work with men who attack.

89 percent of rapes in the US are committed successfully with no weapon.

Most women who are attacked or killed by a domestic abuser are being attacked with NO weapon.

The firearms that are carried by the women I train have an effect that you are not aware of. They are an effective deterrrent. No bag or can of pepper spray has the deterrent effect of a firearm.

The deterrent so far is 100 percent effective for these women.

You still need to say what you'll tell the children of the women killed by abusive spouses in the UK. "Sorry, we thought your mum could defend herself with her bare hands until the police arrived. We didn't anticipate that the self-defence techniques we taught her would be useless on a man who was twice her weight and half again as tall. We also thought that it wouldn't be possible for him to kill her in less than two minutes - by the time our men got there, she was already dead."

NOt when you're shot by one




Like I said, no other useful purpose than killing.

Target-shooting - practice for killing/unnecessary leisure activity which could easily be banned for the greater good.

Re-enactment - can be done without real guns and in any case is a total waste of time

Collection - Why?

Home Defence - Killing.




Better watch out for that team of ninja-boxcutter experts who move so fast that noone sees them till the boxcutter is in their throat.

Seriously though...generally, box-cutters can't cause as much damage as any gun.



No...a pistol would make the car explode if you aimed accurately at the petrol tank and managed to avoid the chassis of the car etc. Very unlikely to happen.

BUT, have you ever seen a dissection of the "skin" of an aircraft? Most standard bullets would pierce it easily and the resulting CHANGE IN PRESSURE would cause the aircraft to disintegrate. You see...the inside of the cabin is pressurised, the outside isn't, even the smallest hole to the skin during flight can be devastating.




Err...no? Really??? That wasn't what I was referring to in the previous point AT ALL!! ;)

The previous point was addressing the aircraft 9/11 issue, this one is about generally on the ground.

The point again

4) Someone with a box-cutter can't kill as many people as someone with a semi- or otherwise automatic weapon AND they are likely to be over-powered before they injure more than one person

(bearing in mind I'm talking about generally, on the ground. I mean, in the aircraft I could cause as much destruction if I fed a peanut to a pilot who had an allergy to them and then locked myself in the cockpit. People with guns would only make the situation worse due to the aforementioned pressurise disparaty issue)


Ahh, "useful", "unnecessary" . You mean like posting on a forum on the internet? I guess you don't need your computer since it isn't useful and is unnecessary.

Target shooting- So your Olympic Pistol team (which has to train out of country now) is practicing to kill people?

Re-enactment- You've obviously never done it. You could classify all leisure activities as a "waste of time"

Collecting- Because I enjoy them. I take it you own nothing then.

Home Defense- only if the criminal is stupid enough to keep coming. We also have wild animals in the area.

A stab wound can kill you just as dead as a gun wound.

You know very little about bullets, airplanes, or basic engineering.

You would rather get close enough to fight an armed criminal than defend yourself from a distance? That makes sense.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_1738.php



Why exactly is there a need to design special bullets for safety on planes if this isn't the case?

The main reason: because of people who think that a .22 round will make a plane "disintegrate".

the other, lessening the chance of pass through is a common goal for all defense weapons wether in the home or an airplane.

Why am I expected to give a reason for my gun ownership? I have several reasons, but my ultimate reason for owning guns is because it is a RIGHT (in America at least......I feel sorry for you Brits), kiddies and as a right I will exercise it. If you choose not to, more power to you, no one is forcing you to buy one, so allow me my right to own one.

Rob :mp5:

See, they don't understand the whole non-interference thing. :(

They're (anti-gunners) trying to control others (where they have no right to), where gun owners tend to just want to be left in peace.

This does not work with men who attack.

89 percent of rapes in the US are committed successfully with no weapon.

Most women who are attacked or killed by a domestic abuser are being attacked with NO weapon.

The firearms that are carried by the women I train have an effect that you are not aware of. They are an effective deterrrent. No bag or can of pepper spray has the deterrent effect of a firearm.

The deterrent so far is 100 percent effective for these women.

You still need to say what you'll tell the children of the women killed by abusive spouses in the UK. "Sorry, we thought your mum could defend herself with her bare hands until the police arrived. We didn't anticipate that the self-defence techniques we taught her would be useless on a man who was twice her weight and half again as tall. We also thought that it wouldn't be possible for him to kill her in less than two minutes - by the time our men got there, she was already dead."


But I assume these women aren't just carrying the guns in the open. How do the attackers know they are armed? I don't see how it acts as a deterrent. And what's to stop the attacker over-powering the woman before she can get her gun out her bag?


But you still haven't sourced you're wee statistic about a battered housewife being murdered every three days in the UK. I'm thinking that one's fictional.

Unfortunately I have to go now, but no doubt I'll return to this vibrant discussion later.

Here's a true story from a recent defensive use of a firearm in South Carolina. No one was killed. But the criminal was stopped, and went to jail.

Notice that the gun owner is not the criminal, and the criminal did not have a gun.

I'm in a Bowling League on Wednesday Night with guys from work. I had to park in the back of the Bowling Center. Well after Bowling I was going to pull up my truck by the guys I bowl with car in the front to talk. On the way to my truck I automatically started it through my alarm and disarmed my truck. When I got to my truck and opened the door I was punched in the back of my head, The guy told me to give him my money. I gave him my wallet and he looked in it and threw it down ( I had NO cash in my wallet ) He then said empty my pockets. I told him I dont have any cash on me and that it was in my truck. He said to get it. So I climbed into my truck and opened up the center concole to grab my gun. I tuned to him while sitting down in the driver seat and fired 3 shots (1 hit him in the left thigh 1 hit him above the waist and the other one I missed him and I hit the car besides me. Everything felt like it was in slow motion. I remember him saying oh SHI* and Fuc* and then he kinda fell to the ground moaning. My friends on the bowling team ran around to the back and I told the to call 911. I sat there in shock and I really dont remember much except my friends asking me if I was alright and they tended to the guy who tried to rob me. The ambulance got there first and was tending to the guy who tried to rob me. The police then got there and asked me where my gun was I told him sitting in the truck. The guy who tried to Rob me was taken to the hospital. The police questioned me and asked me what happened. I then was takin to the Police Station and had to do a written statement about what happened. I was at the police station until about 3 P.M. on Thursday after they got through talking to the guy who tried to rob me. The police took me back to my truck and told me they would be contacting me soon. They still have my gun in there posession. I just got back to work today and I am still kinda in shock about what happened. I got a call from the detective this morning and told me that the guy who tried to rob me is going to be arrested and that they think he may have been involved in 2 other robberies wednesday night. I'm just glad that it will be over soon

What if you've forgotten to take your gun with you? Then you have no business complaining. You either carry or not. there is no in-between.

What is a proportional defence then? Who's to say you don't have a cricket bat on you anyway? Maybe you were playing cricket. Don't ask silly questions! Don't post silly statements.

Mace them or something.Yummy. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_foam.jpg) Run away very fast, jump into your car. Some people can't. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_wheelchair.jpg)

Personally, I wouldn;t mix with people who carry cricket bats/leadpipes etc.I don't mix with football hooligans either, but sometimes they just gang up on you.

It's all down to your society. If you have people who go about doing this sort of thing for fun, there's obviously something very wrong with your society Agreed.

and high gun ownership is just a symptom of that
No, gun ownership preceeded today's "violence culture" by a couple of hundered years.

Mace them or something. Run away very fast, jump into your car.

Personally, I wouldn;t mix with people who carry cricket bats/leadpipes etc.



But wouldn't macing them be escelating the attack? Won't that force the criminal to arm themselves against it to prevent you from doing it to them?
What if they didn't mace you first? What would be considered "proportional"?

I don't either. are you saying crimes are only committed against you by people you know?

That's the ones...who cares what kind of gun it is. A guns' a gun.


Then you REALLY haven't researched what are used in crimes. Generally, hunting rifles and shotguns aren't the inanimate object used.


And the difference between them and box-cutters is the following -

1) Box cutters have a use for something other than killing. (I mean cutting boxes, not throwing them at stupid targets in the distance)


So do guns. I regularly target shoot. I have yet to kill anything with any of my guns.


2)Box cutters can't do as much damage with one swipe as guns can from one shot, nor have they as far a range.


You can hit or miss with either device.


3) In any case, if you fired a gun at someone with a box cutter on a plane, you would pierce the side of the plane, the disparate pressure would cause it to disintegrate, and you'd end up with just as bad a disaster on your hands


OMFG do you NOT know structural integrity. This has been disproven aud nauseum (latest by Myth Busters!)


4) Someone with a box-cutter can't kill as many people as someone with a semi- or otherwise automatic weapon AND they are likely to be over-powered before they injure more than one person


Several people with box cutters cost four planes and thousands of lives back in 2001.


5) A swipe from a box-cutter is less likely to be fatal than a shot from a gun

Again, depends where you hit. You still have a 60% chance of surviving a gun shot.

