NationStates Jolt Archive

The only suggestion I can make is attaching the Excel file.

Wendy Cukier, a professor of justice studies at Ryerson University and a member of the Coalition for Gun Control, said the violence on the streets has nothing to do with the gun registry.

"There is an erosion between the community and the police. There can be 50 witnesses to a killing and no one comes forward," she said.

To end the violence, there needs to be better border control to stop guns coming from the U.S., Crown attorneys need to go for mandatory sentences for weapons offences and gun dealers shouldn't be allowed to sell ammunition to people without a gun license, Cukier said.

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/09/25/1234738-sun.html


And yet the justification the mayor of Toronto is using to collect the registered gun owners firearms is that most are stolen from Canadians. Which is it? Is this a Hoplophobe "Con Job"?

Yeah, me, living in Socal during the early '80's


Got a source for your statement?

Wendy Cukier, a professor of justice studies at Ryerson University and a member of the Coalition for Gun Control, said the violence on the streets has nothing to do with the gun registry.

"There is an erosion between the community and the police. There can be 50 witnesses to a killing and no one comes forward," she said.

To end the violence, there needs to be better border control to stop guns coming from the U.S., Crown attorneys need to go for mandatory sentences for weapons offences and gun dealers shouldn't be allowed to sell ammunition to people without a gun license, Cukier said.

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/09/25/1234738-sun.html


And yet the justification the mayor of Toronto is using to collect the registered gun owners firearms is that most are stolen from Canadians. Which is it? Is this a Hoplophobe "Con Job"?
The Toronto Sun is perhaps the most sensational tabloid (I would call it a newspaper but it doesn't measure up) in Canada. Extreme right wing bias and great for wrapping garbage in, but news meh!!

I would think that most of the guns used in Toronto crime are coming across from the US border. Do you have a link for the Toronto mayor reference?

The Toronto Sun is perhaps the most sensational tabloid (I would call it a newspaper but it doesn't measure up) in Canada. Extreme right wing bias and great for wrapping garbage in, but news meh!!

I would think that most of the guns used in Toronto crime are coming across from the US border. Do you have a link for the Toronto mayor reference?

Another blatant dismissal of a source w/o any evidence to back up your assertion. This is what ? the third time?

It was originally in the National Post, Aug 17th but is no longer available on their website. However, here's the transcript:



Toronto Mayor: No Reason to Have Guns at Home

National Post/James Cowan | August 17 2005

Gun owners in Toronto may soon be prohibited from keeping their firearms at home even if they are properly licensed and registered, Mayor David Miller said yesterday.

"There's no reason to own a gun in Toronto -- collector or not. If you are a collector and you have a permit, the guns need to be stored in a way that they can't be stolen. And perhaps a centralized facility of some kind could accomplish that goal," Mr. Miller told the National Post. "The law requires gun owners to have proper storage, but obviously not everyone adheres to that."

Following a spate of shootings in Toronto, the Mayor has asked city lawyers and the police to determine whether the municipality has the "legal ability" to require individuals to store their weapons at a secure facility such as a gun club.

"It's a very serious issue and I don't have all the answers to it, but I've spoken to the [Police] Chief as well as our own legal department to see what we can do," Mr. Miller said.

The Mayor has repeatedly blamed lax gun laws in the United States for some of Toronto's violence, saying half of the firearms in the city originated in the United States.

While pressing the federal government to stem the smuggling of guns across the border, Mr. Miller said steps must also be taken steps to address domestic gun problems.

"I understand there was one theft from a collector two years ago, where some of the guns were recovered after being used in murders in Toronto," he said.

Police have also speculated a theft in June of 46 handguns, along with three rifles and ammunition, from a collector in Port Hope, 100 kilometres east of the city, has contributed to the recent increase in shootings.

Mr. Miller noted several U.S. cities such as Chicago have passed ordinances restricting handgun ownership. But legal gun owners argue the new rules would only make life simpler for criminals.

"It would just put all the firearms in one place so they could all be stolen at one time," said Eric Greer of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. "That would be a wonderful thing."

Mr. Greer added the Mayor's proposal would not prevent criminals from acquiring weapons, noting Canada enacted its first handgun registry in 1934.

"It hasn't made one iota of difference. And the reason is the people that registered their handguns don't commit the crimes. The people who commit crimes don't register their guns. It's as simple as that," he said.

Other gun owners said they are tired of being conflated with murderers and thieves.

"There are legal gun owners all over Ontario who don't go around brandishing their guns, who go through the whole rigamarole to get licensed properly," said Bill, a member of the Maple Leaf Revolver Club, who asked his last name not be used citing safety concerns. "The Mayor's not thinking properly."

He added most gun owners would support tough sentences for individuals caught using firearms to commit a crime.

"At most of the clubs, you will hear people say, 'Arrest the guy, look at the law and if the law says to throw him away for five years or 10 years, do it,' " the gun owner said.

Mr. Miller agreed the courts must be more stringent, noting individuals caught with weapons currently are routinely released on bail.

"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2005/170805noreason.htm

If you don't believe that, here's some cooboration:

http://www.ofah.org/News/index.cfm?ID=3&A=GetDoc&DID=242

<snip> "It hasn't made one iota of difference... <snip>

My how Language shifts.

An "iota of difference" was all it took to conflate the Aryan Controversy at the Council of Nicea and give us the Pauline/Constianian Christianity we are stuck with today.

The first daft of the Nicene Creed contained the word homoiousion (similar in substance) vs. the "approved" version (that caused Arius to be declared Heretical) which used homoousion... (of one substance)

One Iota (i) difference... and thus, "Not one Iota shall be added..." (after they took it away) :rolleyes:

In case you need sources besides my own interest in Nicea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Pet Peeve. An iota of difference caused a pissload of death and grief. It should not be used to = "insignificant". :headbang:

Carry on.

Another blatant dismissal of a source w/o any evidence to back up your assertion. This is what ? the third time?
The Sun is a mouthpiece of the conservatives and they feel obligated to attack liberal views. I take whatever is in the Sun with a grain of salt, because of their lack of objectivety and their total bias.

It was originally in the National Post, Aug 17th but is no longer available on their website.
The National Post is not much better.

Gun owners in Toronto may soon be prohibited from keeping their firearms at home even if they are properly licensed and registered, Mayor David Miller said yesterday.
I disagree with the Mayor here.

If you are a collector and you have a permit, the guns need to be stored in a way that they can't be stolen.
I totally agree with this.

And perhaps a centralized facility of some kind could accomplish that goal," Mr. Miller told the National Post.
I disagree with the Mayor here.

"The law requires gun owners to have proper storage, but obviously not everyone adheres to that."
The ones that don't adhere should have their guns removed for a specified period of time.

Following a spate of shootings in Toronto, the Mayor has asked city lawyers and the police to determine whether the municipality has the "legal ability" to require individuals to store their weapons at a secure facility such as a gun club.
I think he is barking up the wrong tree here.

"It's a very serious issue and I don't have all the answers to it, but I've spoken to the [Police] Chief as well as our own legal department to see what we can do," Mr. Miller said.
Yup, serious issue indeed.

The Mayor has repeatedly blamed lax gun laws in the United States for some of Toronto's violence, saying half of the firearms in the city originated in the United States.
This is probably the biggest part of the problem. Lax gun laws in the US that allow the poliferation of guns.

While pressing the federal government to stem the smuggling of guns across the border, Mr. Miller said steps must also be taken steps to address domestic gun problems.
Getting the illegal guns coming across the border should be the highest priority, and then determine if there is a problem with domestic gun owners.

"I understand there was one theft from a collector two years ago, where some of the guns were recovered after being used in murders in Toronto," he said.
IF these guns were properly stored, then the Mayor should have no complaints.

Police have also speculated a theft in June of 46 handguns, along with three rifles and ammunition, from a collector in Port Hope, 100 kilometres east of the city, has contributed to the recent increase in shootings.
Speculation does not equate to proof, and IF the guns were stored properly then there should be no complaint.

Mr. Miller noted several U.S. cities such as Chicago have passed ordinances restricting handgun ownership. But legal gun owners argue the new rules would only make life simpler for criminals.
I guess if the murder rate in Toronto was as bad as in Chicago, then serious restrictions to gun ownership should be implemented.

"It would just put all the firearms in one place so they could all be stolen at one time," said Eric Greer of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association. "That would be a wonderful thing."
I imagine that would be fairly difficult to accomplish but scary if it did happen.

Mr. Greer added the Mayor's proposal would not prevent criminals from acquiring weapons, noting Canada enacted its first handgun registry in 1934.
It certainly would make it more difficult.

"It hasn't made one iota of difference. And the reason is the people that registered their handguns don't commit the crimes. The people who commit crimes don't register their guns. It's as simple as that," he said.
I disagree. Some people do kill people they know with their registered guns.

"There are legal gun owners all over Ontario who don't go around brandishing their guns, who go through the whole rigamarole to get licensed properly," said Bill, a member of the Maple Leaf Revolver Club, who asked his last name not be used citing safety concerns. "The Mayor's not thinking properly."
I tend to agree.

He added most gun owners would support tough sentences for individuals caught using firearms to commit a crime.
So would most non gun owners.

"At most of the clubs, you will hear people say, 'Arrest the guy, look at the law and if the law says to throw him away for five years or 10 years, do it,' " the gun owner said.
Agreed.

Mr. Miller agreed the courts must be more stringent, noting individuals caught with weapons currently are routinely released on bail.
If that is the case, then I agree.

"If somebody has a gun, that's illegal, whether or not they've shot it should be irrelevant. They should be treated like they've shot it and tried to kill somebody," he said. "So when they come to court, they shouldn't get out. They should be kept in court until they're tried."
That is a tough call, especially if the person is innocent.

Bottom line....crack down on gun smuggling, tighten gun laws, and longer jail terms for offenders.

Because 911 doesn't guarantee that help will arrive in time. Here's one of the sadder stories (http://www.local6.com/news/5001811/detail.html) in the news today. One that would have been easily turned around if the woman had shot first and called 911 later.


If she had a gun, then hell yes, shoot first. But, if she didn't, then she did the best thing. I disagree with guns in general, but if all we are talking about is a pistol, than she should have fired.

Cain murdered Able early in the Bible. Cain didn't pull a pistol on him. Murder, violence and hate are all things that are in human nature. I know most people think that human nature changes and that we've evolved beyond that but look at the numbers the gun banners so often show. So next time someone threatens your life and is about to kill you and the 911 operator says Remain calm just throw the phone at them and tell them the call is for them. It's probably your best bet to buy time before the police arrive. Ussually 15 minutes, hopefully your 911 operator is very skilled talker and can distract the enraged homicidal maniac for that long. Now back to saying I don't know what I'm talking about and that guns make people evil with the exception of crooked cops and military personel.

<snip> I guess if the murder rate in Toronto was as bad as in Chicago, then serious restrictions to gun ownership should be implemented. And yet... exactly what have those laws done to diminish the illegal use of illegally held firearms in Chicago?
Bottom line....crack down on gun smuggling, tighten gun laws, and longer jail terms for offenders.
Almost. My take: Bottom line....crack down on gun smuggling, and longer jail terms for violent offenders (that survive attempting to do violence on a population willing to defendthemselves).

..the flaming return of the gun nuts...I missed you, guys :headbang:

..the flaming return of the gun nuts...I missed you, guys :headbang:

Not a gun nut. I carry a gun every day, and I am not a policeman. It has stopped three robberies with no further incident.

Would you rather that I was robbed and killed?

Would you rather I suffered the fate of my personal friend who, like you, thought I was a gun nut? He cooperated with his robbers, and had his hands cut off with a machete.

I suppose you think he did the right thing, and I did the wrong thing three times.

Not a gun nut. I carry a gun every day, and I am not a policeman. It has stopped three robberies with no further incident.

Would you rather that I was robbed and killed?

Would you rather I suffered the fate of my personal friend who, like you, thought I was a gun nut? He cooperated with his robbers, and had his hands cut off with a machete.

I suppose you think he did the right thing, and I did the wrong thing three times.

I´m truly sorry what happened to your friend...and I didn´t want to insult you personally, just still being somewhat angry at being called a nazi just because of being german and being of a different opinion.

Singular cases don´t make for a general rule...I think you did right, but with less luck you could have ended up like your friend, maybe getting your nuts shot off with your own gun (yes, it happens)

Bottom line....crack down on gun smuggling, tighten gun laws, and longer jail terms for offenders.

All of this boils down to one thing. Those who want to ban guns (no I'm not saying you) will continue to "tighten" the laws until private ownership is removed and any excuse will be used to accomplish it.

There is no conclusive evidence that "tighter" gun laws have any effect on crime, yet even you continue to argue that laws such as the BB reduced crime. The gun banners then use the arguement "See, these laws coincided w/ a decrease in crime therefor if we tighten them more, crime will drop more". If Crime goes up, the arguement becomes " The laws on the books are not enough, We must tighten gun laws some more."

In Chicago, a registration system was passed w/ the usual promises of lower crime, all for safety, no further restrictions, won't effect ownership, etc. A few years later, the registration was ended. Defacto gun ban. The result: crime w/ handguns increased for years. No effect on crime. The same happened in DC. The same is happening in Canada. The registration system was included w/ many false promises and , now w/ an increase in a city, the banners are attempting to take the next step towards stopping private ownership completely. The same as in the UK.

The only ones that legislation like this will effect are the legal, registered firearm owners. I agree w/ you that smuggling needs to be curtailed. I've shown you quite a few instances where the US authorities have dropped the ball and it now seems the Canadian autorities are in the same boat. Apparently there's evidence growing that the RCMP and others are ignoring a round of firearm thefts that may have resulted from hacking the register.

There is no way to absolutely guarantee a firearm will not be stolen no matter what kind of "safe storage" there is. As we've discussed before, this is a gun banners method of making it so prohibitively expensive to own a firearm, your average person couldn't afford it. It happened in DC. The only way for authorities to "prove" it is to inspect your home regularly. Would you accept this? Would you accept it for other things things than firearms? Say, coming to your home and inspecting your computer for child porn or hacking software?

Bottom line: This is the "slippery slope" that "pro-gunners" see w/ nearly every gun law that is put on the books. By your defense of useless laws such as the BB and "safe storage" along w/ registration systems, you are helping it along. I will fully support you going after the real criminals and the many things that tend to exaserbate (sp) crime but when you use terms such as "alledged LAC's" for people who have their legal private property stolen and are then blamed for crime, I will oppose you in every firearm debate we have.

I´m truly sorry what happened to your friend...and I didn´t want to insult you personally, just still being somewhat angry at being called a nazi just because of being german and being of a different opinion.

Singular cases don´t make for a general rule...I think you did right, but with less luck you could have ended up like your friend, maybe getting your nuts shot off with your own gun (yes, it happens)


The odds of a civilian having a good outcome with a firearm in a robbery is better than the odds of a policeman having a good outcome. Physically and legally.

Civilians in the US are much better shots on average than policemen, and practice to the tune of thousands of rounds per year, as compared to an average of 50 rounds per year for police.

Police are held to a much higher standard of conduct, and even if justified in the use of force, can face civil suits that will ruin them even if they are never criminally charged.

The idea that people have their guns taken away as a common event, and turned against them is an urban myth.

The idea that people have their guns taken away as a common event, and turned against them is an urban myth.

I personally have done post mortems on such myth´s...your point is taken

The idea that people have their guns taken away as a common event, and turned against them is an urban myth.

Statistically, it happens more often to the police than civilians.

I´m truly sorry what happened to your friend...and I didn´t want to insult you personally, just still being somewhat angry at being called a nazi just because of being german and being of a different opinion.Sorry someone made the Nazi implication, but, and this is important, did anyone know you were German before that post came up? If not, I doubt it was intended to be as specific of a direct attack.
Singular cases don´t make for a general rule...I think you did right, but with less luck you could have ended up like your friend, maybe getting your nuts shot off with your own gun (yes, it happens)
In my experience, even "gun nuts" who have never had the misfortune of being required to defend themselves with a firearm fully understand how important the Right to Choose an effective means of Self Defense actually is. Having a 220+lb guy come at you with a crowbar tends to remind most people just how fragile they actually are.

A healthy, well-off person can Choose to spend years in a dojo learning the fine art of kickbuttfu, but a poor or disabled person can't. A poor or disabled person often CAN, however, purchase a firearm - the use of which, in the vast majority of cases, involves simply pointing it at the badguy and saying "Go Away. Now."

People who have a gut-level, and political aversion to firearms would take away the right of the poor and defenseless to CHOOSE whether and how to defend themselves until Law Enforcement help can arrive (if they ever do).

Look at my sig. I'm not "pro-gun", I'm pro CHOICE. I'm pro Self Defense. Dive me a reliable, effective, non-lethal, multiple-target capable self-defense tool and I will be inclined to agree that urban civillians (really, urban anyone) "needs" a (lethal) firearm. (this, of course, excludes sport/hunting arms) But we don't. The TAZER is a start, but it is still neither good enough, nor engagement-capable enough to be considered as anything but an alternative to be used BEFORE you have to use your gun.

But so far, the intellectually disingenuous refuse to accept that laws only restrict the honest from being allowed to CHOOSE... (unless, of course those laws go anywhere near reproductive choices... :rolleyes: )

Maybe someday. :headbang:

Criminals fear armed civilians more than police. I know this by conducting informal surveys of convicted criminals. No stats, no documents, no sources, because you ignored every single one I put up, simply bypassing the truth, so there is my last thought on this subject. I carry a gun every day, all day, and the fact is I don't particularly care what any foriegners think about it. Have a nice day.

my position on guns is that the only ones that should be legal to civilans are single shot guns so that if you want to go hunting its sport and not slawter the animals and if you want to kill some one you will have a much harder time and for those texans that what to have guns all over the place...i just think that thats not safe

my position on guns is that the only ones that should be legal to civilans are single shot guns so that if you want to go hunting its sport and not slawter the animals and if you want to kill some one you will have a much harder time and for those texans that what to have guns all over the place...i just think that thats not safe

Yes, that's why in Montgomery County, Maryland, where they can't carry guns, and most models are restricted, you have 65 percent more violent crime and murder (and twice the police!) of Fairfax County, Virginia, where people can walk around with pistols both openly and concealed.

my position on guns is that the only ones that should be legal to civilans are single shot guns so that if you want to go hunting its sport and not slawter the animals and if you want to kill some one you will have a much harder time and for those texans that what to have guns all over the place...i just think that thats not safe

{sarcasm}No biased opinion here. No, none at all . {sarcasm} :rolleyes:

Can anyone think of one law that keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals or can prevent a criminal from using a weapon for crime ?
What do current or proposed gun laws do but put restrictions on non - criminals ? What is the point of restricting or removing the rights of someone who is not a criminal ?

{sarcasm}No biased opinion here. No, none at all . {sarcasm} :rolleyes:
It's a good example of why the Maryland gun laws are as ignorant and silly as they are.

You should see their handgun review board, which is composed mostly of people who have no idea what end the bullet comes out of. They vote on whether or not a handgun is "appropriate", "safe", and has the "features" they approve of.

It's a good example of why the Maryland gun laws are as ignorant and silly as they are.

