NationStates Jolt Archive

A weapon is only as dangerous as the person weilding it. I am far more dangerous due to training and mind set unarmed than most people are with a weapon.I can't exactly dispute this statement, but it is worth pointing out that a person of average skill with a gun will be able to kill more people than a person of average skill with a knife, due to the natures of guns and knives. This isn't in and of itself a reason to ban guns (or knives), though.

There are two flaws here. Firstly, gun crime in the UK is not increasing in reaction to any recent gun laws because guess what. Gun laws have not changed here in a while. The last major change was the banning of public ownership of pistols. Secondly, even if gun crime could be seen to be increasing with gun regulation (which it cant) there is a logical reason for that. Crime increases when there are more laws about that crime. Think about it. If the UK made jaywalking an offecene of course your going to see a crime increase. Since you didnt disprove my other points I'm going to repost them untill you actually offer a proper argument

So you're now saying that it isn't the criminals running around w/ more firearms that are causing the increase, that it's people who previously had them legally? I never stated that the UK laws resulted in the increase. I stated that crime is increasing despite of the new laws. Try again.

Yes. But if gun ownership was against the law it would be far far harder for criminals to get guns hence a smaller number of them would use guns hence a safer place.

BS. Russia and Mexico have much stricter firearm laws than the US and have considerably more firearm crime. Same w/ South Africa. Yet some countries w/ less restrictive laws have less crime.

You can keep trying to claim causality all you want. It's not there.

Yes. Because it will be far harder to get guns hence less guns on the street. For a criminal to get a gun in the US he would have to merely break into someones house who has a gun or something like that. In the UK it is far far harder to obtain a gun like that.

And yet the rates of crimes committed w/ firearms in the UK is INCREASING while it is dropping in the US. No causality.

Try again.




Yes it does. If fire arms are easily available legally, they are even more easily abvaible illegally. Thats plain common sense.

Then explain the other countries I've mentioned. Why is it dropping in the US?

And thats not all



So, myth huh?

Yes, It is a myth. Kellerman previously tried to claim that it was 43X more likely. His research has been repeatedly shown to be skewed. His numbers change almost randomly and ignore every defensive firearm use that doesn't involve injury or death . Read up on the many refutations of his studies.

The John Hopkins "schools" are directly funded by several anti-rights groups like George Soros and other anti-gun groups and is based off of another Kellerman study. They've recently tried to claim that firearm ownership causes road rage. They have this tendancy of ignoring every other factor. In the same study, it showed that liberals were more likely to commit "road rage" but this wasn't released in their press release. Convienent huh?

BTW. I also never claimed that CCW reduces crime. Try again.



Are you just going to ignore common sense. If something is more freely availble legally common sense requires it is more easaily accessable illegally.

Now you're trying emotional arguements. Having something legal doesn't make it easier to get it illegally nor does making something illegal necessarily make it any harder to get illegally.



Because a firearm itself is dangerous. A bike if used properly isnt. A gun used properly is. It is designed to damage and destroy things.

Nonsense. A firearm is an inanimate object. It does nothing on it's own. A firearm used improperly is dangerous. That is common sense.



And when did the gun rise in crime start. Ah yes, 2003.

So you're admitting now that the laws have little to no effect on firearm crime.

You might want to do a little research on your own country. It's been rising steadily since before 2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map



You cant invade switzerland. It is almost geographically impossible. The mountains would turn the place into a rocky blood bath for the Nazi's. It just wouldnt have worked.

And WHY would it be a blood bath? Because of armed citizens in the mountains.



You keep attempting to claim causality yet have been unable to show it. Anywhere. I've refuted each and every one of your points. You now are trying to state I've made arguements which I haven't and doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA" so as not to see the reality of the situation.

I never said it could. I simply read your post about Japan and saw that it was entirely erroneous and extremely misinformed. I corrected you on this to keep it from being added to debate further.

Having high rates of gun ownership and loose gun laws do correlate to gun deaths in the United States. Countries with strict control do have much less deaths. This is consistant. Yet there are other countries with similar rates of gun possesion that do not have the difficulties the US does. Clearly this is not the only factor. It is notible that countries with very similar cultures and governments with less guns and stricter laws do indeed have far fewer gun deaths. Does this mean there are no other factors? No. Do I or anyone know what the other ones are with any real confidence? Doubt it.

Just try to refrain from making blatantly incorrect arguments to support your ideas. It is unbecoming of you.
? ??? ? ???????? Similar cultures? What crack pipe have you been smoking. I know of no other area on this planet that has consistently absorbed new cultures as often as the US, that are nearly as large as the US, and have seperate various discrete populations within that country that have grievances, real or imagined, against that country. Similar my ass.

Answers in bold.

No. Why would we consider that? Please. It is the oldest argument in the books and it doesnt work. Why? Well guess what. The UK outlaws guns and we dont have nearly the same problem with gun crime that the US has. And also, have you considered that with guns being legal, hey guess what. It is far far easier for a criminal to get hold of a gun.

Except, of course, Britain has ALWAYS had a lower crime rate than the US. ALWAYS. So your argument is bunk since it is a preexisting condition.



Yes. But if gun ownership was against the law it would be far far harder for criminals to get guns hence a smaller number of them would use guns hence a safer place.


No, no it wouldn't. Not in a country the size of the US. Britain is approx. 93,278 sq mi. The US is 9,629,091 sq. mi. Our population is only a bit less than 5 times yours. Moreover, we have land connections to other countries. Waaayyy to many ways to get guns here.


Yes. Because it will be far harder to get guns hence less guns on the street. For a criminal to get a gun in the US he would have to merely break into someones house who has a gun or something like that. In the UK it is far far harder to obtain a gun like that.

Actually, he would merely have to go to certain corners in the city and buy one. Same in Britain, but more expensive and the people are much duller.



I'll make it simple for you. It is much easier to kill someone with a gun. In the UK we outlaw the carrying of knives in public. The fact of the matter is yes there will always be people who want to kill people. Hence we make it more and more difficult for those people by taking away the means which they use to do it

Heh heh, knife control

Its not about how many people die. Its about what they are for. Many people die from car wrecks but are cars killing machines. No. They are machines designed for transport. In an accident yes they can kill. However this is minimised because of car safty systems.


Doesn't matter, not really. Dead is dead.


Firstly that is all just speculation and secondly, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder in those situations.


Bull-fucking-shit You are more likely to shoot someone you know, but since most intentional murders are committed by someone the victim knew, that makes sense.


And I supose the armed public is more of a danger to the criminals than to itself?


Yes actually, in fact, the most dangerous people out on the streets, if you consider dangerous as shooting people they don't mean to, are the cops.


But how much easier is it to conduct these unlawful transactions if guns are freely available.

Not much. After all, illegal drugs are easy to get, and all of them are illegal.

No. Make bikes safer.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha. Ha. Ha. Sorry, that's just too damned funny. You're like one of those idiots who took the fun out of the playground. Now everything is sanitized and not nearly as interesting.


He he, you see this comparison doesnt work. In order to prove that there is a comparison to make here, you'd have to link the rise in illegal guns to the gun laws. And the gun laws havent changed significently in a long time. The UK has never been like America, it has never been legal just to carry a gun in the street.

See above about Britain always having the lower crime rate.

I think its got less to do with the swiss shooting skills and more to do with the mountains. :rolleyes:

Tell that to tibet

SNIP if gun ownership was against the law it would be far far harder for criminals to get guns hence a smaller number of them would use guns hence a safer place.

Yes. Because it will be far harder to get guns hence less guns on the street. For a criminal to get a gun in the US he would have to merely break into someones house who has a gun or something like that. In the UK it is far far harder to obtain a gun like that.

Yes it does. If fire arms are easily available legally, they are even more easily abvaible illegally. Thats plain common sense.


To pull a name out of hat of one of your Countrymen who utterly disproved these points.... Ever heard of Philip Luty (http://spaces.msn.com/syniks/photos/)?

Well i think there should be a nation wide ban on assault rifles and heavy weapons in general. I think that there should also be a nation wide concealment allowment. the penalties for any offenses using any weapon should go up. and people should be better educated. better education means people have more skills, more skills can get good jobs, good jobs reduces poverty, without poverty ALL crime would be lowered significantly.

Well i think there should be a nation wide ban on assault rifles and heavy weapons in general. I think that there should also be a nation wide concealment allowment. the penalties for any offenses using any weapon should go up. and people should be better educated. better education means people have more skills, more skills can get good jobs, good jobs reduces poverty, without poverty ALL crime would be lowered significantly.

For the most part, there already is. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated (effectively banned) since the 1930's and heavy weapons aren't allowed at all. The majority of the states also have CCW laws w/ only three complete holdouts.

Education is the key.

For the most part, there already is. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated (effectively banned) since the 1930's and heavy weapons aren't allowed at all. The majority of the states also have CCW laws w/ only three complete holdouts.

Education is the key.

Actually, it depends. Fifty caliber rifles are legal (except in some states, like CA), and transferable machine guns (pre '86 manufacture, IIRC) need a tax stamp, which (on the application) the chief law enforcement officer in your town/city has to sign. There are dealer sample machine guns out there as well, but the only people that can own them are dealers/manufacturers with a certain type of FFL.

Semi-automatic rifles aren't considered assault weapons by many states. California, Connecticut (where I live), New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Hawaii, all currently have their own AWB, although New Jersey has a limit of 15 round magazines, and Connecticut doesn't have a magazine limit (everyone else has a 10 round limit, IIRC). It doesn't mean I can't own a (non Colt) AR-15, it just means I can't have one with (more than one of) a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, collapsible/folding stock, grenade launcher, or pistol grip.

So you're now saying that it isn't the criminals running around w/ more firearms that are causing the increase, that it's people who previously had them legally? I never stated that the UK laws resulted in the increase. I stated that crime is increasing despite of the new laws. Try again.

