NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=BCP_shootiful


COMMENTARY: If there's one thing the cartoon illustrates, it's the disconnect between two visions of a country with few or no gun laws. They imagine inner city thugs armed to the teeth, shooting each other over anything. They see innocent citizens terrorized by a stronger group of aggressors, who's job is made much easier with firearms. They see the NRA as responsible for this.

We see it differently. We see regular people, enjoying their hobby and protecting their families.

This really explains why we have so much difficulty understanding where they're coming from, and why they don't understand us. We each see the exact same world completely differently. Interestingly, this isn't limited to guns. It's primarily a urban/suburban/rural disconnect. It's why some folks love homeowner's associations or deed restrictions, while others despise them. It's why some folks embrace near limitless libertarian ideals, while others are more pragmatic. A great deal of disagreement is rooted in cultural differences observed in areas of varying population densities. It's why we agree on guns, but argue about everything else.

To somebody that lives in Toledo, non-existant gun laws means more crime. It's a real fear in a crime-ridden city, and trying to convince them that guns aren't the cause is extremely difficult. All they know is, everytime something really bad goes down, guns were involved. Explain causation/correlation until you're blue in the face - it will fall on deaf ears.

To somebody like me in rural Texas, lax gun laws mean more fun with less hassle. Violent crime is practically non existent here, so arguments from gun control proponents seem silly or difficult to understand to people here. In Toledo, where guns really are used to commit felonies almost daily, our statements like "it's just a tool, and it's harmless on it's own" make absolutely no sense to them.

It's difficult to bridge that gap and come together.

ETA: Oh, and send in the blue headed peacekeepers quick. We need more targets.

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=BCP_shootiful


COMMENTARY: If there's one thing the cartoon illustrates, it's the disconnect between two visions of a country with few or no gun laws. They imagine inner city thugs armed to the teeth, shooting each other over anything. They see innocent citizens terrorized by a stronger group of aggressors, who's job is made much easier with firearms. They see the NRA as responsible for this.

We see it differently. We see regular people, enjoying their hobby and protecting their families.

This really explains why we have so much difficulty understanding where they're coming from, and why they don't understand us. We each see the exact same world completely differently. Interestingly, this isn't limited to guns. It's primarily a urban/suburban/rural disconnect. It's why some folks love homeowner's associations or deed restrictions, while others despise them. It's why some folks embrace near limitless libertarian ideals, while others are more pragmatic. A great deal of disagreement is rooted in cultural differences observed in areas of varying population densities. It's why we agree on guns, but argue about everything else.

To somebody that lives in Toledo, non-existant gun laws means more crime. It's a real fear in a crime-ridden city, and trying to convince them that guns aren't the cause is extremely difficult. All they know is, everytime something really bad goes down, guns were involved. Explain causation/correlation until you're blue in the face - it will fall on deaf ears.

To somebody like me in rural Texas, lax gun laws mean more fun with less hassle. Violent crime is practically non existent here, so arguments from gun control proponents seem silly or difficult to understand to people here. In Toledo, where guns really are used to commit felonies almost daily, our statements like "it's just a tool, and it's harmless on it's own" make absolutely no sense to them.

It's difficult to bridge that gap and come together.


So increase gun control laws in cities, not rural areas.

So increase gun control laws in cities, not rural areas.

They've already done this in America.

Consider that 94% of violent crime is committed without a weapon of any kind - not even a knife.

Consider that violent crime in the US has fallen 60-65% over the last 10 years.

Consider that the likely cause of the decline is the decentralization of the housing of the poor - a policy that began in 1993 and destroyed the massive housing projects that were hotbeds of violent crime. The poor are now farmed out in distributed fashion over entire metropolitan areas.

To somebody like me in rural Texas, lax gun laws mean more fun with less hassle. Violent crime is practically non existent here, so arguments from gun control proponents seem silly or difficult to understand to people here. In Toledo, where guns really are used to commit felonies almost daily, our statements like "it's just a tool, and it's harmless on it's own" make absolutely no sense to them.

violent crime is practically non-existent anywhere why is Texas so different?

I wouldn’t have much idea about differences between urban and rural. Northampton seems to be a mix between the two though I’d say the closer you get to the centre the more chav/townie it becomes

Consider that 94% of violent crime is committed without a weapon of any kind - not even a knife.


You mean it's possible to hurt people without using a gun?!


INCONCEIVABLE!

They've already done this in America.

Consider that 94% of violent crime is committed without a weapon of any kind - not even a knife.

Consider that violent crime in the US has fallen 60-65% over the last 10 years.

Consider that the likely cause of the decline is the decentralization of the housing of the poor - a policy that began in 1993 and destroyed the massive housing projects that were hotbeds of violent crime. The poor are now farmed out in distributed fashion over entire metropolitan areas.

Sources?

Anyways, whether or not guns are actually the cause, he's saying that people in the cities (Toldeo, specifically,) want stronger gun control. That being the case, shouldn't they get it?

Sources?

Anyways, whether or not guns are actually the cause, he's saying that people in the cities (Toldeo, specifically,) want stronger gun control. That being the case, shouldn't they get it?

Laws only work for those who wish to remain law abiding. Criminals dont' care.

Laws would make criminal those who had no intentions of being otherwise, such as myself. Squeaky clean record, however if a certain someone came into office you can bet donuts to dollars I'd be a felon by the end of her first term.

Regardless of what side of the gun control argument you're on, I think we can all come to a consensus that the video in that link was one of the dumbest things ever created by man. :p

Sources?

Anyways, whether or not guns are actually the cause, he's saying that people in the cities (Toldeo, specifically,) want stronger gun control. That being the case, shouldn't they get it?

They already have it stronger in most cities in the US. What do you want to do, have capital punishment for the people in cities who have a gun?

BTW, everytime I say that about violent crime, people like you act so surprised and don't believe it.

Well, believe it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

See? All at a time when firearm ownership in the US increased from 200 million guns to 300 million guns. At a time when we went from 12 states with concealed carry laws to 35 states with concealed carry laws.

To somebody that lives in Toledo, non-existant gun laws means more crime. It's a real fear in a crime-ridden city...

To somebody like me in rural Texas, lax gun laws mean more fun with less hassle...

It's difficult to bridge that gap and come together...

Very true - but which do you think counts for more, attempting to reduce crime through gun control, or having fun by shooting things?

Laws only work for those who wish to remain law abiding. Criminals dont' care.

Laws would make criminal those who had no intentions of being otherwise, such as myself. Squeaky clean record, however if a certain someone came into office you can bet donuts to dollars I'd be a felon by the end of her first term.

So what's the point of making murder illegal? Rape? Assault? Drugs? Cow tipping?

In addition, making something illegal could at the very least reduce it's availibility. For example, making it illegal to manufacture, own, or transport barbed wire would make it considerably more difficult to obtain barbed wire.

You mean it's possible to hurt people without using a gun?!


INCONCEIVABLE!
One can always use Iocaine powder.

Actually, I find it questionable that people in cities DO want more gun control. I find it very significant that the anti-gun lobby hasn't asked for plebiscites or run many candidates for election - I think they've done the research, and don't have the numbers.

Actually, I find it questionable that people in cities DO want more gun control. I find it very significant that the anti-gun lobby hasn't asked for plebiscites or run many candidates for election - I think they've done the research, and don't have the numbers.

All you have to do is look at the statistics and the anti-gun nutters arguments fall to peices. I don't own a gun, never have, and likely never will, nice to have the option though.

The one thing that irks me about gun control is that its proponents think that it will make people safer. As stated before, only law-abiding citizens follow the laws. Disarming the populance makes it easier for criminals to do their dirty work. Just look at the gun-free eden that is the United Kingdom! In the words of Archie Bunker: "If you want to stop hijackings, arm your passangers."

Actually, I find it questionable that people in cities DO want more gun control. I find it very significant that the anti-gun lobby hasn't asked for plebiscites or run many candidates for election - I think they've done the research, and don't have the numbers.

Let's talk about numbers.

The people who obsess the most about numbers involving risk are insurance companies. Because they make money off of the numbers.

You'll find that if you have a hobby like hang gliding or parachuting, you won't be able to get life insurance. Or, if your career is exceptionally dangerous, such as being in the military, the military has to provide insurance, because no one will insure you.

If owning a firearm was so risky and so dangerous, insurance companies - every last one of them - would have their actuarial staff breathing down their necks. They would ask you if you owned a firearm - and if so, they would either raise your rates or refuse to insure you.

Not one insurance company in the US does this. Not one.

So, tell me once again about risk. The actuarial people at insurance companies know the risks better than anyone.

So what's the point of making murder illegal? Rape? Assault? Drugs? Cow tipping?

In addition, making something illegal could at the very least reduce it's availibility. For example, making it illegal to manufacture, own, or transport barbed wire would make it considerably more difficult to obtain barbed wire.

If you want to use barbed wire to further your otherwise criminal activity, then you won't mind going outside of the law to obtain it on the black market.

I wouldn’t have much idea about differences between urban and rural.

It's a huge difference. I grew up in an extremely small town, and people didn't even lock their doors when they left the house. People would leave their car doors unlocked and their windows down. I remember when I moved to Colorado Springs being told not to have anything visible in the car because someone might break your windows to take it.

Also, we had a murder in a town near my hometown in 1998 and people still talk about it.

All you have to do is look at the statistics and the anti-gun nutters arguments fall to peices. I don't own a gun, never have, and likely never will, nice to have the option though.

All you have to do is look at the stats and the pro gun nutters arguments go away too …

Personally I have never ever ever seen a good published study that backs up either side … without that I don’t think it prudent to ban fire arms (just as I don’t think the government should be in the business of banning anything that is not directly and very provably harmful to society)

Very true - but which do you think counts for more, attempting to reduce crime through gun control, or having fun by shooting things?

People's desire to use guns. Our societal pradigm is permissive (allowed unless specifically banned) rather than proscriptive (Banned unless specifically allowed). We should only proscribe an item or behaviour if it is of proven benefit, which standard attempting to reduce crime doesn't meet.

All you have to do is look at the stats and the pro gun nutters arguments go away too …

Personally I have never ever ever seen a good published study that backs up either side … without that I don’t think it prudent to ban fire arms (just as I don’t think the government should be in the business of banning anything that is not directly and very provably harmful to society)

Like I said, if insurance companies had any hint that firearm ownership was risky, it would be a factor in getting insurance.

If you want to use barbed wire to further your otherwise criminal activity, then you won't mind going outside of the law to obtain it on the black market.

But it will be more difficult to obtain it. Do you support legalization of drugs? Child porn? Anything else that is illegal but can be obtained on the black market?

Just look at the gun-free eden that is the United Kingdom! In the words of Archie Bunker: "If you want to stop hijackings, arm your passangers."

erm....things are good here I've never seen a gun in real life and the only people who bother with them are farmers and aristocrats (I think this is because years ago a guy went ape shit with an AK in a village)

But it will be more difficult to obtain it. Do you support legalization of drugs? Child porn? Anything else that is illegal but can be obtained on the black market?

Actually, I do support legalizing drugs. Our attempts to proscribe them have done far more harm than the drugs themselves ever could.

Like I said, if insurance companies had any hint that firearm ownership was risky, it would be a factor in getting insurance.

So your argument is based on the projected reasoning of a private industry based on their current price rates?

Does that seem as flaky to you as it does to me? Personally way too many factors take part for me to make that sort of inference without way more data

But it will be more difficult to obtain it. Do you support legalization of drugs? Child porn? Anything else that is illegal but can be obtained on the black market?

Drugs & porn are readily available to every guy and his dog. What makes you think banning guns would be any more effective?

So your argument is based on the projected reasoning of a private industry based on their current price rates?

Does that seem as flaky to you as it does to me? Personally way too many factors take part for me to make that sort of inference without way more data

They raise their rates or refuse policies for a lot of little activities. It's not flaky at all.

I've seen the actuarial department in more than one company - curious little statisticians who constantly muse about risk, and constantly seek data to justify denying a policy.

Owning a gun has never, in their data, been shown to increase risk, no matter what some lobbying group may say (one way or the other).

I trust their motivation - which is profit. Political motivation in wanting to liberalize or ban gun ownership is suspect to me.

So what's the point of making murder illegal? Rape? Assault? Drugs? Cow tipping?

In addition, making something illegal could at the very least reduce it's availibility. For example, making it illegal to manufacture, own, or transport barbed wire would make it considerably more difficult to obtain barbed wire.

The people who want gun control want safety (Where's that qoute from BF? Those who give up liberty for safety don't get either?)

In criminology we discussed why societies made certain things illegal. Out of all the early societies had Treason and theft as a crime. Why? because it was detrimental to their existence. Guns aren't a threat to our existence; hardly that, they save many lives every year and help keep our families safe. Could you see a 70 year old lady fighting off a young man with her fists? No. They are the perfect equalize. Cops in San fran were complaining that they didn't get Ar15s when Bad guys had them. Well, tough luck dude. The follies of Gun control. Did I mention San Fran is in CA, and CA has an assault weapon ban? HOLY SHIITE! BAD GUYS CANT HAVE THOSE! THEY ARE ILLEGAL!