Yah, but we all know WalMart is Evil and bent on world domination, so that's not a good example... :rolleyes:

There's never a good example for antis. :mad:

In Scotland, you are only allowed to use reasonable self-defence AND you have to use all practical means to escape before you are allowed to defend yourself. A shot from a gun is NEVER reasonable defence in Scots Law - defence must be proportional. Non-lethal force is all you should use.

So the woman should try to rape the guy back? Brilliant....

If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?
Forced to shoot them five times? I usually don't use this expression, but this calls for it: LOL!
Well, if you shoot everyone 5 times, then you'll be shot several times because the other guys will have plenty of time to aim and fire while you waste bullets. Unless they are chocked by you pumping round after round into an already shot guy.

Anyway, I'd love to have a couple of these (http://www.ascuk.net/ukasc/RWC-M60-E4-L.jpg) at home. Only for self-defense, of course. I could shoot each guy at least twenty times!

Seriously, the laws aren't exactly harsch, compared to other nations.

.
Yummy. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_foam.jpg)

Yeah...a seasoning. Idiot.

Some people can't. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_wheelchair.jpg)

OK, but the point is, while it's not right for people to go around beating other people up, it is equally wrong for victims to go around shooting their attackers. All you do is escalate the level of violence in your society and create an even worse situation than the pre-existing one.

Anyway, how fast do you think someone is going to be able to pull a gun out from under their wheel chair? Faster than their attacker notices?

All that adding a gun into the situation does is mean that the slower to respond dies first.

But I really do have to go...

The thing is, if you don't have guns this really doesn't become an issue. I'm afraid it's one evil against another and the few number of occassions in which this senario would be an issue don't compare to the threat caused by guns.

Thankfully, I live in a state where there is a huge campaign to ban even air-guns just now :)

You have fun being a victim then.

Guns aren't a threat. Criminals that use guns are a threat. You're scared of an inanimate object.

So the woman should try to rape the guy back? Brilliant....

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that. :)

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/asgunshots.htm

(NOTE: NOT a "gun" (pro or anti) site.)

Dear Capt Lim, Could you please resolve an after dinner discussion on the effects of
firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft - assuming that the hull is penetrated.

One point of view is that quite rapid depressurization could occur, depending on the size of the hole, requiring oxygen and descent to 10000ft. The James Bond viewers believe that the aircraft would disintegrate.

We would appreciate your advice. Merry Christmas David Purton

Hi David, Thank you for a very interesting question. This controversy must probably have arose from the new anti-hijacking measures of having sky marshals on board commercial aircraft and the talk of equipping cockpit crew with guns.

The effects of firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft is dependent on the size of hole caused by the bullet. If the hole is clean and of the size of your finger, it would not caused a rapid depressurization.

Let me discuss this scenario in the context of a Boeing 777. (Other pressurized aircraft are almost similar). Inside this aircraft, there are already two existing 'holes' for regulating the cabin pressurization. They are called the outflow valves, one located in the front and the other is at the aft belly. Their function is to modulate and maintain a desired cabin pressure of around 8.5 psi (pounds per square inch), and it varies with the aircraft altitude. This operation is performed automatically.

It is never possible to fully seal the aircraft doors and hence there are very minute spaces where some pressurized air may already be leaking out. They are hardly noticeable. At the same time, the interior of the airplane is always being pressurized and recharged by a constant flow of pneumatic or bleed air from the engines.

If a gunshot creates a clean hole through the skin, it is not going to be disastrous because air will just whistle out of the hole. The outflow valves will automatically response to this sudden loss of air by closing the valves a little to compensate for the air leak.

My estimate is that it would probably take quite sometime to fully depressurize the aircraft cabin. It only takes about less than 5 minutes to carry out an emergency descent from, say 35,000 to 10,000 feet assuming the aircraft is descending at about 5000 feet per minute.

If the size of the hole of the firearm discharge is big then it may depressurize quite rapidly. Think of the aircraft cabin as if it is a balloon. The bigger the hole, the faster the air would leak out. The hole with a size of a finger will not have any major or significant effect on a big commercial aircraft.

What is more worrying is that, a gun shot hitting the electrical cables, hydraulic lines or control cables may cause some headaches, but not altogether critical because the aircraft has many backup systems. Even that, it is quite remote because such vital cables or lines are generally well protected and are securely located away from possible damage.

In real life, a Boeing 737 in Hawaii had the front roof section of the First Class cabin ripped off due to a depressurization caused by some undetected cracks in the airframe at 24,000 feet. There was only one fatality, apparently sucked out of the cabin due to the rapid depressurization but the aircraft landed safely.

The aircraft would certainly not disintegrate unless there is a bomb on
board.

I hope I have been able to answer your question.



Edit: Note the good Pilot says: A hole the size of a finger - i.e. the kind of hole produced by any firearm short of a Shotgun or 20mm anti aircraft gun, that includes the .50BMG (I carry one in my pocket at all times... :rolleyes: )

But I assume these women aren't just carrying the guns in the open. How do the attackers know they are armed? I don't see how it acts as a deterrent. And what's to stop the attacker over-powering the woman before she can get her gun out her bag?


But you still haven't sourced you're wee statistic about a battered housewife being murdered every three days in the UK. I'm thinking that one's fictional.

Unfortunately I have to go now, but no doubt I'll return to this vibrant discussion later.

Yes, they are carrying at all times. The attacker is told that they are carrying, and that the protective order defines the attacker as a lethal threat - therefore, she is at liberty to shoot him on sight.

The story you hear about people with guns being overpowered is a myth.


And here's the scoop on abused women in the UK http://home.cybergrrl.com/dv/body.html

Yeah...a seasoning. Idiot.



OK, but the point is, while it's not right for people to go around beating other people up, it is equally wrong for victims to go around shooting their attackers. All you do is escalate the level of violence in your society and create an even worse situation than the pre-existing one.

Anyway, how fast do you think someone is going to be able to pull a gun out from under their wheel chair? Faster than their attacker notices?

All that adding a gun into the situation does is mean that the slower to respond dies first.

But I really do have to go...

WTF do you think "mace" normally is? It's red pepper extract. I have a "pepper" round for my shotgun. It's compacted red pepper. The same thing.


So macing them is escalating the attack?

No, it means that the one who practices more and is the more accurate shot (ussually LAC's not criminals) will hit thier target first.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_1738.php



Why exactly is there a need to design special bullets for safety on planes if this isn't the case?

Two reasons:

1) Those misinformed, like you, who actually believe the plane will disintegrate
2) Because depressurization will still occur--it's nice to breathe. Those little masks will drop down for ya if a bullet goes through the fuselage.

I would add that the women carry their pistols in a holster, not their bag.

Some of the ones I have trained are extremely fast in getting their pistol out and firing.

I would add that the women carry their pistols in a holster, not their bag.

Some of the ones I have trained are extremely fast in getting their pistol out and firing.

And here's the word of the day: TRAIN

LAC's tend to train w/ their weapons. They go to the range, practice unloading/loading, drawing, etc. Especially those who have a reason to(ie threatened women). Most LAC's are very familiar w/ thier personal weapons.

Criminals don't normally go to the range. They're the ones "waving" guns around to try and look tough to their cohorts.

Yeah...a seasoning. Idiot.
Dude, maybe you can't handle your curries, but I happen to like hot food. One of my favorite seasonings is :eek: PURE CAPSCIUM - i.e. "pepper spray". "Self Defense Sprays" are not a panacea - if you aren't using a "foam" type, you can end up with spray in you own face. It wouldn't bother me (it would piss me off), but then it might not bother the bad guy either.

OK, but the point is, while it's not right for people to go around beating other people up, it is equally wrong for victims to go around shooting their attackers. WHY!?!?

All you do is escalate the level of violence in your society and create an even worse situation than the pre-existing one. So, having the situation resolved with you alive and the sociopath dead is a BAD outcome?

Anyway, how fast do you think someone is going to be able to pull a gun out from under their wheel chair? Faster than their attacker notices? Who said anything about "under" a wheelchair? Shoulder harnesses and seated-cross-draw holsters work quite well, as do the ubiquitos "fanny packs" (worn in the front) that can carry handguns as well as the money the sociopath wants.

All that adding a gun into the situation does is mean that the slower to respond dies first. when somebody is going to die anyway, wouldn't it be nice to at least give the honest citizen a fighting chance?

But I really do have to go... Please do some research while you are gone.

Dude, maybe you can't handle your curries, but I happen to like hot food. One of my favorite seasonings is PURE CAPSCIUM - i.e. "pepper spray". "Self Defense Sprays" are not a panacea - if you aren't using a "foam" type, you can end up with spray in you own face. It wouldn't bother me (it would piss me off), but then it might not bother the bad guy either.

Just wondering... You eat it with your eyes?

Just wondering... You eat it with your eyes?
Well, I have had a few people run out of my house screaming and holding their eyes when I cook stir-fry... (I've gotta get a better kitchen exhaust hood...)

As for California's gun laws being "not as harsh" as that of other countries, I frankly don't care what other countries do with their laws it as long as they don't try to do to me - which is what much of this argument is about... people from one place trying to say the rules of someplace else are wrong/should be changed.

which is what much of this argument is about... people from one place trying to say the rules of someplace else are wrong/should be changed.