Crime increasing is not a sign of the laws themselves failing. The UK has massivly lower gun crime rates per 100,000 than the US.

Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest homicide rate in the world accounting for 853 homicides in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. At a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population

Oh and guess what. According to that same website, the homicide rate has droped. Kindly refrain from claiming UK gun crime is going up


BS. Russia and Mexico have much stricter firearm laws than the US and have considerably more firearm crime. Same w/ South Africa. Yet some countries w/ less restrictive laws have less crime.

You can keep trying to claim causality all you want. It's not there.

No they dont. The UK has more restrictive gun laws and has less gun crime. It is amoung the lowest gun crime ridden countries in the world.


And yet the rates of crimes committed w/ firearms in the UK is INCREASING while it is dropping in the US. No causality.

If UK gun crime was increasing (which I've shown it isnt. Its more a BBC focusing on a small number of cases making a moral panic) its still reletive to what it was before, which is very very small. The US's rate is still far far higher. In order to prove the laws are not helping, you'd have to prove links in the rise in crime to the begining of the introduction of the law. Which you cant do.


Then explain the other countries I've mentioned. Why is it dropping in the US?

I'm not an expert on the other countries, but I can tell you now the societies are not at all comparable. The US and the UK are far more comparable than Russia and the US or Mexico and the US.


Yes, It is a myth. Kellerman previously tried to claim that it was 43X more likely. His research has been repeatedly shown to be skewed. His numbers change almost randomly and ignore every defensive firearm use that doesn't involve injury or death . Read up on the many refutations of his studies.

I'm not reading up on evidence against my case. That is your job to present.


The John Hopkins "schools" are directly funded by several anti-rights groups like George Soros and other anti-gun groups and is based off of another Kellerman study. They've recently tried to claim that firearm ownership causes road rage. They have this tendancy of ignoring every other factor. In the same study, it showed that liberals were more likely to commit "road rage" but this wasn't released in their press release. Convienent huh?

BTW. I also never claimed that CCW reduces crime. Try again.

Prove it rather than spouting off random accdotal facts


Now you're trying emotional arguements. Having something legal doesn't make it easier to get it illegally nor does making something illegal necessarily make it any harder to get illegally.

Yes it does. In the US if you want to get a gun all you have to do is break into someones home or ram raid a sporting goods shop. In the UK its far harder.


Nonsense. A firearm is an inanimate object. It does nothing on it's own. A firearm used improperly is dangerous. That is common sense.

A firearm's designated purpose is to damage or destroy things. It is a weapon. A bike is not.


So you're admitting now that the laws have little to no effect on firearm crime.

You might want to do a little research on your own country. It's been rising steadily since before 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map.

You still dont get it do you. Firearms offences in the UK dont just mean holding up a bank or shooting someone. In most of these cases it means owning a gun. The only reason for a recent rise in gun crime is to do with the numbers of guns. Its not because we have more murders or Bank robberies (as I've shown we dont)

Crime increasing is not a sign of the laws themselves failing. The UK has massivly lower gun crime rates per 100,000 than the US.

AND ALWAYS HAS, EVEN BEFORE THE LAWS!! Get it through your head.



Oh and guess what. According to that same website, the homicide rate has droped. Kindly refrain from claiming UK gun crime is going up

Why should I? It HAS gone up?





No they dont. The UK has more restrictive gun laws and has less gun crime. It is amoung the lowest gun crime ridden countries in the world.

And it has nothing to do w/ the gun laws. I've shown several restrictive countries that have much higher gun crime than even the US. Keep ignoring it.



If UK gun crime was increasing (which I've shown it isnt. Its more a BBC focusing on a small number of cases making a moral panic) its still reletive to what it was before, which is very very small. The US's rate is still far far higher. In order to prove the laws are not helping, you'd have to prove links in the rise in crime to the begining of the introduction of the law. Which you cant do.

No, you've stated murder was decreasing, not gun crime. If you actually look at it, it's from the UK home office.

You haven't been able to prove that more restrictive laws DO help or that less restrictive CAUSE crime.

You're the one claiming causality. Not me.



I'm not an expert on the other countries, but I can tell you now the societies are not at all comparable. The US and the UK are far more comparable than Russia and the US or Mexico and the US.

No, you just don't like what the comparisons show. Once again, since you keep ignoring it. THE UK HAS ALWAYS HAD LOWER CRIME EVEN BEFORE THE LAWS!!!!



I'm not reading up on evidence against my case. That is your job to present.

So you're argueing in ignorance. Congradulations.



Prove it rather than spouting off random accdotal facts

Not like you'll read any of these either but:

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/janmar95/jan3095/guns.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc /
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolence-fs.html?content=/programs/gunviolence/content/gun-grants.html


Yes it does. In the US if you want to get a gun all you have to do is break into someones home or ram raid a sporting goods shop. In the UK its far harder.

God you're dense. Why is it decreasing in the US? Try reading the articles I've posted.



A firearm's designated purpose is to damage or destroy things. It is a weapon. A bike is not.

It is an inanimate object that does nothing until someone uses it.



You still dont get it do you. Firearms offences in the UK dont just mean holding up a bank or shooting someone. In most of these cases it means owning a gun. The only reason for a recent rise in gun crime is to do with the numbers of guns. Its not because we have more murders or Bank robberies (as I've shown we dont)

Now you're making "anecdotes" w/o providing evidence.

Prove it.

You could also try reading the article:

They followed a 60% increase in calls from residents reporting guns being fired or people carrying guns over the past six months.

Actually, it depends. Fifty caliber rifles are legal (except in some states, like CA), and transferable machine guns (pre '86 manufacture, IIRC) need a tax stamp, which (on the application) the chief law enforcement officer in your town/city has to sign. There are dealer sample machine guns out there as well, but the only people that can own them are dealers/manufacturers with a certain type of FFL.

Semi-automatic rifles aren't considered assault weapons by many states. California, Connecticut (where I live), New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Hawaii, all currently have their own AWB, although New Jersey has a limit of 15 round magazines, and Connecticut doesn't have a magazine limit (everyone else has a 10 round limit, IIRC). It doesn't mean I can't own a (non Colt) AR-15, it just means I can't have one with (more than one of) a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, collapsible/folding stock, grenade launcher, or pistol grip.


I know. That's why I said "effectively" since the cost of them is beyond your average individuals.

.50 cal rifles are also not considered "heavy weapons".

I know. That's why I said "effectively" since the cost of them is beyond your average individuals.

.50 cal rifles are also not considered "heavy weapons".
Yeah. Mine weighs less than 8lbs.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/5049sm.jpg :D

AND ALWAYS HAS, EVEN BEFORE THE LAWS!! Get it through your head.

The laws havent changed significently for many many years. In the UK you havent ever been able just to carry a gun in the street like you can in the US. And guess what, the crime hasnt gone up as a result of the new laws.


Why should I? It HAS gone up?

Go to the website. It has, and gone back down again. And like I said, gun crime in this country means owning a gun, not just using it to kill someone


And it has nothing to do w/ the gun laws. I've shown several restrictive countries that have much higher gun crime than even the US. Keep ignoring it.

And I'm saying that the US and Mexio or the US and Russia are incomparable societies where as the US and UK are more comparable ones.


No, you've stated murder was decreasing, not gun crime. If you actually look at it, it's from the UK home office.

Yes. Murder is decreasing.


You haven't been able to prove that more restrictive laws DO help or that less restrictive CAUSE crime.

You're the one claiming causality. Not me.

In the UK gun laws have always been this way. We havent ever had anything like the US where you can just carry a gun in the street. People used to be allowed to own guns more liberally but it was never in public like the US.


No, you just don't like what the comparisons show. Once again, since you keep ignoring it. THE UK HAS ALWAYS HAD LOWER CRIME EVEN BEFORE THE LAWS!!!!

And its stayed low. And its always been this way. The UK has never allowed weapons like guns in the public in anything like the way the US has.


So you're argueing in ignorance. Congradulations.

Its standard debating practise. You present evidence for your side.


Not like you'll read any of these either but:

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/janmar95/jan3095/guns.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc /
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolence-fs.html?content=/programs/gunviolence/content/gun-grants.html.

Did you read your own articles. They support my side

"There are a lot of misconceptions regarding guns," Teret
said. "Unfortunately, some of them have been deliberately created
by advocacy groups associated with this issue."
One common misconception, said Jon Vernick, research
associate in health policy and management and associate director
of the new center, is that keeping a loaded handgun in the home
is, on balance, safe for the occupants. "There is an idea that
keeping a handgun at home is more protective than perilous,"
Vernick said, "when in fact, just the opposite is true."
According to studies published in The New England Journal of
Medicine, a handgun in the home makes it three times more likely
that someone in the home will be a victim of homicide and five
times more likely they will be a victim of suicide. Current
estimates indicate half of all households in America have at
least one gun, with about 25 to 30 percent of all homes having a
handgun. There are more gun suicides each year than gun
homicides.



God you're dense. Why is it decreasing in the US? Try reading the articles I've posted.


See above



It is an inanimate object that does nothing until someone uses it.

Thats also true of a nuclear bomb. Is it ok for everyone to have nuclear devices? After all they are just inanimate objects untill someone uses them. Wake up. A gun is a weapon


Now you're making "anecdotes" w/o providing evidence.

Prove it.

Gun ownership in the UK is illegal. You know this, I know this. There are very very few examplse of where it is legal to own a gun in the UK


You could also try reading the article:

They followed a 60% increase in calls from residents reporting guns being fired or people carrying guns over the past six months.

And when was this. Right, exceptionally recently. Considering the last major change to UK gun laws was after the Dunblain massacre regarding Pistols, I dont think there is any causality.

Also see this graph

http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=guncontro9ji.jpg

Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

I know. That's why I said "effectively" since the cost of them is beyond your average individuals.

Ah, I see what you meant now.