Well, they are criminals for a reason. LAC's can't have them, so the police don't deserve them either.

Actually, I find it questionable that people in cities DO want more gun control. I find it very significant that the anti-gun lobby hasn't asked for plebiscites or run many candidates for election - I think they've done the research, and don't have the numbers.

Same here.

So your argument is based on the projected reasoning of a private industry based on their current price rates?

Does that seem as flaky to you as it does to me? Personally way too many factors take part for me to make that sort of inference without way more data

You have a point, but so does DK. If the professional paranoids in the insurance industry don't consider guns a large factor, should we?

Drugs & porn are readily available to every guy and his dog. What makes you think banning guns would be any more effective?

child porn is easy to get hold of where your from?

and I for one can't get my hands on anything more than marijuana not even shrooms!

They raise their rates or refuse policies for a lot of little activities. It's not flaky at all.

I've seen the actuarial department in more than one company - curious little statisticians who constantly muse about risk, and constantly seek data to justify denying a policy.

Owning a gun has never, in their data, been shown to increase risk, no matter what some lobbying group may say (one way or the other).

I trust their motivation - which is profit. Political motivation in wanting to liberalize or ban gun ownership is suspect to me.

I trust their profit motivation but adjusting rates based on some statistics is not always good for profit in the long run … maybe they just feel that charging more for the rate may work to their disadvantage

Either way eve with this stacked projection of intent all that says is it does not hurt to own a gun … last I saw they did not give a lower rate for gun ownership either

If we are going to project intent does that say that you are no safer owning a gun too?

Ah, the old debate about guns...
As far as I see it, in an ideal world, the only people who use guns would be law-abiding gun owners who only wish to go to shooting practice or hunt. Sadly, this is not the case.
I won't bore anybody with statistics, as I would only be beating a dead horse. Simply, the fact that a gun is nothing but a tool designed to kill should be a compelling enough argument to restrict who can have one. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy target practice too. However, I use the far less lethal paintball or BB gun to shoot at targets. There is no sense in acquiring a handgun or rifle to do something you can do just as easily with a children's toy. And if you absolutely insist on target practice, why do you need to own your own gun? Why can't they just be available to rent at a target practice range?
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is, as far as I'm concerned, a useless argument. How can you justify keeping a tool of murder around by saying that it's not the gun's fault that someone died? It's like saying that you can't fill up an old well if somebody falls down it, because it's not the well's fault.
I understand that people in rural Texas and elsewhere, for some reason, love their guns. Which still begs the question, why do they need lethal guns?
Many will say that it's for protection, but I personally don't see how having a gun locked up in a cabinet in a room on the other side of the house is supposed to help you if a burglar breaks in and catches you and ties you up while you're asleep. If you want to protect your family, lock your doors at night, don't leave the windows open, and get an alarm system. Most come equipped with a direct link to the police station anyway.
Granted, violence won't be eliminated if we eliminate all guns, but taking away a tool that has no useful purpose (unless you count killing) will certainly be a good first step. After that, tackling poverty, mental illness and setting up a program for early intervention in emotionally disturbed children will help reduce violence in society.
I'm sorry, but I don't intend on making a full-fledged debate out of this, and I only thought I'd drop in my two cents worth. Thanks for reading, please carry on the debate sans moi.

I trust their profit motivation but adjusting rates based on some statistics is not always good for profit in the long run … maybe they just feel that charging more for the rate may work to their disadvantage

Either way eve with this stacked projection of intent all that says is it does not hurt to own a gun … last I saw they did not give a lower rate for gun ownership either

If we are going to project intent does that say that you are no safer owning a gun too?

I would think they agree with you - there's no concrete data one way or the other.

It's been that way for decades in the US. And it's pretty obvious that the risk isn't changing.

Despite what the Brady group and some Physician's group says - or what the NRA says.

Personally, I've experienced "being" safer on more than one occasion. So it works for me. YMMV.

Could you see a 70 year old lady fighting off a young man with her fists? No. They are the perfect equalize. Cops in San fran were complaining that they didn't get Ar15s when Bad guys had them. Well, tough luck dude. The follies of Gun control. Did I mention San Fran is in CA, and CA has an assault weapon ban? HOLY SHIITE! BAD GUYS CANT HAVE THOSE! THEY ARE ILLEGAL!

you do know in most cases its the victims weapons that end up getting used against them also pointing a gun at a panicking man who just wants some money doesn't sound like a clever idea to me

Well, they are criminals for a reason. LAC's can't have them, so the police don't deserve them either.

its to do with the fact that you don't want an arms race between police and criminals especially on tax payers money

I would think they agree with you - there's no concrete data one way or the other.

It's been that way for decades in the US. And it's pretty obvious that the risk isn't changing.

Despite what the Brady group and some Physician's group says - or what the NRA says.

Personally, I've experienced "being" safer on more than one occasion. So it works for me. YMMV.

Fair enough and I agree … like usual with these threads I just come to argue what the stats say

Like I said before I have never seen good evidence one way or another, as such I don’t think there should be unreasonable restrictions on private ownership of it any more then lets say a car

Regardless of viewpoint, that video sucked.

Regardless of viewpoint, that video sucked.

Quoted for truth

you do know in most cases its the victims weapons that end up getting used against them also pointing a gun at a panicking man who just wants some money doesn't sound like a clever idea to me


That's an outright lie, and not true.

Most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance.

This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

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

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

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

(edited to demonstrate the absurdity of the statements)

Ah, the old debate about knives...
As far as I see it, in an ideal world, the only people who use knives would be law-abiding knife owners who only wish to go to whittle or hunt. Sadly, this is not the case.
I won't bore anybody with statistics, as I would only be beating a dead horse. Simply, the fact that a knife is nothing but a tool designed to cut something apart should be a compelling enough argument to restrict who can have one. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy whittling, too. However, I use the far less lethal pocketknife to whittle. There is no sense in acquiring a Bowie knife or survival knife to do something you can do just as easily with a pocketknife. And if you absolutely insist on hunting, why do you need to own your own knife? Why can't they just be available to rent?
"Knives don't kill people, people kill people" is, as far as I'm concerned, a useless argument. How can you justify keeping a tool of murder around by saying that it's not the knive's fault that someone died? It's like saying that you can't fill up an old well if somebody falls down it, because it's not the well's fault.
I understand that people in rural Texas and elsewhere, for some reason, love their knives. Which still begs the question, why do they need big knives?
Many will say that it's for protection, but I personally don't see how having a knife in a drawer in a room on the other side of the house is supposed to help you if a burglar breaks in and catches you and ties you up while you're asleep. If you want to protect your family, lock your doors at night, don't leave the windows open, and get an alarm system. Most come equipped with a direct link to the police station anyway.
Granted, violence won't be eliminated if we eliminate all knives, but taking away a tool that has no useful purpose (unless you count killing) will certainly be a good first step. After that, tackling poverty, mental illness and setting up a program for early intervention in emotionally disturbed children will help reduce violence in society.
I'm sorry, but I don't intend on making a full-fledged debate out of this, and I only thought I'd drop in my two cents worth. Thanks for reading, please carry on the debate sans moi.

child porn is easy to get hold of where your from?

and I for one can't get my hands on anything more than marijuana not even shrooms!

For the porn, there's something called the internet.

As for the drugs, I'm a bit out of touch, but I could probably get some by wandering around downtown. I also know of several meth houses, but I'm not sure how to get drugs from them without getting shot. But the people who are really interested can and do.

That's an outright lie, and not true.


An outright lie and not true? Gasp!

hehe gun control should mean hitting your target

in thread on general there is a poll about 17yr old stabbing a home invader to stop the invader's attack - invader died - good for the 17 yr old - however the threat could have been stopped more quickly by using a firearm legally

you english put a farmer in jail for murder several years ago when he was protecting his home - he had been broken in and burgled several times buy the thug [as i recall] - finally threatened he shot intruder - merry old sent him to jail for life i think - eventually public outcry got him out after 5 or so years
brits gave up self defense [had it taken away] and so the level of muggings/etc have gone up as a result of no firearms - you may not mind or care till the first time you are confronted with a robbery or worse - too bad, so sad

let the antigun crowd post signs in their front yard for a gunfree zone - lets see how long they stay anti after being robbed/raped/killed/etc

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

hehe gun control should mean hitting your target

in thread on general there is a poll about 17yr old stabbing a home invader to stop the invader's attack - invader died - good for the 17 yr old - however the threat could have been stopped more quickly by using a firearm legally

you english put a farmer in jail for murder several years ago when he was protecting his home - he had been broken in and burgled several times buy the thug [as i recall] - finally threatened he shot intruder - merry old sent him to jail for life i think - eventually public outcry got him out after 5 or so years
brits gave up self defense [had it taken away] and so the level of muggings/etc have gone up as a result of no firearms - you may not mind or care till the first time you are confronted with a robbery or worse - too bad, so sad

let the antigun crowd post signs in their front yard for a gunfree zone - lets see how long they stay anti after being robbed/raped/killed/etc

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

There are stickers on the windows of my house that say that 1) we have an intrusion detection system and 2) we are armed at all times.

I actually think that if someone politically believes that guns are bad, they should be required to put stickers on their home windows that say "We are completely unarmed".

There are stickers on the windows of my house that say that 1) we have an intrusion detection system and 2) we are armed at all times.

I actually think that if someone politically believes that guns are bad, they should be required to put stickers on their home windows that say "We are completely unarmed".

Actually, you don't even need to be armed. If you have a sign that says "Protected by Smith/Wesson", just the fact that it COULD be true might make the criminals think twice.

I don't want to be sued for "failure to warn".

Here's an interesting tidbit

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged,
college- educated people of rural small-town
America. Whites were substantially more likely to
own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than
Hispanics.

and
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt
Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

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

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

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

From 1993 to 2001, blacks were 12% of the U.S. population
age 12 or older but 46% of all homicide victims and 54% of
all victims of firearm homicide. Among homicide victims,
blacks were more likely than whites to have been killed
with a firearm. About 8 in 10 black homicide victims and
7 in 10 white homicide victims died from gunshot injuries.

Blacks were about 7 times more likely than whites to be a
homicide victim (30 versus 4 per 100,000 persons age 12 or
older respectively), and approximately 9 times more likely
to be a victim of a homicide committed with a firearm (25
versus 3 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older, respectively).

Sounds like the majority of gun owners are not experiencing the lion's share of the violence.

erm....things are good here I've never seen a gun in real life and the only people who bother with them are farmers and aristocrats (I think this is because years ago a guy went ape shit with an AK in a village)

indeed, here in britain I have never seen a real life gubn outside of a rifle shooting range.Only farmers/gamekeepers/sports hunters have gund.Now look at the difference between the gun crime rates in the uk and he us.we will be luck if we get 4/5 fatal shootings a year,now what is the rate in america(probably more than that in one city).I dont mind about guns for sport or hunting,but other than that all guns are for is for injuring or killing, at least knives have other uses(eg cooking)ah well,rant over now.Im just glad to be in the uk and not the usa!!

hehe gun control should mean hitting your target

in thread on general there is a poll about 17yr old stabbing a home invader to stop the invader's attack - invader died - good for the 17 yr old - however the threat could have been stopped more quickly by using a firearm legally

you english put a farmer in jail for murder several years ago when he was protecting his home - he had been broken in and burgled several times buy the thug [as i recall] - finally threatened he shot intruder - merry old sent him to jail for life i think - eventually public outcry got him out after 5 or so years
brits gave up self defense [had it taken away] and so the level of muggings/etc have gone up as a result of no firearms - you may not mind or
care till the first time you are confronted with a robbery or worse - too bad, so sad

let the antigun crowd post signs in their front yard for a gunfree zone - lets see how long they stay anti after being robbed/raped/killed/etc

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Tony Martin...

He shot the 16 year old in the back. Martin was not in danger.

Here is a rather interesting article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1339594,00.html

I suggest you might do a bit of research before launching into invective.

you english put a farmer in jail for murder several years ago when he was protecting his home - he had been broken in and burgled several times buy the thug [as i recall] - finally threatened he shot intruder - merry old sent him to jail for life i think - eventually public outcry got him out after 5 or so years
brits gave up self defense [had it taken away] and so the level of muggings/etc have gone up as a result of no firearms - you may not mind or care till the first time you are confronted with a robbery or worse - too bad, so sad

erm actually that was to do with reasonable force the farmer killed the guy for no reason at all especially considering he shot the guy more than once

crime is down in England not the other way round its also helping in shutting down gun culture (thank you rap music)

Funny thing is replica gun crime is up and has taken the place of firearms which is allot safer if you ask me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series5/gun_crime_replica_weapons.shtml

I would like to address an error observed in BAAWAKnights' creative edit of Rickvaria's post.