Indeed it is.

I really love this whole "Macho" thing you guys have got going with the Mace. I'm sure we'd all have a good laugh if we could see what it actually does to you if we could try it on you. Mace can cause severe chemical burns and temporary blindness. And while it is derived from a product which can be used in seasoning, I think you'll find it's ever so slightly more concentrated than the consumable variety....Dude.

As for the link on UK violence against women -

I don't see anything about your quote that a women is killed in the home by male violence every 3 days. It really is a b-s statistic isn't it. and as for your other statistics - the situation RE violence against women is much worse in other countries (SEE my thread about violent crime statistics earlier on which showed rape much higher in the US than in the UK, despite the fact that women are more likely to be armed in the US than the UK and ALSO SEE THE FOLLOWING)

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=691AC003A3DF154A80256E4D00687AB4

Women's Human Rights

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Media Briefing

AI Index: ACT 77/034/2004
News Service No: 050

Counting Violence against Women
Facts and Figures - a Summary





The following statistics outline the gravity and magnitude of the problem of violence against women throughout the world. However, such figures do not show the true extent of this human rights violation. They cannot be comprehensive or exhaustive and must therefore be interpreted with caution. There is a lack of systematic research and statistics on violence against women. Many women do not report it - they are ashamed or fear scepticism, disbelief or further violence. The fact that there is no information on this problem in some countries and extensive information in others does not mean that the problem is country specific. On the contrary, it emphasizes the need for more research, so that it can be studied and tackled.


GLOBAL VILLAGE


How will violence against women look in a scaled down world, in a global village of 1,000 people? (the figures are based on statistics from UN, WHO and governmental and non-governmental organizations)

· 500 are women
· It would be 510, but 10 were never born due to gender-selective abortion or died in infancy due to neglect
· 300 are Asian women
· 167 of the women will be beaten or in some other way exposed to violence during their lifetime
· 100 of the women will be victims of rape or attempted rape in their lifetime


WOMEN AND POPULATION


· 49.7% of the world population are women (3,132,342,000 women; 3,169,122,000 men) (UN Population Division).
· At least 60 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are "missing" from various populations as a result of sex-selective abortions or inadequate care as they are seen less important than boys (E, Joni Seager, 2003).


VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY


Violence within the family takes different forms - from physical aggression, such as slapping, hitting, kicking and beating to psychological abuse, such as intimidation, constant belittling and humiliation, including various controlling behaviours, such as isolating a person from their family and friends, monitoring and restricting their movements, access to information or assistance.

Around the world
· At least one in every three women, or up to one billion women, have been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in their lifetimes. Usually, the abuser is a member of her own family or someone known to her (L Heise, M Ellsberg, M Gottemoeller, 1999).
· Up to 47% of women report that their first sexual intercourse was forced (WHO 2002).
· Up to 70% of female murder victims are killed by their male partners (WHO 2002).
· In Kenya more than one woman a week was reportedly killed by her male partner (Joni Seager, 2003).
· In Zambia five women a week were murdered by a male partner or family member (Joni Seager 2003).
· In Egypt 35% of women reported being beaten by their husband at some point in their marriage (UNICEF 2000).
· In Bolivia 17% of all women aged 20 years and over have experienced physical violence in the previous 12 months (WHO 2002).
· In Canada the costs of violence against the family amount to $1.6 billion per year, including medical care and lost productivity (UNICEF 2000).
· In the USA a woman is battered, usually by her husband/partner, every 15 seconds (UN Study on the World's Women, 2000).
· In Bangladesh 50% of all murders are of women by their partners (Joni Seager, 2003).
· In New Zealand 20% of women reported being hit or physically abused by a male partner (UNICEF 2000).
· In Pakistan 42% of women accept violence as part of their fate; 33% feel too helpless to stand up to it; 19% protested and 4% took action against it (Government study in Punjab 2001).
· In the Russian Federation 36,000 women are beaten on a daily basis by their husband or partner, according to Russian non-governmental organizations (OMCT 2003).
· In Spain one woman every five days was killed by her male partner in 2000 (Joni Seager, The Atlas of Women).
· About two women per week are killed by their partners in the United Kingdom (Joni Seager, 2003).


SEXUAL VIOLENCE


Rape is the most violent form of sexual violence. Rape is also associated with unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. However, rape is greatly under reported because of the stigma attached to it, and even more rarely punished.

Around the world
· One in five women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime (WHO 1997).
· In South Africa 147 women are raped every day (South African Institute for Race Relations 2003).
· In the USA a woman is raped every 90 seconds (US Department of Justice, 2000).
· In France 25,000 women are raped per year (European Women's Lobby, 2001).
· In Turkey 35.6% of women have experienced marital rape sometimes and 16.3% often (surveys published in 2000, Women and sexuality in Muslim societies, WWHR Publications: Istanbul, 2000).


WOMEN AND WAR


Violence against women during conflict has reached epidemic proportions. Mass rape is frequently used systematically, as a weapon of war. On top of this, during conflict women are physically and economically forced to become prostitutes, sometimes in order to secure the basic necessities for their families. War impacts on women in other ways - women and children are also the majority of refugees and internally displaced persons.

Around the world
· 80% of the refugees are women and children (UNHCR, 2001).
· Millions of women and children are caught in 34 communal, ethnic, political and/or international armed conflicts around the world (all active instances of societal armed conflicts as of 1 January 2003, CSP-Centre for Systemic Peace).
· Trafficking of women and girls was reported in 85% of the conflict zones (Save the Children 2003).
· In the Democratic Republic of Congo 5,000 cases of rape, corresponding to an average of 40 a day, were recorded in the Uvira area by women associations since October 2002 (UN 2003).
· In Rwanda between 250,000 and 500,000 women, or about 20% of women, were raped during the 1994 genocide (International Red Cross report, 2002).
· In Sierra Leone 94 per cent of displaced households surveyed had experienced sexual assaults, including rape, torture and sexual slavery (Physicians for Human Rights, 2002).
· In Iraq at least 400 women and girls as young as eight were reported to have been raped in Baghdad during or after the war, since April 2003 (Human Rights Watch Survey, 2003).
· Every 14 days a Colombian woman is a victim of forced "disappearance" according to a 2001 report by the Women and Armed Conflict Work Table (UNIFEM 2001).
· Approximately 250,000 Cambodian women were forced into marriage between 1975 and 1979. On average, two group marriages may have taken place in every Cambodian village during the Khmer Rouge regime (UNIFEM).
· In Bosnia and Herzegovina 20,000 - 50,000 women were raped during five months of conflict in 1992. (IWTC, Women's GlobalNet #212. 23rd October 2002).
· In some villages in Kosovo, 30%-50% of women of child bearing age were raped by Serbian forces (Amnesty International, 27 May 1999).


HARMFUL PRACTICES


Virtually every culture in the world contains forms of violence against women that are nearly invisible because they are seen as "normal" or "customary".

Around the world
· More than 135 million girls and women have undergone female genital mutilation and an additional 2 million girls and women are at risk each year (6,000 every day) (A, UN, 2002).
· 82 million girls who are now aged 10 to 17 will be married before their 18th birthday (UNFP).
· In more than 28 countries in Africa, female genital mutilation is practised (Amnesty International, 1997).
· In Niger 76% of the poorest young women will marry before the age of 18 (UNFPA 2003).
· 97% of married women in Egypt aged 15 to 49 have undergone female genital mutilation (WHO survey, 1996).
· In Iran 45 women under the age of 20 have been murdered in so-called "honour" killings by close relatives in Iran's majority ethnic Arab province of Khuzestan in a two-month period in 2003 (Middle East Times, 31 October 2003).
· Female genital mutilation has been reported in Asian counties such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka as well as among immigrant communities in Australia (UN 2002).
· In India there are close to 15,000 dowry deaths estimated per year. Mostly they are kitchen fires designed to look like accidents (Injustices Studies. Vol. 1, November 1997).
· FGM is performed amongst immigrant communities in Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UN 2002).


THE STATE FAILING VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN


Violence against women goes widely unreported. There are various factors which prevent women from reporting incidents of violence, such as fear of retribution, lack of economic means, emotional dependence, concern for children and no access to redress. Few countries have special training for the police, judicial and medical staff to deal with rape cases.

Around the world
· Around 20-70% of abused women never told another person about the abuse until being interviewed for the study by WHO (WHO, Geneva, 2002).
· In South Africa the conviction rate for rape remains low at an average of 7%. A third of the estimated number or rapes were reported in 2003 (Police Annual Report for the year ending March 2003).
· In Egypt 47% of physically abused women never told anyone (Population-based study, 1999) (WHO 2002).
· In Chile only 3% of all raped women report the incident to the police (WHO 2002).
· In the USA 16% of women report rapes to the police; of those who do not, nearly 50 per cent of women would do so if they could be assured that their names and private details would not be released publicly (National Victim Center /Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992).
· In Australia 18% of women who were physically assaulted in a period of 12 months never told any one (Population-based study, 1999).
· In Bangladesh 68% of women never told anyone about being beaten (WHO 2002).
· In Austria 20% of reported rape cases ended in convictions in the 1990s (London Metropolitan University, 2003).
· In Ireland 20% of physically abused women contacted the police (Population-based study, 1999; WHO 2002).
· In the Russian Federation 40% of women victims of violence within the family do not seek help from law enforcement officials (International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Women 2000: Russia).
· In the United Kingdom 13% of all raped women report the assault to the police (Joni Seager, 2003).