You should see their handgun review board, which is composed mostly of people who have no idea what end the bullet comes out of. They vote on whether or not a handgun is "appropriate", "safe", and has the "features" they approve of.

Wasn't there some evidence that for the CAWB, sponsors of the bill went through firearm magazines and added ones that looked scary to increase the number in the bill?

Wasn't there some evidence that for the CAWB, sponsors of the bill went through firearm magazines and added ones that looked scary to increase the number in the bill?

Yes. What's interesting is that there is a pistol I own, the Mauser M2, which was not approved by the board because, and I quote one of the members, "it looks like a gun I saw in The Bourne Identity".

It has so many safeties that it isn't funny. Probably one of the "safer" pistols designed. But not approved because it "scared" one of the board members.

Maybe they wern't need to defend themselves from armed looters if there wern't so many guns around.

first.. good job. what was this about 3 seconds of thinking
second.. there will always be guns around
third.. even if guns were totally banned from civilians. looters and robbers and rapists would still be armed there already breaking the law so whats to stop them from using guns there not the hard to get evin if illegal

Not a gun nut. I carry a gun every day, and I am not a policeman. It has stopped three robberies with no further incident.

Would you rather that I was robbed and killed?

Would you rather I suffered the fate of my personal friend who, like you, thought I was a gun nut? He cooperated with his robbers, and had his hands cut off with a machete.

I suppose you think he did the right thing, and I did the wrong thing three times.
as he snaps his fingers..... :D

people should have guns if they feel safer with them. I agree. police do not come quick enough.

Some of the anti-gun people seem to think that making guns illegal will make them *poof* magically disappear from the hands of the criminals who didn't get them legally in the first place.

Admittedly: We all know how making stuff illegal just makes it *poof* go away. Like there is no marijuana, crack, heroin, etc., because all illegal drugs just went *poof* when they were made illegal. Nope, no drugs at all, allllll gone.

Yeah, I'll feel so much better when I *KNOW* that the gun that Joe Crackhead is shooting me with couldn't possibly be legal for him to own.

:headbang:

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

How many people are killed in vehicle-related incidents, yet there is no public outcry for the government to gather them up and scrap them?

In the end, noone is changing their minds. We should just get it over with, and have an all out war over this. All the anti-guners can go house to house (unarmed) and try to collect all those evil guns that the evil people have in their homes.

Then we can put the unemployed to work sponging the anti-gunners off the sidewalk. Problem solved.

Maybe feed the remains to the homeless.

In the end, noone is changing their minds. We should just get it over with, and have an all out war over this. All the anti-guners can go house to house (unarmed) and try to collect all those evil guns that the evil people have in their homes.

Then we can put the unemployed to work sponging the anti-gunners off the sidewalk. Problem solved.

Maybe feed the remains to the homeless.

In debates like these, it rarely comes down to "changing someones mind". It's mostly just countering the other sides spin from being presented as absolute truth.

In debates like these, it rarely comes down to "changing someones mind". It's mostly just countering the other sides spin from being presented as absolute truth.

But the premise to this one is totally assinine to begin with. The Second Amendment is not unclear, and doesn't allow for any body (local, state, or federal) to regulate gun ownership.

And the anti-gunners can't grasp the simplest concept, that NO law is ever going to stop criminals from getting and using guns. And criminals are the ONLY ones who need to be stopped.

It's like arguing physics with an infant. Why bother?

Yes, that's why in Montgomery County, Maryland, where they can't carry guns, and most models are restricted, you have 65 percent more violent crime and murder (and twice the police!) of Fairfax County, Virginia, where people can walk around with pistols both openly and concealed.
Yeah, and people can walk around Richmond, Virginia with "pistols both openly and concealed" and the murder rate there is 50 per 100,000 or ten times higher than Virginia's rate. I guess it just depends where you are in Virginia?

But the premise to this one is totally assinine to begin with. The Second Amendment is not unclear, and doesn't allow for any body (local, state, or federal) to regulate gun ownership.

And the anti-gunners can't grasp the simplest concept, that NO law is ever going to stop criminals from getting and using guns. And criminals are the ONLY ones who need to be stopped.

It's like arguing physics with an infant. Why bother?

Running w/ that metaphor: :)

If that infant cries loud and long enough, someone is going to anything to shut it up, hence the BB, CAWB and the various bans and attempted bans, regulations, etc. on countless other types of firearms.

All of this boils down to one thing. Those who want to ban guns (no I'm not saying you) will continue to "tighten" the laws until private ownership is removed and any excuse will be used to accomplish it.
Ownership does not have to be removed. The law needs to be changed to make gun owners more responsible. Over $4 Million in guns have been stolen in the past two years from Virginia homes. That is excessive, and that is just Virginia. Obviously these stolen guns end up at crime scenes all over America.

Also, there are probably way too many gun dealers and gun shows.

Waiting periods and background checks should be mandatory.

There is no conclusive evidence that "tighter" gun laws have any effect on crime, yet even you continue to argue that laws such as the BB reduced crime.
Obviously the BB was a start in the right direction and I do believe that it is through laws such as those that help cut down on guns falling into the hands of criminals.

The gun banners then use the arguement "See, these laws coincided w/ a decrease in crime therefor if we tighten them more, crime will drop more". If Crime goes up, the arguement becomes " The laws on the books are not enough, We must tighten gun laws some more."
There needs to be uniform federal laws dealing with the purchase, and storage of weapons.

In Chicago, a registration system was passed w/ the usual promises of lower crime, all for safety, no further restrictions, won't effect ownership, etc. A few years later, the registration was ended. Defacto gun ban. The result: crime w/ handguns increased for years. No effect on crime. The same happened in DC. The same is happening in Canada. The registration system was included w/ many false promises and , now w/ an increase in a city, the banners are attempting to take the next step towards stopping private ownership completely. The same as in the UK.
In Chicago, year 2002, 50% of guns used in the commission of a crime were from out of State. In DC, it was a whopping 97%. The majority of crime guns in DC came from two States, Maryland 30% and Virginia 28.7%. It would appear that a lot of those stolen guns from Virginia ($4 Million in 2 years) are ending up in DC. In New York State, 85% of crime guns are from out of State, and the biggest supplier is Virginia at 14%.

Most of the crime guns in New York, and DC are from Southern States with lax gun laws.

It is a shame that these guns are falling into the hands of criminals because it feeds a viscious circle.

I found this city: Kennesaw, Georgia. In this city, every house must have at least 1 gun and suitable ammunition in it. It was enacted in 1982 in response to a gun ban in another city. There are very few exceptions to this mandatory ownership. Felons are, of course, exempted, as are those who go down to register themselves as Conscientious objectors, and a few other special criteria.

Here's a link to their crime statistics:

Linky~ (http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/index.asp?NID=137)

I'm not saying that the guns caused lower crime, but I do believe that, given the statistics, it is fair to say it was a contributing factor.

I found this city: Kennesaw, Georgia. In this city, every house must have at least 1 gun and suitable ammunition in it. It was enacted in 1982 in response to a gun ban in another city. There are very few exceptions to this mandatory ownership. Felons are, of course, exempted, as are those who go down to register themselves as Conscientious objectors, and a few other special criteria.

Here's a link to their crime statistics:

Linky~ (http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/index.asp?NID=137)

I'm not saying that the guns caused lower crime, but I do believe that, given the statistics, it is fair to say it was a contributing factor.
It looks like a 33% increase in burglaries between 2002 and 2003 :eek: :

City of Kennesaw 2002

Population: 22,664

Burglaries (per 100,000): 264


City of Kennesaw 2003

Population: 25,183

Burglaries (per 100,000): 353

It looks like a 33% increase in burglaries between 2002 and 2003 :eek: :

Yeah I caught that. Is it the gun laws? It's really hard to say, given the massive dropoff after the law was implemented. It may have something to do with it.

Article [II.]
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.

Just a quick note here:

Read this particular line as a cause / effect statement (it is).

A well regulated (armed - per a previous post) Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Regardless of the cause, the effect is the same. The Article could read: "Because we effin feel like it, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The effect remains the same - the people have the right to bear arms.

And yes, I expect the argument to be turned on me by saying that the effect clause could be changed as well - but we all know that's a fallacious argument because the effect clause of any law is what matters. Changing the effect clause changes the law whereas changing the cause clause doesnt.

Personally I think people shoud have the right to guns. But I think the safest way (for both you and criminal) is to keep at shotgun with only 1 shel(empty) in the chamber. Then use the pump action to eject it. The sound is creepy to a guy in the dark in a place he doesn't seem familiar in. Also, have a tazer under your pillow might be good for short term otice and stuff. But hat happens if you jostle it while sleeping and shoot it into you hand? that would hurt.

Police are not supposed to protect you to the extent of not getting yourself killed. They are there to enforce the law and to make sure people abide by it. But if you know the police are 10 blocks away, then the person should; A. run and call for help to a neighbor, or hide in a really safe place, or B, buy a tazer and zap the guy whose breaking in.

This is a contriversial topic, everyone has opinoins, Anyone could be wrong or right.

Yeah I caught that. Is it the gun laws? It's really hard to say, given the massive dropoff after the law was implemented. It may have something to do with it.
Hard to say, they only show stats for burglaries so it is hard to make any kind of informed opinion?

What about murders and rapes? Would be interesting to see, although, it is only a small town.

Hard to say, they only show stats for burglaries so it is hard to make any kind of informed opinion?

What about murders and rapes? Would be interesting to see, although, it is only a small town.

It is frustrating. It does make a note below though that is very interesting:

"It is also noted that crimes involving the use of a firearm are less than 2% of the total crimes reported."

What many people fail to realize about law enforcement agencies is that they are there to enforce the laws - post criminal activity. The laws - not the police department - are intended to deter would-be criminals . Until a criminal act has been committed, the police are powerless.

As any locksmith will tell you, locks simply keep honest people honest. Police cruising the streets do the same thing - keep honest people honest.

Therefore, expecting to be able to rely on the Police to keep criminal activity from happening is hardly a reasonable expectation.

It is frustrating. It does make a note below though that is very interesting:

"It is also noted that crimes involving the use of a firearm are less than 2% of the total crimes reported."
The murder rate in New York has dropped from 2,245 in 1990 to 572 in 2004 or 392%. I wonder if that has to do with gun control, and improved policing?

The murder rate in New York has dropped from 2,245 in 1990 to 572 in 2004 or 392%. I wonder if that has to do with gun control, and improved policing?
Show me a graph showing crime for each of those years, along with gun control legislation passed for each of those years.

SHOW ME that there is a coroboration between gun control legislation and the decrease in murder rate.

Show me a graph showing crime for each of those years, along with gun control legislation passed for each of those years.

SHOW ME that there is a coroboration between gun control legislation and the decrease in murder rate.
The gun control was already in place and the policing was improved through COMPSTAT.

Are you aware that 85% of the guns used in Crime in New York State come from out of State? Most of the guns come from the Southern States, with Virginia @ 14% being the largest single supplier?

The gun control was already in place and the policing was improved through COMPSTAT.

Are you aware that 85% of the guns used in Crime in New York State come from out of State? Most of the guns come from the Southern States, with Virginia @ 14% being the largest single supplier?

SHOW me that the gun control is directly responsible.

I should go back and post the statistics of the chart relating the coincidental facts of increased global warming and the decline of pirates without showing any other pertinant information (such as related legislation, increase of naval vigilance, etc.). But then you'd accuse me of using a strawman argument, or an irrelevant comparison.

The point is that until you can show me statistically that gun control has had a definitive effect on murder rates in NYC, I will choose to believe that they are merely coincidental facts.

Are you aware that 85% of the guns used in Crime in New York State come from out of State? Most of the guns come from the Southern States, with Virginia @ 14% being the largest single supplier?

BTW, all this proves is the point that criminals will obtain firearms - regardless of gun control.

BTW, all this proves is the point that criminals will obtain firearms - regardless of gun control.
That is why other States should enact better gun control.

$4 Million worth of guns stolen in Virginia past 2 years.

That is why other States should enact better gun control.

$4 Million worth of guns stolen in Virginia past 2 years.

Because it kept the weapons out of NYC? Criminals will still get weapons - regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Hmm. Reading through this thread further, I still haven't found any decent arguments as to why calling the police is a better method of self defence against an attacker than a firearm.

Regardless of the cause, the effect is the same. The Article could read: "Because we effin feel like it, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I like this language much better than the original. :D

What many people fail to realize about law enforcement agencies is that they are there to enforce the laws - post criminal activity. The laws - not the police department - are intended to deter would-be criminals . Until a criminal act has been committed, the police are powerless.

As any locksmith will tell you, locks simply keep honest people honest. Police cruising the streets do the same thing - keep honest people honest.

Therefore, expecting to be able to rely on the Police to keep criminal activity from happening is hardly a reasonable expectation.

An excellent point, and one that I think many people fail to consider. The point of the police is law enforcement, not crime prevention. If the police happen to be around at the time of a crime, all's well and good, of course. But they probably won't be.

If the police happen to be around at the time of a crime, all's well and good, of course. But they probably won't be.

To be perfectly fair, they try to be. I mean there's a reason they do have those guns and radios and cruisers and such. And why you can find them at places which are thought likely to be a scene of criminal activity.

To be perfectly fair, they try to be. I mean there's a reason they do have those guns and radios and cruisers and such. And why you can find them at places which are thought likely to be a scene of criminal activity.

Yes, but until a crime is actually committed, they are powerless.

Note that waving a gun in someone's face constitutes "assault" and can therefore be acted on...etc.

Sorry someone made the Nazi implication, but, and this is important, did anyone know you were German before that post came up? If not, I doubt it was intended to be as specific of a direct attack.


Yes, yes, I "outed" me before...things like this tend to harden the frontlines, especially if personally meant and with kind of dipshit historical background

Sorry someone made the Nazi implication, but, and this is important, did anyone know you were German before that post came up? If not, I doubt it was intended to be as specific of a direct attack.

The Discussion was about gun control and death rates in Germany, and then this:
hey you might ask yourself about hitler and keep you nazi ideas of the net about people personal property.

CK: Don't take that kind of shit. That is a personal insult of the highest order, and I'm utterly appalled that most people (that includes you, Syniks) didn't seem to care.

Thanks for support...hamburgers should stay together

But no problem with people outing them to be historically retarded

The murder rate in New York has dropped from 2,245 in 1990 to 572 in 2004 or 392%. I wonder if that has to do with gun control, and improved policing?
Actually, improved policing has little to do with it, rather it's the number of police per capita. However, that only explains NYC's drop beyond the Nat. Avg. rate, not the reason crime itself began dropping.

CK: Don't take that kind of shit. That is a personal insult of the highest order, and I'm utterly appalled that most people (that includes you, Syniks) didn't seem to care.Sorry, you are absolutely correct Leonstein. Mea Culpa. I only scanned the thread and completely missed the quote. I simply assumed it was one of the typical introductions of the application of the German Gun Control Act that disarmed anyone that did not have party approval.

Had I actually seen the quote referenced (I did join this thread late) when it was made I would have said somthing. Sorry CK. :(

Ownership does not have to be removed. The law needs to be changed to make gun owners more responsible. Over $4 Million in guns have been stolen in the past two years from Virginia homes. That is excessive, and that is just Virginia. Obviously these stolen guns end up at crime scenes all over America.

Your dollar value is arbitrary. Who set the value? How many actual firearms was it? What was the difference in number from one year to another?

How would you make them more "responsible"? Would you endorse home inspections? If yes, Would you accept that for other things? I've already mentioned the purpose behind "safe storage".

Also, there are probably way too many gun dealers and gun shows.

The victims of the hurricanes sure don't think so as sales have jumped over 30% since the gov't failed them. The same happened after 9/11 and after every major tradgedy. Yet you want MORE authority in the hands of the Gov't.

Waiting periods and background checks should be mandatory.

No evidence that Waiting periods do anything. Background checks are already mandatory. I support that w/ the NICS. You oppose that system though.


Obviously the BB was a start in the right direction and I do believe that it is through laws such as those that help cut down on guns falling into the hands of criminals.

Its nice that you "believe" that. There's still no evidence that it (and others of its ilk ) do anything to lower crime.


There needs to be uniform federal laws dealing with the purchase, and storage of weapons.

There are federal laws dealing w/ purchase. Your "safe storage" ideas once again reduce the effectiveness of self-defense and are only designed to make it prohibitively expensive for people to own.


In Chicago, year 2002, 50% of guns used in the commission of a crime were from out of State. In DC, it was a whopping 97%. The majority of crime guns in DC came from two States, Maryland 30% and Virginia 28.7%. It would appear that a lot of those stolen guns from Virginia ($4 Million in 2 years) are ending up in DC. In New York State, 85% of crime guns are from out of State, and the biggest supplier is Virginia at 14%.

Chicago's gun ban went into effect in 1982. I've shown you those stats before.

Source your numbers. Prove they came from the South and/or Virginia. What years are your sources from? Why did DC's crime trend REVERSE after they banned handguns? (once again after making the usual promises)

Most of the crime guns in New York, and DC are from Southern States with lax gun laws.

Once again, source it.

It is a shame that these guns are falling into the hands of criminals because it feeds a viscious circle.

I'm glad you completely missed the point of my post and just threw out a few statistics, ignoring the questions. It's things like that that lead me to believe that, no matter what you say, you are against personal ownership. Not a thing you mentioned in this post barring background checks effects criminals in the slightest. It only effects those that actually follow the laws and yet you continue to endorse them.

It looks like a 33% increase in burglaries between 2002 and 2003 :eek: :



OMG! A slight increase in a one year period! The Law is a failure! Ban All Guns! They're causing crime!
:rolleyes:

Once again, source it.

He can't

I'm glad you completely missed the point of my post and just threw out a few statistics, ignoring the questions. It's things like that that lead me to believe that, no matter what you say, you are against personal ownership. Not a thing you mentioned in this post barring background checks effects criminals in the slightest. It only effects those that actually follow the laws and yet you continue to endorse them.

I would love for Canuck to come to Herndon, Virginia. There is a large MS-13 gang here that robs people and kills them - and they don't carry guns.

They stay well away from people who carry guns. And they rob, and then cut the hands off people who are unarmed. Happens every once in a while.

Montgomery County, Maryland has the same gang. Up there, the gang members kill and maim far more people than they do down here - because they know that NO ONE has a gun on them.

Canuck should visit. We could go for a walk at night in Herndon. And when we're approached by MS-13 members, I'll show my pistol and walk away. And I'll make sure to say, in Spanish, that Canuck here is unarmed. And I'll leave him there.

Oh, I'll be sure to call the police on my cell phone after I'm well away. But given the response time of about 45 minutes, he probably won't have any hands by that time.

He can't


I would love for Canuck to come to Herndon, Virginia. There is a large MS-13 gang here that robs people and kills them - and they don't carry guns.

They stay well away from people who carry guns. And they rob, and then cut the hands off people who are unarmed. Happens every once in a while.

Montgomery County, Maryland has the same gang. Up there, the gang members kill and maim far more people than they do down here - because they know that NO ONE has a gun on them.

Canuck should visit. We could go for a walk at night in Herndon. And when we're approached by MS-13 members, I'll show my pistol and walk away. And I'll make sure to say, in Spanish, that Canuck here is unarmed. And I'll leave him there.