Yeah. Mine weighs less than 8lbs.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/5049sm.jpg :D

I know I've probably said it before, but I'll say it again. Nice rifle. :)

The laws havent changed significently for many many years. In the UK you havent ever been able just to carry a gun in the street like you can in the US. And guess what, the crime hasnt gone up as a result of the new laws.

Now wait. You just said that the gun crime level has gone up do to more firearms being banned. WHich is it?



Go to the website. It has, and gone back down again. And like I said, gun crime in this country means owning a gun, not just using it to kill someone

So the increase is from previously owned firearms? I thought you said there haven't been any recent changes.



And I'm saying that the US and Mexio or the US and Russia are incomparable societies where as the US and UK are more comparable ones.

And that still has nothing to do w/ it.



Yes. Murder is decreasing.

Wait. You've stated that gun crime hasn't increased when it has even according to your own Gov't. Can't you keep anything straight?



In the UK gun laws have always been this way. We havent ever had anything like the US where you can just carry a gun in the street. People used to be allowed to own guns more liberally but it was never in public like the US.

Since I've already shown you are wrong. Now I'll assume you're just blatantly lieing.



And its stayed low. And its always been this way. The UK has never allowed weapons like guns in the public in anything like the way the US has.

Again. And yet US crime has DECREASED even w/ the introduction of CCW laws in the majority of the states.

Explain that.



Its standard debating practise. You present evidence for your side.

No, what you said is that you won't even read opposing evidence. That means you are argueing in ignorance. You'll present information that has been shown to be false and refuse to read any refutations.

Now deny you said that.



Did you read your own articles. They support my side

Oh, god, you really can't be this dense can you?

Those articles show that all those groups are blatantly funded by anti-gun organizations and have a clear agenda.






See above

For what? You've proven nothing.

There are more suicides in many restrictive countries than in the US.




Thats also true of a nuclear bomb. Is it ok for everyone to have nuclear devices? After all they are just inanimate objects untill someone uses them. Wake up. A gun is a weapon.

Slippery slope slippery slope, lets all slide down the slippery slope.

Are you honestly trying to compare firearms w/ nukes now? Can we say indescriminate?



Gun ownership in the UK is illegal. You know this, I know this. There are very very few examplse of where it is legal to own a gun in the UK

And yet UK gun crime is on the rise. You stated that it was due to previously legal owners and not violent crimes. I asked you to prove it. Obviously you can't.



And when was this. Right, exceptionally recently. Considering the last major change to UK gun laws was after the Dunblain massacre regarding Pistols, I dont think there is any causality.

So it's increasing despite the laws.

Which is it. First you claim that UK gun crime has decreased when it hasn't.

That the increases are due to recent laws, then you say their haven't been any recent laws.

That UK has ALWAYS had restrictive laws (when it hasn't).

Also see this graph

http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=guncontro9ji.jpg

Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

That's nice.

Keep ignoring everything else.

UK's is increasing, US's is decreasing.

UK has always been lower.

Why don't we throw Switzerland into the mix, or Finland. Or even Russia, Mexico, or South Africa. Oh, wait, that would totally destroy your arguement.

Here's some more stuff for you to ignore:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030608124254/www.cybersurf.co.uk/johnny/dunblane/misled.html

Now wait. You just said that the gun crime level has gone up do to more firearms being banned. WHich is it?

The fact that gun crime is going up is not to do with murders. Its more to do with possession and a recent increase of summgling into the coutnry. If you see the home office page I posted a while back it showed that murder rates are going down again, and that even when they were high they were several times lower than the US.


So the increase is from previously owned firearms? I thought you said there haven't been any recent changes.

The only recent changes haven't been significent. The public no longer being allowed to own pistols was the bigest recent change. The fact is gun crime going up is more to do with ownership than gun related crimes like armed robery and murder.


And that still has nothing to do w/ it.

Yes it does. The fact is if you were to compare two very very diffrent societies there are too many variables to consider for accurate compaison. The US and the UK are very diffrent, but they are less diffrent than the US and Russia


Wait. You've stated that gun crime hasn't increased when it has even according to your own Gov't. Can't you keep anything straight?

It has increased and gone down again (or rather homides have) see here

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

Gun crime may have gone up but you have to remember that in the UK, gun crime isnt just homicides and armed robbery. Its also gun ownership. And with an increase in smuggling comes an increase in gun crime.


Since I've already shown you are wrong. Now I'll assume you're just blatantly lieing.

I'm not lying. British citizens havent been able to carry guns in public like the US can. If we could, what do you think people would have been doing on the home front in WW2. There would have been stories of homes being turned into fortifications with weapons. But there wasnt. The army had all the guns. The civilians didnt have any.


Again. And yet US crime has DECREASED even w/ the introduction of CCW laws in the majority of the states.

Explain that.

Simple. There are less clasifications of what you call gun crime now. And while "crime" as an over all has decreased I would suspect gun crime and homicdes have gone up. And they certianly are massively up when compared with the UK.


No, what you said is that you won't even read opposing evidence. That means you are argueing in ignorance. You'll present information that has been shown to be false and refuse to read any refutations.

Now deny you said that.

No. I said it is standard debating practise for the side that is arguing something to present evidence supporting their side. I presented some evidence. You said it has been debunked. I'm now asking for evidence of this.


Oh, god, you really can't be this dense can you?

Those articles show that all those groups are blatantly funded by anti-gun organizations and have a clear agenda

Thats a rather standard American persons argument. Whenever some evidence oppses them they say "it has an adgenda". Well of course they will present evidence that supports them. But guess what. Everyone has bias. Even you (shocking, isnt it) and even me. So rather than screaming "Adgenda!" at the top of your voice, disprove the evidence.


[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
For what? You've proven nothing.

There are more suicides in many restrictive countries than in the US.

I've just shown the articles you provided support my case.

I'll show you again

"There are a lot of misconceptions regarding guns," Teret
said. "Unfortunately, some of them have been deliberately created
by advocacy groups associated with this issue."
One common misconception, said Jon Vernick, research
associate in health policy and management and associate director
of the new center, is that keeping a loaded handgun in the home
is, on balance, safe for the occupants. "There is an idea that
keeping a handgun at home is more protective than perilous,"
Vernick said, "when in fact, just the opposite is true."
According to studies published in The New England Journal of
Medicine, a handgun in the home makes it three times more likely
that someone in the home will be a victim of homicide and five
times more likely they will be a victim of suicide. Current
estimates indicate half of all households in America have at
least one gun, with about 25 to 30 percent of all homes having a
handgun. There are more gun suicides each year than gun
homicides.


Slippery slope slippery slope, lets all slide down the slippery slope.

Are you honestly trying to compare firearms w/ nukes now? Can we say indescriminate?

Its not a slipery slope. I'm just using your logic of "a gun is an inanimate object". That logic is aplicable to any number of weapons. A bazuka is an inanimate object. That doesnt mean its ok for everyone to have one. Nor is it ok for everyone to have a gun. What is important is the principale of what the object does. A guns sole purpose is to damage or destroy things.


And yet UK gun crime is on the rise. You stated that it was due to previously legal owners and not violent crimes. I asked you to prove it. Obviously you can't.

I've given you home office statistics showing how murders are going down. If you want here are some more statistics

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page21.asp

Its all showing that crimes in regard to things that do use guns (IE armed robery and homicide) are now going down. So the gun crime rise (if there is one) is not to do with these.



So it's increasing despite the laws.

Which is it. First you claim that UK gun crime has decreased when it hasn't.

That the increases are due to recent laws, then you say their haven't been any recent laws.

That UK has ALWAYS had restrictive laws (when it hasn't).

The increase isnt to do with recent laws. The increase is due most likly to an increase in smuggling in the last few years. But as I have shown, offences surrounding guns (robbery and homicide) are going down.

http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ukcrimestat5zt.jpg

There, just to show you. So all the crimes relatated to guns have either had a rise and are now going down, or are consistiantly going down. And all in the time when this gun crime rise is happening. So its obviously not any of these crimes that this gun crime rise was. So what was it?

That's nice.

Keep ignoring everything else.

UK's is increasing, US's is decreasing.

UK has always been lower.


And why dont we look at the statasitics

http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ukcrimestat5zt.jpg

Hmmm, all of the crimes related to guns in the UK are either going down or have had a rise and are now going down. Hmmm, so that must mean that this gun crime rise has nothing to do with homicides and robberies. It must be something else.

Yes I am all for banning guns if it includes the police and the military to. That would surely bring down death tolls.

The fact that gun crime is going up is not to do with murders. Its more to do with possession and a recent increase of summgling into the coutnry. If you see the home office page I posted a while back it showed that murder rates are going down again, and that even when they were high they were several times lower than the US.

And always have been. And yet ownership in the US has INCREASED while crime has DECREASES. You have claimed causality and have yet to prove it.




The only recent changes haven't been significent. The public no longer being allowed to own pistols was the bigest recent change. The fact is gun crime going up is more to do with ownership than gun related crimes like armed robery and murder.

And I asked you to prove it.



Yes it does. The fact is if you were to compare two very very diffrent societies there are too many variables to consider for accurate compaison. The US and the UK are very diffrent, but they are less diffrent than the US and Russia

Prove it. Of course this contradicts you saying that US and UK attitudes are different. You don't know much about the diversity in the US.



It has increased and gone down again (or rather homides have) see here

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

Gun crime may have gone up but you have to remember that in the UK, gun crime isnt just homicides and armed robbery. Its also gun ownership. And with an increase in smuggling comes an increase in gun crime.

SO criminals committing criminal acts? Shock.

Now you're argueing it's due to smuggling. You just stated it's due to now illegal ownership. Which is it?



I'm not lying. British citizens havent been able to carry guns in public like the US can. If we could, what do you think people would have been doing on the home front in WW2. There would have been stories of homes being turned into fortifications with weapons. But there wasnt. The army had all the guns. The civilians didnt have any.