VIOLENCE WITH IMPUNITY


Violence against women often remains unchecked and unpunished. Some states have no laws at all, others have flawed laws which may punish some forms of violence but exempt others. Even with the appropriate legislation in place, many states fail to implement the law fully.

Around the world
· In 2003 at least 54 countries had discriminatory laws against women (based on a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women).
· In her 1994-2003 review, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women highlighted problems of law enforcement in almost all of the reviewed states.
· 79 countries have no (or unknown) legislation against domestic violence (UNIFEM, Not a Minute More, 2003).
· Marital rape is recognized specifically as a crime in only 51 countries as far as information was available (UNIFEM, 2003).
· Only 16 nations have legislation specifically referring to sexual assault, while as few as three have legislation that specifically addresses violence against women as a category of criminal activity in itself (Bangladesh, Sweden and USA) (UNIFEM 2003).
· So called "honour" defences (partial or complete) are found in the penal codes of Peru, Bangladesh, Argentina, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the West Bank and Venezuela (UN 2002).


HIV/AIDS


Increasingly, violence against women is recognized as a major public health concern. Violence can affect woman's reproductive health as well as other aspects of her physical and mental well being. Sexual violence against women has led to higher infection rates of HIV/AIDS than among men of the same age group.

Around the world
· 51% of all people living with HIV/AIDS today (over 20 million) are women (UNIFEM, 2003).
· World-wide, over half of new HIV infections are occurring among young people between the ages of 15 to 24, and over 60% of HIV-positive youth between the ages of 15-24 are women (UNAIDS, 2003).
· 55% of the 16,000 new infections occurring daily are women (UNAIDS, 2003).
· AIDS now ranks as one of the leading causes of death among women aged 20 to 40 in several cities in Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and North America (UNAIDS, 2003).
· Three million people died of AIDS-related illnesses in 2003 (UNAIDS, 2003).

But Arming the citizenry is not the answer. The only way to end these sort of crime is serious social change. Arming citizens is a step in the wrong direction. I'm afraid that it's a pretty clear logical fact that the easier it is for people to get access to weapons, the more likely it is that they'll be used. The only way to improve your society is through this sort of action -

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/actions.do

Civil society is the way forward, not more weaponary and suspicion of your fellow man. This is why Europe is a much more civilised place that the US, why we have social-security to a much greater level than you do and why we provide free-healthcare to everyone. Because we are a civilised society and the US is not.

Ok, and I accept the point about depressurisation in aurcraft, but I still stand by my anti-gun stance. Why not use a tazer or something instead?

Ok, and I accept the point about depressurisation in aurcraft, but I still stand by my anti-gun stance. Why not use a tazer or something instead?
That's already been covered. Tazers are one shot weapons that you have to hit w/ both electrodes to be effective at all. Some people classify the handhelds as "Tazers". As w/ knives, martial arts, etc. You have to get in close. You don't want to do that if you can avoid it at all.

Interesting to note that many police forces are abandoning the use of the tazer.

Dude, maybe you can't handle your curries, but I happen to like hot food. One of my favorite seasonings is :eek: PURE CAPSCIUM - i.e. "pepper spray". "Self Defense Sprays" are not a panacea - if you aren't using a "foam" type, you can end up with spray in you own face. It wouldn't bother me (it would piss me off), but then it might not bother the bad guy either.

I stand by the "Idiot" statement.


So, having the situation resolved with you alive and the sociopath dead is a BAD outcome?

Nope - Let's look at it this way. You are an armed robber. You have a gun, but it's only to scare the person into giving up their money. All you want is to get the money, get out there and get away. A murder would only be a complication, increase your potential sentence if you got caught, etc, etc.

Now, you rob someone. They have no weapon. Why would you shoot them?

You rob someone, they pull a gun. Do you (a) Let them shoot you, since they think you are going to use the gun anyway, they will shoot you (b) Shoot them first and make a get away with the money

Thus, we see how guns make the situation worse.


Who said anything about "under" a wheelchair? Shoulder harnesses and seated-cross-draw holsters work quite well, as do the ubiquitos "fanny packs" (worn in the front) that can carry handguns as well as the money the sociopath wants.

The point is, the armed robber already has their weapon drawn, the person in the wheelchair doesn't. Thus the armed attacker is likely to be able to respond quicker.

And what exactly do you intend to do about total paraplegics. What is the masterplan of the great leveller, the firearm, in this situation? Arm-rest mounted, eye operated guns? Will the government be giving them out free to paraplegics (despite not funding free healthcare for them - we've got to get our priorities right, guns first, healthcare 764th) since these people won't be economically active to be able to afford them.

when somebody is going to die anyway, wouldn't it be nice to at least give the honest citizen a fighting chance?

See above, and following links.

Please do some research while you are gone.

http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol (http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol)

This site has an in-depth study into the effect of gun availability on violent crime. I admit that it shows that where a victim is armed (in an armed society) they are about 5% less likely to be injured. However, it concludes that the greater the availability of guns in society, the greater the rate of violent crime, which serves to cancel out the value of the previous statistic. The site only mentions the likelihood of being injured, it does not mention the effect of the victim being armed on their likelihood of being murdered.

Evaluation findings indicate that the following
kinds of laws can reduce gun murder rates when
they are enforced: prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons, extending sentences for robbery
and assault when a gun is used, and restrictive
licensing requirements for handgun ownership


Some more statistics ( i can throw statistics around all day if you want)http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/homemain.html

http://www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/46.htm#4

The question is whether this view implies that all people, by virtue of the fact that they live in South Africa, have a genuine need for a firearm.

While some could make this argument, the next question to ask is whether firearms are in fact effective for self-defence. Research3 conducted indicates that in many cases firearms are not effective – crime victims in possession of a firearm were nearly four times more likely to have their firearms stolen than to use them in self-defence. In addition, using a gun in self-defence increased the likelihood that the perpetrator would fire his firearm between three- and fourfold – so increasing the risk of death or injury.

Yes, but is that not because of the people in the counties with high gun ownership are coming into counties with low gun ownership and shooting them?

The reason that the people who use guns in crime have them is because it is so easy to get them in you backward, frontier-mentality country. I'm not saying that the most determined people won't get guns even if you ban them, but it will mean that half-wit chancers won't be very likely to get them.

Gun crime in the UK is negligible. As for violent crime...I don't really know the figures between the US and the UK, but it's not exactly a warzone out here. Most violent crime in the UK, as far as I'm aware tends to occur between drunken idiots in the city centres, and I'm sure that adding guns into the bargain would be a FABULOUS idea!!

AS for guns and self-defence - Most armed criminals are more likely to use their weapon when the realise that their victim is armed. You see most criminals aren't out just to shoot people up for the sake of it (and if they are, you're pretty much screwed either way, since most vitims will only use their weapons as a last resort, by which point it will be too late). Thus, waving a gun at them is only more likely to get you shot.

Thanks for starting an off-topic side-discussion.

(snip)
Nope - Let's look at it this way. You are an armed robber. You have a gun, but it's only to scare the person into giving up their money. All you want is to get the money, get out there and get away. A murder would only be a complication, increase your potential sentence if you got caught, etc, etc.

Now, you rob someone. They have no weapon. Why would you shoot them?
(snip)

Have to comment on this. Ever heard of curbing? Ever heard of home invasions? An armed robber doesn't always just want to "get the money, get out there and get away" sometimes they want to cause pain, injury and death. And that sometimes is getting more and more often. Why would you want to take the chance that the person who is assaulting you doesn't want to get his rocks off by causing you severe injury or death? Why would you want to deprive me of the possibility of being able to defend myself. Don't want to carry a gun, fine, go ahead make yourself a victim. Don't tell me how I can or can not defend my family or myself.

-edit- as for your assumption that armed criminals are more likely to shoot armed defenders (and I don't know where you got that one) just doesn't hold water. Guns are used defensively 2,000,000+ each year. Compare that to the violent crime stats and will see that sometimes the mere presence of a gun on the intended victim causes the criminal to give up and go away (which is what I really want, for him to go away)

Btw, frangible bullets weren't designed for planes. It is a bullet designed for general use, especially by civilians, because its strong enough to penetrate a human, but isnt likely to go flying through building walls, etc.

Secular obviously believes that a woman strangled to death by her abusive ex-husband while she was waiting for the police to respond is morally superior to a live woman who managed to live her life in freedom because her ex-husband knows she has a gun and she knows how to use it.
If anyone is trying to claim the "morally superior" high ground, that would be you. how many women are shot to death during domestic disputes in the US? I think that would be an interesting stat to say the least.