One of Rickvaria's primary arguments is that he believes guns have "no useful purpose" outside of harming/killing another living being. That being said, I simply cannot accept a knife as an accurate comparison.

I really enjoy cooking. As such, I use knives. A lot. I am not going to use a one-inch pocket knife to slice a turkey. Sorry. Knives have a practical purpose outside of violence. It is a practical tool with many uses, the least of which being violence.

I cannot say with any certainty that the knife was initially invented as a tool rather than a weapon, but I can argue that the two purposes are rather neck-and-neck for historical usefulness. There is a great deal of evidence that shows that knives were used as tools in the past just as often - if not more so - than as weapons. Can the same be said for guns?

Lastly, I would like to state that this is in no way an expression on my views of gun control, either for or against. I simply wished to point out a flaw in BAAWAKnights' argument.

indeed, here in britain I have never seen a real life gubn outside of a rifle shooting range.Only farmers/gamekeepers/sports hunters have gund.Now look at the difference between the gun crime rates in the uk and he us.we will be luck if we get 4/5 fatal shootings a year,now what is the rate in america(probably more than that in one city).I dont mind about guns for sport or hunting,but other than that all guns are for is for injuring or killing, at least knives have other uses(eg cooking)ah well,rant over now.Im just glad to be in the uk and not the usa!!

I always find it weird myself in these debates when you see the gun crime in American cities it blows your mind

Ah, the old debate about guns...
As far as I see it, in an ideal world, the only people who use guns would be law-abiding gun owners who only wish to go to shooting practice or hunt. Sadly, this is not the case.
I won't bore anybody with statistics, as I would only be beating a dead horse. Simply, the fact that a gun is nothing but a tool designed to kill should be a compelling enough argument to restrict who can have one. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy target practice too. However, I use the far less lethal paintball or BB gun to shoot at targets. There is no sense in acquiring a handgun or rifle to do something you can do just as easily with a children's toy. And if you absolutely insist on target practice, why do you need to own your own gun? Why can't they just be available to rent at a target practice range?
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is, as far as I'm concerned, a useless argument. How can you justify keeping a tool of murder around by saying that it's not the gun's fault that someone died? It's like saying that you can't fill up an old well if somebody falls down it, because it's not the well's fault.
I understand that people in rural Texas and elsewhere, for some reason, love their guns. Which still begs the question, why do they need lethal guns?
Many will say that it's for protection, but I personally don't see how having a gun locked up in a cabinet in a room on the other side of the house is supposed to help you if a burglar breaks in and catches you and ties you up while you're asleep. If you want to protect your family, lock your doors at night, don't leave the windows open, and get an alarm system. Most come equipped with a direct link to the police station anyway.
Granted, violence won't be eliminated if we eliminate all guns, but taking away a tool that has no useful purpose (unless you count killing) will certainly be a good first step. After that, tackling poverty, mental illness and setting up a program for early intervention in emotionally disturbed children will help reduce violence in society.
I'm sorry, but I don't intend on making a full-fledged debate out of this, and I only thought I'd drop in my two cents worth. Thanks for reading, please carry on the debate sans moi.


hear hear!

I always find it weird myself in these debates when you see the gun crime in American cities it blows your mind

When people fail to acknowledge the 63% plummet in violent firearm crime in the US, or fail to acknowledge the profound difference in firearm violence between blacks and whites in the US, it blows my mind.

I always find it weird myself in these debates when you see the gun crime in American cities it blows your mind

i know!

When people fail to acknowledge the 63% plummet in violent firearm crime in the US, or fail to acknowledge the profound difference in firearm violence between blacks and whites in the US, it blows my mind.

And when people fail to acknowledge the whopping dispoportionate number of deaths due to guns in the US vs. countries with actual gun laws, it makes my braincase explode.

When people fail to acknowledge the 63% plummet in violent firearm crime in the US, or fail to acknowledge the profound difference in firearm violence between blacks and whites in the US, it blows my mind.

you plummeted 63% in violent crime wow! who knows you may even catch up with Britain in a few hundred years (well excluding Ireland because that’s a war zone) and what are you trying to say with “the profound difference in firearm violence between blacks and whites in the US” if its to do with gun culture we have that here too (and its should be more or less the same because gun culture is spreading from the U.S)

And when people fail to acknowledge the whopping dispoportionate number of deaths due to guns in the US vs. countries with actual gun laws, it makes my braincase explode.

We've been over this before - what works in the US doesn't apply elsewhere.

If guns really were that dangerous, then whites would not be 200% safer than blacks.

And Switzerland would be riddled with bullets.

you plummeted 63% in violent crime wow! who knows you may even catch up with Britain in a few hundred years (well excluding Ireland because that’s a war zone) and what are you trying to say with “the profound difference in firearm violence between blacks and whites in the US” if its to do with gun culture we have that here too (and its should be more or less the same because gun culture is spreading from the U.S)

It actually has to do with the 1960s policy of concentrating poor in housing projects in major cities. This led to generations of welfare recipients and violence that peaked in the early 1990s.

In 1993, the US deliberately dismantled all major housing projects and engaged in a program to decentralize the poor.

You'll note that concentration of the poor is also what caused the riots in France.

The decentralization has had an amazing effect in just 10 years.

Let's talk about numbers.

The people who obsess the most about numbers involving risk are insurance companies. Because they make money off of the numbers.

You'll find that if you have a hobby like hang gliding or parachuting, you won't be able to get life insurance. Or, if your career is exceptionally dangerous, such as being in the military, the military has to provide insurance, because no one will insure you.

If owning a firearm was so risky and so dangerous, insurance companies - every last one of them - would have their actuarial staff breathing down their necks. They would ask you if you owned a firearm - and if so, they would either raise your rates or refuse to insure you.

Not one insurance company in the US does this. Not one.

So, tell me once again about risk. The actuarial people at insurance companies know the risks better than anyone.

I'm not sure about the relevance of this...?

What it says is that those who own guns are at no greater risk than those who do not; no risk factor associated with guns either way, is what you're saying.

You could just as easily say then that "those with guns are no safer than those without", if there's no risk factor. They would, presumably, penalise you for not owning a gun if guns made you safer, yes?

Additionally, for actuaries to know about gun ownership, it must be declared. If it's declared, it's presumably because the owner has a legal permit, and is a law abiding sort. Not a criminal, in other words.

The worry isn't over law-abiding people owning guns, it's over criminals owning and using them - so I'm not sure what the actuarial argument proves.

No wonder I'm not overly fond of you, Captain Pooby.

Member #1 of the NSG Jew crew

You're just DesignatedMarksman, repackaged.

We've been over this before - what works in the US doesn't apply elsewhere.

I fail to see why not the only difference I can see is Gun nuts and there obsessed with American exceptionalism

If guns really were that dangerous, then whites would not be 200% safer than blacks.

that has nothing to do ith blacks living in poverty in the U.S does it :rolleyes:

I fail to see why not the only difference I can see is Gun nuts and there obsessed with American exceptionalism

that has nothing to do ith blacks living in poverty in the U.S does it :rolleyes:
No, it had more to do with concentrating blacks in public housing projects.

Why don't you read ALL the posts I make in this thread?

It actually has to do with the 1960s policy of concentrating poor in housing projects in major cities. This led to generations of welfare recipients and violence that peaked in the early 1990s.

In 1993, the US deliberately dismantled all major housing projects and engaged in a program to decentralize the poor.

so why wasn't England having drive bys in the 90's then :confused:

You'll note that concentration of the poor is also what caused the riots in France.

the hell it did

No, it had more to do with concentrating blacks in public housing projects.

twas to do with slow reply sending hence my above post

so why wasn't England having drive bys in the 90's then :confused:

the hell it did

Any time you have large concentrations of poor in massive housing blocks, you're going to have trouble. The poor in that case will not have access to good jobs, good education, or anything else that other people enjoy - it's a form of discrimination.

No one wants to build good shopping there, or a metro station, or anything else that would give "the poor" access to the rest of the area.

It solved 63% of the violent crime in the US.

A lot of the poor in France are warehoused in suburban housing blocks outside major cities - once again, in the hopeless position of being far from jobs, far from decent education, and in a position where accessibility to hope is absent.

I fail to see why not the only difference I can see is Gun nuts and there obsessed with American exceptionalism



that has nothing to do ith blacks living in poverty in the U.S does it :rolleyes:

Of course it does, but that's hardly the sole factor. What a lot of Europeans don't get is that the US population, despite being primarily white, christian and of european extraction, has a very different culture.

I live in Australia. Oz has been called "America lite", but that's really inaccurate. Australia is a lot more like Europe than the US is. But even here, there's a perception of Europeans as insular, overly concerned with purely local issues, and frankly, the term "worker drones" gets bandied about a fair bit. All stamped from a mold. What's the difference between a German and a Fenchman? One speaks english to tourists and one smells of garlic.

I'm not trying to be offensive. But if there's that much difference between the cultures of such similar nations as Australia and the EU, then why would you expect there to be less between Europe and the US, which is based upon and operates under COMPLETELY DIFFERENT cultural standards?

And why would you expect a policy that works in one to necessarilly work in the other?

If I lived in America, I'd probably own a gun too, Americans are freaking insane.

Any time you have large concentrations of poor in massive housing blocks, you're going to have trouble. The poor in that case will not have access to good jobs, good education, or anything else that other people enjoy - it's a form of discrimination.

we have massive housing blocks in England as well didn’t we invent the tower block?

It solved 63% of the violent crime in the US.

still not much compared to England now is it

A lot of the poor in France are warehoused in suburban housing blocks outside major cities - once again, in the hopeless position of being far from jobs, far from decent education, and in a position where accessibility to hope is absent.

actually the riots were to do with immigrants living in clustered areas more to do with integration really (hence the nationalist movements in Europe that don’t bother to campaign in ethnically diverse areas like Manchester)

Of course it does, but that's hardly the sole factor. What a lot of Europeans don't get is that the US population, despite being primarily white, christian and of european extraction, has a very different culture.

apart from popping to McDonalds a bit more, tacky patriotism and the previously stated gun nutism what else is different

I live in Australia. Oz has been called "America lite", but that's really inaccurate. Australia is a lot more like Europe than the US is. But even here, there's a perception of Europeans as insular, overly concerned with purely local issues, and frankly, the term "worker drones" gets bandied about a fair bit.

thats more to do with Australians deep hatred of Englishman

And why would you expect a policy that works in one to necessarilly work in the other?

well its worked in allot of diverse countries (hell look at Wales)

we have massive housing blocks in England as well didn’t we invent the tower block?
You have a fair amount of violent crime that isn't murder. I would bet it would drop if you got rid of them.

still not much compared to England now is it
I've seen fair comparisons of white, middle-class American gun owners to Switzerland, as far as firearm violence goes - and they give every able-bodied male adult a fully automatic machinegun in Switzerland, along with ammunition.

actually the riots were to do with immigrants living in clustered areas more to do with integration really (hence the nationalist movements in Europe that don’t bother to campaign in ethnically diverse areas like Manchester)

Clustering is bad. Clustering is bad. In France, they have official blocks for those immigrants. Pretty predictable what would happen next.

Here in Fairfax County, where we've been allowed to carry guns openly, or get a license for concealed carry, for almost 10 years now, we've had our first police officer shot to death in the line of duty - in my entire life.

It's fairly rare to see gun violence here in Fairfax. It was so rare an event that the county essentially shut down for the funeral.

The US is not all the "shooting" place you imagine it to be.

Middle class whites own more guns, but are far less likely to be involved in violent crime or firearm murder.

Ah, the old debate about guns...
As far as I see it, in an ideal world, the only people who use guns would be law-abiding gun owners who only wish to go to shooting practice or hunt. Sadly, this is not the case.

Indeed, sadly, this is not the case.

I won't bore anybody with statistics, as I would only be beating a dead horse. Simply, the fact that a gun is nothing but a tool designed to kill should be a compelling enough argument to restrict who can have one. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy target practice too. However, I use the far less lethal paintball or BB gun to shoot at targets. There is no sense in acquiring a handgun or rifle to do something you can do just as easily with a children's toy. And if you absolutely insist on target practice, why do you need to own your own gun? Why can't they just be available to rent at a target practice range?

All these points are perfectly reasonable. Although the practice of trying to target shoot from 1000m with a paintball gun is not on at all, lol.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is, as far as I'm concerned, a useless argument.

and here's where I split with you. There is far too little personal responsibility these day. People like shifting the blame off on others: "Oh, she made me do it", "It's not my fault, I was forced", "Society made me break in and steal cause they don't offer me a fair shake".