They used to be able to. Try and keep up. You still can't explain why crime has DECREASED in the US even though CCW has been passed in almost every state. Guess what? That's been fairly recent as well.



Simple. There are less clasifications of what you call gun crime now. And while "crime" as an over all has decreased I would suspect gun crime and homicdes have gone up. And they certianly are massively up when compared with the UK.

And you would be wrong.

www.fbi.gov



No. I said it is standard debating practise for the side that is arguing something to present evidence supporting their side. I presented some evidence. You said it has been debunked. I'm now asking for evidence of this.

This is exactly what you said:


'm not reading up on evidence against my case. That is your job to present.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Do some reading.




Thats a rather standard American persons argument. Whenever some evidence oppses them they say "it has an adgenda". Well of course they will present evidence that supports them. But guess what. Everyone has bias. Even you (shocking, isnt it) and even me. So rather than screaming "Adgenda!" at the top of your voice, disprove the evidence.




I've just shown the articles you provided support my case.

I'll show you again

And everything in that acticle has been refuted here and in several other posts. An extreme political agenda DOES discredit a source.



Its not a slipery slope. I'm just using your logic of "a gun is an inanimate object". That logic is aplicable to any number of weapons. A bazuka is an inanimate object. That doesnt mean its ok for everyone to have one. Nor is it ok for everyone to have a gun. What is important is the principale of what the object does. A guns sole purpose is to damage or destroy things.

It is a slippery slope. A firearm is in no way comparable to a nuclear device. While a Nuke is an inanimate object, It is an indescriminate WMD.



I've given you home office statistics showing how murders are going down. If you want here are some more statistics

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page21.asp

Its all showing that crimes in regard to things that do use guns (IE armed robery and homicide) are now going down. So the gun crime rise (if there is one) is not to do with these.

Guess what? Not all "gun crimes" are murders. I never said that. Now you're even questioning your own home office.




The increase isnt to do with recent laws. The increase is due most likly to an increase in smuggling in the last few years. But as I have shown, offences surrounding guns (robbery and homicide) are going down.

Not all robberies and homicides are committed w/ firearms.

You're also confusing your arguements again. Is it smuggling or ownership from before. Make up your mind.

http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ukcrimestat5zt.jpg

There, just to show you. So all the crimes relatated to guns have either had a rise and are now going down, or are consistiantly going down. And all in the time when this gun crime rise is happening. So its obviously not any of these crimes that this gun crime rise was. So what was it?

None of those show ANYTHING to do w/ firearms. You're now just comparing them w/o any proof.

And why dont we look at the statasitics

http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ukcrimestat5zt.jpg

Hmmm, all of the crimes related to guns in the UK are either going down or have had a rise and are now going down. Hmmm, so that must mean that this gun crime rise has nothing to do with homicides and robberies. It must be something else.

Still nothing to do w/ firearms. That is unless you believe EVERY homicide and robbery is committed w/ a firearm. If you do, then prove it.

Here, try this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

And murder has continued to drop in the US as well.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm#regionweap

Go figure.

Still nothing to do w/ firearms. That is unless you believe EVERY homicide and robbery is committed w/ a firearm. If you do, then prove it.

Your missing the point. You claim that UK gun crime is on the increase. Gun crime includes, primarly homicide and armed robbery. So if there is a gun crime increase you would expect to see an increase in the numbers of homicides and armed roberies. But you dont. You see an over all decrease. Which means that its more lilkly that the gun crime rise your talking about is in another area. Specificly gun ownership


Here, try this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

And murder has continued to drop in the US as well.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm#regionweap

Go figure.

While they both show either stableness or decline they are still massively higher than the UK. The fact is that the UK system is simply better at dealing with gun crime.

Your missing the point. You claim that UK gun crime is on the increase. Gun crime includes, primarly homicide and armed robbery. So if there is a gun crime increase you would expect to see an increase in the numbers of homicides and armed roberies. But you dont. You see an over all decrease. Which means that its more lilkly that the gun crime rise your talking about is in another area. Specificly gun ownership

Now you're saying "armed" robbery. None of your tables have shown that. Nor have they shown any percentages at all. You've proven nothing.

Now you're going back to ownership. Which is it? Previously legal ownership or smuggling?



While they both show either stableness or decline they are still massively higher than the UK. The fact is that the UK system is simply better at dealing with gun crime.


They show a consistant decrease throughout the 90's and 00's.

How many times does this need to be repeated :

THE UK HAD LOWER CRIME EVEN BEFORE THE LAWS!!!

Here's some interesting charts:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page38.asp
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page39.asp
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page42.asp
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page43.asp

Care to do some more selective interpreting?

Well i think there should be a nation wide ban on assault rifles and heavy weapons in general. I think that there should also be a nation wide concealment allowment. the penalties for any offenses using any weapon should go up. and people should be better educated. better education means people have more skills, more skills can get good jobs, good jobs reduces poverty, without poverty ALL crime would be lowered significantly.
The only assault rifles/machine guns allowed are those manufactured prior to 1986. The only way you can own one is with a class III license. They don't give those out like popcorn. There has never been a single incident where a legal full auto in the US was used in a crime after the institution of those particular laws. There wasn't before either, they were mainly instituted because of the effects of prohibition on gang activities, and later the crack boom as well.

Since we're throwing gun statistics around...Surgeons are more dangerous than guns in the US (http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm) :D

Hey, AII, you might want to pay more attention to what you quote.
According to studies published in The New England Journal of
Medicine, a handgun in the home makes it three times more likely
that someone in the home will be a victim of homicide

Note the lack of qualifiers as to what type of guns. I would be willing to bet my life savings that if you removed all homicide victims that were Druggies, Drug dealers, and gang members, the correlation would reverse, sharply. Same with the suicides. The NEJM is about as qualified to put out a reliable study on gun usage as Guns & Ammo is to put out a study on brain surgery.

And always have been. And yet ownership in the US has INCREASED while crime has DECREASES. You have claimed causality and have yet to prove it.
From 2000 to 2004, the number of murders in the US has increased from 13,230 to 14,121 for an increase of 6.73%. At the same time, the use of firearms for the commission of these murders have increased from 8,661 to 9,326 for an increase of 7.68%.

In 2005, the murder rate rose another 2.1%, but I don't have the firearm figures yet.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a.xls

Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:
Also try listing all the non Gun commited murder\sucides in the other nations also, I bet it'll end up a little move even. People will still kill themselves and others even without guns.

Increasing guns doesn't increase the crime rate.
Your "facts" are misleading. The use of firearms as a murder weapon over the past 4 years is a higher percentage than the increase in the number of murders. See my post above.

94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without any firearm at all.
Again, your "facts" are misleading. Firearms are used in 66% of all murders in the US.

Firearms are used in aggravated assault (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html)by 20.8% of assailants in the South. The figure drops down to 14.7% in the Northeast.

Firearms are used in aggravated assault (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html)by 20.8% of assailants in the South. The figure drops down to 14.7% in the Northeast.
Which, if your idea of gun control being so damned important was true, should be much lower. Explain to me, if you would, New Hampshire, Vermont, South Dakota. Also explain why CCW carriers are more lawful than your average citizen. Oh that's right, according to your point of view, those places and people should be high violence indicators.

From 2000 to 2004, the number of murders in the US has increased from 13,230 to 14,121 for an increase of 106.73%. At the same time, the use of firearms for the commission of these murders have increased from 8,661 to 9,326 for an increase of 107.68%.

In 2005, the murder rate rose another 2.1%, but I don't have the firearm figures yet.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a.xls

You need to learn math CH.

going from 13,230 to 14,121 is not an increase of 106.73%. That would be over 26000. It is an increase of 6.73%.

And since you like your cherry picking, the murder rate has stabalized at about 5.5-5.7 and has held steady for those years.

It's also increased in the use of knives, blunt weapons and poison by equal or greater percentages.

You also might want to acurately reflect your 2005 statement. I know it's hard, but try. Murder level (not rate) increased 2.1% in the first half of '05 in comparison to the first half of '04.

Cherry picking one state does not causality make. The violent crime rate has dropped from 506.5 to 465.5. That's a drop of over 8%. Could it be from the defensive gun uses of all those new owners?:eek:

Your "facts" are misleading. The use of firearms as a murder weapon over the past 4 years is a higher percentage than the increase in the number of murders. See my post above.

As have knives, blunt objects and poison.


Again, your "facts" are misleading. Firearms are used in 66% of all murders in the US.

Primarily by criminals that aren't allowed to own them in the first place. You like to keep pointing out that VA is at 72% yet keep ignoring that MD is at 75%. And Vermont, that high crime no license CCW state :rolleyes: is less than 25%. Even Alaska is below 30%



Firearms are used in aggravated assault (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html)by 20.8% of assailants in the South. The figure drops down to 14.7% in the Northeast.[/QUOTE]

And what were the levels BEFORE the less restrictive laws came into effect? Oh that's right. They were higher then as well.

Which, if your idea of gun control being so damned important was true, should be much lower.
The idea is to reduce gun crime?

Explain to me, if you would, New Hampshire, Vermont, South Dakota.
What did you want me to explain about these States?

Also explain why CCW carriers are more lawful than your average citizen.
They are? What proof do you have?

Oh that's right, according to your point of view, those places and people should be high violence indicators.
I don't understand what "places and people" you are referring to?

And always have been. And yet ownership in the US has INCREASED while crime has DECREASES. You have claimed causality and have yet to prove it.

Firstly, we have just seen evidence that the murder rate in the US has gone up, so I think you better stop claimin it hasnt. I've shown that the gun crime in the UK has gone down because all the crimes that involve guns (robbery and homicde) have gone down. The overall gun crime levels have gone up, but that is more to do with illegal ownership, from any source.