Oh, I'll be sure to call the police on my cell phone after I'm well away. But given the response time of about 45 minutes, he probably won't have any hands by that time.
Apparently they do have guns and do shoot people, and kill with guns.

Apparently they do like machetes.

Apparently, because I am anti-gun, you would like to see harm done do me, just to prove your point. That doesn't make you any better of a person.

Apparently the media wants to blame Bush's immigration policies for the MS 13 infiltration.

Apparently they do have guns and do shoot people, and kill with guns.

Apparently they do like machetes.

Apparently, because I am anti-gun, you would like to see harm done do me, just to prove your point. That doesn't make you any better of a person.

Apparently the media wants to blame Bush's immigration policies for the MS 13 infiltration.

No, I'm saying that your moral stance on guns, and my respect for your beliefs, would prevent me from violating that moral stance (by using a gun to save you), even at the cost of your life.

Apparently keeping kids ignorant will keep them safe...

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2005/09/28/local/iq_3701578.txt

Opposition Alderman Pete Karas, who is leading the charge against the police department's efforts, said the booklets are harmful and ineffective, teaching children that guns are for adults, which could further a child's interest in the weapons.

But the NRA's Eddie Eagle can help children of all ages know not to touch guns, to leave the area where they found the gun and to find an adult, "and that's the only thing the gun program teaches," said Sgt. Bill Macemon, Racine Police Department spokesman.

Guns are the easy way out. Arm everyone, make everyone equal, then let them fight it out. What chance does one armer person have against a gang of armed rapist? just about the same chance as if everyone wasnt armed ..except less people get killed.

Guns are great. Let the idiots kill themselves off.

...Or how about you actually deal with the problems with society. People wouldnt loot if they werent so poor and desperate. People wouldnt rape if they were brought up properly. People wouldnt be so fucking stupid if you educated them. Then maybe you wouldnt need morons running around waving their guns in the air.

...Or how about you actually deal with the problems with society. People wouldnt loot if they werent so poor and desperate. People wouldnt rape if they were brought up properly. People wouldnt be so fucking stupid if you educated them. Then maybe you wouldnt need morons running around waving their guns in the air.

Wanna help the poor? Airdrop condoms.

So now I have to take responsibility for parenting, educating, and feeding the poor? Why don't their parents? Why don't the parents consider their situation before they start breeding? Why are all their mistakes my problem?

This is why the poor slobs exist, you enable them by blaming everyone else for THEIR problems.

Guns are the easy way out. Arm everyone, make everyone equal, then let them fight it out. What chance does one armer person have against a gang of armed rapist? just about the same chance as if everyone wasnt armed ..except less people get killed.

Guns are great. Let the idiots kill themselves off.

...Or how about you actually deal with the problems with society. People wouldnt loot if they werent so poor and desperate. People wouldnt rape if they were brought up properly. People wouldnt be so fucking stupid if you educated them. Then maybe you wouldnt need morons running around waving their guns in the air.

An ignorant, uninformed, stereotyped, US bashing as your first post.(assuming you're not just a puppet) Congratulations. You've just lowered the collective IQ of this forum.

Guns are the easy way out. Arm everyone, make everyone equal, then let them fight it out. What chance does one armer person have against a gang of armed rapist? just about the same chance as if everyone wasnt armed ..except less people get killed.

Guns are great. Let the idiots kill themselves off.

...Or how about you actually deal with the problems with society. People wouldnt loot if they werent so poor and desperate. People wouldnt rape if they were brought up properly. People wouldnt be so fucking stupid if you educated them. Then maybe you wouldnt need morons running around waving their guns in the air.

If you arm everyone, few risk fighting it out. An armed society is generally a polite one.

Rape is not prevented by being brought up properly. Some people cannot be educated (we're not all equally intelligent, you know).

And most of the people I've met who are legal gun owners are highly educated people. And yes, we all have our guns on us whenever we go out.

Wanna help the poor? Airdrop condoms.

So now I have to take responsibility for parenting, educating, and feeding the poor? Why don't their parents? Why don't the parents consider their situation before they start breeding? Why are all their mistakes my problem?

This is why the poor slobs exist, you enable them by blaming everyone else for THEIR problems.
However, just by ignoring the problem, you are allowing the status quo to remain and over time worsen. I guess that is one of the failings of capitalistic societies?

Why do people still debate this shit? Guns aren't going away. Ever. Especially not in the United States. The NRA is far too wealthy for guns to "go out of style."

Further more, idiot children + guns = tragedy. The only solution to this is proper parenting which is pretty damned scarce these days. Far too many omgwtf-liberal parents. All they teach their children about guns is that they're bad and dangerous. That's it. These are the children who are going to die when their idiot friend, who's parents are pro-gun but haven't bothered to properly teach their kids either, brings over his dad's pistol and they all gather 'round in wonder.

It's not impossible to teach your kids to be safe with guns. I saw a 10 year old, who has no real interest in guns, pick up a rifle off the ground. He kept it pointed at the ground and checked to see if it was loaded. After discovering that it was loaded, he put the safety on and brought it to his dad to deal with. All the while keeping his fingers well away from the trigger.

Being an adult, I could've taken control of the situation at any time. But instead of just assuming that the kid was an absolute retard and taking the gun away from him, I stood nearby and watched to see what he did. Now had he started waving the gun around or had gone for the trigger right away or something equally as stupid, I would've stopped him well before he could've got to the trigger.

I found out later that his dad left it there for him to find. It was loaded with blanks. But the point is, teach your kids about guns. It will keep them far safer than if they know nothing. You don't have to teach them the whole 9 yards about guns either. Start with the basics. If you see a gun around the house, pick it up, keeping fingers far from the trigger. Check to see if it's loaded. Put the safety on. Hold it in a non-firing fashion and bring it to the parents.

Why not just tell them to leave it sit there? Because other parents are down right stupid. They don't teach their kids anything about guns. So your kid leaves it there to go get you so you can properly deal with the gun. In the time it takes your kid to get to you and you to get back to the gun, some other kid already has the gun. Maybe blown another kid away. Why? 'Cause they're stupid. They didn't check to see if it was loaded. They didn't put it on safe. They held it in a firing fashion. And, like an idiot, they pointed the gun at their friend.

Now, all the pro-gun stuff aside, here's some gun control stuff.

Waiting period. As far as I know, there aren't any real numbers to associate with this issue to prove that it's effective in preventing gun related crimes or not. I'm all for a waiting period. I think it does help in preventing *some* in-the-heat killings. Note I said some. Now I don't have any factual evidence to back this up. But what I can say is this. How many people do you know who would go up to a police officer and say "Hey, just for the record, I bought this gun here with the intent to kill my friend 'cause he stole my woman, but I got my wits about me during the 5 day waiting period and decided he's not worth my time." Not too many I would assume. That is why there are no numbers to assign to the issue.

There. I'm done writing my book now. Enjoy.
:sniper: :mp5:

However, just by ignoring the problem, you are allowing the status quo to remain and over time worsen. I guess that is one of the failings of capitalistic societies?

So now you oppose private enterprise as well?

So now you oppose private enterprise as well?
It's obvious that Canuck believes that only the government should have guns, and only the government should have everything else.

And he would make it stay that way, because the government would have all the guns, and we wouldn't have any.

No, I'm saying that your moral stance on guns, and my respect for your beliefs, would prevent me from violating that moral stance (by using a gun to save you), even at the cost of your life.
That is not the way you presented the situation. You presented the situation that you would take me to an area that would be dangerous to my life, tell those people that I was unarmed and then leave me in that dangerous environment. That makes you no better than the people that you demean.

BTW, I live in an area where there is no "gun culture", and the murder rates are a lot lower than those of the US. People don't feel the need to walk around with guns to protect themselves.

That is not the way you presented the situation. You presented the situation that you would take me to an area that would be dangerous to my life, tell those people that I was unarmed and then leave me in that dangerous environment. That makes you no better than the people that you demean.

BTW, I live in an area where there is no "gun culture", and the murder rates are a lot lower than those of the US. People don't feel the need to walk around with guns to protect themselves.

Nope. I live in an area where you'll meet these people every day. They respect strength and force. And not much else. So if you came down for a visit, I would not be taking you anywhere except to the grocery store, or to Starbucks, or to the mall.

It would be obvious that you were unarmed.

And I would leave you in their hands, because if you do not believe your life is worth defending, why should I place any value on it?

There. I'm done writing my book now. Enjoy.
:sniper: :mp5:
Good book BTW.

but I guess even rodents need to defend themselves. :D


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/gerbil.jpg

It's obvious that Canuck believes that only the government should have guns, and only the government should have everything else.

And he would make it stay that way, because the government would have all the guns, and we wouldn't have any.
We have had tons of debate WL and I have never suggested that only the Government should have guns, and you should know better than making that assumption about my beliefs.

That is not the way you presented the situation. You presented the situation that you would take me to an area that would be dangerous to my life, tell those people that I was unarmed and then leave me in that dangerous environment. That makes you no better than the people that you demean. .

So you admit that you're trying to disarm the populace?

BTW, I live in an area where there is no "gun culture", and the murder rates are a lot lower than those of the US. People don't feel the need to walk around with guns to protect themselves.

Canada has a significant "Gun Culture". As usual, you're just using the gun banners terminology to redefine it as the criminal culture. Kind of like "Sporters" were redefined as "Assault Weapons", etc.

We have had tons of debate WL and I have never suggested that only the Government should have guns, and you should know better than making that assumption about my beliefs.

Well, I have a question for you then.

If you do not personally believe that your life is worth defending (doing the defense personally), then why do you think that someone else, even someone paid to do so, would believe your life is worth defending?

If you don't think it's worth personally defending, why would you expect me to place any value on it at all?

And I would leave you in their hands, because if you do not believe your life is worth defending, why should I place any value on it?
Of course my life is worth defending and I believe that the world will be much safer if there less guns in the wrong hands.

I think you have a sick sense as to the value of human life? Is that what wars do to people?

We have had tons of debate WL and I have never suggested that only the Government should have guns, and you should know better than making that assumption about my beliefs.

These assumptions are being made due to the fact that you continuously defend laws that have been proven to be useless and support other laws that do nothing but make it more difficult for people to own and/or impossible to defend themselves.

Your references to "alledged or supposed LAC's" and leveling more accountability/responsibility for crime on those who follow the laws in lieu of the criminals consistently lends support to those assumptions.

Of course my life is worth defending and I believe that the world will be much safer if there less guns in the wrong hands.

I think you have a sick sense as to the value of human life? Is that what wars do to people?

Nope. If you won't defend yourself when attacked, why should I defend you? That's what I'm asking.

Only 7 percent of violent crime in the US involves a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. "

Are you saying that the other 93 percent would magically disappear if there were no guns?

Or do you think that it would have been better for me to have my hands chopped off during three robbery attempts?

Or do you think that it's better to let men beat their wives who attempt to leave them?

I live in a county where effectively, every legal concealed weapon permit holder is essentially a policeman - with the power of life and death. And the felons here know it. Since the vast majority of the felons have NO guns, it tips the balance rather far in my favor.

Of course my life is worth defending and I believe that the world will be much safer if there less guns in the wrong hands.?
Then why do you support all these laws that only inhibit the "right hands"?

You oppose CC. Would you allow yourself to be defended by someone legally carrying?

I think you have a sick sense as to the value of human life? Is that what wars do to people?

RED HERRING ALERT!!

Nope. If you won't defend yourself when attacked, why should I defend you? That's what I'm asking.

Only 7 percent of violent crime in the US involves a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. "

Are you saying that the other 93 percent would magically disappear if there were no guns?
Your figures are misleading. Perhaps you should focus on this statistic:

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms."

That is from the same page you referenced.

The irony in all of this, is that in your State of Virginia, where open and concealed weapons are allowed, the murder rate by guns jumps to 72%. That information seems to fly in the face of the statement that "an armed society is a polite society"?

I live in a county where effectively, every legal concealed weapon permit holder is essentially a policeman - with the power of life and death. And the felons here know it. Since the vast majority of the felons have NO guns, it tips the balance rather far in my favor.
It appears that your statement doesn't survive the litmus test, given the increased murder by guns in your State?

i tend to see that people against guns, have never really shot a gun, they have no idea how a gun works, or its safety devices.

sure there are some whackos out there that seem to just hand them to their 4 year olds, but thats how many in out of how many own guns?

if guns were outlawed, there would be a rise of illegal guns, and no guns to fight back with.

Your figures are misleading. Perhaps you should focus on this statistic:

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms."

That is from the same page you referenced.

The irony in all of this, is that in your State of Virginia, where open and concealed weapons are allowed, the murder rate by guns jumps to 72%. That information seems to fly in the face of the statement that "an armed society is a polite society"?


It appears that your statement doesn't survive the litmus test, given the increased murder by guns in your State?

Now what percentage of those murders are committed w/ legally owned firearms? What is the ratio of CC holders to non-cc holoders within the varying crime rate areas? What were the percentages of gun murders against unarmed victims?

Your statements on the BB have not held up to any "Litmus Test" and yet you still endorse it.

http://www.charactercounts.org/rskstats.htm (stats)

I don't know what the background of that site is, but seeing these numbers kind of scares me.

God, this is such a non-argument.
Quite obviosuly, more people with guns = more gun crime = bad thing; and no conclusive evidence has been produced to contradict this.
Yeah, suddenly banning guns probably isn't a good idea, but there's really no need to argue in favour of the damn things.
I hate to break it to the gun nuts out there, but most people tend to move on from the whole sad cowboy fantasies in front of the mirror thing after adolescence.

it's meant to it's anti-gun propaganda. BTW fix your link


http://www.charactercounts.org/rskstats.htm (stats)

I don't know what the background of that site is, but seeing these numbers kind of scares me.

MMMM let me guess you read none of this thread but though your opinion should be added anyway? :headbang:


God, this is such a non-argument.
Quite obviosuly, more people with guns = more gun crime = bad thing; and no conclusive evidence has been produced to contradict this.
Yeah, suddenly banning guns probably isn't a good idea, but there's really no need to argue in favour of the damn things.
I hate to break it to the gun nuts out there, but most people tend to move on from the whole sad cowboy fantasies in front of the mirror thing after adolescence.

http://www.charactercounts.org/rskstats.htm (stats)

I don't know what the background of that site is, but seeing these numbers kind of scares me.

That's a prime example of lying w/ statistics. The definition of "children" varies depending on the source used, at time equaling mid-twenties. They also show many percentages w/o correlating population increase or raw numbers to base it off of. It also doesn't account for gangs, drugs, etc which are much higher in the 15-24 age range. The international comparisons don't reference what crime levels were before the various bans.

If you look at the real numbers (posted earlier in this thread), actual "children" dying by firearms is low, especially due to the fact that there are hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms in the US.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
"Most of the crime guns in New York, and DC are from Southern States with lax gun laws."

Once again, source it.

ATF CRIME GUN TRACE REPORT Washington, D. C.

Page 24 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/washingtondc.pdf)

Maryland 30%
Virginia 28.7%
North Carolina 9.6%
Lesser percentages:
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
District of Columbia 2.9%
Pennsylvania (only northern State) 2.4%
Florida
Texas

Therefore, a whopping 97.1% of crime guns in Washington DC came from mostly Southern States.

God, this is such a non-argument.
Quite obviosuly, more people with guns = more gun crime = bad thing; and no conclusive evidence has been produced to contradict this.

And here we go. He wants us to prove a negative! Never mind that proving a positive has never been done...

Well, I live in England and the absence of guns still causes murder, rape, muggigns ect..i'm a student..if we carried guns then we could defend ourselves against the "black-market" people who buy drugs, guns ect..I got knives but I dont carry them around, I have a revolver but its blocked..I wish we had guns...then i'd shoot myself.

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
Guns Rule!!! 911 Drools!

Sorry, you are absolutely correct Leonstein. Mea Culpa. I only scanned the thread and completely missed the quote. I simply assumed it was one of the typical introductions of the application of the German Gun Control Act that disarmed anyone that did not have party approval.

Had I actually seen the quote referenced (I did join this thread late) when it was made I would have said somthing. Sorry CK. :(

Thank you, good to see someone with a brain here... :)

Thank you, good to see someone with a brain here... :)
Oh, I don't know about that. I am a "gun-nut" after all! ;)

Yes, but there are good nuts and bad nuts, like in real life ;)

But I truly appreciate your excuse, thank you!

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
"Most of the crime guns in New York, and DC are from Southern States with lax gun laws."



ATF CRIME GUN TRACE REPORT Washington, D. C.

Page 24 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/washingtondc.pdf)

Maryland 30%
Virginia 28.7%
North Carolina 9.6%
Lesser percentages:
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
District of Columbia 2.9%
Pennsylvania (only northern State) 2.4%
Florida
Texas

Therefore, a whopping 97.1% of crime guns in Washington DC came from mostly Southern States.

Maryland is not a "southern state". It also has very restrictive gun laws and accounts for the majority. And SHOCK, the majority (59%) come from the states neighboring DC.

Where do you get 97.1%. Is this more Canuckian math? How does this prove anything about New York? How did you put it earlier? "Your figures are misleading". Since nowhere in that document does it mention 97.1% or New York, sounds like your inventing your own.

So now you're discriminating and stereotyping "Southern States" w/ "lax gun laws" even though you've proven repeatedly you know very little about the specifics. According to your logic, most guns should come from Vermont.

I dont want any of my citizens to have guns (it makes it easier for them to rise up against me)!!!!!!! :sniper: :mp5:

Maryland is not a "southern state". It also has very restrictive gun laws and accounts for the majority. And SHOCK, the majority (59%) come from the states neighboring DC.

Where do you get 97.1%. Is this more Canuckian math? How does this prove anything about New York? How did you put it earlier? "Your figures are misleading". Since nowhere in that document does it mention 97.1% or New York, sounds like your inventing your own.

So now you're discriminating and stereotyping "Southern States" w/ "lax gun laws" even though you've proven repeatedly you know very little about the specifics. According to your logic, most guns should come from Vermont.
Hey, you making fun of my math? I just grouped Maryland in with the Southern States. How am I discriminating against the Southern States? That region has the highest crime rates and murder rates.

You want New York?

ATF CRIME GUN TRACE REPORT New York, New York

Crime Gun Source State (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/newyorkcity.pdf)

New York 15.5%
Virginia 14%
Other Sources:
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Alabama
Texas

Southern States bolded.

Clearly 85% of crime guns come from outside New York City.

I have read all these pages of arguments and insome cases "ranting". I am neither pro or anti gun, however I do possess a personal protection weapon properly licensed by my country (UK). This entitles me to use it for my self protection and the protection of others. My wife and son are trained in its use and are well aware of the dangers of mishandling or misuse. I know that the police in my area are armed and respond as quickly as possible, however this may take some time ie 20-30 mins.
I enjoy the peace of mind that this gives me and would be strongly against any person attempting to change the law that allows me to hold this weapon.
The situation in my country,although improving, makes such weapons necessary. The increase in violent crime and the new laws allowing people a better degree of latitude in defending their live and property makes this also necessary.
Until recently we had laws where the following was possible.
A burglar broke into a mans house and assaulted the owner causing injury. while exiting the house the burglar tripped on loose carpet on the stair, fell and broke his leg. He was detained and jailed for the burglary and assault. The burglar successfully sued the houseowner for damages and personal injury
caused when he tripped on the stair carpet and was awarded a substantial amount.