If a person wants to kill you, they are going to kill you. Be it a knife, a gun, a sword, or a fork; if their goal is to end your life, they are going to go at it with whatever tools they can. Personally, if I'm going to be walking the streets with my head down, not noticing anything around me (like most people tend to do) I would prefer to be shot by some thug (cause, on the whole, people can't shoot handguns for shit. You ever see an untrained person try and shoot a handgun? It's bloody funny.) who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, then to have some guy slide up to me and stab me in the kidney's with a knife.

Why? Because guns make a lot of noise. They attract a lot of attention. A guy sliding up to you in an allyway and stabbing you several times with a shiv doesn't.


How can you justify keeping a tool of murder around by saying that it's not the gun's fault that someone died? It's like saying that you can't fill up an old well if somebody falls down it, because it's not the well's fault.

Well now, did somebody have to load, lift, aim, and fire the well at the person who fell down it? A well can be dangerous on it's own and thus, it IS the well's fault. A gun can't. Using a gun means that YOU are USING the gun. YOU fire the gun, YOU load the gun, YOU aim the gun. A gun is a really expensive metal lump until somebody loads, lifts, aims and fires it. So it's your fault if the gun is to kill something. Again, personal responsibility.

I understand that people in rural Texas and elsewhere, for some reason, love their guns. Which still begs the question, why do they need lethal guns?

And Archery students love their bows and arrows. Are you going to tell them that they can no longer have real points on their bows and arrow? That they can only have little suckers attatched to the end of them? After all, what use is a bow if not for kiling. That's what it was designed for.

Many will say that it's for protection, but I personally don't see how having a gun locked up in a cabinet in a room on the other side of the house is supposed to help you if a burglar breaks in and catches you and ties you up while you're asleep. If you want to protect your family, lock your doors at night, don't leave the windows open, and get an alarm system. Most come equipped with a direct link to the police station anyway.

And hey, while you're at it, don't go out at night and only travel in large groups during the day.

Most people who have guns, lock their doors, don't leave the windows open and have alarm systems. Guess what? Like you just pointed out with guns, none of these options are fool-proof either. Cut off the power, pick the locks and ba-bing, there that thief is.

People who keep guns for protection tend to have it near them when their sleep, locking in a desk drawer by their beds or something. Those that have it for show put it in a big glass case out in their livingroom.

Granted, violence won't be eliminated if we eliminate all guns, but taking away a tool that has no useful purpose (unless you count killing) will certainly be a good first step.

But the bad people will always have guns, no matter WHAT you try and do. Take guns away from civilains and corrupt military/police personel will flood the market with even more lethal weapons (ever seen that movie buffolo soldiers? Well, it's a crap movie and the main character is a buddyfucker and a kit theif, but it does happen.) then what you might otherwise find. Disarm your entire country? Then China will ship in weapons for your thugs to use (not to mention the next time you get invaded good luck holding them off with swords and bows).

But notice, every step of the way requires Humans to actively circumvent the rules? Getting rid of firemen doesn't get rid of fires, because fires happen naturally.

Banning guns won't do shiet. Teaching people how to responsibly handle guns would go a lot farther in reducing violent deaths then trying to ban it.

Think of it this way: sexual education is ment to educate people about sex so that when they later engage in sexual behavour, they can do it safely. Trying to hide away the topic of sex like they used to only results in unsafe sexual behavour and various harmful myths about sex, like you can't get pregnant the first time you do it, etc.

It works the same way about guns. You educate people about guns, about the harm a gun can cause. You teach them to respect it as a killing tool. You do that, and pound in the idea of personal responsibility and the attitude of "Have gat, have power." will fade because while guns will still be associated with power, education and personal responsibility would go a long way in preventing people from waving guns around like morons because they can truly understand the harm a gun can do.

Now yes, you can bring up the whole idea that those who have killed already know the harm a gun can do, but learning it that way is a bad way of learning it. Soldiers are taught how much harm a gun can do BEFORE they even fire off a shot. A Thug who learns that a gun can kill by killing is already on a bad path. Because that act of taking a life can be incredibly addicting to some people, as, in a way, it's the purest form of a type of power. And who doesn't like power?

After that, tackling poverty, mental illness and setting up a program for early intervention in emotionally disturbed children will help reduce violence in society.
I'm sorry, but I don't intend on making a full-fledged debate out of this, and I only thought I'd drop in my two cents worth. Thanks for reading, please carry on the debate sans moi.

Yar, all those are also very much in need. But that ties in to the idea that education and personal responsibility are what society needs in great order.

You have a fair amount of violent crime that isn't murder. I would bet it would drop if you got rid of them.

no room in little Britain for that kind of housing (though there making new designs now that should be better)....and who says we have a fair amount of violent crime?

I've seen fair comparisons of white, middle-class American gun owners to Switzerland, as far as firearm violence goes - and they give every able-bodied male adult a fully automatic machinegun in Switzerland, along with ammunition.

they also have Direct democracy, the ability to hide large numbers of the population underground and the biggest point complete neutrality (along with little American influence)

Clustering is bad. Clustering is bad. In France, they have official blocks for those immigrants. Pretty predictable what would happen next.

yep lack of integration leads to intolerance

Here in Fairfax County, where we've been allowed to carry guns openly, or get a license for concealed carry, for almost 10 years now, we've had our first police officer shot to death in the line of duty - in my entire life.

It's fairly rare to see gun violence here in Fairfax. It was so rare an event that the county essentially shut down for the funeral.

and that’s good? (I don't think there has been any shooting in Northampton for as long as I've lived a few stabbing maybe but we live near Daventry)

The US is not all the "shooting" place you imagine it to be.

and what am I imagining it to be?

Middle class whites own more guns, but are far less likely to be involved in violent crime or firearm murder.

your point is?

You have a fair amount of violent crime that isn't murder. I would bet it would drop if you got rid of them.


I've seen fair comparisons of white, middle-class American gun owners to Switzerland, as far as firearm violence goes - and they give every able-bodied male adult a fully automatic assault rifle in Switzerland, along with ammunition.



Clustering is bad. Clustering is bad. In France, they have official blocks for those immigrants. Pretty predictable what would happen next.

Here in Fairfax County, where we've been allowed to carry guns openly, or get a license for concealed carry, for almost 10 years now, we've had our first police officer shot to death in the line of duty - in my entire life.

It's fairly rare to see gun violence here in Fairfax. It was so rare an event that the county essentially shut down for the funeral.

The US is not all the "shooting" place you imagine it to be.

Middle class whites own more guns, but are far less likely to be involved in violent crime or firearm murder.

I would like to address an error observed in BAAWAKnights' creative edit of Rickvaria's post.

One of Rickvaria's primary arguments is that he believes guns have "no useful purpose" outside of harming/killing another living being.
But they do. Certainly target practice, competitive shooting, and the biathlon do not rank as "not useful purposes", right?

There was no error on my part--but there was on Rickvaria's part on assuming that his values were the same as everyone else's.

I'm not sure about the relevance of this...?

What it says is that those who own guns are at no greater risk than those who do not; no risk factor associated with guns either way, is what you're saying.

You could just as easily say then that "those with guns are no safer than those without", if there's no risk factor. They would, presumably, penalise you for not owning a gun if guns made you safer, yes?

Additionally, for actuaries to know about gun ownership, it must be declared. If it's declared, it's presumably because the owner has a legal permit, and is a law abiding sort. Not a criminal, in other words.

The worry isn't over law-abiding people owning guns, it's over criminals owning and using them - so I'm not sure what the actuarial argument proves.

Well, see, any gun law would affect law-abiding people owning guns much more than criminals owning them.

What would you say about a cure for aids that had to be pumped into the water supply for it to work and actually ended up killing millions more of people that didn't have aids and only curing 10,000 cases of aids?

your point is?

The US is not uniformly violent. In fact, there isn't any correlation between gun ownership within regions of the US and gun violence. Or correlation between gun ownership within groups, and gun violence.

By any straight prediction, whites should be blazing away at each other in the streets. But not only is it not happenning, the opposite seems to be happenning.

It's a matter of culture. What you expect to use a gun for.

If a gun is for hunting, and sport, and plinking at tin cans for fun, you're less likely to use it on someone - compared to someone whose ONLY experience with a firearm is seeing people use it to resolve violent social situations.

Consider that 94% of violent crime is committed without a weapon of any kind - not even a knife.
So what's your definition of "violent crime" then? I mean, since you don't back up the claim or say where you got that number from?

As far as I can tell, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting program, the number you use is incorrect.
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force.
Weapons Distribution

The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses.
Reported offenses (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html)

And from your own link:
Weapons and violent crime

On average each year between 1993 and 2001, approximately 26% (about 2.3 million) of the estimated 8.9 million violent crimes in the United States were committed by offenders armed with guns, knives, or objects used as weapons.
Firearm violence accounted for 10% of all violent crimes;
about 6% were committed with a knife or other sharp object such as scissors, ice pick, or broken bottle; 4% with blunt objects such as a brick, bat, or bottle; and 5% were
committed with unspecified/ "other" objects used as weapons.
and From here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#violent)
Violent Crime
Violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault.
Weapon use

In 2004, 22% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 46% of all robberies, compared with 20% of all aggravated assaults and 8% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2004.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2004, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

So what's your definition of "violent crime" then? I mean, since you don't back up the claim or say where you got that number from?]

Outright lie. I backed it up with a link. And the link includes the definition of violent crime (Part I felonies).

SNIP

so why is Britain so different we have large amounts of American culture and large exsposer to gun culture and Chavs yet we still don't have America's problems I actually fail to see what causes this other than the difficulty getting firearms

So increase gun control laws in cities, not rural areas.
Heh, yeah I was going to say that one is pretty clear. In Australia we have 4 main ways of getting guns, 3 of them involve getting a shooters licence, the 4th way is illegally, and is not the point. To get a shooters licence you either need to own a farm, be in a hunting club, or a shooting club. Why else would you need one? (Hint: Self defence isn't a valid response, same goes for knives if you're caught with one).

Heh, yeah I was going to say that one is pretty clear. In Australia we have 4 main ways of getting guns, 3 of them involve getting a shooters licence, the 4th way is illegally, and is not the point. To get a shooters licence you either need to own a farm, be in a hunting club, or a shooting club. Why else would you need one? (Hint: Self defence isn't a valid response, same goes for knives if you're caught with one).

Now the question should be why self-defence is no longer a good reason to own a gun.

Well, see, any gun law would affect law-abiding people owning guns much more than criminals owning them.

What would you say about a cure for aids that had to be pumped into the water supply for it to work and actually ended up killing millions more of people that didn't have aids and only curing 10,000 cases of aids?
How does his suggestion possibly relate to 'killing millions'? That was a really crap analogy. How about putting fluoride in the tap water even though most people brush their teeth. Most people are put throught the inconvenience of having thier teeth cleaned twice, but those that don't are also having their teeth cleaned. A very small number of hippies (criminals) will avoid flouride by not drinking tap water at their massive inconvenience.

Now the question should be why self-defence is no longer a good reason to own a gun.
A better question is why should it be? My prime minister (a man with whom I rarely agree with) astutely put it once "Who says you have a right to own firearms?". Fair enough, the USAmericans have it in their constitution. Thats their own stupid problem to overcome. I simply don't see how owning a weapon is can be considered a basic human right.

But it will be more difficult to obtain it. Do you support legalization of drugs? Child porn? Anything else that is illegal but can be obtained on the black market?

You are not comparing apples to apples.

First, I would argue that no object should be banned outright. In a free society (okay, I’m making the assumption that you value this as I do), only behavior that infringes on or violates the rights of another is punishable. Deviations from this are inherent limiters of freedom. Public opinion can and does precipitate limits on freedom where overwhelming majorities feel it sufficiently necessary (few people, even many avowed anarchists would argue that anyone should be able to acquire a nuclear device). However, the nature of the United States as a republic was originally set up to make such tings difficult to avoid tyranny by the majority. It is of course debatable as to the success of this model at any point in its history.

With regard to rights, I’m referring to a person’s safety, property, exercise of freedom, etc.

Now that I’ve got the perspective out of the way, here’s my argument. Child porn does damage to someone else, a minor who is not of age and is not seen legally or ethically able to make decisions regarding being used in pornography. Therefore, the very existence of such material indicates that a crime has taken place and is evidence of said fact. The way it is currently viewed, at least from an ethical, if not legal perspective, is that possession of such is accessory to such crime.

When it comes to drugs, we have a different situation. The mere possession of an existence of the drug does not in and of itself violate the rights of anyone else, not is it evidence that such has taken place. Behavior from the use of a drug that violates the rights of others is a crime. Obviously, the overwhelming majority (or so it would seem) feel that these substances are dangerous enough on their own to warrant their being banned. We obviously see that this is not effective in making them more difficult to attain, and many would argue that serious erosions of freedom and civil liberties are the result of the ’War on Drugs’.