And I asked you to prove it.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880045_en_2.htm#mdiv1

As you can see it is an ammendment to the 1968 act. And again

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19890854_en_1.htm

Refernce to the 1968 act

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_b.html

Theres the 1968 act itself. I'm just looking into the pre 1968 situation but I'm sure it wasnt anything like the US now


Prove it. Of course this contradicts you saying that US and UK attitudes are different. You don't know much about the diversity in the US.

The US and UK are diffrent. But the diffrence between them is less than the diffrence between the US and Russia or Mexio due to any number of historical, social and political factors that are fairly obvious.


SO criminals committing criminal acts? Shock.

Now you're argueing it's due to smuggling. You just stated it's due to now illegal ownership. Which is it?

Smuggling is illegal ownership. And your still missing the point. All of the gun relatated crimes are going down (homicide, robbery). So the fact that gun crime is going up must mean its something else


They used to be able to. Try and keep up. You still can't explain why crime has DECREASED in the US even though CCW has been passed in almost every state. Guess what? That's been fairly recent as well.

Well we've just seen from the post from CanuckHeaven that it hasnt



And you would be wrong.

www.fbi.gov.

I'm not wrong. CanuckHeaven has shown your homicides have gone up and the UK's rates are still well below yours.


This is exactly what you said:

Ah I think I understand the misinterpretation. When I said that I'm not reading up on evidence against my case, it was in response to a post by you telling me that my evidence was flawed and that there was lots of proof it was flawed "out there" and that I should just go look for it. But my point was that it isnt my side of the debates job to go out specificly searching for evidence oppsesd to my POV. If there is such evidence you have to present it here.


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html:

I stand corrected. One of the studies I showed was flawed.


And everything in that acticle has been refuted here and in several other posts. An extreme political agenda DOES discredit a source.

No it doesnt. I did History A-level and got an A with practically full marks. I know what I'm talking about when dealing with sources. Every single source you will find has bias of some kind or other. If we were to discriminate all sources of bias, it would end up us having very little to no evidence. There are two things you have to understand about bias. One is that although a source can be biased it does useally contain evidence that is not in itself biased, but the presentation of it may be. Secondly bias in history is very good at telling us what one side thinks and why they think like that.


It is a slippery slope. A firearm is in no way comparable to a nuclear device. While a Nuke is an inanimate object, It is an indescriminate WMD.

It is comparable in the frames of refernce you put up earlier. Earlier you said that a firearm is an inanimate object untill you use it. So is a nuclear bomb, so is a bazuka. That doesnt mean that its any less of a weapon. The fact that its an inanimate object is noting to discredit the danger it can cause. So your ealier argument was flawed.


Guess what? Not all "gun crimes" are murders. I never said that. Now you're even questioning your own home office.

No, the two largest cattagories are murders and robberies as crimes assciocated with guns


Not all robberies and homicides are committed w/ firearms.

Yes, but you miss the point. The general trend in the UK with robberies and homicides is down. So if gun crime is rising its not to do with these two


You're also confusing your arguements again. Is it smuggling or ownership from before. Make up your mind.

Its not illegal ownership 'from before' I never said that. What I said was its illegal ownership of any kind. Including smuggling. Smuggling is just another form of illegal ownership


None of those show ANYTHING to do w/ firearms. You're now just comparing them w/o any proof.

Listen very carefully as I am going to outline this point by point
- The two main crimes assocatiated with guns are homicides and robbery
- The government in the UK said gun crime has risen recently
- However all the statistics point to a fall in both homicide and robbery
- Thus if there is a rise in gun crime it is not linked to these two types of crime
- The only other type of gun crime in the UK is illegal ownership
- Thus we conclude that it is illegal ownership of any king (including smugling) that is on the rise

Firstly, we have just seen evidence that the murder rate in the US has gone up, so I think you better stop claimin it hasnt. I've shown that the gun crime in the UK has gone down because all the crimes that involve guns (robbery and homicde) have gone down. The overall gun crime levels have gone up, but that is more to do with illegal ownership, from any source.

It hasn't gone up. The murder level has increased along w/ a population increase. The rate has leveled off after dropping since '92.

I've shown that gun crime in the UK has increased along w/ violent crimes. You've made suppositions w/o evidence.

Prove it.



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880045_en_2.htm#mdiv1

As you can see it is an ammendment to the 1968 act. And again

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19890854_en_1.htm

Refernce to the 1968 act

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_b.html

Theres the 1968 act itself. I'm just looking into the pre 1968 situation but I'm sure it wasnt anything like the US now

And it was lower than the US before that as well. US intorduced more firearm regulations at the same time and crime skyrocketed. Do you want to claim causality?



The US and UK are diffrent. But the diffrence between them is less than the diffrence between the US and Russia or Mexio due to any number of historical, social and political factors that are fairly obvious.

Prove it. You keep claiming the US and UK are similar demographically. Now look at the SW US. It's closer to Mexico than the UK.



Smuggling is illegal ownership. And your still missing the point. All of the gun relatated crimes are going down (homicide, robbery). So the fact that gun crime is going up must mean its something else.

Two stats have gone down. I've shown violent crime has gone up.





Well we've just seen from the post from CanuckHeaven that it hasnt

Try doing some reading. The murder level in the US has increased in proportion to the population for the last 4 years. The rate has remained the same while violent crime has decreased.




I'm not wrong. CanuckHeaven has shown your homicides have gone up and the UK's rates are still well below yours.

And yet you are. Rate's have remained the same but dropped since '92. Once again: THE UK RATES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LOWER.



Ah I think I understand the misinterpretation. When I said that I'm not reading up on evidence against my case, it was in response to a post by you telling me that my evidence was flawed and that there was lots of proof it was flawed "out there" and that I should just go look for it. But my point was that it isnt my side of the debates job to go out specificly searching for evidence oppsesd to my POV. If there is such evidence you have to present it here.

It has been presented throughout this thread. It's also a good idea to check your references before you use them. It's called research.







No it doesnt. I did History A-level and got an A with practically full marks. I know what I'm talking about when dealing with sources. Every single source you will find has bias of some kind or other. If we were to discriminate all sources of bias, it would end up us having very little to no evidence. There are two things you have to understand about bias. One is that although a source can be biased it does useally contain evidence that is not in itself biased, but the presentation of it may be. Secondly bias in history is very good at telling us what one side thinks and why they think like that.

I'm impressed. :rolleyes: I am working on my Masters Degree in History and work as a research assistant. All sources are biased, yes. But when you use one that has been proven to have a direct agenda, presents only partial facts, is based off of flawed research (Kellerman), or blatantly tries to misrepresent the issue ("assault weapon" = machine gun) it is inherently flawed.



It is comparable in the frames of refernce you put up earlier. Earlier you said that a firearm is an inanimate object untill you use it. So is a nuclear bomb, so is a bazuka. That doesnt mean that its any less of a weapon. The fact that its an inanimate object is noting to discredit the danger it can cause. So your ealier argument was flawed.

So was your comparison. Yours was a slippery slope. Both of your examples are indescrimite weapons. A firearm is not. It is a false comparison.



No, the two largest cattagories are murders and robberies as crimes assciocated with guns

Prove it.



Yes, but you miss the point. The general trend in the UK with robberies and homicides is down. So if gun crime is rising its not to do with these two

And I've shown violent crime has increased. Keep trying.



Its not illegal ownership 'from before' I never said that. What I said was its illegal ownership of any kind. Including smuggling. Smuggling is just another form of illegal ownership

So if it's not increasing due to the people who previously owned them legally, what good did the law do as the firearm crime level is increasing?



isten very carefully as I am going to outline this point by point
- The two main crimes assocatiated with guns are homicides and robbery
- The government in the UK said gun crime has risen recently
- However all the statistics point to a fall in both homicide and robbery
- Thus if there is a rise in gun crime it is not linked to these two types of crime
- The only other type of gun crime in the UK is illegal ownership
- Thus we conclude that it is illegal ownership of any king (including smugling) that is on the rise

Listen very carefully:

You have not shown that the two "main" crimes are homicides and robbery. You just keep repeating it.

I've shown gun crime has increased along w/ violent crime.

You keep claiming it's just "possession" w/o presenting any evidence.

You have shown nothing as to the use of firearms in either homicide nor robbery dropping.

Your conclusion is false.

You need to learn math CH.

going from 13,230 to 14,121 is not an increase of 106.73%. That would be over 26000. It is an increase of 6.73%.
Can't resist taking pot shots at me huh? I think you know what I meant. I fixed the numbers.

And since you like your cherry picking, the murder rate has stabalized at about 5.5-5.7 and has held steady for those years.
You may call it "cherry picking", whereas I call it representing the truth. The number of murders over the past 4 years have increased 6.73% and the use of firearms as the murder agent has increased by 7.68%.

It's also increased in the use of knives, blunt weapons and poison by equal or greater percentages.
These figures are irrelevant to the discussion of gun crime.

You also might want to acurately reflect your 2005 statement. I know it's hard, but try. Murder level (not rate) increased 2.1% in the first half of '05 in comparison to the first half of '04.
Yes, the number of murders has risen by 2.1% over last year.

The violent crime rate has dropped from 506.5 to 465.5. That's a drop of over 8%.
Yet the most violent crime (murder) has risen, and the use of guns has risen faster than the increase of murders.

Could it be from the defensive gun uses of all those new owners?:eek:
Are you suggesting causality? :D

Can't resist taking pot shots at me huh? I think you know what I meant. I fixed the numbers.

When you try and misrepresent the data, I'll call you on it.


You may call it "cherry picking", whereas I call it representing the truth. The number of murders over the past 4 years have increased 6.73% and the use of firearms as the murder agent has increased by 7.68%.

Along w/ a population icrease of about 9 million keeping the rate the same. You tried to claim the rate increased.


These figures are irrelevant to the discussion of gun crime.

It is completely relevent when the numbers of weapons as a whole have increased making it non-firearm specific. You're trying to claim of causality. The FACT that the use of weapons overall has increased shows you're wrong.


Yes, the number of murders has risen by 2.1% over last year.