Hey, you making fun of my math? I just grouped Maryland in with the Southern States. How am I discriminating against the Southern States? That region has the highest crime rates and murder rates.

You want New York?

ATF CRIME GUN TRACE REPORT New York, New York

Crime Gun Source State (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/newyorkcity.pdf)

New York 15.5%
Virginia 14%
Other Sources:
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Alabama
Texas

Southern States bolded.

Clearly 85% of crime guns come from outside New York City.

But you said that "Most of the crime guns in New York, and DC are from Southern States with lax gun laws". Yes I'm making fun of your math. Even w/ MD added in it doesn't add up to your 97.1%. You claimed it was a "southern state" that had "lax" gun laws, yet it has the strictest of any state you listed and it provides for the majority.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Notice that 85% of "traced" crime guns come from outside of NY.


Do you understand how "tracing" works? First, a firearm has to be recovered, then a trace request has to be made. By using this data as absolute information, HCI and it's ilk claimed that uses of "assualt weapons" dropped after the CAWB was passed. You have defended this assumption in the past. They don't mention, however, that trace requests for "Assault Weapons" dropped during that period as well.

The south had higher crime levels w/ "tighter" gun laws than they have now and it has dropped over the years. No correlation. As I said earlier, you have proven to have very little actual knowledge on laws and their specifics. What are these "lax" gun laws you speak of in comparison to "tight" gun laws? Be specific.

Maryland has some of the most strict gun laws in the US.

You would have to go to Massachusetts to be more strict.

Maryland is more strict than New York or New Jersey, by a long shot.

Maryland also has the strictest restrictions on handguns, including the individual models that may or may not be purchased.

They also have the most stringent gun storage laws in the US.

I've got a great idea - take Canuck to Montgomery County, Maryland, where the gun restrictions are severe - and let him see what 65 percent HIGHER violent crime really means.

Could even be worse - go to Prince George's County, Maryland. No guns at all. And double the crime of Montgomery County.

There is no need for any person at all to have arms. It's primitive and uncivilized. How can any nation call itself civilized when it still fights pointless wars and it's citizens shoot eachother ?

There is no need for any person at all to have arms. It's primitive and uncivilized. How can any nation call itself civilized when it still fights pointless wars and it's citizens shoot eachother ?

I train victims of domestic violence to carry and use pistols to defend against men who harass, stalk, and beat them.

I'm now at over 200 women trained, and none of them have been harassed, stalked, or beaten.

By comparison, untrained women in my county have been beaten to death.

Wife beating is not a solely US problem. Women are beaten to death in Canada and the UK and other countries as well.

Would you deprive my 200 women of their only means of defense?

The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

"Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe."

"A law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason. No crime need be involved. No screening policy ensures or requires that only guns known or suspected to have been used in crimes are traced." BATFE "noted it is not possible to determine if traced firearms are related to criminal activity."

"Trace requests are not accurate indicators of specified crimes .... traces may be requested for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to criminal incidents. For example, a trace may be conducted on a firearm found at the residence of a suspect though the firearm itself is not associated with a criminal act. Traces may also be requested with respect to abandoned firearms, those found by chance, those seen by officers for sale at gun shows or pawn shops, or those used by suicide victims. . . . It is not possible to identify how frequently firearm traces are requested for reasons other than those associated with violent crimes."

"[B]ATF does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime. For instance, sometimes a firearm is traced simply to determine the rightful owner after it is found by a law enforcement agency."


CRS Report for Congress, "Assault Weapons:" Military-Style Semi-automatic Firearms Facts and Issues, Keith Bea, et al, May 13, 1992.

I'd bet the farm you are a spoiled rich highschool/college kid with no real life expirence from a Socialist European country.


There is no need for any person at all to have arms. It's primitive and uncivilized. How can any nation call itself civilized when it still fights pointless wars and it's citizens shoot eachother ?

Hey, you making fun of my math? I just grouped Maryland in with the Southern States. How am I discriminating against the Southern States? That region has the highest crime rates and murder rates.

You want New York?

ATF CRIME GUN TRACE REPORT New York, New York

Crime Gun Source State (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/newyorkcity.pdf)

New York 15.5%
Virginia 14%
Other Sources:
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Alabama
Texas

Southern States bolded.

Clearly 85% of crime guns come from outside New York City.

Wow, looks like more of those illegal firearms came from the State of New York, not the State of Virginia, as you claimed. 14% is a far cry from 97%...

I'm still waiting for the facts that prove I'm wrong in believing that there is no correlation between stricter gun laws and lower levels of violent crime.

Wow, looks like more of those illegal firearms came from the State of New York, not the State of Virginia, as you claimed. 14% is a far cry from 97%...
Try reading what I wrote and don't read anything else into it:

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
"In Chicago, year 2002, 50% of guns used in the commission of a crime were from out of State. In DC, it was a whopping 97%. The majority of crime guns in DC came from two States, Maryland 30% and Virginia 28.7%. It would appear that a lot of those stolen guns from Virginia ($4 Million in 2 years) are ending up in DC. In New York State, 85% of crime guns are from out of State, and the biggest supplier is Virginia at 14%."

Easier to read this time?

Try reading what I wrote and don't read anything else into it:

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
"In Chicago, year 2002, 50% of guns used in the commission of a crime were from out of State. In DC, it was a whopping 97%. The majority of crime guns in DC came from two States, Maryland 30% and Virginia 28.7%. It would appear that a lot of those stolen guns from Virginia ($4 Million in 2 years) are ending up in DC. In New York State, 85% of crime guns are from out of State, and the biggest supplier is Virginia at 14%."

Easier to read this time?

I just want to point out, not all of us "gun nuts" are stupid and illiterate. Most of us have a pretty good grasp of what the problems are, but we see banning guns as a really bad solution, which would probably make the problems worse.

Try reading what I wrote and don't read anything else into it:

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
"In Chicago, year 2002, 50% of guns used in the commission of a crime were from out of State. In DC, it was a whopping 97%. The majority of crime guns in DC came from two States, Maryland 30% and Virginia 28.7%. It would appear that a lot of those stolen guns from Virginia ($4 Million in 2 years) are ending up in DC. In New York State, 85% of crime guns are from out of State, and the biggest supplier is Virginia at 14%."

Easier to read this time?

And yet there was still a higher percentage of guns from New York. (and, lose the flamebait)

As far as I remember from school:

15.5% > 14%

And, just for the record, if nothing else, you're proving that regardless of local laws, criminals will find a way to find firearms - through legal means or otherwise.

I'd bet the farm you are a spoiled rich highschool/college kid with no real life expirence from a Socialist European country.
And you are a poor, gamblin', jealous, farmboy from East Bumblefuque Kansas? :rolleyes:

And yet there was still a higher percentage of guns from New York. (and, lose the flamebait)

As far as I remember from school:

15.5% > 14%

And, just for the record, if nothing else, you're proving that regardless of local laws, criminals will find a way to find firearms - through legal means or otherwise.

Canuck wants a Federal registration system (even though that's been ruled illegal in the US) and unwarranted searches of homes to enforce subjectively defined "safe storage".

And yet there was still a higher percentage of guns from New York. (and, lose the flamebait)

As far as I remember from school:

15.5% > 14%

And, just for the record, if nothing else, you're proving that regardless of local laws, criminals will find a way to find firearms - through legal means or otherwise.
That is not flamebait. You read what I wrote incorrectly, and you still haven't got it right. Try again.

That is not flamebait. You read what I wrote incorrectly, and you still haven't got it right. Try again.

"Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe."
CRS Report for Congress, "Assault Weapons:" Military-Style Semi-automatic Firearms Facts and Issues, Keith Bea, et al, May 13, 1992.


Try again.

:rolleyes: Way to change the subject...oh and yes I am.


And you are a poor, gamblin', jealous, farmboy from East Bumblefuque Kansas? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Way to change the subject...oh and yes I am.

This is relatively new for Canuck. It is, however, at least the third time he's done it in this thread.

A gun is better than 911. Why?

Its because it will be there to help in less than a second and it's portable. :D

Police however arrive in 5-30 minutes after the crime was commited. In that amount of time, a murderer could've slit your throat while you were writing a response to this post and then fled the crime scene. Of course the police will find him eventually, but that doesn't mean shit if you're dead.
So that's why a gun is better than the police.

This is relatively new for Canuck. It is, however, at least the third time he's done it in this thread.
Ah, the attacks are coming fast and furious. Perhaps I have touched a nerve?

In-State. New York Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) were the source of only 16 percent of all traceable crime guns recovered in New York City.

• In-County. FFLs located in the five counties that are fully encompassed by the boroughs of New York City were the source of 32 percent of crime guns purchased in New York and recovered in New York City.

National. An additional 49 percent of traceable guns recovered in New York City were first purchased at FFLs in Southern States: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Distance. Nearly 75 percent of crime guns recovered in New York City were first purchased at FFLs located 250 miles or more from New York City.

Ah, the attacks are coming fast and furious. Perhaps I have touched a nerve?.
Yeah. We don't like being lied to (97.1%).

In-State. New York Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) were the source of only 16 percent of all traceable crime guns recovered in New York City.

• In-County. FFLs located in the five counties that are fully encompassed by the boroughs of New York City were the source of 32 percent of crime guns purchased in New York and recovered in New York City.

National. An additional 49 percent of traceable guns recovered in New York City were first purchased at FFLs in Southern States: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Distance. Nearly 75 percent of crime guns recovered in New York City were first purchased at FFLs located 250 miles or more from New York City.

Since you like ignoring things(facts on the BB, CAWB, "child" deaths, etc), I'll post it again:

The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

"Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe."

"A law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason. No crime need be involved. No screening policy ensures or requires that only guns known or suspected to have been used in crimes are traced." BATFE "noted it is not possible to determine if traced firearms are related to criminal activity."

"Trace requests are not accurate indicators of specified crimes .... traces may be requested for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to criminal incidents. For example, a trace may be conducted on a firearm found at the residence of a suspect though the firearm itself is not associated with a criminal act. Traces may also be requested with respect to abandoned firearms, those found by chance, those seen by officers for sale at gun shows or pawn shops, or those used by suicide victims. . . . It is not possible to identify how frequently firearm traces are requested for reasons other than those associated with violent crimes."

"[B]ATF does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime. For instance, sometimes a firearm is traced simply to determine the rightful owner after it is found by a law enforcement agency."


CRS Report for Congress, "Assault Weapons:" Military-Style Semi-automatic Firearms Facts and Issues, Keith Bea, et al, May 13, 1992.

Which I'm sure will also be ignored:

There is another reason out-of-state guns will be overrepresented in trace samples, one that is likely to be particularly important in states with gun registration laws. Such states, which include New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut, California, Maryland, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1996b), are more likely to have statewide records of their own concerning handguns purchased within that state and possessed by that state's residents. For police agencies in such states, a much more direct tracing procedure is to check their own registration records first, then turn to BATF for tracing attempts only on those guns not traceable using their own state records (Roth and Koper 1997, p. 83). Since the guns with in-state origins can often be traced using the state's own registration records, the guns for which a trace request was submitted to BATF from agencies in these states would be disproportionately out-of-state guns, i.e. those that could not be traced with instate records.

This implies, first of all, that the out-of-state share of BATF-traced guns cannot be used to infer the share of all crime guns that came from out of state, but it also implies that the overrepresentation of out-of-state guns will be more pronounced specifically in states with stricter guns laws, which are more likely to have their own handgun registration systems, such as New York, than in states with less strict laws and thus without state registration records, such as Virginia. BATF tracing data can therefore give an exaggerated impression that interstate gun trafficking is heaviest into states with stricter gun laws, since these states are more likely to have their own registration systems that can trace the origins of crime guns with instate origins. Therefore, the percent of traced guns with out-of-state origins cannot be meaningfully compared across states, assuming that one is attempting to draw conclusions pertaining to crime guns in general rather than just the handful that are traced.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kleck3.htm

Ah, the attacks are coming fast and furious. Perhaps I have touched a nerve?

and speaking of "attacks"...

And you are a poor, gamblin', jealous, farmboy from East Bumblefuque Kansas?
Easier to read this time?

I think you have a sick sense as to the value of human life? Is that what wars do to people?
However, just by ignoring the problem, you are allowing the status quo to remain and over time worsen. I guess that is one of the failings of capitalistic societies?
One shot at the spin cycle is not enough? Too much spinning and not enough looking at the destructive nature of guns:
Why do gun enthusiasts come up with the most lame arguments?
supposedly LAC, who were irresponsible in the storage of their weapons.


Pot meet Kettle.

I'm not reading it wrong. I'm simply pointing out that your argument was incorrect.

However, I didnt do as well a job as Keb, so I'll just let it be at that.


And, yes, it was flamebait (c'mon now...gimme a bit of credit here)

The irony in all of this, is that in your State of Virginia, where open and concealed weapons are allowed, the murder rate by guns jumps to 72%. That information seems to fly in the face of the statement that "an armed society is a polite society"?

It appears that your statement doesn't survive the litmus test, given the increased murder by guns in your State?
Actually Canuck, if you knew how to properly read statistics you would realize that what's important is the murder rate itself. The composition is largely irrelevant as someone intent on murder will use the tool at hand. That the percentage is so high indicates as well that there are probably quite a few murders that fail because the defender is armed and the person attempting murder isn't.

Of course my life is worth defending and I believe that the world will be much safer if there less guns in the wrong hands.

I think you have a sick sense as to the value of human life? Is that what wars do to people?

So then why dont you do something intelligent and come up with a way of taking GUNS out of criminals hands and leave honest law abiding people alone ?

Name one law that prevents criminals from getting a gun.
Name one law that will prevent a criminal from using a gun .

You can find LOTS of ways to take guns out of the hands of someone who will then be defensless to face a criminal. But can you find one way to take the gun out of the hands of a criminal ? your way gets people who would otherwise live shot raped beat or dead . Nice job .

Put on your thinking cap and stop wasting time with bullshit statistics that you and your ilk always use to try to bullshit your way past common sense and reason .

Criminals commit crimes and you want to punish those who abide by the law.
Criminals use guns to commit crimes yet yopu somehow see logic and common sense in removing guns NOT from criminals ...but from law abiding people . You also have found some strange way of believing that by regulating the law abiding persons use of firearms that that will somehow reduce the effect of the criminal use of guns.
Accidents can be reduced by education . Domestic violence will result in more partners beat to death and more dead victims if guns are taken ENTIRELY out of the picture. That leaves the criminal use of weapons .
Give it your best shot. What law will keep guns out of criminal hands ?


Just to stay on topic . 9-11 is handy to get the criminals body out of my house or off the street . They tend to make a mess .

and speaking of "attacks"...

Pot meet Kettle.
Those are pretty tame examples that you posted there.

Should I go back and pull up all of yours? :eek:

I could but it is not really worth the effort.

Those are pretty tame examples that you posted there.

Should I go back and pull up all of yours? :eek:

I could but it is not really worth the effort.

Nice redirect!

Too bad it doesnt exonerate your flaming.
Nor does it change the relevance (or irrelevance) of your statistics.

Nice redirect!

Too bad it doesnt exonerate your flaming.
Nor does it change the relevance (or irrelevance) of your statistics.

His statistics are meaningless to less than meaningless. Especially to an unarmed man or woman facing an armed criminal . They are worth something to the criminal though. An easy catch . Statistics never stopped a crime but a well armed law abiding person has and always will in America .

His statistics are meaningless to less than meaningless. Especially to an unarmed man or woman facing an armed criminal . They are worth something to the criminal though. An easy catch . Statistics never stopped a crime but a well armed law abiding person has and always will in America .

Statistic quoting is always about number and wording manipulation. I dont put much stock in statistics - they're too limited. For statistics to remain valid, they must be either ambiguous (extreme generalities) or be taken from too controlled a setting to be relevant to any other setting.

Put on your thinking cap and stop wasting time with bullshit statistics that you and your ilk always use to try to bullshit your way past common sense and reason .
You don't like statistics huh? Your fellow gun enthusiasts seem to enjoy using "their" statistics.

Criminals commit crimes and you want to punish those who abide by the law.
Where have I ever stated that?

Criminals use guns to commit crimes yet yopu somehow see logic and common sense in removing guns NOT from criminals ...but from law abiding people .
Perhaps you haven't been following this thread too closely? I have not made any such statements.

You also have found some strange way of believing that by regulating the law abiding persons use of firearms that that will somehow reduce the effect of the criminal use of guns.
Yes I do as a matter of fact, starting with proper storage.

Accidents can be reduced by education .
And by proper storage.

Domestic violence will result in more partners beat to death and more dead victims if guns are taken ENTIRELY out of the picture.
And you know this how? Sounds kinda rhetorical to me.

How about these stat from Virginia 2003:

A firearm was used in 62.1% of all intimate partner homicides in Virginia in 2003.

A Homicide-Suicide Event is homicide followed within seven days by the perpetrator’s suicide. In 2003, there were 17 homicide-suicide events in which the homicides occurred in Virginia (two of the subsequent suicides
occurred out-of-state). These 17 homicide-suicide events accounted for 23 homicide victims in Virginia.

Looking at these 17 events:

�� Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of the homicide events occurred in the OCME Central and Western Districts.
�� Over half (56.5%) of the homicide victims were intimate partners.
�� Most (56.5%) of the homicide victims were female and all of the perpetrators were male.
�� Five (21.7%) of the homicide victims were under the age of 18.
�� A firearm was used in 91.3% of the homicides and in 80.0% of the suicides.

Give it your best shot. What law will keep guns out of criminal hands ?
1. Less firearm dealers.
2. Waiting period of 5 days or more.
3. Detailed background check.
4. Strict storage laws.
5. Mandatory jail terms of an appropriate minimum number of years in jail depending on the severity of the crime.
6. More policing.
There is more but those would be a good start.


Just to stay on topic . 9-11 is handy to get the criminals body out of my house or off the street . They tend to make a mess .
Somebody breaks into your house and you get to murder them....great!! :eek:

I can envisage all kinds of abuses of that right.

Nice redirect!

Too bad it doesnt exonerate your flaming.
Nor does it change the relevance (or irrelevance) of your statistics.
Oh, I see, you will ignore other posters flames, and yet accuse me of flaming. Don't you find that kinda hypocritical?

Oh, I see, you will ignore other posters flames, and yet accuse me of flaming. Don't you find that kinda hypocritical?

LOL...I was talking to you, not to them. If they were to flame me and then deny it, yes, I would call them on it.

Nice attempt at a redirect again...

Virginia crime gun supplies to US cities, based on percentage, numbers, and relation to other out of State suppliers.

New York City 14% (421) (highest out of State supplier)
Washington D.C. 28.7% (274) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Newark 18.8% (54) (highest out of State supplier) (also higher % than in State suppliers)
Camden 15.4% (12) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Baltimore 7.5% (153) (highest out of State supplier)
Philadelphia 2.8% (47) (highest out of State supplier)

Virginia crime gun supplies to US cities, based on percentage, numbers, and relation to other out of State suppliers.