The mere existence of a firearm does not violate anyone’s liberty. There are many uses of firearms that do not violate or harm anyone. For many, the possession of a firearm can protect their own liberty. It is true that there are behaviors that can lead to a firearm being used to violate the liberty of others, but the same can be said of baseball bats, wrenches, knives, etc. Since there are more than one hundred million firearms in the U.S. and far fewer crimes relating to them, then it doesn’t take a statistician to tell you the vast majority of firearms are never used in violation of anyone else.

Hence, I think it is a mistake to ban them; even more so because bans do not work. Look at the prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs for prime parallels as to the efficacy of banning items that are easily manufactured, transported, hidden, and in wide circulation. It will curtail other civil liberties and be ineffective and will lead to higher crime and more intrusive governments, both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’.

so why is Britain so different we have large amounts of American culture and large exsposer to gun culture and Chavs yet we still don't have America's problems I actually fail to see what causes this other than the difficulty getting firearms
Australia too.

A better question is why should it be? My prime minister (a man with whom I rarely agree with) astutely put it once "Who says you have a right to own firearms?". Fair enough, the USAmericans have it in their constitution. Thats their own stupid problem to overcome. I simply don't see how owning a weapon is can be considered a basic human right.

Self-defense is a basic human right (unless you're in Britain). Weapons are just a means to that end.

A better question is why should it be?
No, that's not a better question. Humans own themselves. Each person has the right to self-defense to protect his or her person (property). Now why does that not include owning a firearm? Smacks of special pleading to say it doesn't.

No, that's not a better question. Humans own themselves. Each person has the right to self-defense to protect his or her person (property). Now why does that not include owning a firearm? Smacks of special pleading to say it doesn't.

I think the special pleading is that only large, muscular men who are martial arts experts, and skilled swordsmen should be allowed to defend themselves.

Everyone else should sit still, and let themselves be raped, robbed, beaten, and killed.

The US is not uniformly violent. In fact, there isn't any correlation between gun ownership within regions of the US and gun violence. Or correlation between gun ownership within groups, and gun violence.

By any straight prediction, whites should be blazing away at each other in the streets. But not only is it not happenning, the opposite seems to be happenning.

It's a matter of culture. What you expect to use a gun for.

If a gun is for hunting, and sport, and plinking at tin cans for fun, you're less likely to use it on someone - compared to someone whose ONLY experience with a firearm is seeing people use it to resolve violent social situations. So what. Just make guns harder to get. Those who want them for legitimate reasons will find it ten time easier than those who don't (Though maybe twice as hard as before). Or is the inconvenience not worth the tens of thousands of gun deaths annually in USA? You keep talking like they are going to take the guns away from everyone. It's just going to be a little bit more of a proccess.

So what. Just make guns harder to get. Those who want them for legitimate reasons will find it ten time easier than those who don't (Though maybe twice as hard as before). Or is the inconvenience not worth the tens of thousands of gun deaths annually in USA? You keep talking like they are going to take the guns away from everyone. It's just going to be a little bit more of a proccess.

There are over 300 million guns in circulation now.

We already restrict gun ownership - felons can't own them legally.

We already have instant background checks.

We already have licensing schemes for concealed carry - with classes and background checks.

Anyone with a knowledge of light machining can make virtually any model of firearm in existence.

We've been moving towards more gun ownership over the past 10 years with 63 percent less violent crime.

And since 94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon of any kind, how would eliminating guns lower violent crime significantly?

Self-defense is a basic human right (unless you're in Britain). Weapons are just a means to that end.Thats a pretty big jump, self defence to guns. I mean so are flamethowers, and mustard gas. Where do you draw the line? WMD's, chem weapons, assualt rifles, semi-automatics, hand pistols, crosbows, knives and blades, or a stick? I say weapons all together. Self defence, fine, you don't need a weapon for that.

Thats a pretty big jump, self defence to guns. I mean so are flamethowers, and mustard gas. Where do you draw the line? WMD's, chem weapons, assualt rifles, semi-automatics, hand pistols, crosbows, knives and blades, or a stick? I say weapons all together. Self defence, fine, you don't need a weapon for that.

So, a woman being beaten to death by her husband (while she waits for the police to arrive) doesn't need a weapon?

Ha!

Outright lie. I backed it up with a link. And the link includes the definition of violent crime (Part I felonies).
I do not lie, Sir. I might have made a mistake, so here's your chance to prove me wrong:
They've already done this in America.

Consider that 94% of violent crime is committed without a weapon of any kind - not even a knife.

Consider that violent crime in the US has fallen 60-65% over the last 10 years.

Consider that the likely cause of the decline is the decentralization of the housing of the poor - a policy that began in 1993 and destroyed the massive housing projects that were hotbeds of violent crime. The poor are now farmed out in distributed fashion over entire metropolitan areas.
No link.

They already have it stronger in most cities in the US. What do you want to do, have capital punishment for the people in cities who have a gun?

BTW, everytime I say that about violent crime, people like you act so surprised and don't believe it.

Well, believe it.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt



See? All at a time when firearm ownership in the US increased from 200 million guns to 300 million guns. At a time when we went from 12 states with concealed carry laws to 35 states with concealed carry laws.
Link does not mention the 94%

Here's an interesting tidbit

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

and
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

and

Sounds like the majority of gun owners are not experiencing the lion's share of the violence.
Links does not mention the 94%

Care to point out where you got the number before you get overly defensive?

I think the special pleading is that only large, muscular men who are martial arts experts, and skilled swordsmen should be allowed to defend themselves.

Everyone else should sit still, and let themselves be raped, robbed, beaten, and killed.

Yeah, thats what I meant DK. Thanks. I can't believe I just dignified this with a response.

I do not lie, Sir. I might have made a mistake, so here's your chance to prove me wrong:

No link.


Link does not mention the 94%


Links does not mention the 94%

Care to point out where you got the number before you get overly defensive?

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

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.

What is 100 - 6? 94.

There are over 300 million guns in circulation now.

We already restrict gun ownership - felons can't own them legally.

We already have instant background checks.

We already have licensing schemes for concealed carry - with classes and background checks.

Anyone with a knowledge of light machining can make virtually any model of firearm in existence.

We've been moving towards more gun ownership over the past 10 years with 63 percent less violent crime.

And since 94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon of any kind, how would eliminating guns lower violent crime significantly?

I never said it would lower crime. Putting words in my mouth you are (I just watched the whole Star wars suite, I am thinking in yoda-speak, excuse me if it comes out here and there). I said it would lower the horrendous level of gun related death.

I never said it would lower crime. Putting words in my mouth you are (I just watched the whole Star wars suite, I am thinking in yoda-speak, excuse me if it comes out here and there). I said it would lower the horrendous level of gun related death.

How? The ones using the firearms to kill people aren't getting them through legal channels in the first place.

I never said it would lower crime. Putting words in my mouth you are (I just watched the whole Star wars suite, I am thinking in yoda-speak, excuse me if it comes out here and there). I said it would lower the horrendous level of gun related death.

It's already 60+ percent lower (firearm homicide), during an increase in guns of 50%.

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



What is 100 - 6? 94.
Thank you for

a) posting the new link that

b) talks about "Incidents involving a firearm" and thusly

c) does not correspond to your statement
Consider that 94% of violent crime is committed without a weapon of any kind - not even a knife.
(My boldening)

Thank you, and have a nice day :)

So, a woman being beaten to death by her husband (while she waits for the police to arrive) doesn't need a weapon?

Ha!
A woman being beaten to death by her husband is in the unfortunate circumstance of domestic abuse. For these kinds of things prevention is better than the cure (as you said, a cure is much too late). I don't think prevention of domestic violence is a good excuse to keep the insane gun death you have in USA. Especially seeing as so many women still get the shit beaten out of them despite these liberal gun laws.

A woman being beaten to death by her husband is in the unfortunate circumstance of domestic abuse. For these kinds of things prevention is better than the cure (as you said, a cure is much too late). I don't think prevention of domestic violence is a good excuse to keep the insane gun death you have in USA. Especially seeing as so many women still get the shit beaten out of them despite these liberal gun laws.

Now you get to describe the "prevention".

A woman being beaten to death by her husband is in the unfortunate circumstance of domestic abuse. For these kinds of things prevention is better than the cure (as you said, a cure is much too late). I don't think prevention of domestic violence is a good excuse to keep the insane gun death you have in USA. Especially seeing as so many women still get the shit beaten out of them despite these liberal gun laws.

None of the women I've trained to carry has ever suffered a single beating or stalking afterwards.

None.

It works. Studies prove it works. Read back in the thread where four studies show it works to stop rape. Or do you think rape should just happen, and we'll tell the women to take a shower?

None of this "the victim had her gun taken away" happens.

How? The ones using the firearms to kill people aren't getting them through legal channels in the first place.
Think of it this way. There is only one way new guns make it onto the market, thats legally. If you start restricting the flow now (better late than never), you see a lot less new guns on the street. Illegal gun ownership shouldn't grow. Then, slowly work at getting all of the old illegal guns off the streets. The fact is that the USA is inundated with guns, thus making it easy for the illegal market to survive. Think of it as turning off the tap before mopping up the water.

Think of it this way. There is only one way new guns make it onto the market, thats legally. If you start restricting the flow now (better late than never), you see a lot less new guns on the street. Illegal gun ownership shouldn't grow. Then, slowly work at getting all of the old illegal guns off the streets. The fact is that the USA is inundated with guns, thus making it easy for the illegal market to survive. Think of it as turning off the tap before mopping up the water.

Guns have a service lifetime of over 100 years. They are easily made by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of light machining.

How? The ones using the firearms to kill people aren't getting them through legal channels in the first place.

Do you have any numbers on the use of "legal" Vs. "illegal" guns in homicides? That would be interesting to see...

None of the women I've trained to carry has ever suffered a single beating or stalking afterwards.

None.

It works. Studies prove it works. Read back in the thread where four studies show it works to stop rape. Or do you think rape should just happen, and we'll tell the women to take a shower?

None of this "the victim had her gun taken away" happens.

Who are the women you've trained, though? You need to provide more info.: numbers, socio-economic stuff, ethnicity, age, are they victims of previous rape/abuse, are they another 'at risk' group, do you do this officially or just to acquaintances. Otherwise it looks like you're fishing, hoping someone will say something you can counter with new info. you should have given in the first place.

It's already 60+ percent lower (firearm homicide), during an increase in guns of 50%.
So what, there's more variables than I can count in a statement like that before you could deduce that more guns = less gun death. Where was the increased ownership, where was the decreased gun death, when did it happen, what kind of guns were they (illegal or legal), who was buying them... You get the picture.

Think of it this way. There is only one way new guns make it onto the market, thats legally. If you start restricting the flow now (better late than never), you see a lot less new guns on the street. Illegal gun ownership shouldn't grow. Then, slowly work at getting all of the old illegal guns off the streets. The fact is that the USA is inundated with guns, thus making it easy for the illegal market to survive. Think of it as turning off the tap before mopping up the water.

And yet it has dropped even w/ an increase of civilian ownership. You want to punish the innocent for the actions of criminals even w/o a direct correlation.

There are plenty of ways for illegal firearms to make it "onto the market". If there weren't, the UK would have been having decreases in firearm crimes.

Guns have a service lifetime of over 100 years. They are easily made by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of light machining.

So you are only interested in the short term? Cutting off the supply will reduce the number of guns available over time, it may take a long period of time but it will happen. If someone really wants to get hold of a firearm then they will but I don't consider this to be a good argument not to make it more difficult.

So what, there's more variables than I can count in a statement like that before you could deduce that more guns = less gun death. Where was the increased ownership, where was the decreased gun death, when did it happen, what kind of guns were they (illegal or legal), who was buying them... You get the picture.

And yet you keep making the generalized claim that increasing restrictions on legal ownership will reduce the number of murders.

So you are only interested in the short term? Cutting off the supply will reduce the number of guns available over time, it may take a long period of time but it will happen. If someone really wants to get hold of a firearm then they will but I don't consider this to be a good argument not to make it more difficult.

So how many people have to die before that allegation is proven false? There have been numerous studies done that have found no correlation between gun control schemes and crime levels.

So what, there's more variables than I can count in a statement like that before you could deduce that more guns = less gun death. Where was the increased ownership, where was the decreased gun death, when did it happen, what kind of guns were they (illegal or legal), who was buying them... You get the picture.

Same period, 1993-2001. 200 million legally owned guns increases to 300 million legally owned guns. 63 percent reduction in firearm-related violent crime in that period.

I've already posted the links.

It's inarguable that in the US there's no link between more guns being more death. It's gone the other way around.

We used to have a handful of US states that allowed concealed carry - now 35 states allow it - and we haven't had an explosion in firearm death.

I carry a pistol every day. So do a lot of my co-workers.

There aren't pistol fights in the street outside of the office.

Gee, where did you go wrong?

None of the women I've trained to carry has ever suffered a single beating or stalking afterwards.