Prove it. Show me the numbers for the entire year in comparison for the entire 2004. You also once again falsely claimed the rates increased.


Yet the most violent crime (murder) has risen, and the use of guns has risen faster than the increase of murders.

The rates of murder have stabalized after years of dropping (before the BB) and the number of weapons used has increased proportionally. All this while legal ownership has increased and laws have become less restrictive on those who follow them.


Are you suggesting causality? :D

Nope, but by your logic it should all be increasing exponentially.

As for your denial of CCW holders being more law abiding: Take a look at Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

Florida has also had only .014% of over 1 million licenses revoked for crimes. Every state w/ shall issue have had 2% or less revoked for ANY reason.

It hasn't gone up. The murder level has increased along w/ a population increase.
The most violent crime of murder has indeed gone up faster than the growth in population. The US averages a .9% growth in population per year. Therefore, the population has grown by 4.5% over the past 5 years, while murders have increased by 6.73% and use of firearms to commit those murders has increased by 7.68%.

BTW, just because the population increases, doesn't mean that the number of murders has to increase?

The most violent crime of murder has indeed gone up faster than the growth in population. The US averages a .9% growth in population per year. Therefore, the population has grown by 4.5% over the past 5 years, while murders have increased by 6.73% and use of firearms to commit those murders has increased by 7.68%.

The rate in 2000 was 5.5. The rate in '2004 was 5.5. The use of all weapons in murder increased.

From '03 to '04, murder rate and number dropped. It began dropping in '92.

Violent crime decreased as well.

Keep denying it.

You may also want to take a look at this chart:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

And yet ownership has increased. Go figure.

Edit: Since most murders are committed by prior felons, it does seem to correlate back to my "criminals are becoming more violent" arguement, doesn't it.

You can also keep trying to make the emotional arguement of murder = "the most violent crime" all you want. It's subjective. Ask a rape victim.

BTW, just because the population increases, doesn't mean that the number of murders has to increase?

No, it doesn't "have" to but it tends to. Would you like to do murder levels of NY vs VT then?

When you try and misrepresent the data, I'll call you on it.
I wasn't trying to misrepresent data. Another shot huh?

Along w/ a population icrease of about 9 million keeping the rate the same. You tried to claim the rate increased.
The fact remains that the number of murders is increasing, faster than the population growth. All those new born babies and immigrants are criminals?
BTW, I corrected myself about the level versus rate, why are you bringing this forward again?

It is completely relevent when the numbers of weapons as a whole have increased making it non-firearm specific. You're trying to claim of causality. The FACT that the use of weapons overall has increased shows you're wrong.
I somewhat disagree. The fact remains that guns purchased has increased significantly, but the number of gun owners hasn't. If a gun owner has 5 firearms and buys 5 more, then he now owns 10 firearms. The major concern that should be addressed is the increasing number of illegal gun owners. About 500,000 guns are stolen annually in the US.

Prove it. Show me the numbers for the entire year in comparison for the entire 2004. You also once again falsely claimed the rates increased.
I already posted the Bureau of Justice fact sheet for 2005. It states that the number of murders have risen by 2.1% over last year. I did not use the term "rate". I stated: Yes, the number of murders has risen by 2.1% over last year."

The rates of murder have stabalized after years of dropping (before the BB) and the number of weapons used has increased proportionally.
That would mean that the number of firearms used in commission of murder is continuing to increase, therefore, the use of other murder weapons on the whole are decreasing or remaining relatively stagnant.

All this while legal ownership has increased and laws have become less restrictive on those who follow them.
Again, are you trying to show causality?

Nope, but by your logic it should all be increasing exponentially.
You are exaggerating. I never stated that they should be increasing "exponentially". However, they are increasing, see above.

As for your denial of CCW holders being more law abiding: Take a look at Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

Florida has also had only .014% of over 1 million licenses revoked for crimes. Every state w/ shall issue have had 2% or less revoked for ANY reason.
First off, I did not deny that CCW were more law abiding than non CCW citizens. In reference to your suggestion that CCW were more law abiding, I asked: "They are? What proof do you have?" That is not denial.

How does your linked web site prove Ravenshrike's assertiion that "CCW carriers are more lawful than your average citizen."?

I wasn't trying to misrepresent data. Another shot huh?

When you claimed it INCREASED over 100% w/ your past history, it's logical.


The fact remains that the number of murders is increasing, faster than the population growth. All those new born babies and immigrants are criminals?
BTW, I corrected myself about the level versus rate, why are you bringing this forward again?

And people get older as well. The rate stayed the same.

Violent crime also decreased.


I somewhat disagree. The fact remains that guns purchased has increased significantly, but the number of gun owners hasn't. If a gun owner has 5 firearms and buys 5 more, then he now owns 10 firearms. The major concern that should be addressed is the increasing number of illegal gun owners. About 500,000 guns are stolen annually in the US.

The fact is that only one survey has shown that owners haven't and that was by a phone poll. Attendance in shooting sports by women alone has increased 10X over the last decade.

Punish the criminals.


I already posted the Bureau of Justice fact sheet for 2005. It states that the number of murders have risen by 2.1% over last year. I did not use the term "rate". I stated: Yes, the number of murders has risen by 2.1% over last year."

You said rate the first time. It also doesn't include the entire year for either of them.


That would mean that the number of firearms used in commission of murder is continuing to increase, therefore, the use of other murder weapons on the whole are decreasing or remaining relatively stagnant.

You posted the chart from the FBI. It showed weapon use increased.

Try reading it.


Again, are you trying to show causality?

No, I'm not. The facts though show that your claim of causality is false.


You are exaggerating. I never stated that they should be increasing "exponentially". However, they are increasing, see above.

Yet they dropped in rates for years and the rates have now stabalized. The totals varied.

There are areas where it's dropping and their is CCW, there is areas that it's rising and there isn't. Your claim of causality is false.


First off, I did not deny that CCW were more law abiding than non CCW citizens. In reference to your suggestion that CCW were more law abiding, I asked: "They are? What proof do you have?" That is not denial.

When you have stated it in the past and believe that CCW will cause an increase in crime, that is a denial.

How does your linked web site prove Ravenshrike's assertiion that "CCW carriers are more lawful than your average citizen."?
Being that they commit less crimes than the public at large, that proves the assertion.

Are you unable to do comparisons?

For example, the murder rate in TX is about 6. That's after dropping from 7.7 in '96.

There have been a total of 3 murders by CCW holders in the last ten years. That equals a rate of .12 So unless each one killed about 45 people, that's less.

The revocation rate is about 20 for any reason, including the death of the holder. Even if every single one committed a violent crime, that's still less.

That's the proof.

The most violent crime of murder has indeed gone up faster than the growth in population. The US averages a .9% growth in population per year. Therefore, the population has grown by 4.5% over the past 5 years, while murders have increased by 6.73% and use of firearms to commit those murders has increased by 7.68%.

BTW, just because the population increases, doesn't mean that the number of murders has to increase?
We average a .9% in legal growth, not total growth. More than enough illegal immigrants flooding in to chalk up the difference to.

The most violent crime of murder has indeed gone up faster than the growth in population. The US averages a .9% growth in population per year. Therefore, the population has grown by 4.5% over the past 5 years, while murders have increased by 6.73% and use of firearms to commit those murders has increased by 7.68%.

BTW, just because the population increases, doesn't mean that the number of murders has to increase?
Actually, unless every part of the population increase is composed of LACs yes it does.

there should be no rescritions on guns. If there were someone would get hurt.

Oh the Horror. It looks like Nebraska is one Governor's signature away from passing CCW.

Soon only Illinois will be the only "flyover" State to remain a "Safe for Violent Criminals" zone.

Thank you Chicago. Enforcers are hard to replace don'cha know.

We average a .9% in legal growth, not total growth. More than enough illegal immigrants flooding in to chalk up the difference to.
Nice try but the .9% increase included illegal immigrants.

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_fact_stats.htm

Oh the Horror. It looks like Nebraska is one Governor's signature away from passing CCW.

Soon only Illinois will be the only "flyover" State to remain a "Safe for Violent Criminals" zone.

Thank you Chicago. Enforcers are hard to replace don'cha know.

And said Governor has said he'll sign it. I guess we'll see an increase in crime there. :rolleyes:

King Richard and his pet governor are living in the past and still trying to pass an AWB by using the tradition lies of the anti-rights groups.

Actually, unless every part of the population increase is composed of LACs yes it does.
So the newborn babies are part of increasing crime in the US?

the US is importing criminal immigrants?

Interesting. :rolleyes:

So the newborn babies are part of increasing crime in the US?

No, but when they get older and commit crimes, they are no longer LAC's now are they?

the US is importing criminal immigrants?

Interesting. :rolleyes:

No, they're coming here on their own. According to the INS, 10% of illegal immigrants CAUGHT crossing have criminal records. That's 40,000 just last year.

Edit: According to the CS and INS in 2000, there was between 7 & 8 million illegal immigrants in the US w/ an increase of 500K /year. That's considerably higher than the cited source.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/ReportRec2.htm

And if I own a gun to kill some piece of shit jerkoff who breaks into my house in the middle of the night, what's wrong with that?

I fail to see a problem with that either. :D Some asshole breaks into my house, I reserve the right to blow his brains all over the wall. And charge his estate for the cleaning bill.

I don't have a source with me, but I ran across an article a few months back that mentioned a woman in New York was being prosecuted for possession of a firearm, a pistol I believe. She used it to shoot 2 men who broke into her house and were attempting to assault her and her daughters.

As author and Libertarian Advocate, L. Neil Smith would say; Call gun control what it really is. I.E. Victim Disarnament (sp?).

People who advocate disarming law-abiding citizens give me the strong urge to go buy a Glock. With 2 extra magazines. And a 12-gauge.