New York City 14% (421) (highest out of State supplier)
Washington D.C. 28.7% (274) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Newark 18.8% (54) (highest out of State supplier) (also higher % than in State suppliers)
Camden 15.4% (12) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Baltimore 7.5% (153) (highest out of State supplier)
Philadelphia 2.8% (47) (highest out of State supplier)

And, where did those statistics come from?

LOL...I was talking to you, not to them. If they were to flame me and then deny it, yes, I would call them on it.

Nice attempt at a redirect again...
Ok, fair enough. Sorry for any perceived flaming towards you by me. And to fix the problem, please do not expect any further replies from me. :)

Guns kill people. People kill people. In Soviet Russia, Guns shoot you! All happens everywhere. There is no escape from criminals. Always will there be death, shoting, homocides, we will just have to live with it. Guns are meant to be weapons against your enemies and protector for you and your allies, Police are meant to enforce rules, curfews, and catch the bad guys after the crime is done. No one can predict a murderer unless they have stuck before. Guns are good and bad, depends who is talking and their experiences in life and up to the point. I'm rambling, but at least I got my views off.

May your rivers flow with Cheese.

Commentary: I have found it interesting that some gun advocates continually suggest that women should arm themselves for protection, so I did a little research:

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2003 Homicide Data (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2005.pdf)

[i]Intimate partner violence against women is all too common and takes many
forms. The most serious is homicide by an intimate partner.1 Guns can easily turn domestic violence into domestic homicide. A 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on homicide among intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined. The study concluded: “the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence].”2

Gun use does not need to result in a fatality to involve domestic violence. A
2000 study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers analyzed gun use at home and concluded that “hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women.”3

The Department of Justice has found that women are far more likely to be the
victims of violent crimes committed by intimate partners than men, especially when a weapon is involved. Moreover, women are much more likely to be victimized at home than in any other place.4

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that
from 1993 to 1998, women were victims of violent crimes by their intimate partners an average of more than 935,000 times a year.5

A woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is
in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own guns acquired them “primarily for protection against crime,” the results of a California analysis show that “purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner homicide.”6 A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.7 Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective
effect against homicide.8

While this study does not focus solely on domestic violence homicide or guns,
it provides a stark reminder that domestic violence and guns make a deadly
combination. Firearms are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.9 Instead, they are all too often used to inflict harm on the very people they were intended to protect.

Interesting to say the least.

wouldn't it be better to just ban civillain ownership of firearms? then violent crime will definitely decrease. :rolleyes:

The number of truly "accidental" shootings in the US is very, very, very low.

When you see "deaths" by "firearm" of "children", you are not being shown "accidents". You are being shown the deliberate shootings of young black gang members between the ages of 19 and 21. Hardly children, and hardly accidents.

While one accident is a tragedy, annual firearms accidents that kill children vary between 100 and 200 a year in the US - sometimes lower. Your child is much more likely to be killed on a bicycle, or playing high school football, or riding in your car, or swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.
What part of your body did you pull this 'statistic' out of?

Did you fail to read my ENTIRE post? I guess you were too busy frothing.

A friend of mine from high school was accidentally killed by the family gun, so think before you make insults, please.
Same thing happened to a friend of mine. He wasn't an idiot, I won't necessarily say the same to the kid who was playing with his dad's gun. I sure as hell won't say the kid's dad wasn't an idiot.


Only a retard leaves a gun out for a toddler. And how many people shoot their kids because they're sneaking into the house? Zilch. More made up crap from the anti-gun crowd.

In response to the first assertion. Apparently a lot of gun owners are retards. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Hmm?

In response to the second assertion. Wrong. :sniper:

Perhaps I watch to much Mc Laughlin Group :)

Strange, I've been in several threads where "anti-gunners" have regularly reffered to "pro-gunners" as ignorant, stupid, sociopathic,etc.

It tends to go both ways.

By the way, I could be considered pro-gun. But I will certainly feel free to call the NRA-no-gun-control-crowd idiots. I think controlling access to deadly weapons is a no-brainer. I'm not arguing to ban guns. I just find the NRA-style arguments against any restriction on gun ownership to be B.S. I am also dubious about the efficacy of having a gun for self protection. Chances are, if you're so quick to use the gun that muggers don't get the drop on you, you're probably going to kill a lot of innocents along the way. I have less of a problem with tasers, but if you use one on me, I will sue your a$$ off!

Restricting gun ownership to reasonably stable individuals: Not necessarily stupid.

Requiring a cooling off period: Gee, I don't know. Would that be an onerous restriction?

One week waiting period for a background check: Duh, I don't know... What if I see a mugging in progress and need to buy a gun right now?

This is actually not that likely. robbery victims are more likely to be hurt or killed if they don't have a gun to defend themselves than if they do. I just love urban myths like this.
Obviously. That's why you just said it.

What were the crime rates "before" the bans went into place in these various nations?

Travel along roads in England entailed a very significant risk of being robbed by highwaymen before they enacted gun control. Of course this was much before they enacted gun control. :)

What part of your body did you pull this 'statistic' out of?


The CDC.

Virginia crime gun supplies to US cities, based on percentage, numbers, and relation to other out of State suppliers.

New York City 14% (421) (highest out of State supplier)
Washington D.C. 28.7% (274) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Newark 18.8% (54) (highest out of State supplier) (also higher % than in State suppliers)
Camden 15.4% (12) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Baltimore 7.5% (153) (highest out of State supplier)
Philadelphia 2.8% (47) (highest out of State supplier)

And? Gee, I thought those New York City gun laws were working so well, according to you. Didn't you say that? So, now you're saying there's a flood of illegal guns to those cities, but you're saying in another thread that gun crime has been going down all that time?

You still haven't answered - ever - why there's 65 percent higher violent crime and murder in Montgomery County, Maryland - one of the strictest gun law locations - as opposed to Fairfax County, Virginia, where a lot of people are legally carrying pistols everywhere.

Fairfax County has HALF the police of Montgomery County, per person.

And as for your domestic violence stats, you have no leg to stand on. I am deeply and personally involved in protecting victims of domestic violence - by arming them and training them.

Over 200 now - and NONE of them have been remotely troubled by their former stalkers again. Over a two year period.

NO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM ON EARTH matches that.

Somebody breaks into your house and you get to murder them....great!! :eek:

I can envisage all kinds of abuses of that right.


So you are more concerned about people "abusing" their right to defend themselves when someone has broken into their home?

The properly armed homeowner may likely have the upper hand and be able to effectively subdue the intruder till the authorities arrive. Or, if they arent armed, they could be victimized by and intruder armed with only a knife, tied up and forced to endure the whims of an intruder. Do you have any idea what an intruder that breaks into an occupied home is like? He isnt there for the jewelry-he is there for the thrill of victimization. Oh-he'll steal something-and that will lead to him being caught down the road. But his primary goal is the thrill, And his thrill is your suffering and humiliation. And that of all you hold dear. If you get out alive, you'll never be the same.

So dont worry about properly armed homeowners having the upper hand when someone has violated the sanctity of their home. If you enter my home uninvited when I'm there, you'll likely never be seen again. If you're smart and you're able to break in and steal when my family and I are out-then you deserve the spoils-my house is pretty secure. Extra secure. And I have insurance for my stuff. the stuff that cannot be replaced you'll never find. Its sade from you and fire/flood/vandals.

Criminals that break into homes, where they arent certain the home is empty are there to hurt the occupants. They need to be overpowered without physical contact and held till police arrive. Or double tapped in the head so there is no plaitiff to a frivolous lawsuit.

1. Less firearm dealers.
2. Waiting period of 5 days or more.
3. Detailed background check.
4. Strict storage laws.
5. Mandatory jail terms of an appropriate minimum number of years in jail depending on the severity of the crime.
6. More policing.
There is more but those would be a good start.
Somebody breaks into your house and you get to murder them....great!! :eek:

I can envisage all kinds of abuses of that right.

Ok except for maybe 5 and 6 they have no effect on criminals only citizens.

And if somebody breaks into my home I would try to hold them for the police rather than kill them...the mess is a pain to clean.

And if somebody breaks into my home I would try to hold them for the police rather than kill them...the mess is a pain to clean.


Consider they may become much more desperate when facing capture.

You'd have al lthe time in the world to clean up. Its not like they'll be reported missing.

Consider they may become much more desperate when facing capture.

You'd have al lthe time in the world to clean up. Its not like they'll be reported missing.

All you need is:

1. A remote area to place the body in the ground.
2. A shovel (I have access to a Bobcat, which makes short work)
3. 50 pounds of powdered sulfur
4. 50 pounds of powdered quicklime
5. Two 5-gallon plastic water cans (filled with water)

Dig a hole 5 to 6 feet deep, large enough to hold the body laying down.
Pour the sulfur and quicklime on the body.
Pour the 10 gallons of water on the body.
Fill the hole in with dirt.

In two weeks, there won't be so much as teeth or DNA left.

Travel along roads in England entailed a very significant risk of being robbed by highwaymen before they enacted gun control. Of course this was much before they enacted gun control. :)
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore... dumm dumm dum, dum dum..
Soon every lupin in the land will be in his mighty hand
He robs from the rich and gives to the poor! Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore! dumm dumm dumm.... :p

All you need is:

1. A remote area to place the body in the ground.
2. A shovel (I have access to a Bobcat, which makes short work)
3. 50 pounds of powdered sulfur
4. 50 pounds of powdered quicklime
5. Two 5-gallon plastic water cans (filled with water)

Dig a hole 5 to 6 feet deep, large enough to hold the body laying down.
Pour the sulfur and quicklime on the body.
Pour the 10 gallons of water on the body.
Fill the hole in with dirt.

In two weeks, there won't be so much as teeth or DNA left.

Quite wrong, a well renowned fur-maker tried this way and was arrested...better repeat your chemistry class :rolleyes:

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore... dumm dumm dum, dum dum..
Sook every lupin in the land will be in his mighty hand
He robs from the rich and gives to the poor! Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore! dumm dumm dumm.... :p

You know, I grow a LOT of lupines just because of that episode.

"Your lupines or your life!"

All you need is:

1. A remote area to place the body in the ground.
2. A shovel (I have access to a Bobcat, which makes short work)
3. 50 pounds of powdered sulfur
4. 50 pounds of powdered quicklime
5. Two 5-gallon plastic water cans (filled with water)

Dig a hole 5 to 6 feet deep, large enough to hold the body laying down.
Pour the sulfur and quicklime on the body.
Pour the 10 gallons of water on the body.
Fill the hole in with dirt.

In two weeks, there won't be so much as teeth or DNA left.

Thats quite a project. Assuming I have no previous dealings with the now deceased intruder, he goes in the bay nearby. The crabs will deal with most of the mess. A weight will keep the bones down on the bottom. And if he is discovered somehow, there wouldnt be any connection to me anyway.

I wouldnt want to be on a list of making those large purchases anyway.

Thats quite a project. Assuming I have no previous dealings with the now deceased intruder, he goes in the bay nearby. The crabs will deal with most of the mess. A weight will keep the bones down on the bottom. And if he is discovered somehow, there wouldnt be any connection to me anyway.

I wouldnt want to be on a list of making those large purchases anyway.

I keep all of that stuff on hand (for years now), for just such an occasion.

Other pointers:

When cleaning up blood, use meat tenderizer. The enzymes lyse the DNA into unreadable fragments.

Ok, fair enough. Sorry for any perceived flaming towards you by me. And to fix the problem, please do not expect any further replies from me. :)

Well, I'm not sweating the loss of replies since you have yet to actually refute my arguments. I tire of your constant redirects...

That's the easy part getting grey matter out of a shag rug and still getting your security deposit back is what I'm talking about.


All you need is:

1. A remote area to place the body in the ground.
2. A shovel (I have access to a Bobcat, which makes short work)
3. 50 pounds of powdered sulfur
4. 50 pounds of powdered quicklime
5. Two 5-gallon plastic water cans (filled with water)

Dig a hole 5 to 6 feet deep, large enough to hold the body laying down.
Pour the sulfur and quicklime on the body.
Pour the 10 gallons of water on the body.
Fill the hole in with dirt.

In two weeks, there won't be so much as teeth or DNA left.

((That's because noone but criminals have them now. I bet your spacelaser deaths are low too. And I'll bet very few Brits are killed by fusion weapons as well.

So in summary, If you don't have something, you can have accidenal deaths by them. You are a prime example of why public schools should all be burned down.

UK bans guns. And violent crime rises. HAHAHAHAHAH! )) <<mr gung ho sed that


I say this who the hell do u think u r the reason americans love their guns is because its the only thing they have in their history name me something other americans are know for other than their "right to own a gun"

Atleast we brittish have a history and we have given the world more than america ever have america might be a superpower but tell me what they have given the world accept more greed and ignorance o yeah sorry "hollywood greats"

Who invented the trains and modern transport who invented the suspension bridge. What language do u speak? Where are many great men of history from Britain along with europe and incorrectly spelt ENGLISH not AMERICAN words. Well done good contribution to human life "gung ho all the way"

Canuckheaven keeps ignoring the facts and figure I post, so i'll throw this one out for him to answer - much easier to attck since i didn't list all the sources like I did before....here you go.
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and 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 and 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 spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.


12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.


13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, 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," "enumeration's 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 arms" refers to the state.


15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, 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, which is why the army has millions of them.


17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.


18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc., etc.


19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and 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. A 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 online 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 as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas 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, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, 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, which is why the police need them but "civilians" 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. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you.

Virginia crime gun supplies to US cities, based on percentage, numbers, and relation to other out of State suppliers.

New York City 14% (421) (highest out of State supplier)
Washington D.C. 28.7% (274) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Newark 18.8% (54) (highest out of State supplier) (also higher % than in State suppliers)
Camden 15.4% (12) (2nd highest out of State supplier)
Baltimore 7.5% (153) (highest out of State supplier)
Philadelphia 2.8% (47) (highest out of State supplier)

Like I said, you just ignored the fact (again)that BATFE tracing does not correlate to ture statistics.

You don't like statistics huh? Your fellow gun enthusiasts seem to enjoy using "their" statistics.


Where have I ever stated that?


Perhaps you haven't been following this thread too closely? I have not made any such statements.


Yes I do as a matter of fact, starting with proper storage.


And by proper storage.


And you know this how? Sounds kinda rhetorical to me.

How about these stat from Virginia 2003:

A firearm was used in 62.1% of all intimate partner homicides in Virginia in 2003.

A Homicide-Suicide Event is homicide followed within seven days by the perpetrator’s suicide. In 2003, there were 17 homicide-suicide events in which the homicides occurred in Virginia (two of the subsequent suicides
occurred out-of-state). These 17 homicide-suicide events accounted for 23 homicide victims in Virginia.

Looking at these 17 events:

�� Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of the homicide events occurred in the OCME Central and Western Districts.
�� Over half (56.5%) of the homicide victims were intimate partners.
�� Most (56.5%) of the homicide victims were female and all of the perpetrators were male.
�� Five (21.7%) of the homicide victims were under the age of 18.
�� A firearm was used in 91.3% of the homicides and in 80.0% of the suicides.


1. Less firearm dealers.
2. Waiting period of 5 days or more.
3. Detailed background check.
4. Strict storage laws.
5. Mandatory jail terms of an appropriate minimum number of years in jail depending on the severity of the crime.
6. More policing.
There is more but those would be a good start.



Somebody breaks into your house and you get to murder them....great!! :eek:

I can envisage all kinds of abuses of that right.

You still refuse to define "proper storage" and how you would enforce it.

Stats, stats & more stats. Looking at limited examples, manipulating the numbers, etc.

1. No proven effect on crime. Goes towards you being opposed to personal ownership.
2. No proven effect on crime. Only a hassle for those who follow the law.Goes towards you being opposed to personal ownership.
3. Already in place. Still being abused by authorities.
4.Define storage. How would you enforce it? Only a hassle for those who follow the law.Goes towards you being opposed to personal ownership.
5. Good
6. Good

You still refuse to define "proper storage" and how you would enforce it.

Stats, stats & more stats. Looking at limited examples, manipulating the numbers, etc.

1. No proven effect on crime. Goes towards you being opposed to personal ownership.
2. No proven effect on crime. Only a hassle for those who follow the law.Goes towards you being opposed to personal ownership.
3. Already in place. Still being abused by authorities.
4.Define storage. How would you enforce it? Only a hassle for those who follow the law.Goes towards you being opposed to personal ownership.
5. Good
6. Good


The State of Maryland has the most restrictive gun storage laws in the country. Mandatory gun locks at sale, mandatory gun locks in storage, even while in a safe. Severe penalties just for an unsecured gun. Can't transport a gun, even in your trunk, locked, unless you're going to an official shooting location (range, hunting, or repair location).

And yet, Montgomery County, Maryland has a 65 percent higher firearm crime rate (and accident rate) than Fairfax County, Va - where there are no comparable gun storage restrictions.

I keep all of that stuff on hand (for years now), for just such an occasion.

Other pointers:

When cleaning up blood, use meat tenderizer. The enzymes lyse the DNA into unreadable fragments.

I wouldnt even know where to obtain those items without drawing attention.

I did know the meat tenderizer trick,though. I think the active ingredient is a papya extract that does the job.

Commentary: I have found it interesting that some gun advocates continually suggest that women should arm themselves for protection, so I did a little research:

When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2003 Homicide Data (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2005.pdf)


Interesting to say the least.


More like the least bit interesting. Should I just dismiss it offhand w/o any other citations like you? How's that Brady Bill analysis coming? You seem to have "found time" to find other information.

As for this VPC study, even the DOJ in a '97 study (compared to the VPC cited one from '94) has found over 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms and recognizes the 2.5 million figure as potentially accurate yet theydon't mention that. That seems considerably higher that the less than 1 million they cite. Wonder why? Are they trying to disarm the public?

They also ignore items like this:

Orlando, Florida had a long-standing rape problem. Then the police offered a highly publicized gun-training program for women. The result was a 76 percent decrease in rapes. (Washington Times, March 31, 2000.)

How many of these sources they use cite the debunked Kellerman study? What were the numbers before and after various CC laws were passed. What percentage of these firearms were legally owned? What was the percentage of the ones legally to ones not used in crime?

That whole cite is filled w/ blatant lies and misinformation about firearms, their uses, and the laws. They oppose safety training unless it involves demonizing guns, support the debunked BB, want increases in the CAWB even though it had no determined effect on crime, continue to cite "tracing data" as statistics, and use blatant lies and misinformation to demonize different classes of firearms in order to ban them.

Real reliable source. But since you like biases sources (unless they're your own):

http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=94

By the way, I could be considered pro-gun. But I will certainly feel free to call the NRA-no-gun-control-crowd idiots. I think controlling access to deadly weapons is a no-brainer. I'm not arguing to ban guns. I just find the NRA-style arguments against any restriction on gun ownership to be B.S. I am also dubious about the efficacy of having a gun for self protection. Chances are, if you're so quick to use the gun that muggers don't get the drop on you, you're probably going to kill a lot of innocents along the way. I have less of a problem with tasers, but if you use one on me, I will sue your a$$ off!