None.

It works. Studies prove it works. Read back in the thread where four studies show it works to stop rape. Or do you think rape should just happen, and we'll tell the women to take a shower?

None of this "the victim had her gun taken away" happens.
I'm saying 'so what'. Rape and domestic abuse is a seperate problem to gun death. As such they should not be used to justify lax gun laws. Your anecdotal semantics mean nothing. The fact is the USA enjoys the most lax legislation on gun ownership in the world, and yet women still get raped and abused there in large numbers (I don't have stats, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Besides, if a woman feels she needs to keep a gun to protect herself from her husband, why is she still living with him??? Actually don't answer that, I'm only encouraging you to obfuscate the point further.

So how many people have to die before that allegation is proven false?

What allegation? That making firearms illegal makes them more difficult to get hold of?

here have been numerous studies done that have found no correlation between gun control schemes and crime levels.

Great, how does that pertain to my post?

Thats a pretty big jump, self defence to guns. I mean so are flamethowers, and mustard gas. Where do you draw the line?
That's a pretty big jump on your part.


WMD's, chem weapons, assualt rifles, semi-automatics, hand pistols, crosbows, knives and blades, or a stick? I say weapons all together. Self defence, fine, you don't need a weapon for that.
But it helps. Especially when the person attacking you (or trying to) has a weapon.

Unless, of course, you think that everyone should just let themselves be murdered or assaulted, etc. Which is what your idea is tantamount to.

Snip
None of this "the victim had her gun taken away" happens.

Really? Never?

Really? Never?

It's rare. In fact, if you're a civilian, you are:

1. more likely to hit per shot than the police
2. more likely to kill your assailant than the police
3. less likely to lose your weapon to an assailant than the police

And yet it has dropped even w/ an increase of civilian ownership. You want to punish the innocent for the actions of criminals even w/o a direct correlation.

There are plenty of ways for illegal firearms to make it "onto the market". If there weren't, the UK would have been having decreases in firearm crimes.
Ok, so what are the UK firearm crime numbers like in proportion to the population I wonder? Naturally as gun numbers drop, the rate that small impact methods of fire-arm blackmarket entry will increase it's effect upon the stats.

It's rare. In fact, if you're a civilian, you are:

1. more likely to hit per shot than the police
2. more likely to kill your assailant than the police
3. less likely to lose your weapon to an assailant than the police

Rare is not the same as you were stating before ... you said none of it happens

Ok, so what are the UK firearm crime numbers like in proportion to the population I wonder? Naturally as gun numbers drop, the rate that small impact methods of fire-arm blackmarket entry will increase it's effect upon the stats.

So, when are you going to disarm the Swiss?

Do you have any numbers on the use of "legal" Vs. "illegal" guns in homicides? That would be interesting to see...

In NY, 97% of murderers had prior arrest records. In most states, A felon or violent misdemeanor cannot own a firearms. Interestingly, 55% of their victims had prior arrests.

Ok, so what are the UK firearm crime numbers like in proportion to the population I wonder? Naturally as gun numbers drop, the rate that small impact methods of fire-arm blackmarket entry will increase it's effect upon the stats.

They were lower before the recent bans.

Your second sentance makes no sense. You said that increasing restrictions would lower the # of firearms used in committing crimes. It hasn't happened.

It's rare. In fact, if you're a civilian, you are:

1. more likely to hit per shot than the police
2. more likely to kill your assailant than the police
3. less likely to lose your weapon to an assailant than the police

How can you not give a reference to assertions like that? :p I don't disbelieve you, but you need to back that up, surely?

In NY, 97% of murderers had prior arrest records. In most states, A felon or violent misdemeanor cannot own a firearms. Interestingly, 55% of their victims had prior arrests.

While that lends some idea of the scope hardly conclusive

Especially sense

Arrest record != Violent Misdemeanor nor Felon

Though the 55 percent stat is interesting

What allegation? That making firearms illegal makes them more difficult to get hold of?

That making firearms illegal will reduce the number in illegal circulation.



Great, how does that pertain to my post?

It completely falsefies your hypothesis.

And yet you keep making the generalized claim that increasing restrictions on legal ownership will reduce the number of murders.
not all murders in general, but gun murders, yes of course. Though this isn't a generalised claim as it is an application of logic. hink slowly for a second, Gun murders in USA are high. How do you lower gun deaths (accidental and intentional)? First with accidental you need to be sure people know how to use such a deadly tool for whatever they want to use it for, answer= a licence with a comprehensive test. Next, illegal gun death. What is the criminal using to commit the murder? An illegal gun. Where did they get the gun? Most probably the balckmarket. Where does the black market get its guns? The legitimate market via loopholes and the sheer amount in circulation. Answer= Control and restrict the legitimate market and by proxy you will control the supply of guns to the blackmarket (and thus the criminals, and thus the murder scenes).

So, when are you going to disarm the Swiss? What does their annual gun death look like? Sounds like they can handle the responsibility.

That making firearms illegal will reduce the number in illegal circulation.

It completely falsefies your hypothesis.

So you can link to a study that prove that making firearms illegal does not make them more difficult to obtain.

In NY, 97% of murderers had prior arrest records. In most states, A felon or violent misdemeanor cannot own a firearms. Interestingly, 55% of their victims had prior arrests.

Thank you, that is interesting... You wouldn't happen to have a link I could look at?

How can you not give a reference to assertions like that? :p I don't disbelieve you, but you need to back that up, surely?

We've had this very same discussion in SO MANY FUCKING THREADS before and I've posted the links SO MANY FUCKING TIMES before. And every time I post them, someone comes along within a DAY and says, "link please".

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick...

They were lower before the recent bans.

Your second sentance makes no sense. You said that increasing restrictions would lower the # of firearms used in committing crimes. It hasn't happened.
Actually what I was saying in that post was that relatively small factors of firearm leakage onto the market will increase in their statistical relevance as entry from normal sources decreases. What I was actually doing was highlighting the fallaciousness of the post prior. I think you need to give it time, anyway. Perhaps the recent increase is not statistically significant (I believe the threshold is 2% different from standard fluctuations, at least it is such in economic statistics). I don't see how issueing a bvan on guns could possibly lead to a long-term increase in gun-crime? Care to explain how?

They were lower before the recent bans.

Your second sentance makes no sense. You said that increasing restrictions would lower the # of firearms used in committing crimes. It hasn't happened.

But there's no evidence at all to suggest that restrictions on handguns has itself led to a rise in crimes committed with guns.

Fears of the rising gunculture in parts of the UK causes the govt. of the day to restrict the sale of firearms; that does not, in of itself, defeat the rising gunculture which leads to a rise in the # of crimes committed using firearms.

Now, had there been no restrictions in place, would the # of crimes committed using firearms be higher or lower? Again, no evidence either way. Given that the rate was on the rise anyway, it could have slowed down this rate, had no effect, or been neutral.

We've had this very same discussion in SO MANY FUCKING THREADS before and I've posted the links SO MANY FUCKING TIMES before. And every time I post them, someone comes along within a DAY and says, "link please".

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick...

Strange, why anybody chooses not to just take your word for it is beyond me ;)

Greater Pacific, the police in the US are not required to assist or protect anyone, either.

Another possible rationale for classifying defensive gun ownership as paranoid is because the existence of a professional police force renders personal self defense obsolete. Regrettably, this exaggerates the factual effects of policing and totally misstates its function in law and theory, as plaintiffs who attempt to sue for non-protection have found. Doubtless the deterrent effect of professional policing helps assure that many will never require personal protection. But for those who do need such protection, the fact is that the police do not function as bodyguards for individuals.

Rather, the police function to deter crime in general by patrol activities and by apprehension after the crime has occurred. If circumstances permit, the police will protect a citizen in distress. But they are not legally duty bound to do even that, nor to provide any direct protection, no matter how urgent a distress call they may receive. A fortiori the police have no responsibility to, and generally do not, provide personal protection to private citizens who have been threatened.

Typical of cases enunciating the non-responsibility of the police for protecting individual citizens is Warren v. District of Columbia in which three rape victims sued the city and its police department. Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard men who had broken in downstairs attacking their roommate. After half an hour they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls and went to check on their roommate. In fact, their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the intruders beat their roommate into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers for the next fourteen hours.

The court exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

As the phrase "fundamental principle of American law" suggests, this holding is not some legal aberration unique to the District of Columbia. It is universal, being enunciated by formal statute as well as judicial decision in many states. Nor is it simply a cynical ploy for government to avoid just liability. The proposition that individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only a general deterrent, is inherent in any society. Consider the matter just in terms of the number of New York City women who seek police protection each year. To bodyguard just those women would exhaust the resources of the nation's largest police department, leaving no officers available for street patrol, traffic control, crime detection, apprehension of perpetrators, responding to emergency calls, and so on. Given what New York courts have called "the crushing nature of the burden," the police cannot be made responsible for protecting the individual citizen. Providing such protection is up to the threatened individual, not the police.

While that lends some idea of the scope hardly conclusive

Especially sense

Arrest record != Violent Misdemeanor nor Felon

Though the 55 percent stat is interesting

OK, According to DOJ, 86% were charged w/ either unlawful possesion, transfer or regulatory.

Lots of good stuff:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf

Strange, why anybody chooses not to just take your word for it is beyond me ;)

Maybe you could use the search function for gun threads where DK posted...

I haven't changed ANY of my links over time for this topic.

So you can link to a study that prove that making firearms illegal does not make them more difficult to obtain.
It seems to me to be a simple step in logic. Illegal firearms are obtained from the blackmarket. The black market obtains it's stock from the legitimate market. Thus if you restric the legitimate market, you are in effect restricting the blackmarket.

All statistics and smugness aside, it's the USA's insistence on not having proper gun laws that puts illegal firearms onto Canadian streets.

Smartasses.

And I thought this was going to be about the old TV show!

We've had this very same discussion in SO MANY FUCKING THREADS before and I've posted the links SO MANY FUCKING TIMES before. And every time I post them, someone comes along within a DAY and says, "link please".

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick...

Shut your FUCKING mouth, bitch.

There - did that help? No? OK, why don't we try a different approach then.

Make a claim and give no evidence? What do you expect to happen? Seriously? And how long does it take to post a postmarked link? Again, I'll say I don't disbelieve you, but you could have avoided this by just giving a link in the first place.

Actually what I was saying in that post was that relatively small factors of firearm leakage onto the market will increase in their statistical relevance as entry from normal sources decreases. What I was actually doing was highlighting the fallaciousness of the post prior. I think you need to give it time, anyway. Perhaps the recent increase is not statistically significant (I believe the threshold is 2% different from standard fluctuations, at least it is such in economic statistics). I don't see how issueing a bvan on guns could possibly lead to a long-term increase in gun-crime? Care to explain how?

I didn't say it would lead to a "long-term increase". I state that it doesn't lead to a long term decrease.

The black market will keep the criminals well supplied.

We've had this very same discussion in SO MANY FUCKING THREADS before and I've posted the links SO MANY FUCKING TIMES before. And every time I post them, someone comes along within a DAY and says, "link please".

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick...
Yeah, accountability sucks.

All statistics and smugness aside, it's the USA's insistence on not having proper gun laws that puts illegal firearms onto Canadian streets.

Smartasses.

Or maybe it's the Canadian Gov't wasting billions of dollars on failed schemes to confiscate weapons instead of maintaining borders against Canadian and US criminals.

It seems to me to be a simple step in logic. Illegal firearms are obtained from the blackmarket. The black market obtains it's stock from the legitimate market. Thus if you restric the legitimate market, you are in effect restricting the blackmarket.

Only if weapons magically disappear after you make the law and every single one in the entire world disappears along w/ manufacturers. Unless you think that only "legitimate" business's can manufacture them.

Maybe you could use the search function for gun threads where DK posted...

I haven't changed ANY of my links over time for this topic.

Hey don't look at me, the only thing I've complained about was your gross misrepresentation of the numbers. :)

It seems to me to be a simple step in logic. Illegal firearms are obtained from the blackmarket. The black market obtains it's stock from the legitimate market. Thus if you restric the legitimate market, you are in effect restricting the blackmarket.

Ever heard of imports? Hate to tell you, but not all guns are made in the U.S. where the U.S. government can attempt to restrict them. Many of the countries that have robust firearms industries (in Europe, South America, China, etc.) have pretty heavy restrictions themelves, but there still seems to be an international black market. Think of all the old East Bloc weapons floating around. Smugglers are very effective - ask the DEA why they haven't won the war on drugs. Basic firearms aren't that difficult to make with common machine tools, either. Guess we'll have to restrict them as well, and register all appliances with a certain amount of steel in them.

Your simple step in logic isn't that simple or logical, at least not when the big picture is considered.

I didn't say it would lead to a "long-term increase". I state that it doesn't lead to a long term decrease.