I am still laughing at the fact that Rosey O'Donnell, one of the biggest advocates of victim disarnament, has hired ARMED bodyguards for herself and her children.......... Apparently it's alright for her, but not the rest of us?

Seeing as it is Americans who are so keen on gun crime, I would have thought immigrants would dilute it out a bit.

Seeing as it is Americans who are so keen on gun crime, I would have thought immigrants would dilute it out a bit.

Mexico has much higher rates of firearm crime than the US.

Here's an interesting question for the "Z0MG 6UnZ IZ 3b1L!" bunch...

Here is what I have (excluding the flintlock):
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/IMG_3510.jpg
Complicated guns all (even though 4 of the 8 are Black Powder/muzzleloaders).

Here is what I can make in about 48 hours:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/LFK072.jpg
About as complicated to make as assembling bits of plumbing.

Which do you think I will have/use if guns are "outlawed"?

Which is more "dangerous" in the hands of a criminal?

Think hard.

Sarah Brady is making her organization know along the highways in Florida. Yesterday a friend was headed southbound on I-75 just south of Brooksville heading towards Tampa. He noticed a billboard on the side of the road that said

"WARNING VISITORS!!! FLORIDA CITIZENS ARE ARMED AND BY LAW MAY SHOOT THOSE WHO THREATEN THEM."

Not bad. Not bad at all.

The question is, do I write Sarah a letter and thank her for making Florida a more polite place? It was nice of her to warn the tourists to be on their best behavior. :p

LOL, definitely let her know. :D

You may also want to take a look at this chart:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm


Very interesting indeed because if you look at the Key Facts at a Glance, you will notice that firearm usage in crimes actually peaked in 1994 as did the number of victims:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm

This tends to refute your earlier claims about violent crime peaking in 1992.

Those figures also support this fact, which you tried to dismiss earlier:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf

In 1994, compared to 1973, the U.S. population was about as vulnerable to
violent crime but significantly less vulnerable to property crime. From 1973
through 1994, the rates of violent crime victimization had intervals of stability,
increase, and decrease, while the rates of property crime underwent a
virtually uninterrupted decrease. The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime
rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent
category.

I am surprised that you would reject my use of the above link to support my argument and then come back with the same link to try and bolster your argument. Very interesting indeed!!

Sarah Brady is making her organization know along the highways in Florida. Yesterday a friend was headed southbound on I-75 just south of Brooksville heading towards Tampa. He noticed a billboard on the side of the road that said

"WARNING VISITORS!!! FLORIDA CITIZENS ARE ARMED AND BY LAW MAY SHOOT THOSE WHO THREATEN THEM."

Not bad. Not bad at all.

The question is, do I write Sarah a letter and thank her for making Florida a more polite place? It was nice of her to warn the tourists to be on their best behavior. :p
Well, I have visited Florida 6 times in the past, but now that they have legalized murder, I will find other places to visit. That castle law is just plain dementia.

Well, I have visited Florida 6 times in the past, but now that they have legalized murder, I will find other places to visit. That castle law is just plain dementia.
And there, in a nutshell, is your problem. You cannot distinguish Murder from Self Defense, just like you can't distinguish a tool from an actor.

It's rather funny. People complain about how the "War on Terror" is silly because it is a war on a noun (a sentiment to which I concur - though for different reasons), yet are all about having a "War on Guns". :rolleyes:

Mind boggling.

Very interesting indeed because if you look at the Key Facts at a Glance, you will notice that firearm usage in crimes actually peaked in 1994 as did the number of victims:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm

This tends to refute your earlier claims about violent crime peaking in 1992.

Those figures also support this fact, which you tried to dismiss earlier:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf

In 1994, compared to 1973, the U.S. population was about as vulnerable to
violent crime but significantly less vulnerable to property crime. From 1973
through 1994, the rates of violent crime victimization had intervals of stability,
increase, and decrease, while the rates of property crime underwent a
virtually uninterrupted decrease. The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime
rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent
category.

I am surprised that you would reject my use of the above link to support my argument and then come back with the same link to try and bolster your argument. Very interesting indeed!!


Now (once again) look at the UCR which has it peaking in '91 and read the link I've provided many times showing the comparisons between the two.

The violent crime rate in '73 was 417. It was 713.6 in '94.

All of it still shows that private ownership kept increasing, along w/ the liberalization of the laws, and crime kept dropping and is still dropping.

Goodbye causality.

I find it more interesting that, after god knows how many times of showing that your much fellated brady bunch bill had no effect (even the CDC couldn't prove it) you still keep grasping at that straw. Maybe you should contact them and provide them w/ your irrefutable facts that they couldn't find.

Well, I have visited Florida 6 times in the past, but now that they have legalized murder, I will find other places to visit. That castle law is just plain dementia.

Well thankfully it won't be in most states of the US as the majority are now passing laws that stop criminals from sueing those who defend themselves. We already know that you oppose people defending themselves.

I guess you support that though.

And there, in a nutshell, is your problem. You cannot distinguish Murder from Self Defense, just like you can't distinguish a tool from an actor.

It's rather funny. People complain about how the "War on Terror" is silly because it is a war on a noun (a sentiment to which I concur - though for different reasons), yet are all about having a "War on Guns". :rolleyes:

Mind boggling.

Actually, sometimes actors can also be tools. :D

BTW, here's an interesting bit of knowledge. In CT, there are (IIRC) about 30,000 outstanding arrest warrants. How about instead of worrying about an inanimate object, we start putting these criminals behind bars.

BTW CanuckHeaven, self defense is NOT legalized murder.

Here's an interesting question for the "Z0MG 6UnZ IZ 3b1L!" bunch...

Here is what I have (excluding the flintlock):
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/IMG_3510.jpg
Complicated guns all (even though 4 of the 8 are Black Powder/muzzleloaders).

Here is what I can make in about 48 hours:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/LFK072.jpg
About as complicated to make as assembling bits of plumbing.

Which do you think I will have/use if guns are "outlawed"?

Which is more "dangerous" in the hands of a criminal?

Think hard.

Syniks, is that a BP conversion for a 12G?

Here's an interesting question for the "Z0MG 6UnZ IZ 3b1L!" bunch...

Here is what I have (excluding the flintlock):
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/IMG_3510.jpg
Complicated guns all (even though 4 of the 8 are Black Powder/muzzleloaders).

Here is what I can make in about 48 hours:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/LFK072.jpg
About as complicated to make as assembling bits of plumbing.

Which do you think I will have/use if guns are "outlawed"?

Which is more "dangerous" in the hands of a criminal?

Think hard.
Why wouldn't a criminal just make one of those himself then anyway!? And why are there many different types of weapons in production then? (Although a bolt-action rifle wouldn't be very effective for a low-level criminal)
Think hard!

BTW CanuckHeaven, self defense is NOT legalized murder.
It appears that could very well be the case in Florida, with the new law.

Case in point, which I discussed with good old Saleshi (where is he now), whereby, you have two identical homes. The neighbour comes home a little intoxicated and can't open the door, not realizing that he is at the wrong house. He breaks the window, and blam his neighbour shoots him dead.

Under Florida's new law, that will be a legal defence of property. I call it sad.

Why wouldn't a criminal just make one of those himself then anyway!? And why are there many different types of weapons in production then? (Although a bolt-action rifle wouldn't be very effective for a low-level criminal)
Think hard!
Cookie for you!

The variety of gun types is in proportion to the lawful use of same. The only reason "low level" criminals don't make their own is because they are, by definition, lazy and stupid - preferring destruction and violence to labor of any sort.

But then, because they are lazy they also prefer weapons & violence to well-planned "professional" crime. Since open-bolt machineguns are so easy to make, it stands to reason someone will be making them if only to supply the black market demand.

Again, which would you rather have, a criminal with a stolen revolver or (worst case) 17 shot 9mm Glock (more likely a 10 shot Hi Point) or a 30 shot Submachinegun? Those are essentially your options.

Now (once again) look at the UCR which has it peaking in '91 and read the link I've provided many times showing the comparisons between the two.

The violent crime rate in '73 was 417. It was 713.6 in '94.
However, you slice it, the report disagrees with your findings. I suggest you write a letter to those who came up with the figures and statement that doesn't coincide with your info:

By Michael R. Rand BJS Statistician
James P. Lynch, Ph.D. American University
David Cantor, Ph.D. Westat

Syniks, is that a BP conversion for a 12G?
BP accessory barrel for M-500. See Mossberg website. Very accurate. Adds a whole extra dimension to the 500. OTOH, the ROA has a 45LC cylinder installed, making it a non 4473 cartridge gun.

I play the game from both sides. :D

It appears that could very well be the case in Florida, with the new law.

Case in point, which I discussed with good old Saleshi (where is he now), whereby, you have two identical homes. The neighbour comes home a little intoxicated and can't open the door, not realizing that he is at the wrong house. He breaks the window, and blam his neighbour shoots him dead.

Under Florida's new law, that will be a legal defence of property. I call it sad.
I call it "don't get so fucking drunk that you terrorize your neighbors", though I would wait for aggressive action beyond simply blasting away. It's called "Target Identification". If he pisses his pants and runs away, I win.

But if he did shoot, not even Orthodox Jewish Law would condemn the home owner.

Very interesting indeed because if you look at the Key Facts at a Glance, you will notice that firearm usage in crimes actually peaked in 1994 as did the number of victims:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm

This tends to refute your earlier claims about violent crime peaking in 1992.

Those figures also support this fact, which you tried to dismiss earlier:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf

In 1994, compared to 1973, the U.S. population was about as vulnerable to
violent crime but significantly less vulnerable to property crime. From 1973
through 1994, the rates of violent crime victimization had intervals of stability,
increase, and decrease, while the rates of property crime underwent a
virtually uninterrupted decrease. The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime
rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent
category.That first link is for "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes" from 1993 to 2004; it doesn't include fatal firearm-related crimes or anything to do with 1992 and may include crimes that were related to firearms but were not committed with them. The quote from the second is referring to violent crime and property crime, which aren't the same as "firearm usage in crimes".Case in point, which I discussed with good old Saleshi (where is he now), whereby, you have two identical homes. The neighbour comes home a little intoxicated and can't open the door, not realizing that he is at the wrong house. He breaks the window, and blam his neighbour shoots him dead.