Restricting gun ownership to reasonably stable individuals: Not necessarily stupid.

Requiring a cooling off period: Gee, I don't know. Would that be an onerous restriction?

One week waiting period for a background check: Duh, I don't know... What if I see a mugging in progress and need to buy a gun right now?

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.

I guess the Founding Fathers were "no-gun-control-crowd idiots" as well?

And do not quote the silly militia argument. That's been beaten to death so many times only the really stupid anti-gunners keep using it.

_______________________________________________________________

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright,

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

And? Gee, I thought those New York City gun laws were working so well, according to you. Didn't you say that? So, now you're saying there's a flood of illegal guns to those cities, but you're saying in another thread that gun crime has been going down all that time?
I would say that the New York City gun laws are working extremely well, in conjunction of course with better policing methods.

The mere fact that 85% of traced crime guns come from out of State proves that. If there was a poliferation of guns, I would imagine that the crime rate would be much higher than it is.

From 1993 to 2004, NY murders have dropped from 1,927 to 572 (a decrease of 70.3%). In the same period, rape is down 45.9%, robbery is down 71.9%, felonious assault is down 55.7%, and burglaries are down 73.4%.

Lets compare the above with Richmond of the gun happy State of Virginia. In 2003, Richmond had a murder rate of 50 per 100,000. If you applied that rate to New York's population, the total number of murders would be approximately 4,000. Fairly significant?

BTW, unlike New York City, 85% of Richmond's traced crime guns come from IN State suppliers.

I would say that the New York City gun laws are working extremely well, in conjunction of course with better policing methods.

The mere fact that 85% of traced crime guns come from out of State proves that. If there was a poliferation of guns, I would imagine that the crime rate would be much higher than it is.

From 1993 to 2004, NY murders have dropped from 1,927 to 572 (a decrease of 70.3%). In the same period, rape is down 45.9%, robbery is down 71.9%, felonious assault is down 55.7%, and burglaries are down 73.4%.

Lets compare the above with Richmond of the gun happy State of Virginia. In 2003, Richmond had a murder rate of 50 per 100,000. If you applied that rate to New York's population, the total number of murders would be approximately 4,000. Fairly significant?

BTW, unlike New York City, 85% of Richmond's traced crime guns come from IN State suppliers.


So, Canuck, what are you going to tell the women I've trained.

Give up your guns, that so far have deterred EVERY attack?

So they can be beaten to death?

Raped?

Tell me.

By the way, I could be considered pro-gun. But I will certainly feel free to call the NRA-no-gun-control-crowd idiots. I think controlling access to deadly weapons is a no-brainer. I'm not arguing to ban guns. I just find the NRA-style arguments against any restriction on gun ownership to be B.S. I am also dubious about the efficacy of having a gun for self protection. Chances are, if you're so quick to use the gun that muggers don't get the drop on you, you're probably going to kill a lot of innocents along the way. I have less of a problem with tasers, but if you use one on me, I will sue your a$$ off!?

These statements pretty much refute any "pro-gun" statements you may make about yourself. You obviously know little about the NRAor defensive firearm uses in the US.

Restricting gun ownership to reasonably stable individuals: Not necessarily stupid.?

Define "reasonably stable individuals".

Requiring a cooling off period: Gee, I don't know. Would that be an onerous restriction??

There is no evidence it does anything to reduce crime and is just a beaurocratic hinderance for those that follow the laws.

One week waiting period for a background check: Duh, I don't know... What if I see a mugging in progress and need to buy a gun right now?

The NICS is done w/i minutes. Nice strawman.

So this is going to be another," I don't know anything about firearms but I'm going to support every stupid law and ban that does nothing to stop crime but leads to bans anyway".

I would say that the New York City gun laws are working extremely well, in conjunction of course with better policing methods.

The mere fact that 85% of traced crime guns come from out of State proves that. If there was a poliferation of guns, I would imagine that the crime rate would be much higher than it is.

From 1993 to 2004, NY murders have dropped from 1,927 to 572 (a decrease of 70.3%). In the same period, rape is down 45.9%, robbery is down 71.9%, felonious assault is down 55.7%, and burglaries are down 73.4%.

Lets compare the above with Richmond of the gun happy State of Virginia. In 2003, Richmond had a murder rate of 50 per 100,000. If you applied that rate to New York's population, the total number of murders would be approximately 4,000. Fairly significant?

BTW, unlike New York City, 85% of Richmond's traced crime guns come from IN State suppliers.

Guns traced by the BATFE by requests from local police departments. Not total guns used. I'm so glad that you just ignore anything that disputes your "data".

Guns traced by the BATFE by requests from local police departments. Not total guns used. I'm so glad that you just ignore anything that disputes your "data".
When you are talking about thousands of crime guns, you are looking at a large enough sampling? BTW, it would appear that you are overlooking some substantial evidence in regards to these numbers?

So, Canuck, what are you going to tell the women I've trained.

Give up your guns, that so far have deterred EVERY attack?

So they can be beaten to death?

Raped?

Tell me.
From what I have read, it would appear that a woman is more endangered by having a firearm in her own home, due to high rates of intimate partner crime.

From what I have read, it would appear that a woman is more endangered by having a firearm in her own home, due to high rates of intimate partner crime.

The intimate partner you mention is the abuser, who no longer lives with her.

Her risk of death, just for leaving, just for filing for a protective order, is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of someone using the gun inappropriately.

Are you suggesting that they should rely on waiting for the police to show up (and sometimes they do NOT), or rely on a locked door, or rely on the protective order?

Women who do that end up dead. Frequently.

None of the women I've trained who carry firearms have:
a) been harmed by their guns
b) harmed anyone else with their guns

More importantly, their abusers have run off. Nothing scares a violent bad person like the certainty of violence.

When you are talking about thousands of crime guns, you are looking at a large enough sampling? BTW, it would appear that you are overlooking some substantial evidence in regards to these numbers?

No, more like you're overlooking thenumber of traces done by local authorities and the number of firearms not traced at all.

Congressional reports have stated that BATFE tracing data is not accurate for true statistics as well as peer reviewed research.

Are you stating you've done more research on it than they have?

No, more like you're overlooking thenumber of traces done by local authorities and the number of firearms not traced at all.

Congressional reports have stated that BATFE tracing data is not accurate for true statistics as well as peer reviewed research.

Are you stating you've done more research on it than they have?

No, Canuck is wishing that my women weren't successful in their use of guns. He's hoping they get killed.

From what I have read, it would appear that a woman is more endangered by having a firearm in her own home, due to high rates of intimate partner crime.

Kellerman said the same thing. His study has been debunked and he admits he didn't do enough research.

That study ignores the millions of defensive uses each year to make a claim that more guns=more crime . Are you going back to that assertion?

if you ban all guns,then people will kill each other with bats and knives. if you ban all bats and knives,people will use rope or wire. ban all rope or wire.....well,you get the idea.

the problem is not the weapon. if you take guns away from the good citizens,then only the criminals will have guns,and the good citizens will be defenseless. in an ideal world,we wouldnt need weapons,but we dont live in an ideal world. we live in a world full of really bad boys and girls,dont we? ive called the police myself both to my home and to my place of work. they always take their time showing up. if you are having a heart attack,the ambulance will be there in 10 minutes. if you call to report a crime,an accident,or suspicious activities(drug dealing)it takes them 30 minutes to an hour to show up.

with that kind of lag time,ill keep my 38,thanks.....

No, more like you're overlooking thenumber of traces done by local authorities and the number of firearms not traced at all.

Congressional reports have stated that BATFE tracing data is not accurate for true statistics as well as peer reviewed research.

Are you stating you've done more research on it than they have?
Why do you tend to overlook the positive example New York City is setting? They have got their shit together and the crime rates are plummeting.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)

It is estimated that as many as 2 million illegal guns were in circulation in New York City in 1993. During that year, there were roughly 1,500 gun deaths (20 times the number in 1960) and 5,000 people were wounded in shootings. Ninety percent of the guns seized in New York City that year were originally purchased in other States. In an effort to combat the serious crime plaguing the city, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) developed several crime-fighting strategies. The strategies are based on aggressive policing tactics, with a tough new managerial style that emphasizes both empowerment and accountability at the precinct level.

The NYPD gun strategy uses felony arrests and summonses to target gun trafficking and gun-related crime in the city. NYPD pursues all perpetrators and accomplices in gun crimes cases and interrogates them about how their guns were acquired. In a proactive effort to get guns off the streets, the NYPD's Street Crime Units aggressively enforce all gun laws. In 1996, the Street Crime Units made up one-half of 1 percent of the NYPD, but made 20 percent of all gun arrests. In 1997, their ability to enforce gun laws and make firearm arrests was enhanced by a quadrupling of the number of officers assigned to the program.

Gun control is working in New York and that obviously raises concerns for pro gun advocates, but if reduced crime is the result then I cannot understand the reluctance to embrace these programs?

Why do you tend to overlook the positive example New York City is setting? They have got their shit together and the crime rates are plummeting.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)

It is estimated that as many as 2 million illegal guns were in circulation in New York City in 1993. During that year, there were roughly 1,500 gun deaths (20 times the number in 1960) and 5,000 people were wounded in shootings. Ninety percent of the guns seized in New York City that year were originally purchased in other States. In an effort to combat the serious crime plaguing the city, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) developed several crime-fighting strategies. The strategies are based on aggressive policing tactics, with a tough new managerial style that emphasizes both empowerment and accountability at the precinct level.

The NYPD gun strategy uses felony arrests and summonses to target gun trafficking and gun-related crime in the city. NYPD pursues all perpetrators and accomplices in gun crimes cases and interrogates them about how their guns were acquired. In a proactive effort to get guns off the streets, the NYPD's Street Crime Units aggressively enforce all gun laws. In 1996, the Street Crime Units made up one-half of 1 percent of the NYPD, but made 20 percent of all gun arrests. In 1997, their ability to enforce gun laws and make firearm arrests was enhanced by a quadrupling of the number of officers assigned to the program.

Gun control is working in New York and that obviously raises concerns for pro gun advocates, but if reduced crime is the result then I cannot understand the reluctance to embrace these programs?


Why are you ignoring the fact that 93 percent of violent crime in the US is never committed with a firearm?

Eh?

Why do you tend to overlook the positive example New York City is setting? They have got their shit together and the crime rates are plummeting.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)


Gun control is working in New York and that obviously raises concerns for pro gun advocates, but if reduced crime is the result then I cannot understand the reluctance to embrace these programs?

I want you to present the gun laws that were enacted and show how they related to crime drops.

Gun control has been present in NY for decades and crime increased. New York City was one of the highest crime areas for years. Crime only decreased when the police actually started crime control. There has been a nationwide drop in crime even w/ more ownership and dozens of states passing laws allowing CC as well as other "gun friendly" laws.

You have presented NO evidence that ANY "safe storage" or "waiting period" or individual gun ban has done ANYTHING to reduce crime. These laws only lead to outright bans. That is why we're " reluctance to embrace these programs".

Why are you ignoring the fact that 93 percent of violent crime in the US is never committed with a firearm?

Eh?

The same reason he ignores the fact that the BB didn't reduce crime, the CAWB didn't reduce crime, tracing data isn't true to statistic, and that there are millions of defensive uses of firearms per year.

As much as he denies it, he opposes private ownership. Otherwise, why would he support measures that have only result have been restrictions on ownership?

The same reason he ignores the fact that the BB didn't reduce crime, the CAWB didn't reduce crime, tracing data isn't true to statistic, and that there are millions of defensive uses of firearms per year.

As much as he denies it, he opposes private ownership. Otherwise, why would he support measures that have only result have been restrictions on ownership?

He's also going to tell women that when the stalker comes, they are better off defenseless.

He's also going to tell women that when the stalker comes, they are better off defenseless.

No, he'll say the firearm should be "properly stored" and she should rely on the police.

I wonder if he ignored the posts that show that the police have no obligation to protect a person and that they don't even have to enforce a restraining order?

No, he'll say the firearm should be "properly stored" and she should rely on the police.

I wonder if he ignored the posts that show that the police have no obligation to protect a person and that they don't even have to enforce a restraining order?

And that they usually don't enforce it, and that the courts back them up.

I can see it now - the bad guy will wait while you call the police, and then he'll wait until the police show up before he tries anything.

It's a laughable concept.

Why are you ignoring the fact that 93 percent of violent crime in the US is never committed with a firearm?

Eh?
Then it would be safe to say that firearms are used in 33% of ALL violent crimes where a weapon is used?

Why are you ignoring the fact that 70% of THE most violent crime of murder is committed with a firearm?

I want you to present the gun laws that were enacted and show how they related to crime drops.

Gun control has been present in NY for decades and crime increased. New York City was one of the highest crime areas for years. Crime only decreased when the police actually started crime control. There has been a nationwide drop in crime even w/ more ownership and dozens of states passing laws allowing CC as well as other "gun friendly" laws.

You have presented NO evidence that ANY "safe storage" or "waiting period" or individual gun ban has done ANYTHING to reduce crime. These laws only lead to outright bans. That is why we're " reluctance to embrace these programs".
Read the links I posted and I do believe that the answers that you require will be explained.

No, Canuck is wishing that my women weren't successful in their use of guns. He's hoping they get killed.
Actually, by promoting the poliferation of guns and fighting to perserve the status quo where lax gun laws are concerned, is far more harmful to the women that you profess to be aiding.

Read the links I posted and I do believe that the answers that you require will be explained.

No, they're not. They state that by increasing the police they reduced crime and it coincided w/ the national drop in crime. Most of the gun laws in NYC have been there since the 60's.

Then it would be safe to say that firearms are used in 33% of ALL violent crimes where a weapon is used?

Why are you ignoring the fact that 70% of THE most violent crime of murder is committed with a firearm?

Let's see. According to the Department of Justice Crime Statistics,

93 percent of violent crime (Part I felonies - murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault) is committed without a firearm.

That leaves 7 percent of violent crime involving firearms - not 33 percent.

You can't do math, either.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

And I quote:
# Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

# The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms.

Not 70 percent.

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

What? Declined? When gun ownership across the US increased radically? When the number of states that allowed concealed carry increased radically?

What? What?

Here's another one for you:

From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but 12% of the U.S. population.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

So, Canuck, given that most blacks live in those urban centers with high gun control, what do you think is responsible for that little trend? If guns were equally risky for everyone, then the proportion of other groups affected by them would be the same.

The only logical conclusion is that something else is involved in gun violence - something that is affecting the black community more than any other community - and since these people live in areas of high gun control, it's not the guns.

Explain, please.

Actually, by promoting the poliferation of guns and fighting to perserve the status quo where lax gun laws are concerned, is far more harmful to the women that you profess to be aiding.

By attempting to disarm women and citizens in general, your policies are more likely to increase violence against women.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/women.guns.html
VPC has perverted the definition of such "acquaintance and domestic homicide" into false, but politically useful, imagery of violence amongst "friends and family." That vicious criminals have acquaintances and prey upon their girlfriends and relatives does _not_ mean that such predators are like the "friends and family" that you and I know - or that good people are driven to bloody violence by a gun in the home.

Almost all the "relatives" killed each year are the very same men, well-known to the police, that have been brutalizing their wives, girlfriends, and children for years - those men are killed in self-defense. Would it be more "politically correct" if those women or children were killed by their abusers? Should we leave women and their children helpless dialing 911?

Edgar A. Suter MD

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

http://www.gunowners.org/wv26.htm

a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes, "Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."
Dr. Robert J. Woolley
Boynton Health Service

No, they're not. They state that by increasing the police they reduced crime. Most of the gun laws in NYC have been there since the 60's.
Gun laws + effective policing = safest metropolitan city in US.

Perhaps Richmond could reduce crime with stricter gun laws?

Gun laws + effective policing = safest metropolitan city in US.

Perhaps Richmond could reduce crime with stricter gun laws?


Gun laws + effective policing =

more dead young black males
more young black males in prison

by proportion of their population compared to any other social/racial group in the US.

Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4 per 1000 blacks) were:

40 percent higher than rates for Hispanics (6.0)
200 percent higher than rates for whites (2.8 per 1000)

Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be murdered with a firearm.

On average, black victims of firearm violence were 3 years younger than white victims - 29 vs 32.

From 1993 to 2001 blacks accounted for 49 percent of homicide victims and 54 percent of victims of firearm homicide, but only 12 percent of the US population.

So, Canuck, if the mere presence of firearms is equally bad for anyone, why is there this disparity - as proven by the Department of Justice Crime Statistics from 1993 to 2001 - over a time period when overall firearm homicide rates dropped substantially - over a time period when gun ownership in the US increased from 200 to 300 million guns - over a time period when more states allowed their citizens to carry guns - over a time period where the locations that most black live in were turned into gun control enclaves.

I bet you can't explain it.

Gun laws + effective policing = safest metropolitan city in US.

Perhaps Richmond could reduce crime with stricter gun laws?

So causality is proved by laws that have been on the books for 40 years and a recent push by police to deter crime?

I make an alternate causality. The increase in global warming (over the last forty years) + the quadrupling of the police force = a safer city.

Prove me wrong.

Now what are the laws they have in place Canuck? When did they come into place? Since you have admitted that the majority of metropolitan police are inneffective (including NYC for almost 40 years), why should we rely on them for protection?

Earlier you claimed that the BB reduced crime in NYC when it wasn't even in effect there. Your claims as to the effectiveness of various laws are unsubstantiated and have no support or evidence to back them up.


You still haven't proved causality.


More causality fun: an increase in hindu based books = a drop in crime.
http://preaching.krishna.org/Articles/2002/02/019.html

But crime expert Andrew Karmen from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan said there was no clear explanation for the crime rate continuing to fall.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_ny_crime.html
http://www.theinsider.com/nyc/survive/011crime.htm


Hmmm, no mention of gun laws.

So causality is proved by laws that have been on the books for 40 years and a recent push by police to deter crime?

I make an alternate causality. The increase in global warming (over the last forty years) + the quadrupling of the police force = a safer city.

Prove me wrong.


The decline in the belief in Santa Claus by white US citizens has cause the number of firearm deaths among blacks to increase. Obviously, a racist causality.

The decline in the sales and use of Spirograph is also responsible for the general decrease in firearm violence (63 percent) over the period 1993 to 2001.

The decline in the number of pirates operating in the Carribean is responsible for global warming.

Ok, this is going faster than I can even read....so is anybody actually listening?

British culture is not American culture. In america, you CANNOT ban guns. If you need proof of this, read a dozen various books about it. Guns are entrenched in American culture, and firmly.

Even if you could remove guns entirely, you'd simply turn gun crime into regular-type crime. The advantage of guns in a society? Equality. Mastering a weapons martial technique doesn't mean you're gonna just walk over everyone, 'cause you're going to get pwned by someone's .38 Special you didn't factor into the equation.

Guns, in the right hands, are a godsend.

Fight crime: shoot back! :D

So causality is proved by laws that have been on the books for 40 years and a recent push by police to deter crime?
Perhaps you did not read the links I posted?

In 1997, there were 3,600 fewer nonfatal shootings than in 1993, the year before implementation of NYPD's strategy for getting guns off the streets (a reduction of 62 percent). From 1994 to 1997, 46,198 gun arrests were made and 56,081 guns were taken off the streets. For the first time since 1968, the annual number of murders in the city dropped below 1,000.