Virginia:

In 2003, 28.4% (131) of murders were FAMILY AND INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE (http://www.vdh.state.va.us/medexam/FIPVRpt04.pdf).

Firearm 76 (57.9%)
Sharp Instrument 22 (16.8%)
Personal Weapon 14 (10.7%)
Strangulation 4 (3.1%)
Fire 4 (3.1%)
Other 11 (8.4%)

In 2003, 66.8% of murders in the US were committed with a firearm (http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-12.xls). In Virginia, 72.6% of murders were committed with a firearm.

That's why my women are alive - every last one of them. And why my women (the ones I have trained) are all free of abuse and stalking.

And why 1 woman is killed in the UK every three days.

I'll also note that none of my women have shot anyone, either. The mere presence of an armed and trained woman seems to scare the crap out of abusive men.
There is a group of 130,000 US women who tend to think differently than you and "your women", in regards to guns:

The League of Women Voters of the United States (http://www.lwv.org/where/promoting/guncontrol_read.html) believes that the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. The League supports strong federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of these weapons by private citizens. The League supports regulating firearms for consumer safety.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I stand by the "Idiot" statement.




Nope - Let's look at it this way. You are an armed robber. You have a gun, but it's only to scare the person into giving up their money. All you want is to get the money, get out there and get away. A murder would only be a complication, increase your potential sentence if you got caught, etc, etc.

Now, you rob someone. They have no weapon. Why would you shoot them?

You rob someone, they pull a gun. Do you (a) Let them shoot you, since they think you are going to use the gun anyway, they will shoot you (b) Shoot them first and make a get away with the money

Thus, we see how guns make the situation worse.




1.The point is, the armed robber already has their weapon drawn, the person in the wheelchair doesn't. Thus the armed attacker is likely to be able to respond quicker.

2.And what exactly do you intend to do about total paraplegics. What is the masterplan of the great leveller, the firearm, in this situation? Arm-rest mounted, eye operated guns? Will the government be giving them out free to paraplegics (despite not funding free healthcare for them - we've got to get our priorities right, guns first, healthcare 764th) since these people won't be economically active to be able to afford them.



See above, and following links.



http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol (http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol)

3. This site has an in-depth study into the effect of gun availability on violent crime. I admit that it shows that where a victim is armed (in an armed society) they are about 5% less likely to be injured. However, it concludes that the greater the availability of guns in society, the greater the rate of violent crime, which serves to cancel out the value of the previous statistic. The site only mentions the likelihood of being injured, it does not mention the effect of the victim being armed on their likelihood of being murdered.




Some more statistics ( i can throw statistics around all day if you want)http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/homemain.html

http://www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/46.htm#4

1.Criminals in the US tend to shoot/kill/maim/rape they're victims regularly. Your suppositions are that the criminals are nice people who really don't want to hurt you. In the US, I won't take that chance w/ my family.

2. This is just stupid.

3. Also from your .edu site: 10 years out of date BTW.

The findings,
while somewhat tentative and not entirely
consistent, suggest that

It is not
clear whether the differences in gun laws
accounted for all the variation between the two
cities in homicide rates, or whether differences
in culture were also contributing factors.



and from the Dunblane site: Besides the fact that it's 10 to 12 years out of date.

Notice it only takes into account homicide w/ firearms. It doesn't take into account Violent Crime or standing gun laws except in comparison to the US, which has always had a higher crime rate than the UK. It ignores the fact that in Figure 4, doesn't mention that 6 out of the 8 cities (especially DC) already had highly restrictive gun laws.

Virginia:

66.8% of murders in the US were committed with a firearm[/URL]. In Virginia, 72.6% of murders were committed with a firearm.


There is a group of 130,000 US women who tend to think differently than you and "your women", in regards to guns:



I wholeheartedly agree.

Ahh, Virginia, Canucks' #2 fallback. A whopping 6% difference. What was that about DC's homicides again?

There's a group of about 600,000 women who tend to think differently than you in regards to guns:

They're the 16% (and rising) female membership of the NRA.

These are the "highly trained professionals" that anti-gunners think should be the only ones w/ firearms and who we should rely on for protection:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/compton.shooting/

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Investigations are under way to determine why sheriff's deputies fired about 120 shots at a vehicle to end a car chase in Compton, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said Tuesday.

The suspect, identified by Baca as Winston Hayes, 44, was found to be unarmed, but has an arrest record for narcotics and assaults.

Hayes was wounded, but Baca said the injuries were not life threatening. One deputy was also injured, he said, possibly by friendly fire.

Some people who live nearby reported their homes were hit by bullets as well.

to sum up:

120 rounds fired, injured (not killed but injured) criminal, one injured officer (most likely by) friendly fire, and nearby homes hit.Maybe the police DO need high capacity magazines.

Then compare it to:

The Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA, 08/07/04:

Candy Mitchell of Waterford, California, started losing sleep after she learned that her ex-boyfriend was released from jail. He had served only two months of a six-month sentence for physically abusing her, so it did not seem like a coincidence when, night after night, she heard strange noises in her back yard and banging on her bedroom walls. Despite repeated calls to the police, no prowler was ever found. But the night Mitchell heard someone enter her home, she grabbed the gun she kept next to her bed and, when she saw a man heading for her daughter's room, fired several times. Her ex-boyfriend, John 'Bud' Russell, stumbled outside. When police arrived, they found Russell dead in his truck. Mitchell later said, "I could not imagine any reason he'd be in my house but to kill me."

I highly doubt she fired 120 rounds. Now lets add in "safety locks" or other "safe storage" laws, or prevented her from owning a firearm at all. I wonder what would have happened.

I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.

I guess moving isn't an option?

I guess moving isn't an option?

Nope. I love this state more than I love this country, the gun laws are one of the few things I dislike.

Ahh, Virginia, Canucks' #2 fallback. A whopping 6% difference.
That is a significant difference from the National average.

What was that about DC's homicides again?
Whose murder rate is now lower than Richmond Virginia's?

There's a group of about 600,000 women who tend to think differently than you in regards to guns:

They're the 16% (and rising) female membership of the NRA.
I think the point I was making was lost on you somehow? There is a lot more women than the League of Women voters who are against guns. Perhaps you forgot about the Million Mom March (http://www.millionmommarch.org/) in Washington D.C.?

I really love this whole "Macho" thing you guys have got going with the Mace. I'm sure we'd all have a good laugh if we could see what it actually does to you if we could try it on you. Mace can cause severe chemical burns and temporary blindness. And while it is derived from a product which can be used in seasoning, I think you'll find it's ever so slightly more concentrated than the consumable variety....Dude.

Approximately 1 in 4 people are immune to the effects of Mace, and 1 in 5 are immune to the effects of capsicum - that is, it doesn't slow them down.

As for the link on UK violence against women -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/hh/what03.shtml

# An average of 2 women each week were killed by current or former partners in England in Wales in the year 2000/1.
(Home Office, 2001)

That's a woman every 3 days, and it's from your Home Office.

And how civilized is the UK?

# Domestic violence incidents make up nearly a quarter of all violent crime.
(Crime in England and Wales, Home Office, July 2002).


# Less than 35% of actual domestic violence is reported to the police. Some surveys put it as low as 11%.
(Crime in England and Wales, Home Office, July 2002; Home Office Research Study, 1999)


# Just under half of victims will tell a relative or friend.
(Home Office Research Study, 1999)


# In a 3 month period 128 of 180 victims of domestic violence were unwilling to pursue the allegation.
(Metropolitan Police Research 'Understanding and Responding to Hate Crime' team)


# Out of an estimated 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2001/2 in England and Wales - 81% of the victims were women and 19% were men.
(Crime in England and Wales, Home Office, July 2002)

Oh yeah, civilized. Especially your boys.

A 2000 survey of 1300 schoolchildren found that 1 in 3 boys thought violence against women was acceptable.
(Survey by Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust)

Civil society is the way forward, not more weaponary and suspicion of your fellow man.


When your fellow man is doing whatever he can to get ahead (including throwing you under the bus), yeah, you do have to be rather suspicious--it's only wisdom, after all. Tread lightly and be alert.


This is why Europe is a much more civilised place that the US, why we have social-security to a much greater level than you do and why we provide free-healthcare to everyone. Because we are a civilised society and the US is not.

Oh yes, so much more civilized. That seems to be the fallback when it is realized that the US still does whatever it deems fit for the US--and many European countries can't do the same like they used to. No offense intended here, but European countries work together for the "common good" because they have to, or else they'll get rolled over. They're not doing it for the good of humanity--they're doing it to survive and gain back some semblance of control of their world. And it makes sense--humans do that. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's for some altruistic ideal.

Nope - Let's look at it this way. You are an armed robber. You have a gun, but it's only to scare the person into giving up their money. All you want is to get the money, get out there and get away. A murder would only be a complication, increase your potential sentence if you got caught, etc, etc.