Under Florida's new law, that will be a legal defence of property.You're referring to Floridian statute XLVI:776.013? It doesn't authorize lethal force in response to destruction of property. It says that "a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if":
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.(followed by exceptions and definitions)

Now (once again) look at the UCR which has it peaking in '91 and read the link I've provided many times showing the comparisons between the two.

The violent crime rate in '73 was 417. It was 713.6 in '94.

All of it still shows that private ownership kept increasing, along w/ the liberalization of the laws, and crime kept dropping and is still dropping.

Goodbye causality.

I find it more interesting that, after god knows how many times of showing that your much fellated brady bunch bill had no effect (even the CDC couldn't prove it) you still keep grasping at that straw. Maybe you should contact them and provide them w/ your irrefutable facts that they couldn't find.
Some more interesting figures for you:

From 2000 to 2004, the US experienced an increase of 891 murders. The number of murders committed with firearms in that same period was 665. If one divides 665 by 891, one arrives at a 74.64% figure.

BP accessory barrel for M-500. See Mossberg website. Very accurate. Adds a whole extra dimension to the 500. OTOH, the ROA has a 45LC cylinder installed, making it a non 4473 cartridge gun.

I play the game from both sides. :D

It's factory, eh? Even better.

And there's nothing wrong with enjoying 2 sides of a sport/hobby.

It appears that could very well be the case in Florida, with the new law.

Case in point, which I discussed with good old Saleshi (where is he now), whereby, you have two identical homes. The neighbour comes home a little intoxicated and can't open the door, not realizing that he is at the wrong house. He breaks the window, and blam his neighbour shoots him dead.

Under Florida's new law, that will be a legal defence of property. I call it sad.

:rolleyes:

I doubt that a situation like that would occur as you wrote it. Besides, that would not be legalized murder. Maybe you should re-read that law.

That first link is for "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes" from 1993 to 2004; it doesn't include fatal firearm-related crimes or anything to do with 1992 and may include crimes that were related to firearms but were not committed with them.
The numbers for 1992 are not an issue with the findings of the survey. Also, the statistics do not state that they "may include crimes that were related to firearms but were not committed with them". The stats directly relate to "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes" that were committed with firearms only.

To further the point, lets look at "Percent distribution of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters":

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31172003.pdf

You will notice that these gun related murders peaked in 1993 and that firearm usage was at 70%. The number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters started to decline in 1994, and dropped every year until 1999, as did the percentage of firearm usage. In 1999, the number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters started to climb again as did the percentage of firearm usage.

The quote from the second is referring to violent crime and property crime, which aren't the same as "firearm usage in crimes".
Lets have another look at what the statement says:

From 1973 through 1994, the rates of violent crime victimization had intervals of stability, increase, and decrease, while the rates of property crime underwent a virtually uninterrupted decrease.

The above is a general statement, whereas below the statement is specific to violent crime only:

The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent category.

Fairly self explanatory?

No regulations on firearms.
Stiffer penalties for those who use a firearm to commit a crime or harm another person.

Use a handgun to murder someone, execution by firing squad.

Rob a bank at gunpoint, take all of thier material possesion, wether they have family or not, and a minimum of 25 years prison sentence, no early release under any cicumstances.

The numbers for 1992 are not an issue with the findings of the survey.You claimed "This tends to refute your earlier claims about violent crime peaking in 1992." How is that possible if it doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the year 1992?Also, the statistics do not state that they "may include crimes that were related to firearms but were not committed with them".Not as a quote, but it does say that. "Firearm-related" != "committed with firearms" It means only that the crime was in some way related to firearms; stabbing someone to steal his firearm could count, as could punching someone because he said Uzis are cooler than AKs. It's far too vague to be of much use.
To further the point, lets look at "Percent distribution of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters":You referred to "firearm usage in crimes"; such a specific subset of statistics is irrelevant to your original claim.
Fairly self explanatory?Sure. It has nothing to do with "firearm usage in crimes", which is what you were using it to argue about.

You claimed "This tends to refute your earlier claims about violent crime peaking in 1992." How is that possible if it doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the year 1992?
It acknowledges the year 1992, but does not acknowledge the year to be a peak.

Not as a quote, but it does say that. "Firearm-related" != "committed with firearms" It means only that the crime was in some way related to firearms; stabbing someone to steal his firearm could count, as could punching someone because he said Uzis are cooler than AKs. It's far too vague to be of much use.
I will take it on face value that the survey relates to "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes", whereby a firearm was used in the commission of the crime. You apparently are trying to read into the survey, something which is not stated.

You referred to "firearm usage in crimes"; such a specific subset of statistics is irrelevant to your original claim.
Sure. It has nothing to do with "firearm usage in crimes", which is what you were using it to argue about.
You appear to be talking in circles. Please be more specific.

It acknowledges the year 1992, but does not acknowledge the year to be a peak."1992" appears nowhere on that page.I will take it on face value that the survey relates to "nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes", whereby a firearm was used in the commission of the crime. You apparently are trying to read into the survey, something which is not stated.No, I'm taking it fairly literally. "Firearm-related" means just that -- related to firearms. Punching someone because he said Uzis are cooler than AKs is nonfatal, is firearm-related, and is a violent crime -- thus, it could be included in those statistics. I doubt it is, but we have no way of knowing just what is included.You appear to be talking in circles. Please be more specific.That was specific; more generally, you're making claims about statistic "A" and posting statistics on "B", "C", et cetera, but nothing at all about "A" that I've seen.

Let me help you out a bit Canuck:

#1: Either use Current or Longitudinal data. Numbers from the Clinton Admin mean Dick. He oversaw the COSCO AK-47/SD Port Deal remeber?

#2: Numbers mean Dick unless you can prove causality. You can't. Kecibukia can't. That's because the Tool has precicely Dick to do with either raising or lowering either the violent crime rate or absolute numbers.

#3: Comparing US States makes as much sense as comparing EU Countries. What the fuck difference does it make if VA =/= ME? DOes FR=SP? How about SE=FR? or BG=IT? The comparisons are BS. Try looking at a Mercator Projection sometime and figure out how much different the US is from Europe - or even Canada. In reality we have more in common (demographically) with the old USSR than anywhere in Europe.

#4: Anecdotal Crap. I live in the greater Chicago Suburban Area. I have precicely ONE (public) place within 50 miles to legally shoot my firearms. I have precicely 3 (public) places within 50 miles to play Golf. FYI it's easier for me to practice gun handling (somthing I can do in by basement) than to practice Golf. In either case I can go to jail for breaking the neighbor's window. But at least I can fire wax squib loads in my basement... Try doing that with a golf ball and anything but a Putter. Please post pictures.

My Hobby/Sport is just that. A Hobby/Sport. The fact that I can use the equipment from my hobby/sport to defend myself and others from acts of wonton agression is a bonus - and frankly I could give less than a shit whether or not a subject from some other country doesn't like what I do.

If you really care about people getting killed, try focusing your attention on sub Saharan Africa.

But then, they really aren't people there, are they? :rolleyes: Who cares how many tribal savages get killed with machettes and full automatic machine guns. USian private ownership of semi-automatic handguns and rifles is much more important to bitch about.

I'm so glad you continue to reinforcethis position.

It's factory, eh? Even better.

And there's nothing wrong with enjoying 2 sides of a sport/hobby.
Especially when you can use the Post and skip the 4473. ;) ;) ;)

However, you slice it, the report disagrees with your findings. I suggest you write a letter to those who came up with the figures and statement that doesn't coincide with your info:

By Michael R. Rand BJS Statistician
James P. Lynch, Ph.D. American University
David Cantor, Ph.D. Westat

My info came from the FBI. If you actually would do some reading, the two methods are not the same and still show the same general trends. Why aren't you contacting the FBI and the CDC w/ your absolute proof of causality?

Since you refuse to, here's some reading for you:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/appendices/appendix_04.html

Because the BJS designed the NCVS to complement the UCR Program, the two programs share many similarities.
(complement, not suplement. You do know the difference, right?)

There are also significant differences between the two programs. First, the two programs were created to serve different purposes.

Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes.

Third, because of methodology, the NCVS and UCR definitions of some crime differ.

In addition, some differences in the data from the two programs may result from sampling variation in the NCVS and from estimating for nonresponse in the UCR.

Some more interesting figures for you:

From 2000 to 2004, the US experienced an increase of 891 murders. The number of murders committed with firearms in that same period was 665. If one divides 665 by 891, one arrives at a 74.64% figure.

And that number means absolutely nothing CH. Howabout the fact that the proportional increase was .54%. Yet you keep claiming some massive increase in firearm related murders and a decrease in other weapons.

Of course you'll completely ignore the continued drops in violent crime and non fatal firearm crimes all the while as ownership increased by the millions and dozens of states improved their firearm laws.

The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent category.

Fairly self explanatory?

And yet you still have not proven it has anything to do w/ the discriminatory legislation you keep pushing.

Apparently it's only "self explanatory" to you. Remember the phrase "insufficient evidence"?

If you really care about people getting killed, try focusing your attention on sub Saharan Africa.

But then, they really aren't people there, are they? :rolleyes: Who cares how many tribal savages get killed with machettes and full automatic machine guns. USian private ownership of semi-automatic handguns and rifles is much more important to bitch about.

I'm so glad you continue to reinforcethis position.

It's the current fad amongst anti-rights Canadians to blame the US for its crime problems.

This, despite the fact they've wasted over $2B on trying to controll their own law abiding populace by banning and registering firearms they initially said they wouldn't instead of improving social issues or fighting crime.