The black market will keep the criminals well supplied.
How, If you cut off their main supply? I'm sure the rich crims will always have guns, but what about the junkies? The crackheads? The 'homies'? The guy in the alleyway at midnight?

Don't confuse the triads with the bulk of gun crime. Hell in Australia a few years back they raided a Comancheros (bikie gang warehouse and seized like 50 or 100 assault rifles, all stolen from the Australian army). These syndicates will always find a way of getting what they want. However simply Supply/Demand economics shows that it will get more expesive as you throttle the supply. Thus prohibiting all the hustlers and pushers from owning a 'piece' with time. These are the ones that do all of the murdering. If there is one thing I know about the various crime syndicates it's that they don't mess around mugging people in the street. You usually find them with the big money.

The last word on police handgun accuracy.
http://www.spokane.wsu.edu/academic/crim_j/Vila/1996Policing,PoliceHandgunQualMorrisonVila.pdf#search=%22police%20accuracy%20pistol%22

Or, why "firearms qualified" rarely means "competent with a firearm", and why "professionally trained policeman" rarely means "competent with a firearm".

Only if weapons magically disappear after you make the law and every single one in the entire world disappears along w/ manufacturers. Unless you think that only "legitimate" business's can manufacture them. Or if we felt like abandoning fallacies for a little while, my statement could also work with the possible belief that most guns in the illegal trade cam from legitimate business within the country. Okay, you can go back to your world of fallacies now, I'm done.

How, If you cut off their main supply? I'm sure the rich crims will always have guns, but what about the junkies? The crackheads? The 'homies'? The guy in the alleyway at midnight?

Don't confuse the triads with the bulk of gun crime. Hell in Australia a few years back they raided a Comancheros (bikie gang warehouse and seized like 50 or 100 assault rifles, all stolen from the Australian army). These syndicates will always find a way of getting what they want. However simply Supply/Demand economics shows that it will get more expesive as you throttle the supply. Thus prohibiting all the hustlers and pushers from owning a 'piece' with time. These are the ones that do all of the murdering. If there is one thing I know about the various crime syndicates it's that they don't mess around mugging people in the street. You usually find them with the big money.

Your right. So how hard would it be for the criminals to set up a nice little machine shop and start producing small, cheap firearms?

Hey don't look at me, the only thing I've complained about was your gross misrepresentation of the numbers. :)
I ended up giving you the link for 94 percent.

Did you see anything wrong with it?

Ever heard of imports? Hate to tell you, but not all guns are made in the U.S. where the U.S. government can attempt to restrict them. Many of the countries that have robust firearms industries (in Europe, South America, China, etc.) have pretty heavy restrictions themelves, but there still seems to be an international black market. Think of all the old East Bloc weapons floating around. Smugglers are very effective - ask the DEA why they haven't won the war on drugs. Basic firearms aren't that difficult to make with common machine tools, either. Guess we'll have to restrict them as well, and register all appliances with a certain amount of steel in them.

Your simple step in logic isn't that simple or logical, at least not when the big picture is considered.

Strange that you never se this arguement supporting the legalisation of drugs. After all they are smuggled in on the black market, the authorities have shown themselves to be unable to prevent this and most can be made in the home with some basic knowledge of chemestry.

Just because it might be hard, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worth doing.

Strange that you never se this arguement supporting the legalisation of drugs. After all they are smuggled in on the black market, the authorities have shown themselves to be unable to prevent this and most can be made in the home with some basic knowledge of chemestry.

Just because it might be hard, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worth doing.

I've argued for the legalization of drugs for this reason.

If you consider that 80 percent of people in US prisons are there for drug related charges... that 40 billion a year is spent in the "war on drugs" to no effect - to no change in the cheap street price of most drugs....

Ever heard of imports? Hate to tell you, but not all guns are made in the U.S. where the U.S. government can attempt to restrict them. Many of the countries that have robust firearms industries (in Europe, South America, China, etc.) have pretty heavy restrictions themelves, but there still seems to be an international black market. Think of all the old East Bloc weapons floating around. Smugglers are very effective - ask the DEA why they haven't won the war on drugs. Basic firearms aren't that difficult to make with common machine tools, either. Guess we'll have to restrict them as well, and register all appliances with a certain amount of steel in them.

Your simple step in logic isn't that simple or logical, at least not when the big picture is considered.
Ok, so I ask you, where do most of the guns used in gun deaths come from? Are they the successfully smuggled cargo frieghter of m4 carbines destined for the russian mafia, or is it the 9mm you bought from the pusher on the corner?

I never made the allegation that there weren't other methods of entry into the blackmarket for firearms (I actually acknowledged it several times). I am stating the reasonable belief that most illegal guns come from the domestic legitimate market. Of course in the unlikely case that that isn't true, my logic does indeed fail and I will recant. If you sincerely believe most illegal firearms are smuggled into the US, show me the stats and I will argue alongside of you.

The last word on police handgun accuracy.
http://www.spokane.wsu.edu/academic/crim_j/Vila/1996Policing,PoliceHandgunQualMorrisonVila.pdf#search=%22police%20accuracy%20pistol%22

Or, why "firearms qualified" rarely means "competent with a firearm", and why "professionally trained policeman" rarely means "competent with a firearm".

Thank you for the link to the 1996 paper; problem solved.

Your right. So how hard would it be for the criminals to set up a nice little machine shop and start producing small, cheap firearms?
How many crack heads will do that instead of buying one for 50 bucks?

Ok, so I ask you, where do most of the guns used in gun deaths come from? Are they the successfully smuggled cargo frieghter of m4 carbines destined for the russian mafia, or is it the 9mm you bought from the pusher on the corner?

I never made the allegation that there weren't other methods of entry into the blackmarket for firearms (I actually acknowledged it several times). I am stating the reasonable belief that most illegal guns come from the domestic legitimate market. Of course in the unlikely case that that isn't true, my logic does indeed fail and I will recant. If you sincerely believe most illegal firearms are smuggled into the US, show me the stats and I will argue alongside of you.

The majority are domestic now. The point is, is that by reducing the domestic supply, the BM can make up for it. Just like in the UK.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005420600,00.html

How many crack heads will do that instead of buying one for 50 bucks?

Like buying one for 50 bucks from an enterprising criminal w/ his own shop?

Strange that you never se this arguement supporting the legalisation of drugs. After all they are smuggled in on the black market, the authorities have shown themselves to be unable to prevent this and most can be made in the home with some basic knowledge of chemestry.

Just because it might be hard, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worth doing.
I think the only difference between the two problems is that the bulk of drugs in the USA do indeed come from offshore. That and that Drugs really shouldn't be illegal and they are, while guns really shuld be illegal, and they aren't.

I've argued for the legalization of drugs for this reason.

If you consider that 80 percent of people in US prisons are there for drug related charges... that 40 billion a year is spent in the "war on drugs" to no effect - to no change in the cheap street price of most drugs....

Ok, just because something is hard and doesn't show immediate results we should give up on it?

I think the only difference between the two problems is that the bulk of drugs in the USA do indeed come from offshore. That and that Drugs really shouldn't be illegal and they are, while guns really shuld be illegal, and they aren't.

Only in your opinion.

Strange that you never se this arguement supporting the legalisation of drugs. After all they are smuggled in on the black market, the authorities have shown themselves to be unable to prevent this and most can be made in the home with some basic knowledge of chemestry.

Just because it might be hard, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worth doing.

If you read all of my posts on this thread, you will see that I do use this argument supporting the legalization of drugs. I may not do so directly, since that is not the thread's topic, but the parallel is there and I don't shy away from it otherwise. I believe the the principle trumps the issue, otherwise you run the risk of blatant hypocracy.

Ok, just because something is hard and doesn't show immediate results we should give up on it?

What "immediate results"? It's been nearly 20 years.

Edit: check that, over 35.

The majority are domestic now. The point is, is that by reducing the domestic supply, the BM can make up for it. Just like in the UK.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005420600,00.html

A hint on sources, don't ever quote the sun. Even if it supports your arguement it will hurt your position, it is really that bad a newspaper ;)

The majority are domestic now. The point is, is that by reducing the domestic supply, the BM can make up for it. Just like in the UK.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005420600,00.html

Your link is anecdotal and provides no statistical evidence fto back up what you said, which is (Just to remind you)that the blackmarket can smuggle as many guns as it obtains from the legitimate market, should it find itself unable, or less able to do so. I don't think so. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

What "immediate results"? It's been nearly 20 years.

Edit: check that, over 35.

You're american aren't you?

Like buying one for 50 bucks from an enterprising criminal w/ his own shop?

It must be hard to crack down on a guy selling illegal handguns selling out a trunk/his coat. It'd be easier, you would think, to catch up on those who had to find premises, machinery, raw materials, personel, before they could sell them out of the back of a car. The more hoops to jump through, the more it becomes more trouble than it's worth to do xyz. Or at least, that's the argument, I think.

Ok, so I ask you, where do most of the guns used in gun deaths come from? Are they the successfully smuggled cargo frieghter of m4 carbines destined for the russian mafia, or is it the 9mm you bought from the pusher on the corner?

I never made the allegation that there weren't other methods of entry into the blackmarket for firearms (I actually acknowledged it several times). I am stating the reasonable belief that most illegal guns come from the domestic legitimate market. Of course in the unlikely case that that isn't true, my logic does indeed fail and I will recant. If you sincerely believe most illegal firearms are smuggled into the US, show me the stats and I will argue alongside of you.

I, admittedly, don't have a statistic for you, though you don't seem to either (unless I missed it).

My point is to argue your logic. Even if I stipulate that most firearms used in crimes initially started in the legal domestic market, it still does not change the fallacy of your position. If you cut off that supply, there are plenty of others there to meet the demand - and those other supplies are even harder to regulate, if at all possible in the first place.

I ended up giving you the link for 94 percent.

Did you see anything wrong with it?

Oh no, I'm grateful for the link you hadn't posted in this thread before... It was only that it didn't support your claim at all. A trifling detail at most, wouldn't you say?

My previous reply... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11609412&postcount=100)

Like buying one for 50 bucks from an enterprising criminal w/ his own shop?
Still a lot harder than the current system where they are mass produced and handed out. Seeing that the enterprising criminal made them in his shop, he'd probably want considerably more than what he used to sell the mass produced handguns. On top of that, a gun shop will be quite easy to trace if a crack head can find it.

How many crack heads will do that instead of buying one for 50 bucks?

Probably similar to the ones that set up meth labs and the like. Some one will do it to cater to the needs of the crack heads (or more likely the dealers) with money they begged, borrowed, or stolen.

Only in your opinion.
Both statements were in my opinion, like everything else I have posted. It is assumed, unless I specify otherwise. Besides, it wasn't really my opinion so much as it sounded cool. Had a nice ring to it. As the PNG natives would put it in pidgin, it has 'sing sing'. I am actually cool with guns for recreational purposes, but not selfdefence.

Your link is anecdotal and provides no statistical evidence fto back up what you said, which is (Just to remind you)that the blackmarket can smuggle as many guns as it obtains from the legitimate market, should it find itself unable, or less able to do so. I don't think so. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

And you've provided no statistics. Only your opinion.

You're american aren't you?

Yep.

Both statements were in my opinion, like everything else I have posted. It is assumed, unless I specify otherwise. Besides, it wasn't really my opinion so much as it sounded cool. Had a nice ring to it. As the PNG natives would put it in pidgin, it has 'sing sing'. I am actually cool with guns for recreational purposes, but not selfdefence.

But you try and restrict my use of them for self-defense as well as recreational purposes.

Still a lot harder than the current system where they are mass produced and handed out. Seeing that the enterprising criminal made them in his shop, he'd probably want considerably more than what he used to sell the mass produced handguns. On top of that, a gun shop will be quite easy to trace if a crack head can find it.

Um, not necessarily. A small basement is all that's needed. Sell them to a guy, he drives a state over and sells them. Not hard at all.

Um, not necessarily. A small basement is all that's needed. Sell them to a guy, he drives a state over and sells them. Not hard at all.

I think we can probably discount guys in their basement with a lathe as a serious problem to the banning of firearms. Think about it logically for a moment, how many fire arms are these guys going to be able to produce?

I, admittedly, don't have a statistic for you, though you don't seem to either (unless I missed it).

My point is to argue your logic. Even if I stipulate that most firearms used in crimes initially started in the legal domestic market, it still does not change the fallacy of your position. If you cut off that supply, there are plenty of others there to meet the demand - and those other supplies are even harder to regulate, if at all possible in the first place.
Indeed, though I have established over and over that these are my understandings of the facts, easily countered by evidence to the contrary. I am operating from reasonable assumptions. I reasonably assume that most of the illegal firearms in the US are sourced from the domestic legitimate market.