Now, you rob someone. They have no weapon. Why would you shoot them?


Because they can IDENTIFY you.


You rob someone, they pull a gun. Do you (a) Let them shoot you, since they think you are going to use the gun anyway, they will shoot you (b) Shoot them first and make a get away with the money

Thus, we see how guns make the situation worse.


If you knew the first thing about self-defense and the actual criminal mind, you'd understand that they'd run or get shot. Criminals don't practice. Those interested in self-defense with a hand gun do. You seem to think that criminals are sharp shooters with their pistols. You have proven over and over that you have absolutely no experience with firearms--or self-defense concepts.


The point is, the armed robber already has their weapon drawn, the person in the wheelchair doesn't. Thus the armed attacker is likely to be able to respond quicker.


Again, you really don't know self-defense techniques and experience.


And what exactly do you intend to do about total paraplegics. What is the masterplan of the great leveller, the firearm, in this situation? Arm-rest mounted, eye operated guns? Will the government be giving them out free to paraplegics (despite not funding free healthcare for them - we've got to get our priorities right, guns first, healthcare 764th) since these people won't be economically active to be able to afford them.


OMFG. Yeah, you'll be able to find at least one RARE situation where something doesn't work--nothing is infalible. And I think you meant quadriplegics--paras still can use their arms, and can therefore, use a pistol. If someone is going to rob a quadriplegic, there's nothing they can do about it--no one could, anywhere. The robber wouldn't have to be armed at all to rob someone that couldn't move, and therefore a pointless example on your part.

What I think is astonishing is that Secular doesn't believe women are being killed by their abusers in the UK.

I guess he thinks the Home Office is lying when they say that 2 women a week are being killed (that's about one woman every three days).

However, it concludes that the greater the availability of guns in society, the greater the rate of violent crime, which serves to cancel out the value of the previous statistic.

If more guns = more violent crime, then explain why in a continuous trend since 1995 to the present (when Virginia first passed concealed carry and Maryland began seriously restricting guns), two counties had such different results?

Montgomery County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia. Two demographically matched counties - with the exception that one is full of people legally carrying guns concealed and openly in the streets.

Montgomery County, Maryland has seen a consistent rise in violent crime and murder.

Fairfax County, Virginia has seen a reduction in violent crime and murder.

The murder and violent crime is more than 60 percent higher per unit population in Montgomery County, Maryland.

There are more police in Montgomery County, and they spend more money on their police department.

Can you explain that?

That is a significant difference from the National average.


Whose murder rate is now lower than Richmond Virginia's?


I think the point I was making was lost on you somehow? There is a lot more women than the League of Women voters who are against guns. Perhaps you forgot about the Million Mom March (http://www.millionmommarch.org/) in Washington D.C.?

Earlier when called on your misquote of % of homicides by gun in the US from the 70's to 66%, you stated that the difference was not a big deal. "I was off by 3% so shoot me"

Now you're gone back to a particular city from a state and changing the goalposts from % by firearm to totals.. I've already showed that w/ gun controls in place, DC's murder rates were over 95% by handguns in the 90's, & Chicago's went up after implementing gun banning laws.

Can you only go to Richmond? How about Virginia Beach 5.46, or Alexandria 2.27? They're both in VA and "gasp" they're lower. How could that be? That's even lower than NY city at 7.37. How could that be?

Wait, what's this? NY City is at 7.37? The year before it was at 7.26. An increase. How could this be?

You want to really throw out the numbers : San Angelo TX , 1. That's up from 0 (see that Zero) the year before.

We can keep this numbers game up all you want Canuck.

I didn't miss your point at all. You're now trying to say WL's in the minority for wanting to defend women by playing the numbers game again. I showed you that over 600K agree w/ him. There's a lot more women who support the right to self-defense. You keep adding up the numbers, when you get to 600K tell me, then I'll throw in a few more organizations.

Ah yes, the MMM, who are under investigation for tax fraud, had to join w/ the Brady Bunch to remain solvent, had a turnout of about 1% of just 4 yrs previous at their national rally . Real good organization to cite.

If more guns = more violent crime, then explain why in a continuous trend since 1995 to the present (when Virginia first passed concealed carry and Maryland began seriously restricting guns), two counties had such different results?

Montgomery County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia. Two demographically matched counties - with the exception that one is full of people legally carrying guns concealed and openly in the streets.

Montgomery County, Maryland has seen a consistent rise in violent crime and murder.

Fairfax County, Virginia has seen a reduction in violent crime and murder.

The murder and violent crime is more than 60 percent higher per unit population in Montgomery County, Maryland.

There are more police in Montgomery County, and they spend more money on their police department.

Can you explain that?


Don't forget, CH doesn't think the C-C comparisons are valid. Yet city to city, state to state, state to city w/ almost no demographic comparisons are.

Ah yes, the MMM, who are under investigation for tax fraud, had to join w/ the Brady Bunch to remain solvent, had a turnout of about 1% of just 4 yrs previous at their national rally . Real good organization to cite.

As an organization, the Million Moms has almost ceased to exist. Most moms have become "security moms" in the popular parlance, and don't feel that the authorities can be relied on to protect them - so they want their own protection.

It's not just an opinion. It's a fact that the police DO NOT protect women who HAVE protective orders. It's a FACT that women who get protective orders radically increase their chance of being killed, and make subsequent assaults a virtual certainty. If the police were PROTECTING women with protective orders, this would not be the case.

And we know from the law that the police are under NO obligation to protect any individual women. So the women face a very real choice - learn to protect themselves, or die.

What person would take away the most effective means these women have of protecting themselves?

Domestic abuse is not a problem that can be solved like a wish - you can't eliminate it in ANY population. It's even a problem within gay and lesbian relationships. Every society on Earth has domestic violence - and they always will.

So I, and the women I teach, believe that they have the right to protect and defend themselves. They have a right to live free from physical domination, abuse, and the threat of brutal death. And they have a right to stay in their town, at their job - and no one should have the right to tell them to run away and hide in fear.

As an organization, the Million Moms has almost ceased to exist. Most moms have become "security moms" in the popular parlance, and don't feel that the authorities can be relied on to protect them - so they want their own protection.



And then there was the prominent MMM organizer in IL who was arrested for having an illegal gun and drugs.

On the front page, they tout the FiveSeven Handgun as a 'cop killer'. Of course they(and HCI) fail to mention that even the BATFE has determined it is no such thing.

So w/ 50K alledged members "As the nation's largest grassroots, non-partisan, chapter-based organization" between them and HCI, they're mainstream America. But 4 Million members of the NRA (not counting the hundreds of other organizations) are not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/hh/what03.shtml

# An average of 2 women each week were killed by current or former partners in England in Wales in the year 2000/1.
(Home Office, 2001)

That's a woman every 3 days, and it's from your Home Office.

And how civilized is the UK?
You might not like the answer?

In 2003, there were 45 INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE VICTIMS IN VIRGINIA, which works out to a rate of .625 per 100,000.

In the UK, going by 2 per week, or 104 per year, the rate would be .173 per 100,000.

So it would appear that UK citizens are 3.6 times more civilized than Virginians?

You might not like the answer?

In 2003, there were 45 INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE VICTIMS IN VIRGINIA, which works out to a rate of .625 per 100,000.

In the UK, going by 2 per week, or 104 per year, the rate would be .173 per 100,000.

So it would appear that UK citizens are 3.6 times more civilized than Virginians?

Hey, I'm not saying we don't have a problem. But you'll note that among the sample I have (104 women now), not one has been murdered in the past two years, and not one has been assaulted in the past two years, and not one has been stalked in the past two years.

Compare that to the other women in Virginia who rely on a protective order alone and rely on the police alone for protection.

Or better yet, compare that to the women in the UK who rely on the police for protection. I think we already know that the women in the UK don't have a 100 percent record of not being killed.

Don't forget, CH doesn't think the C-C comparisons are valid. Yet city to city, state to state, state to city w/ almost no demographic comparisons are.
I am not the only one who thinks that the county to county comparisions are invalid. Since you tried unsuccessfully to use the CDC to support your case against gun control (because you misquoted them), I think it is only appropriate to see what the CDC states about "county to county" comparisions (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm), except I will go one better than your failed attempt and quote their "exact" words:

The substantial number of studies of shall issue laws largely derives from and responds to one landmark study (28). Many of these studies were considered to be nonindependent because they assessed the same intervention in the same population during similar time periods. A review of the data revealed critical problems, including misclassification of laws, unreliable county-level crime data, and failure to use appropriate denominators for the available numerator crime data (29). Methodological problems, such as failure to adjust for autocorrelation in time series data, were also evident. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.

I concur wholeheartedly.

I am not the only one who thinks that the county to county comparisions are invalid. Since you tried unsuccessfully to use the CDC to support your case against gun control (because you misquoted them), I think it is only appropriate to see what the CDC states about "county to county" comparisions (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm), except I will go one better than your failed attempt and quote their "exact" words:

The substantial number of studies of shall issue laws largely derives from and responds to one landmark study (28). Many of these studies were considered to be nonindependent because they assessed the same intervention in the same population during similar time periods. A review of the data revealed critical problems, including misclassification of laws, unreliable county-level crime data, and failure to use appropriate denominators for the available numerator crime data (29). Methodological problems, such as failure to adjust for autocorrelation in time series data, were also evident. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.