It appears that as the guns disappear, the crime rate drops.

FFL enforcement also has been effective in discouraging unqualified applicants from applying for gun licenses and in denying licenses to unqualified dealers. Since the inception of the program, more than 92 percent of the applicants for new or renewed gun licenses have been denied or have withdrawn their applications. More than 200 gun dealers have been arrested and their weapons caches confiscated. The number of FFL's in the city dropped from 952 in 1991 to 259 in 1996, a 73-percent reduction.

It appears that eliminating illegal gun sales, a decreasing gun dealer network, and less guns have helped in reducing crime.

I make an alternate causality. The increase in global warming (over the last forty years) + the quadrupling of the police force = a safer city.

Prove me wrong.
Here, I have no desire to prove you wrong. If you believe that, then go for it. :rolleyes:

Now what are the laws they have in place Canuck? When did they come into place? Since you have admitted that the majority of metropolitan police are inneffective (including NYC for almost 40 years), why should we rely on them for protection?

State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns

Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.

Registration of rifles and shotguns? No, except in New York City.

Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No, except in New York City.

Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No, except in New York City.

Handguns

Permit to purchase handgun? Yes.

Registration of handguns? Yes.

Licensing of owners of handguns? Yes.

Permit to carry handguns? Yes.

Other Requirements

Is there a State waiting period? Up to 6-month wait to acquire permit to purchase a handgun.

Is there a FBI *NICS check for firearm transactions? Yes.

Permit to carry a concealed weapon required? Yes.

Record of sale: Yes.

Earlier you claimed that the BB reduced crime in NYC when it wasn't even in effect there. Your claims as to the effectiveness of various laws are unsubstantiated and have no support or evidence to back them up.
It would seem to make sense that if 90% of crime guns were coming into New York City were from out of State (as was the case back in 1993), and BB makes it more difficult to acquire guns in those States, then the crime rate would drop.

Perhaps you did not read the links I posted?

It appears that eliminating illegal gun sales, a decreasing gun dealer network, and less guns have helped in reducing crime..

It appears that crime started dropping at the same time nationally while ownership increased. The police worked at getting illegal guns off the street, along w/ going after many lower levels of crime. It also states 90% of the guns SEIZED as of '93. Now with "looser" laws in these other states, you've claimed 85%. According to your own statistics and claims of causality, that would show that looser laws reduce gun trafficing. No proof of causality that reducing legally owned firearms, waiting periods, or "safe storage" reduced crime.







It would seem to make sense that if 90% of crime guns were coming into New York City were from out of State (as was the case back in 1993), and BB makes it more difficult to acquire guns in those States, then the crime rate would drop.

You listed no specific laws nor when they came into effect in relation to crime, only basic requirements. The only thing you've shown is that the police were inneffective for over 40 years in NYC and it wasn't until the early 90's that they actually started doing their job.

so :Police going after criminals=lower crime

Go figure

Most of the states you listed were exempt from the BB which only enacted a waiting period. States under the BB had less of a crime drop than other states that used different methods. No proof of causality. Try again.

This reflects the views of most states. You may want to check Louisianna's "shoot burglar law " If passed it lets you shoot someone attempting entry. before you shoot and bag your criminal it is important to take note of the laws of the stae you bag him in .

[ Well, here we are. Your castle is intruded. What c
WHAT HAPPENS IF I SHOOT A BURGLAR?

Legal Opinion by Leo Himmelsbach- District Attorney, Santa Clara
County (for the Neighborhood Guardian)

What happens if I shoot a burglar? Depending on the
circumstances the shooting may or may not be justified. If it is
not, you may find yourself facing charges of murder; or if the
shooting is non-fatal, of assault with a deadly weapon.

Within the past two years in this county, a young man was
convicted of manslaughter because he elected to shoot a fleeing
burglar who had entered a closed business premises at night,
but who fled on being discovered.

The courts of this state have held that deadly force may be
used only when a burglary if " forcible and atrocious", one which
reasonable creates a fear of death or great bodily harm.

Second degree burglary, (entry of a dwelling while unarmed
in the daytime or entry of a commercial building in the daytime
or nighttime) in and of itself does not constitute a dangerous
and atrocious felony. To be classified as a dangerous and
atrocious felony, the circumstances must be such that a
reasonable man would believe his life or that of his family or
guests is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. It is
the reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm, not
the burglary itself that may justify shooting the suspect.

Once the suspect is fleeing, even with your stolen property,
shooting him is not justified. Call the police.

An example may be helpful. On returning home in mid-
afternoon to a supposedly empty house, you discover a stranger
disconnecting your stereo set. He flees for an exit. You cannot
shoot him. However, if he is armed with a gun, drawn knife or
other deadly weapon, and appears ready to use the same, you may
shoot. The fact of committing a burglary while armed would
ordinarily constitute a dangerous and atrocious felony creating
in you a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

Entry of a dwelling in the nighttime, whether or not armed,
if first degree burglary, yet in and of itself does not justify
the use of deadly force. However, because of the stealth involved
and the fact that the occupants are likely to be home, and often
in bed, the very circumstances would suggest a reasonable
apprehension of death or great bodily harm. In a darkened room,
you are not required to ascertain that the burglar is armed
before you shoot.

In summary, where the character and the manner of the
burglary does not reasonable create a fear of great bodily harm,
there is no cause for the extraction of human life or for the use
of deadly force. Shoot only if you reasonably believe your life
or that of other occupants of your household are in great danger;
otherwise, call the police.

In summary-2, It appears that we really don't want to do
anything that will interfere with the intruders activities since we
can be charged with murder or be sued by the intruder for hampering
his activities. Two more strikes of (anykind!!) and you'd be OUT!!![/quote]

I posted this because it reflects both common sense and general guidlines for bagging a criminal . Again do check your state and local laws .


This is an example of facts we can actually use .

Crime is much more complicated issue than just firearm ownership. Trying to pin crime on firearms and excluding all other soical issues is about as intellectually dishonest as you can get.

The Liberals don't want you to stop the criminal if he's getting away with your stuff. You OWE it to the criminal because he's probably black and the white man owes all blacks because of slavery. Whether you ever owned slaves or the person was ever a slave. Or the criminal might be mexican, in which case you owe them because you stole their lands 160 years ago. Even if you live in a place that wasn't stolen from mexico or that mexican didn't live in a place that was stolen.

Basically, the victims owe the criminals in nearly every case. It's because they're poor. It's not their fault if they go in to crime. Every liberal knows blacks and mexicans cant accomplish anything without being criminals. No matter how much they claim they believe in equality, really they look down on all minorties. Which is why they need special treatment.

:p

It is an interesting idea. I am proud to have the right to own a gun, I don't but I can if I want too. I belive in the right to defend one's self, but I don't trust everyone to do it. Lets face it there are some people out there who would shoot a girl scout for trespassing. Using a gun for self defense should be a last resort, but it should be an option.

It appears that crime started dropping at the same time nationally while ownership increased. The police worked at getting illegal guns off the street, along w/ going after many lower levels of crime. No proof of causality that reducing legally owned firearms, waiting periods, or "safe storage" reduced crime.
And which State was the most instrumental in helping to lower the National VCR? New York of course. The VCR dropped 34% during the BB years, with the number of VC decreasing from 175,433 down to 115,915.

Compare that to Texas, and Virginia during the same years, and there was only a 5.5% drop in Violent Crimes.

While the number of guns owned increased, the actual number of gun owners, actually declined during the BB years.

Virginia's passing of a law (1995) allowing the purchase of only one gun a month has resulted in a reduction of Virginia guns recovered in New York by 71%.

People who really want to have a safer living environment should be supporting improved policing methods using the NYC model, and push for stricter gun contols not less.

<snip> I posted this because it reflects both common sense and general guidlines for bagging a criminal . Again do check your state and local laws . <snip>
Interestingly enough, it is also in keeping with ancient Jewish Law on when you are allowed to use deadly force (outside of warfare) to defend yourself.

The Liberals don't want you to stop the criminal if he's getting away with your stuff. You OWE it to the criminal because he's probably black and the white man owes all blacks because of slavery. Whether you ever owned slaves or the person was ever a slave. Or the criminal might be mexican, in which case you owe them because you stole their lands 160 years ago. Even if you live in a place that wasn't stolen from mexico or that mexican didn't live in a place that was stolen.

Basically, the victims owe the criminals in nearly every case. It's because they're poor. It's not their fault if they go in to crime. Every liberal knows blacks and mexicans cant accomplish anything without being criminals. No matter how much they claim they believe in equality, really they look down on all minorties. Which is why they need special treatment.

:p
Extremely reasoned response and so true. :rolleyes:

And which State was the most instrumental in helping to lower the National VCR? New York of course. The VCR dropped 34% during the BB years, with the number of VC decreasing from 175,433 down to 115,915..
With such a large percentage of the population, no doubt.
None of which can be attributed to the BB or any gun control law. Only more policing and dozens of other reasons. One of your own sources listed quite a few reasons and none of them were legal firearm ownership yet you persist in attempting to validate holding LAC's more accountable for crime than criminals .

Compare that to Texas, and Virginia during the same years, and there was only a 5.5% drop in Violent Crimes..

Virginia not effected by BB, Texas later exempt from BB. VA crime also dropped more significantly after adopting its own instant check system. There were also large population increases in both TX and VA whereas NY actually decreased. Both also became CC in '95 and crime continued to drop. Since then over 400,000 CC permits have been issued w/ less than 1% revoked for ANY reason. No causality w/ crime vs. laws but it sure seems like CC holders are more law-abiding than your average citizen(2.7%).

While the number of guns owned increased, the actual number of gun owners, actually declined during the BB years..
Already shown you how that was wrong and/or misleading. Nice to know you still ignore most posts.

Virginia's passing of a law (1995) allowing the purchase of only one gun a month has resulted in a reduction of Virginia guns recovered in New York by 71%..
Once again, "recovered" means nothing in actual numbers. Nice to know you still ignore most posts and still claim causality w/o proving it.

People who really want to have a safer living environment should be supporting improved policing methods using the NYC model, and push for stricter gun contols not less.

You still claim that gun control laws reduce crime. You have yet to prove any causality in that regards. Crime control actually effects crime. Do I need to quote to you the CDC study results again? Let's throw in a few more factors:

Handgun production peaked in '93 & '94, the same years crime was dropping.
Since 1988 17 million children (real children not 19-26 year olds) attended NRA safety programs (which gun banners oppose)
Over 100,000 police have been added nationwide
dropping unemployment rates during the 90's.
Many police agencies began opposing the "no resistance" policies of the 80's.

None of these are absolute causes yet all can be attributed to the drops in crime just as easily as you claim causality w/ various firearm laws.

The best rule of thumb to use in any situation when you use force is " is my life threatened ? " . catch a criminal stealing a radio out of your car and you are not even justified punching him in the face . Unless of course you being a good citizen try to restrain him from running away and he attacks you . But even then you can only use such force as is necessary to protect yourself and cant intentionally injure him . And by even attempting to restrain the criminal you subject yourself to a review of your actions by lawfull authority...in other words it aint worth the radio . Anytime you get involved with the law its a crap shoot that could at best cost you some time and money and at worse time in jail. Only shoot when deadly force is waranted and let the cops deal with the bullshit. they get paid to sweat the small stuff.
When you carry a weapon ignorance of the law is no excuse. And you will be judged harshly if you put yourself in a situation that you could have reasonably avoided. so no going to grab a guy who stole your radio and saying " he tried to grab my gun " ... :D Why did you when you knew you were carrying a gun put yourself into that situation ? Possible manslaughter charge at least or if you dont kill him lawsuit and assault charges. :D
Use your head not the gun .

If you do have to use deadly force, you had better make damn sure that it is deadly. The pro-criminal lobby will make sure that you will pay for it for the rest of your life if you don't.

Glazers, 00 buckshot, or hi performance hollow points are a must. All have high lethality ratings and have limited penitration, no thru and thru shots.

Don't believe that there is a pro-criminal lobby? How many people in this forum are doing their best to blame crime on inanimate machines and not the individuals using them?

Never put yourself into a position where that will matter ;)

If you do have to use deadly force, you had better make damn sure that it is deadly. The pro-criminal lobby will make sure that you will pay for it for the rest of your life if you don't.

Glazers, 00 buckshot, or hi performance hollow points are a must. All have high lethality ratings and have limited penitration, no thru and thru shots.

Don't believe that there is a pro-criminal lobby? How many people in this forum are doing their best to blame crime on inanimate machines and not the individuals using them?
It is posts such as this one that causes concern. The shoot to kill mentality is mind boggling, and the suggestion of keeping the guns loaded with the most lethal agents is abhorrent.

It is kinda like the instant death penalty.

BTW, those "inanimate machines" you talk about are used in 70% of the murders in the US. Once animated, those "machines" cause death and destruction.

It is posts such as this one that causes concern. The shoot to kill mentality is mind boggling, and the suggestion of keeping the guns loaded with the most lethal agents is abhorrent.

It is kinda like the instant death penalty.

BTW, those "inanimate machines" you talk about are used in 70% of the murders in the US. Once animated, those "machines" cause death and destruction.

More misleading stats and lack of knowledge of firearms and of self-defense in general.

It is posts such as this one that causes concern. The shoot to kill mentality is mind boggling, and the suggestion of keeping the guns loaded with the most lethal agents is abhorrent.No, what is abhorrent is that the US has a legal system that will allow a surviving criminal to sue you for pain & suffering - and win.
It is kinda like the instant death penalty.Much better than the Government kind. At least there are fewer "false arrests". If I have to draw/fire a gun at someone it is because I am in immediate fear for my (or someone else's) life. IMMEDIATE. Not "i think they might" or "because he's in my house", but because I am being attacked. There is no question of guilt or innocence - and I should not have to worry about being held financially responsible because someone decided to attack me. The sad truth is, if you are forced to shoot, Shoot to kill, because the Legals are easier to deal with.
BTW, those "inanimate machines" you talk about are used in 70% of the murders in the US. Once animated, those "machines" cause death and destruction.The machines are not animated. They are held and used, for good or evil, by a person who has either good or evil intent. Firearms are not little Frankenstein Monsters who jump off the table wanting to be loved by their creator then killing because of feelings of rejection. They are things that are used. Period.

Extremely reasoned response and so true. :rolleyes:

Oh, I see. In your eyes, the women who are beaten by their husbands owe it to their husbands to be beaten.

Very well reasoned response, and so full of it.

And somehow other western countries with stricter gun laws have lower murder rates and less gun crime...

In America a criminal expects you to be armed with a gun and therefore will be armed with one themselves - when you are tired and groggy when woken in the night and your gun is in a draw beside your bed are you likely to win a round of quickdraw with a criminal who is awake and alert with the gun already in their hand and the element of surprise on their side?

In many other western countries the criminals do not expect householders to be armed with guns and so do not carry them themsleves (not very often) - and so when robberies go wrong it is rare for people to get killed.

1. America is not other countries. In fact, according to the International Small Arms Survey, not all European countries are alike in gun violence.

2. According to Department of Justice Crime Statistics, 93 percent of violent crime is committed without a firearm. So your ridiculous assertion that a criminal expects you to be armed, and is thus armed, is thrown out by real facts.
3. I've drawn three times to stop a robbery. Without firing a shot. And because I was socially aware of my surroundings, I saw it coming. Your concept of quickdraw comes from watching too many movies, instead of reality on the street.

And somehow other western countries with stricter gun laws have lower murder rates and less gun crime...

In America a criminal expects you to be armed with a gun and therefore will be armed with one themselves - when you are tired and groggy when woken in the night and your gun is in a draw beside your bed are you likely to win a round of quickdraw with a criminal who is awake and alert with the gun already in their hand and the element of surprise on their side?

In many other western countries the criminals do not expect householders to be armed with guns and so do not carry them themsleves (not very often) - and so when robberies go wrong it is rare for people to get killed.

If the girl was in a country with stricter gun laws the chances are that her attacker would not have been armed and she would more likely be alive.

Actually, most professional or experienced burglars prefer to do their trade unarmed - it's the inexperienced I worry about. Think about it...armed robbery or simple robbery?

I want to know what set of statistics you're using to base your claim that the US has a higher rate of murder

Glazers are a MUST for home defence. Not only does it make Mr Crimanal deluxe dead but prevents overpenitration that could harm a freindly. I would recomend no other ammunition for home defense, even if they are in a vest the blunt trauma is incapacitating.



If you do have to use deadly force, you had better make damn sure that it is deadly. The pro-criminal lobby will make sure that you will pay for it for the rest of your life if you don't.

Glazers, 00 buckshot, or hi performance hollow points are a must. All have high lethality ratings and have limited penitration, no thru and thru shots.

Don't believe that there is a pro-criminal lobby? How many people in this forum are doing their best to blame crime on inanimate machines and not the individuals using them?

Glazers are a MUST for home defence. Not only does it make Mr Crimanal deluxe dead but prevents overpenitration that could harm a freindly. I would recomend no other ammunition for home defense, even if they are in a vest the blunt trauma is incapacitating.

I prefer Remington Golden Saber, 230gr +P, in 45 ACP. Doesn't overpenetrate, but it does penetrate deeply in people. Goes through glass without deforming. Does better on clothed people - doesn't plug up. Outstanding performance in real life law enforcement shootings.

From a civil lawsuit standpoint, it's best to use what the police use. Then no one can say bad things about you. So I choose Golden Saber.

Also a common arguement for having a gun seems to be that you need one to protect yourself from a criminal who will also have a gun - and you imply most criminals are not armed :S
Wrong, guns are an equalizer. That is, a small woman with a gun now has the ability to hold off a large man with a bat. It has little to do with the idea that the criminals themselves may be armed.

It is posts such as this one that causes concern. The shoot to kill mentality is mind boggling,
Your inability to see the forest for the trees is mind boggling - tons of facts, figures, statisticis, and links, sources, etc, and you still cling to your illogical, unfounded, and foolish theories. I sincerely hope for your sake, that you are never assaulted or raped. , and the suggestion of keeping the guns loaded with the most lethal agents is abhorrent. All intelligent people use the most effective tools they can use. I don't use Glasers, but do use top quality jacketed hollow point ammunition in my sidearm, as it is more humane to do so. Full metal jacket, aka "ball", bullets create a through and through wound, small holes on both sides of the target. This means the attacker is not stopped, the bullet continues on who knows where, and the victim is forced to fire more rounds at the attacker. This also means the attacker suffers more, and may bleed out slowly from multiple wounds.
Hollow point, pre-fragmented, or expanding full metal jacket ammunition actually is more humane. The expansion retards penetration, dumping more energy into the target, increasing incapacition, and much more likely causing the attacker to stop. As handgun wounds are roughly 80% survivable, this results in an attacker more likely to stop attacking, and more likely to survive to the emergency room and beyond.
It is kinda like the instant death penalty.
I shoot to stop thier felonious assault. They put themselves there, they put themselves beyond the laws protection. Therefore, I will use the legal means available to me to defend myself. Dying is completely up to them.
BTW, those "inanimate machines" you talk about are used in 70% of the murders in the US. Once animated, those "machines" cause death and destruction.
I have never, in all my life of shooting, carrying, instructing in the use of, and selling firearms, seen a single firearm do anything by itself. A firearm is an object designed to expel a metal alloy slug out of a metal tube by the action of expanding gases, caused by burning of a propellant. Without the deliberate action of a human agent, this WILL NOT OCCUR.
Face facts - you don't like guns, you don't like gun owners, you won't drop the hysterical drumbeat, don't confuse you with the facts, your mid is made up, and all the arguments in the world won't change it.
OK, remember the definition of conservative - a liberal who's been mugged.