I concur wholeheartedly.
I concur as well, and ditto for the effect of "gun control" legislation on grime statistics. I would like to know what they consider "conceptually implausible" though. (WTF does that mean? Maybe it is "implausible" that people would want to defend themselves? I wouldn't put it past the CDC to use that definition.)

As I said before, there is ONE and ONLY ONE bit of legislation that has had a positive enough correlation on crime statistics to show causality, and that was Roe v. Wade. There are simply less poor urban males than in previous years or were anticipated by the "super-predator" scares of the 1990s.

Chalk one up for Eugenics. :rolleyes:

Canuck still can't explain why women are being killed in the UK, with their vaunted police protection, and why none of the women I've trained to carry a gun have been killed.

We might add that although that means I've had a hand in putting 104 guns on the street 24 hours a day, no one has committed a crime.

Shouldn't there be an increase in crime, Canuck?

Isnt it nice when people get far off topic?

Canuck still can't explain why women are being killed in the UK, with their vaunted police protection, and why none of the women I've trained to carry a gun have been killed.
Women are being killed in every country not just the UK and the US, and I don't think you will ever see ZERO domestic deaths. However, when you throw in the availability of guns in the house, it is my strongest belief that even more women will die, not less.

You have consistently referred to women being strangled to death, yet in the US stats, that is perhaps the method with the lowest percentage. It takes a lot less physical energy to pump for or five rounds into their "loved" one?

We might add that although that means I've had a hand in putting 104 guns on the street 24 hours a day, no one has committed a crime.

Shouldn't there be an increase in crime, Canuck?
You don't know that for a fact, nor can you guarantee that those guns won't or haven't been used in the commission of a crime, or a suicide, or an accidental death?

As a matter of fact, you might be providing the scenario for perfect crime?

Isnt it nice when people get far off topic?
Yah. Interestingly enough, the Canuck stopped posting on all the other "gun-control" threads to focus on distracting this one but has yet to actually debate the philosophical points addressed. Apparantly it's much more productive to keep talking about immaterial statistics rather than actually discuss the concept of:

Leaving honest, free people alone and focusing on the criminal ACT and not the inanimate THING.

But somehow that doesn't seem to get across... Sort of like how useful CA's "ban" on "assault weapons" was during the LA bank-robery debacle... or how helpful the CA/LA police were in protecting innocent citizens and shopkeepers during the Rodney King Riots. (G_d bless armed Korean shopkeepers)...

However, when you throw in the availability of guns in the house, it is my strongest belief that even more women will die, not less.


As a matter of fact, you might be providing the scenario for perfect crime?

Then , once again, why have murder rates gone down as ownership rates have gone up? Sounds like your worshipping a 'false idol".

Are you suggesting that a legally carrying, trained women who have been victims of domestic abuse are more likely going to become violent criminals? Or are you suggesting that people who train women how do defend themselves against highly abusive SO's are actively creating criminals?

What is a "perfect crime" in your view? One where the victim is disarmed and freely gives up their possessions to a criminal?

I am not the only one who thinks that the county to county comparisions are invalid. Since you tried unsuccessfully to use the CDC to support your case against gun control (because you misquoted them), I think it is only appropriate to see what the CDC states about "county to county" comparisions (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm), except I will go one better than your failed attempt and quote their "exact" words:

The substantial number of studies of shall issue laws largely derives from and responds to one landmark study (28). Many of these studies were considered to be nonindependent because they assessed the same intervention in the same population during similar time periods. A review of the data revealed critical problems, including misclassification of laws, unreliable county-level crime data, and failure to use appropriate denominators for the available numerator crime data (29). Methodological problems, such as failure to adjust for autocorrelation in time series data, were also evident. Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.

I concur wholeheartedly.


Yet when they say "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence" you disagree stating that CC laws "absolutely" cause an increase in crime.

So you only agree w/ them when it fits your preconcieved notions? Or do you feel you have better researching capabilities than the CDC?

I honestly do not see the law as harsh. Any assault rifles should be banned, as in the name ASSAULT...there is no reason for such weapons to exist. Those weapons are made purely for the demise of mandkind. Become skilled in hunting and nothing needed more than 10 bullets.

I honestly do not see the law as harsh. Any assault rifles should be banned, as in the name ASSAULT...there is no reason for such weapons to exist. Those weapons are made purely for the demise of mandkind. Become skilled in hunting and nothing needed more than 10 bullets.


Do you feel that the military shouldn't be allowed to have "Assault Rifles" in their aresenal?
"Assault Rifles", and all fully automatic weapons, are already highly regulated and have been since 1934. Do you happen to mean "Assault Weapons" ? Which is a term invented by the Hoplophobes to demonize a type of firearm previously referred to as "Sporters".

And for the "purely for the demise" bit. Do you happen to know that the most common firearm used in competetive shooting is an AR-15, which is also classified as an "Assualt Weapon"?

You don't know that for a fact, nor can you guarantee that those guns won't or haven't been used in the commission of a crime, or a suicide, or an accidental death?

I do know that for a fact. They all belong to a support group that my wife runs.

It's called risk management. The risk of being attacked by an unarmed abusive husband, who is most likely to use his bare hands and beat or strangle the woman to death, is much higher than the risk you're talking about.

And, it is perfectly legal for her to shoot the man on sight - she has a protective order issued by the court, which defines him as an immediate threat to life and limb - just by standing there. So she would not be committing a crime by emptying her pistol into his head.

Suicide? Women are the least likely to commit suicide by firearm, even when they are available. Women and men have very different patterns of suicide motivation and method.

Accident? You're far more likely to slip and fall in the bathtub.

We're talking about men who previously had a 100 percent record of attacking the women repeatedly - with their bare hands.

Now they've stopped - in some cases for nearly two years.

No other women's program has a record that even comes close.

And the women get to keep their jobs. And continue to live near their relatives. And live in the same town they always lived in. They don't have to run.

I honestly do not see the law as harsh. Any assault rifles should be banned, as in the name ASSAULT...there is no reason for such weapons to exist. Those weapons are made purely for the demise of mandkind. Become skilled in hunting and nothing needed more than 10 bullets.
Here is an interesting website for people honestly confused about the meaningless term "Assault". (Take the Quiz...) (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm)

Basically, it comes down to "Black guns are bad." They said that about people once too.

And the women get to keep their jobs. And continue to live near their relatives. And live in the same town they always lived in. They don't have to run.

But who would want that? I mean isn't it better for the woman to rely soley on the police, flee from her home, and live in fear that her SO will find her for the rest of her life?

Anyway, according to the Hoplophobes, arming the woman only "forces" her SO to get a gun and kill her.

As for the "guarantee" nonsense...

Can Canuck "guarantee" he isn't trying to hack my computer when we're online at the same time? Maybe his computer should be banned/registered/licensed. Should he allow searches of his computer by authorities w/o warrants?

He probably has a drivers license. Meaning he's already been authorized by the state as a capable driver. Can he "guarantee" that he'll never cause an accident?

Remember, the only guarantees in life are death( from any means before you try and jump on that one) and taxes.

Here is an interesting website for people honestly confused about the meaningless term "Assault". (Take the Quiz...) (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm)

Basically, it comes down to "Black guns are bad." They said that about people once too.

I have a feeling most anti-gunners will miss the point.

"Black guns are bad", Pistols are bad, Large bores are bad, "Intermediate Sniper Rifles" are bad", etc... but they're not really trying to ban guns, are they?

I think the point I was making was lost on you somehow? There is a lot more women than the League of Women voters who are against guns. Perhaps you forgot about the Million Mom March (http://www.millionmommarch.org/) in Washington D.C.?
As an aside, if I remember that stupid thing correctly they had less than 300k moms actually march.

And why exactly would you even use as a reference a site that has the following "info" on it?
Cop Killer Gun Available to the Public
Police, Brady/MMM Warn of Cop Killer Gun

Police leaders have joined with the Brady Campaign and Brady Center to sound an alarm to law enforcement professionals around the country about a new handgun available to the general public that is capable of firing bullets through police body armor. Learn more . . .
Now, while the F/N five seven can with a special round not sold in the US to civilians shoot through Class II body armor, the round itself is 5.7x28mm. The likelyhood of anyone actually hitting a vital area is rather low, unless they aim for the head in which case a bigger caliber would serve the same purpose.

No...a pistol would make the car explode if you aimed accurately at the petrol tank and managed to avoid the chassis of the car etc. Very unlikely to happen.

Umm no, just...no. Firstly, in it's liquid state by and large gasoline is by no means flammable. Secondly, bullets are made of lead. This means that contrary to movie physics there isn't a spark. However, there is heat from friction. So, in order to set the gas tank on fire and then have it explode you would have to shoot the gas tank above the level of gasoline in it(which you can't see) and hope there is enough heat generated from the friction caused by the bullet passing through the car's structure. Possible, but somewhat unlikely.

I've shot at many vehicles with tracer, and none of them ever caught fire or exploded.

I had better luck starting a brush fire with tracer.

To get a car to go up, you need an explosive warhead - and even then, you have to rupture the gas tank on the hit, or nothing is going to happen.

Shot at a car at a rock quarry once that had half a tank of gas. We shot at it all day with a variety of rifles, pistols, and shotguns, probably over a thousand rounds - and we hit the gas tank many times.

The gas just ran out on the ground. Never caught fire.

I've shot at many vehicles with tracer, and none of them ever caught fire or exploded.

I had better luck starting a brush fire with tracer.

To get a car to go up, you need an explosive warhead - and even then, you have to rupture the gas tank on the hit, or nothing is going to happen.

Shot at a car at a rock quarry once that had half a tank of gas. We shot at it all day with a variety of rifles, pistols, and shotguns, probably over a thousand rounds - and we hit the gas tank many times.

The gas just ran out on the ground. Never caught fire.
I've also done cars... with a track-mounted .50, an M60, and a .454 Casull. Just between Me and the Tank, I'll take the Casull. It's lighter than the .50 and still split the engine block. :D

BUT, nothing ever set the gas tank off... and it was in the optimal condition, i.e. less than 1/4 full on a hot day.

The whole "Cars Blow Up" thing reminds me how much trouble 60minutes had to go through to "prove" that some truck would blow up from side impact. :rolleyes:

Pyro guys there in Hollywood will tell you EXACTLY how hard it is to get that nice, pretty fireball from a car. You have to load it full of a special mix of naptha, and other fun stuff specially calibrated for the maximum fireball with minimum overpressure.

As an aside, if I remember that stupid thing correctly they had less than 300k moms actually march.

And why exactly would you even use as a reference a site that has the following "info" on it?

Now, while the F/N five seven can with a special round not sold in the US to civilians shoot through Class II body armor, the round itself is 5.7x28mm. The likelyhood of anyone actually hitting a vital area is rather low, unless they aim for the head in which case a bigger caliber would serve the same purpose.

Numbers are always hard to say. I've seen sources citing anywhere from 250K to 400K. Either way, a lot less that 1M.

That was four years ago. Their latest DC march, set to start off a nationwide tour, garnered between 2K & 3K. Another "million mom march" in Florida gathered a few dozen.

I've shot at many vehicles with tracer, and none of them ever caught fire or exploded.

I had better luck starting a brush fire with tracer.

To get a car to go up, you need an explosive warhead - and even then, you have to rupture the gas tank on the hit, or nothing is going to happen.

Shot at a car at a rock quarry once that had half a tank of gas. We shot at it all day with a variety of rifles, pistols, and shotguns, probably over a thousand rounds - and we hit the gas tank many times.

The gas just ran out on the ground. Never caught fire.

Some friends and I were shooting an old truck just a few weeks ago. After awhile I asked, "What's that smell?" "Shit, we hit the gas tank" Went over and saw it running out. Lot's of sparks, no fire. Guess the real world isn't like the movies after all.

Some friends and I were shooting an old truck just a few weeks ago. After awhile I asked, "What's that smell?" "Shit, we hit the gas tank" Went over and saw it running out. Lot's of sparks, no fire. Guess the real world isn't like the movies after all.
To get gas to light you need the proper mixture of fumes and heat. Bullets will not produce this heat since they are made of lead which ablates extremely easily.

As an aside, if I remember that stupid thing correctly they had less than 300k moms actually march.
Of course you can back up your assertion?

And why exactly would you even use as a reference a site that has the following "info" on it?
Well because it is probably a lot more legitimate than the severe "propaganda" (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/mmmshirt.html) that has been "created" by "pro gun" sites? It is amazing how far some people will go to try and discredit others in your country, just to defend their "rights"?

When I see stuff like that, I see paranoia and a desire to instill fear in those that would dare to oppose the "pro gun" lobbyists.

I got a chuckle out of this web site:

Dealing with the Million Mom March (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/strategy1.html)

However, I should be aware that this guy comes highly qualified in dealing with issues like these: :rolleyes:

I have a background (MBA) in organizational psychology; I can tell you with some authority that breakdown of commitment is the worst disaster that can befall any organization. It can easily lead to total organizational collapse and defeat.

I can easily see, where so much "pro gun" dis-information comes from in threads such as these, what with all the cut and paste web sites, character assasinations, and twisted facts. It truly is sad to say the least.

Of course you can back up your assertion?


Well because it is probably a lot more legitimate than the severe "propaganda" (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/mmmshirt.html) that has been "created" by "pro gun" sites? It is amazing how far some people will go to try and discredit others in your country, just to defend their "rights"?

When I see stuff like that, I see paranoia and a desire to instill fear in those that would dare to oppose the "pro gun" lobbyists.

I got a chuckle out of this web site:

Dealing with the Million Mom March (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/strategy1.html)

However, I should be aware that this guy comes highly qualified in dealing with issues like these: :rolleyes:

I have a background (MBA) in organizational psychology; I can tell you with some authority that breakdown of commitment is the worst disaster that can befall any organization. It can easily lead to total organizational collapse and defeat.

I can easily see, where so much "pro gun" dis-information comes from in threads such as these, what with all the cut and paste web sites, character assasinations, and twisted facts. It truly is sad to say the least.
This coming from the New York and Florida man. Come to think of it, did you ever come up with an explanation for the fact that Maryland and Delaware, two "may issue"(read: only to important people) CCW permits have higher violent crime rates than the surrounding "shall issue"(read: if you aren't a felon or have been slapped with a protective restraining order) CCW permit states consisting of Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey? Also, your first link is for the most part correct.

Senate Bill 357 would establish a program requiring serialization of handgun ammunition to be enforced by the Department of Justice. The manufacture, transfer, and possession of non-serialized handgun ammunition after July 1, 2007 would be considered a crime.
Why would you have a problem with the "serialization of handgun ammunition"?

SB 357 would also require ammunition vendors and manufacturers to register with the Department of Justice.
Why would you have a problem with this?

This coming from the New York and Florida man.
What is wrong with comparing New York and Florida? In 2000, after 13 years of having the right to carry a concealed weapon, Florida had the "1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states."

Also in 2000, Florida had the "2nd highest total Crime Index".

Meanwhile, New York, which used to have those dubious distinctions, is now BELOW the US National average.

Come to think of it, did you ever come up with an explanation for the fact that Maryland and Delaware, two "may issue"(read: only to important people) CCW permits have higher violent crime rates than the surrounding "shall issue"(read: if you aren't a felon or have been slapped with a protective restraining order) CCW permit states consisting of Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey?
Haven't really done much research regarding Delaware yet, but as far as Maryland is concerned in regards to Virginia, since 1995, Maryland's VCR has dropped 28.7%, and Virginia's has dropped 23.6%.

Since 2000, Maryland's VCR has dropped 10.5%, and Virginia's has dropped 1.9%. So it appears that gun control measures are having an affect on Maryland's declining VCR, and that Virginia's RTC has had an adverse affect on Virginia's VCR, including a 3.6% increase in 2001.

Also, your first link is for the most part correct.
So you think this site (http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/mmmshirt.html) is mostly correct?

That is perverse propaganda of the worst kind. Very scary indeed!!

Why would you have a problem with the "serialization of handgun ammunition"?


Why would you have a problem with this?

Why? because it's only purpose is to drive up the cost of ammunition for LAC's and to make more beaurocratic costs/entaglements for legitimate companies.

Why would you support it?

Just another way for the Hoplophobes to try and grab more guns.

Meanwhile, New York, which used to have those dubious distinctions, is now BELOW the US National average.


Haven't really done much research regarding Delaware yet, but as far as Maryland is concerned in regards to Virginia, since 1995, Maryland's VCR has dropped 28.7%, and Virginia's has dropped 23.6%.

Since 2000, Maryland's VCR has dropped 10.5%, and Virginia's has dropped 1.9%. So it appears that gun control measures are having an affect on Maryland's declining VCR, and that Virginia's RTC has had an adverse affect on Virginia's VCR, including a 3.6% increase in 2001.




And what "gun control laws" have been enacted in MD just before 1995? Why do the surrounding CC states have lower crime rates? Why hasn't crime in Virginia (and Florida) increased steadily since CC laws were passed like you said they should? Florida's is still dropping. Why is MD's VCR still almost 3 times Virginia and its murder rate 59% higher? Why did MD's murder rate increase from '02 to '03?
Why did NYC's murder rate go up fro '02 to '03? Why is Nebraska and Kansas VCR's increasing? They're not CC states, they should be decreasing according to you.

You have stated that CC laws increase crime. Crime should be increasing steadily everywhere that CC laws were enacted. You have stated that increased gun ownership should increase murder rates. Obviously this isn't happening. As usual, you can only pick a few places w/ a few cherry picked numbers to "prove" your point.