But then why are there so many gun murders committed by the aggressors/criminals if owning a gun is only an equaliser against a lightly armed criminal?.

The majority of crime is criminal against criminal. Owning a firearm is not "only an equaliser against a lightly armed criminal", it is an equaliser against ALL criminals. Over 2 million crimes / year are stopped by citizens w/ firearms in the US.

Surely if gun ownership prevented crime America would have a lower murder rate than the UK rather than having a rate three times higher.


False. What were the crime levels in the UK BEFORE the various bans? Why is crime increasing in the UK? Why has crime/murder dropped in the US although ownership has increased?

If you can prove the causality of more guns = more crime, you'll be the first.

The US has THREE times as many murders as the UK.

One of the biggest differences in the two countries (crimewise) is that there is little gun control in the US and strict gun control in the UK.

Gun ownership regulations in the UK have generally always been strict and were tightened almost ten years ago to prohibit hand guns, in that decade the UK has not even come close to approaching the US murder rates.

As you are the one asking for the stats would you mind looking up UK murder rates for 1995 and then for 2005 to compare the rise?
while you're at it would you mind finding the comparable US stats so we can compare?

You're the one claiming causality. You have to prove it. The murder rate in the US has gone from 8.2 to below 5.5. The violent crime rate has dropped from 684 to below 475. There have been millions of people buying firearms and dozens of states relaxing the firearm laws.

UK crime has increased. Show me the different firearm laws and how they effected crime there. Show me the causality.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

Note that during this time, firearm ownership in the US increased from 200 million guns to 300 million guns. Also, during this time, the number of US States that allowed concealed carry of guns increased from 14 to 35.

So, if we start from the UK is not the US, let's see what happens when the US radically increases its firearms, and radically liberalizes its gun laws.

Oh! Firearm violence down 63%! Overall murders down 36%! Firearm murders down 41%!

From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims
facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury
was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).

* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

Note that during this time, firearm ownership in the US increased from 200 million guns to 300 million guns. Also, during this time, the number of US States that allowed concealed carry of guns increased from 14 to 35.

So, if we start from the UK is not the US, let's see what happens when the US radically increases its firearms, and radically liberalizes its gun laws.

Oh! Firearm violence down 63%! Overall murders down 36%! Firearm murders down 41%!

From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims
facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury
was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).

* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

This leaves the distinct impression that gangs are responsible for a large number of firearm related deaths in the US...would that not be criminal vs criminal murders - most often using illegal firearms...

I'm also somewhat curious as to how many of those murder 'victims' in the US are actually the criminal being killed in self-defense...

This leaves the distinct impression that gangs are responsible for a large number of firearm related deaths in the US...would that not be criminal vs criminal murders - most often using illegal firearms...

Bingo. Despite the fact that gun ownership is higher among whites, they have a much lower murder rate and much lower firearm violence rate.

It's mostly an economic class issue/race issue - poor urban people living in ghettos created by the state, and the wave of crack and meth that is destroying them.

Violence rates outside of these areas is rather low by comparison.

And behold! The US still has a murder rate three times that of the UK.

I really cant be bothered to check but if you insist UK crime is rising then OK, but would like a stat on how much it has increased in the last decade - at any rate you are three times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.

And behold! Claims w/o evidence.

And behold! Violent crime in the UK has surpassed the US. Murder rates were lower even before the bans and ownership was more common.

And behold! No proof of causality.

But for every murder a 1000 are prevented. I won't post the stats AGAIN read the thread.


But then why are there so many gun murders committed by the aggressors/criminals if owning a gun is only an equaliser against a lightly armed criminal?

Surely if gun ownership prevented crime America would have a lower murder rate than the UK rather than having a rate three times higher.

Extremely reasoned response and so true. :rolleyes:

I can only assume this is your thought process. You want to increase gun restrictions, whether it's to UK levels, or completely I don't know. Since criminals by defintion do NOT obey laws, I can only assume you want to disarm all law abiding people. Unless your goal is to make the law abiding citizens easy marks for the criminals, your plan is pointless. It will have no other effect.

But for every murder a 1000 are prevented. I won't post the stats AGAIN read the thread.

I'm sure he really couldn't be bothered to.

I am accepting the UK has rising crime rates, but would like to know how much.

If you are going to claim violent crime in the UK is higher than the US please provide figures.

As I stated murder rates in the US are three times that of the UK - seems the most violent of crimes is far more common in the US than the UK.

the US has three times the murder rate of the UK. If you remove ALL US gun murders (someone here put the figure at 70% of murders in the US) the US would have a very similar rate to the UK - going from the 70% (without even excluding UK gun murders).

Remove gun murders from the US and you have the UK murder rate (or close to it).

But anyway... Enjoy the safety of your society where you are three times more likely to be murdered than someone in the UK and most likely that murder will be committed with a gun.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.
England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/07/ncrime07.xml

The true level of crime is as much as 40 per cent higher than official figures show.

ANd also:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1734202,00.html

However, Britain’s murder rate for the population as a whole has almost doubled in the past 20 years, with young men from poor backgrounds by far the most likely victims.

Last year Home Office statistics recorded 833 murders in England and Wales, compared with just 565 a decade ago. Of last year’s total, 72% were men.

In fact, proportionately more murders are committed with guns in well-to-do areas. They account for 29% of murders in the richest parts of the country, compared with only 11% in the poorest wards.

One reason for this is that farmers still have legal access to shotguns. “The more affluent an area, the more likely it is that guns will be used,” said Dorling.



This plus millions of crimes are PREVENTED by LAC's owning firearms (read the thread) plus millions more firearms plus higher gang crime/illegal immigration plus a dropping crime rate in the US = No proof causality

Can you prove that the US & UK murder rates are similar w/o firearms? You've made the assertion now back it up.

You are not honestly saying the US would have 10,000,000+ murders a year are you?

And if it is true that without guns America would have a murder rate 3000 times that of the UK then there is something SERIOUSLY fucked up with the US.
Yeah, it's called "The Great Society" and "Urban Renewal" that created condensed pockets of poverty and criminality under the auspices of helping "the poor" (read African Americans). So we concentrate our low SES "undesirables" into Government housing projects where personal responsibility is Forbidden and gangs of thugs rule the streets and kill each other with alarming regularity - all nicely out of view of the helpful, compassionate, (white) progressives living in the suburbs. :headbang:

THAT is what is wrong with the US. :mad:

As I stated murder rates in the US are three times that of the UK - seems the most violent of crimes is far more common in the US than the UK.



And the only differentiating factor is the gun laws? Might it also be that the US has 4 times the minorities as Britain? About 8 times that of Scotland, and 25 times that of Ireland?

Considering the majority of murders involve black victims, if we had the same percentage of blacks that the UK had, might our murder rate be lower?

correction it 100 not 1000 my error it was a typo.

guns prevent (depending on who's numbers you use) between 500,000 and 1,500,000 crimes per year.
Canada and Austrailia have more than DOUBLE the per capita rape rate (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap)
and strict gun control, coralation???



You are not honestly saying the US would have 10,000,000+ murders a year are you?

And if it is true that without guns America would have a murder rate 3000 times that of the UK then there is something SERIOUSLY fucked up with the US.

Yeah, it's called "The Great Society" and "Urban Renewal" that created condensed pockets of poverty and criminality under the auspices of helping "the poor" (read African Americans). So we concentrate our low SES "undesirables" into Government housing projects where personal responsibility is Forbidden and gangs of thugs rule the streets and kill each other with alarming regularity - all nicely out of view of the helpful, compassionate, (white) progressives living in the suburbs. :headbang:

THAT is what is wrong with the US. :mad:

I always said you are a gun-nut with a brain ;) ...I second your opinion, we have these problems in europe but not to that extent

I always said you are a gun-nut with a brain ;) ...I second your opinion, we have these problems in europe but not to that extent

And that's why "gun nuts" like me fight against the causality arguements that are repeated ad-nauseum. In the US we have ghettos that a caucasian WILL be killed if he enters. These are also areas that have (on average) the highest crime rates and the strictest firearm laws.
We have cities that have laws preventing the police from arresting illegal immigrants even if they've been deported previously and are known criminals.
We have drug laws that have not stopped any drugs.
And you have recently seen how well our gov't (at all levels) responds to emergencies.

Sorry, was an inside between syniks and me...desn´t want to interrupt your discussion. But from what you said it looks like a fatalistic measure of so many americans to be armed, maybe a neccessity but no solution..go on

Sorry, was an inside between syniks and me...desn´t want to interrupt your discussion. But from what you said it looks like a fatalistic measure of so many americans to be armed, maybe a neccessity but no solution..go on
The larger problem that most Europeans fail to fully grasp is how physically large and diverse the US really is.

If one were to remove the US urban areas out of the mix, the crime rate becomes almost insignificant. If we were magically remove all firearms from urban-density areas, there would still be millions of gun owners holding millions of guns in the US - the vast majority of whom will never commit a violent crime of any type, nor have their firearms stolen.

When people speak of the pros & cons of US firearms ownership, they are invariably either forgetting or maliciously ignoring this HUGE peaceful gunowning segment in favor of arguing about urban criminals and those who must defend themselves from those criminals.

I guess you could call it fatalistic, but there is no practical or practisable way to remove the Right of several million people to enjoy their peacable Sport, Collection or Recreational shooting activities because of the actions of people - in other parts of the country - who won't follow the law anyway.

The larger problem that most Europeans fail to fully grasp is how physically large and diverse the US really is.

If one were to remove the US urban areas out of the mix, the crime rate becomes almost insignificant. If we were magically remove all firearms from urban-density areas, there would still be millions of gun owners holding millions of guns in the US - the vast majority of whom will never commit a violent crime of any type, nor have their firearms stolen.

-snip-

I guess you could call it fatalistic, but there is no practical or practisable way to remove the Right of several million people to enjoy their peacable Sport, Collection or Recreational shooting activities because of the actions of people - in other parts of the country - who won't follow the law anyway.

Syniks, you are so right.

People in other countries don't think about the fact that there are almost 300 million people in the USA, and guns enough for all already in circulation.

And they really have no idea of the vast area of the continental US, how spread out everything is. Today, to get to work late (I overslept-normally leave the house to catch a bus at 5:10am-had to drive today), I left home at 8am, and arrived at work at 10am. 2 hours, 70 miles from home to work. I am glad that my recently-discovered Scottish half-brother got to visit recently. Now he has an idea of how big this country really is... ;)

On another note, I really need to buy my wife another gun. Her S&W 686 with 6" barrel is a really nice gun (saved her life once-one less certified scumbag in the world), but she should have something more concealable, just in case... :cool:

correction it 100 not 1000 my error it was a typo.

guns prevent (depending on who's numbers you use) between 500,000 and 1,500,000 crimes per year.
Source please.

Canada and Austrailia have more than DOUBLE the per capita rape rate (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap)
and strict gun control, coralation???
If you think there is a correlation, then I invite you to prove it. Oh, and good luck.

I can only assume this is your thought process. You want to increase gun restrictions, whether it's to UK levels, or completely I don't know. Since criminals by defintion do NOT obey laws, I can only assume you want to disarm all law abiding people. Unless your goal is to make the law abiding citizens easy marks for the criminals, your plan is pointless. It will have no other effect.
My reply was based on your slur against blacks, hispanics, and liberals.

In regards to your assumptions:

"You want to increase gun restrictions." True.

"I can only assume you want to disarm all law abiding people." False.

"Unless your goal is to make the law abiding citizens easy marks for the criminals" False.

"your plan is pointless". False.

Source please.
Again its been many time already in this thread (and every friggin other gun control thread), do you have friggin Alzheimer's ? WTF? :confused:

If you think there is a correlation, then I invite you to prove it. Oh, and good luck.
I dunno ??? Maybe Canadians like to violate other people in a crass display of violence...I'm just presenting the information you can draw your own conclusions.

Your inability to see the forest for the trees is mind boggling - tons of facts, figures, statisticis, and links, sources, etc, and you still cling to your illogical, unfounded, and foolish theories. I sincerely hope for your sake, that you are never assaulted or raped.
Wow...."inability to see......illogical, unfounded, and foolish". I guess you have all the answers? I have seen tons of "figures, statisticis, and links, sources, etc", but not too many supportable "facts" by the pro gun lobby.

BTW, not too many guys get raped, but thanks for your concern. :rolleyes:

All intelligent people use the most effective tools they can use.
Only "intelligent people" use guns? Most of the intelligent people I lnow only talk about their hunting rifles.

I don't use Glasers, but do use top quality jacketed hollow point ammunition in my sidearm, as it is more humane to do so. Full metal jacket, aka "ball", bullets create a through and through wound, small holes on both sides of the target. This means the attacker is not stopped, the bullet continues on who knows where, and the victim is forced to fire more rounds at the attacker. This also means the attacker suffers more, and may bleed out slowly from multiple wounds.
Hollow point, pre-fragmented, or expanding full metal jacket ammunition actually is more humane. The expansion retards penetration, dumping more energy into the target, increasing incapacition, and much more likely causing the attacker to stop. As handgun wounds are roughly 80% survivable, this results in an attacker more likely to stop attacking, and more likely to survive to the emergency room and beyond. I shoot to stop thier felonious assault. They put themselves there, they put themselves beyond the laws protection. Therefore, I will use the legal means available to me to defend myself. Dying is completely up to them.
Gee, you know an awful lot about killing people, and you seem so matter of fact about the whole thing? Any room for love in your life?

I have never, in all my life of shooting, carrying, instructing in the use of, and selling firearms, seen a single firearm do anything by itself. A firearm is an object designed to expel a metal alloy slug out of a metal tube by the action of expanding gases, caused by burning of a propellant. Without the deliberate action of a human agent, this WILL NOT OCCUR.
The deadly agent is the bullet, no matter how you want to colour it.

Face facts - you don't like guns, you don't like gun owners,
Where have I ever stated that I don't like gun owners? I have friends who own guns. They are responsible gun owners. There is a difference?

you won't drop the hysterical drumbeat, don't confuse you with the facts, your mid is made up, and all the arguments in the world won't change it.
I guess the same could be said about you? BTW, I am not "hysterical". :rolleyes:

OK, remember the definition of conservative - a liberal who's been mugged.
I like to think of liberals as being free thinkers, and to use the dictionary definition would be appropriate:

"favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual"

So by definition, I am a liberal, but contrary to your definition, I have never been "mugged".

Again its been many time already in this thread (and every friggin other gun control thread), do you have friggin Alzheimer's ? WTF? :confused:
Nice ad hominen. :rolleyes:

You stated:

"guns prevent (depending on who's numbers you use) between 500,000 and 1,500,000 crimes per year"

Even you can't decide which numbers to use, so that is why I asked for a source.

I dunno ??? Maybe Canadians like to violate other people in a crass display of violence...I'm just presenting the information you can draw your own conclusions.
Alaska has zero gun restrictions and a much higher rape rate than Canada. Correlation?

Nice ad hominen. :rolleyes:

You stated:

"guns prevent (depending on who's numbers you use) between 500,000 and 1,500,000 crimes per year"

Even you can't decide which numbers to use, so that is why I asked for a source.

The sources have been linked numerous times in this thread. You know this. You also don't know what an "Ad Hominem" is.


Alaska has zero gun restrictions and a much higher rape rate than Canada. Correlation?

False statement. There are restrictions on criminals.

Vermont has few restrictions on firearms and has a much lower rape rate than Canada.

Since you completely missed the point on the poster correlating crime to guns, he was making a comparison to low crime w/ guns. But I'm sure you just mistook it and didn't deliberately try and misrepresent it, did you?

Rape? ... Most rape is committed with the aid of drugging the victim and although I do not have figures guns are not the most common weapon in rapes AFAIK. Incendenty the most common drug used is Alcohol. Aussie and Canada may have higher rape rates, but given reporting rates for rape are very poor it is not the most reliable statistic to use - particulary in a gun control debate. Murder is a good statistic as reporting rates are good and it is very clear cut if someone really has been murdered most of the time - also it is very obvious if someone has been shot too..
So would you support banning alchohol?

Also 500,000 to 1,500,000 crimes? maybe so, but what portion of total crimes in america is that? and what number of crimes are committed with guns?.[/QUOTE]
As it's been sourced countless times, about 7% of violent crimes are committed w/ firearms.W/ approx 10million total crimes in the US, that would make between 5-15% stopped. There are also reliable figures putting it upwards of 2.5 million/year therefore 25%.

I think really America would look better if they said guns were to blame for Americas high murder rate - as if there is nothing wrong with the guns then there must be something wrong with Americans.

Maybe because they're NOT to blame but more on the side of the criminals, you know, the people committing the murders. I don't blame inanimate objects.

Anyone who knows or has had a sales job knows about statistics . You can use them to sell anything. mr. gun controll wants to sell his load of bull and Mr. pro gunner wants to shovel his load of horse. yada yada yada ...But the fact of the matter is and always will be GUNS do not kill people . You want to stop murder ? Stop the person who has murder on his mind . You want to stop rape shoot the rapist before they succeed. You want to stop a robbery ? Either secure your stuff so that its not worth the effort or convince the would be robber that the penalty is not worth it . But the true best way to stop gun crimes is to change the conditions that exist to convince one person that its ok to use a gun on another.

You want to talk statistics...here's mine ; Canada .
Almost as many guns per capita as the US but gun crime or gun deaths or crime period per capita ? Go look its way lower than the US . Why do Canadians not feel the urge to shoot each other ? Thats the question you need aswered.
look at the difference in the poverty rate . look at the difference in the social situation of the minoritys and two things jump right out at you . Canada has less people who are inclined to shoot people because Canada has less people living in conditions that create the rational that breeds crime .
Poor people without education and a feeling of hopelessness that things will get better will take a risk a become a criminal . Poor people will shoot you faster than a middle class or rich person. Do you need a statistic to prove that little pearl of wisdom ? How about Drug adicts will do irational things ...like shoot you and take your money...do you need a statistic ?
so if you ...instead of the worthless practice of regulating guns ... reduce the poverty rate , make better social conditions and use a better method of controlling the drug problem ...guess what less people will want to use guns to commit crimes or shoot each other . Do you really neeed a statistic to prove that ? Gun controll is another name for poulation controll. Its counter productive at best and a dangerouse habit at worse ..especially because it makes otherwise rational people suspend logic and believe that regulating law abiding people will reduce crime . Instead of focusing on the real problem .
PEOPLE WHO SHOOT OTHER PEOPLE .

Could the cause be poverty rather than race?
And in the Urban US the two are largely entertwined. (The caucasian poor tend to live in the generally less violent rural areas... though there too the majority of the violence/crime comes from the low SES subset.)