It is true that if the balck market were prohibited from sourcing firearms from the legitimate market because of comprehensive legislkation, it would naturally move to the new market equilibrium. If that was smuggling, then they would indeed do that. However the amount of guns they could access would be fewer in number and more expensive per unit. If this were not so, then it would be the current mainstream method.

That being said, I suspect if gun laws were tightened the most efficient method of sourcing guns would still be from the domestic market. They would just have significantly higher difficulty in doing so, which would then cut off the lowest bracket of illegal gun consumers, the ones that commit most of the crime. This is alos based upon the assumption that the demand for guns is somewhat elastic. This I accept is definitely subject to dispute, in fac tI insist. Who thinks the demand for illegal firearms is elastic? (Means that is fluctuates in proportion to the price. If the demand is elastic, consumers are sensitive to price changes, if it is cheaper they will buy more, if it is more expensive, they will buy less. Inelastic is the opposite, no matter what the price is, people will still buy it).

I think we can probably discount guys in their basement with a lathe as a serious problem to the banning of firearms. Think about it logically for a moment, how many fire arms are these guys going to be able to produce?

They could produce hundreds. It's not really that hard.

Ok, so I ask you, where do most of the guns used in gun deaths come from? Are they the successfully smuggled cargo frieghter of m4 carbines destined for the russian mafia, or is it the 9mm you bought from the pusher on the corner?

I never made the allegation that there weren't other methods of entry into the blackmarket for firearms (I actually acknowledged it several times). I am stating the reasonable belief that most illegal guns come from the domestic legitimate market. Of course in the unlikely case that that isn't true, my logic does indeed fail and I will recant. If you sincerely believe most illegal firearms are smuggled into the US, show me the stats and I will argue alongside of you.

One thing that logic dictates is that nearly all of those fully automatic, evil assault rifles, that seem to get gun banners all worked up everytime one is used in a crime, definitely do not originate in the legal, civilian firearms market. It is damn near impossible for a civilian to legally obtain a fully-automatic firearm, so very few ever even try - not much of a market there. These are manufactured for and sold to the military and police, and are either stolen or are imports when they are on the streets. They didn't come from legal Joe Schmoe.

So, either there really aren't that many of these on the streets in the first place - meaning that all of the propaganda from the Brady Bunch and the Million Moaning Mommies about their prevalence and the need for an "assault weapons ban" is bunk, or there are many of them on the street, proving the point that strictly regulating them almost completely out of the civilian market does nothing to solve the problem.

The fact that they are ridiculously regulated is proven through the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968 and many others is well documented. So, either they are still a problem, proving the folly of regulating the civilian market, or they are not a problem, meaning that there is no need to confuse people through propaganda to think semi-auto means fully auto in order to press for an assault weapons ban.

Pick one, I'd be fine with either.

And you've provided no statistics. Only your opinion.
Ah, but I have stated this all along. I have even asked you to prove me wrong. You put forward what is clearly an opinion as fact, then poorly attempt to validate it using an appeal to authority (The Sun newspaper of all the fallacious authorities you could have picked! :p). Poor game, Kecebukia, poor game.

Indeed, though I have established over and over that these are my understandings of the facts, easily countered by evidence to the contrary. I am operating from reasonable assumptions. I reasonably assume that most of the illegal firearms in the US are sourced from the domestic legitimate market.

It is true that if the balck market were prohibited from sourcing firearms from the legitimate market because of comprehensive legislkation, it would naturally move to the new market equilibrium. If that was smuggling, then they would indeed do that. However the amount of guns they could access would be fewer in number and more expensive per unit. If this were not so, then it would be the current mainstream method.

That being said, I suspect if gun laws were tightened the most efficient method of sourcing guns would still be from the domestic market. They would just have significantly higher difficulty in doing so, which would then cut off the lowest bracket of illegal gun consumers, the ones that commit most of the crime. This is alos based upon the assumption that the demand for guns is somewhat elastic. This I accept is definitely subject to dispute, in fac tI insist. Who thinks the demand for illegal firearms is elastic? (Means that is fluctuates in proportion to the price. If the demand is elastic, consumers are sensitive to price changes, if it is cheaper they will buy more, if it is more expensive, they will buy less. Inelastic is the opposite, no matter what the price is, people will still buy it).

By that assumption, the number of gun crimes in the US should have increased as the numbers of firearms increased and criminals got more of them and the number of gun crimes in the UK should have decreased.

Better policing of criminals is more of an affect than the number of firearms.

Ah, but I have stated this all along. I have even asked you to prove me wrong. You put forward what is clearly an opinion as fact, then poorly attempt to validate it using an appeal to authority (The Sun newspaper of all the fallacious authorities you could have picked! :p). Poor game, Kecebukia, poor game.

You've made more than one unsupported assertion that has been disputed by facts. Just because you don't like one source on the subject does not dispute its validity.

Um, not necessarily. A small basement is all that's needed. Sell them to a guy, he drives a state over and sells them. Not hard at all. However, it is harder than the way he is doing it now, otherwise he would already be doing it. As such, the price will still increase as he strays from the current market equilibrium.

But you try and restrict my use of them for self-defense as well as recreational purposes. I do no such thing. I merely argue that stance.

However, it is harder than the way he is doing it now, otherwise he would already be doing it. As such, the price will still increase as he strays from the current market equilibrium.

No. The firearms that are available now are relatively high quality but prolific. Assuming that all those are taken out of circulation, cheap and easily manufactured firearms could be produced by anyone w/ $25 bucks worth of parts from a hardware store and a few simple machines.

I do no such thing. I merely argue that stance.

which is to increase restrictions on civilian ownership which, by it's very definition, would increase restrictions on my use of them in self defense and sport.

They could produce hundreds. It's not really that hard.

There are 300 million legal firearms in circulation in the US. The guy making a few hundered a year really isn't the main problem with banning guns.

"I am actually cool with guns for recreational purposes, but not selfdefence."---GreaterPacificNations


so you're all for using guns to have fun, you're just against using guns to defend human rights. i'm struggling to find any rational thought in this idea

There are 300 million legal firearms in circulation in the US. The guy making a few hundered a year really isn't the main problem with banning guns.

And the fact that only a few thousand of those a year are used in crimes is the main arguement for restricting those hundreds of millions.

And the fact that only a few thousand of those a year are used in crimes is the main arguement for restricting those hundreds of millions.

Yes....and I'm still waiting for a link to a study showing that it is just as easy to get hols of a gun in a country where they are illegal as in the US, you said there were many so you should have now trouble providing one.

One thing that logic dictates is that nearly all of those fully automatic, evil assault rifles, that seem to get gun banners all worked up everytime one is used in a crime, definitely do not originate in the legal, civilian firearms market. It is damn near impossible for a civilian to legally obtain a fully-automatic firearm, so very few ever even try - not much of a market there. These are manufactured for and sold to the military and police, and are either stolen or are imports when they are on the streets. They didn't come from legal Joe Schmoe.

So, either there really aren't that many of these on the streets in the first place - meaning that all of the propaganda from the Brady Bunch and the Million Moaning Mommies about their prevalence and the need for an "assault weapons ban" is bunk, or there are many of them on the street, proving the point that strictly regulating them almost completely out of the civilian market does nothing to solve the problem.

The fact that they are ridiculously regulated is proven through the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968 and many others is well documented. So, either they are still a problem, proving the folly of regulating the civilian market, or they are not a problem, meaning that there is no need to confuse people through propaganda to think semi-auto means fully auto in order to press for an assault weapons ban.

Pick one, I'd be fine with either.
Well this is a whole new arguement. i do agree with you logic, and that kind of validates my earlier arguement. The assualt rifles being regulated as such, prevents their distribution as weapons of crime. Nevertheless, I must say I still disagree with the legalisation of assault rifles but not on a logical basis. My problem is the idea of arming civilians with assault rifles. Doesn't it sound stupid? I know they won't commit crime with them, but you have to ask the question 'why?'. Really, 'why?'. There are a lot of other things you could collect. But this comes down to a fundamental cultral difference between myself and most Americans, they believe owning an assault rifle is their right, whereas I do not. Nobody's right or wrong there, ther is a superior stance though, based upon the priorities of the adjudiactor. I lose from a libertarian perspective. I see assault rifles a tool soldiers need in their job of killing people, just like a miner needs nitroglycerin. Just because they can have it doesn't mean I can. Not unless I need it for something.

I am adamantly opposed to gun control. I believe it is a freedom a citizen of the US has. As for goverment protection of gun dealers, I refuse to believe that. Conspiracy theroy at best. A good detterent would be too raise the the general price of firearms and permits, so that they become a task to afford. AS for the whole, loudspeakers outside the Capital building, I disagree. I think the goverment likes the NRA beacuse, they abide by the laws, and teach gun safety.

Yes....and I'm still waiting for a link to a study showing that it is just as easy to get hols of a gun in a country where they are illegal as in the US, you said there were many so you should have now trouble providing one.

No, I said there were many studies done that show no correlation. I said nothing about it being for other countries.

Try looking at the CDC, LOC, DOJ, etc.
As for murder rates, Russia, mexico, S Africa, and brazil have much stricter gun laws and higher rates than the US.

Canada ans Switzerland have more firearms /capita and less murder.

The UK has higher violent crime than the US but lower murders

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=102&category=factsheets
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/issues/gun-crime/default.htm

By that assumption, the number of gun crimes in the US should have increased as the numbers of firearms increased and criminals got more of them and the number of gun crimes in the UK should have decreased.

Better policing of criminals is more of an affect than the number of firearms.
I suspect that the case in the USA is that the supply is much much greater than the demand. If what I suspect is true, then variations in the supply should not imapact at all upon their consumption and subsequent use (unless that fluctuation damages the oversupply). In the UK you were not able to demonstrate that the increase was beyond statistical significance to previous standard deviation. Please feel free though.

Well this is a whole new arguement. i do agree with you logic, and that kind of validates my earlier arguement. The assualt rifles being regulated as such, prevents their distribution as weapons of crime. Nevertheless, I must say I still disagree with the legalisation of assault rifles but not on a logical basis. My problem is the idea of arming civilians with assault rifles. Doesn't it sound stupid? I know they won't commit crime with them, but you have to ask the question 'why?'. Really, 'why?'. There are a lot of other things you could collect. But this comes down to a fundamental cultral difference between myself and most Americans, they believe owning an assault rifle is their right, whereas I do not. Nobody's right or wrong there, ther is a superior stance though, based upon the priorities of the adjudiactor. I lose from a libertarian perspective. I see assault rifles a tool soldiers need in their job of killing people, just like a miner needs nitroglycerin. Just because they can have it doesn't mean I can. Not unless I need it for something.

Of course there is the standard confusion of "Assualt rifles" which were rarely used in crime in the first place and were heavily legislated because of cultural bias and "assualt weapons" of which there are hundreds of thousands but the broad definition of lets the Brady Bunch compare them to Assault rifles.

I suspect that the case in the USA is that the supply is much much greater than the demand. If what I suspect is true, then variations in the supply should not imapact at all upon their consumption and subsequent use (unless that fluctuation damages the oversupply). In the UK you were not able to demonstrate that the increase was beyond statistical significance to previous standard deviation. Please feel free though.

I don't claim more guns = more crime or any version thereof. That would be you claiming less guns = less crime.

Please feel free to show that.

Well this is a whole new arguement. i do agree with you logic, and that kind of validates my earlier arguement. The assualt rifles being regulated as such, prevents their distribution as weapons of crime. Nevertheless, I must say I still disagree with the legalisation of assault rifles but not on a logical basis. My problem is the idea of arming civilians with assault rifles. Doesn't it sound stupid? I know they won't commit crime with them, but you have to ask the question 'why?'. Really, 'why?'. There are a lot of other things you could collect. But this comes down to a fundamental cultral difference between myself and most Americans, they believe owning an assault rifle is their right, whereas I do not. Nobody's right or wrong there, ther is a superior stance though, based upon the priorities of the adjudiactor. I lose from a libertarian perspective. I see assault rifles a tool soldiers need in their job of killing people, just like a miner needs nitroglycerin. Just because they can have it doesn't mean I can. Not unless I need it for something.

So even if you could stipulate that all those who would own them would commit no crimes with them, you would still not allow it? That, my friend, is tyrannical, authoritarian thinking. You would take away something where there is no need, just because you don't like it or couldn't share in it's enjoyment.

As another application of the same priniciple: people other than professional baseball players should not own baseball bats. Baseball bats can kill people and, even though I know people won't use legally owned bats this way, I have to ask the question 'why', there are other sports they could play. They don't need them as part of their job like the pros do.

No comparative example is perfect, else we would use it instead of the original, but do you understand why I have a problem with your logic above?

Please tell me that I miss understand, as I was beginning to respect you as someone who could at least keep a level head in a heated discussion. Not that my respect likely means anything to you, but I can't stand for people who have the mindset that I described above.

The UK has higher violent crime than the US but lower murders

Why do people insist on using the UK as a country that bans firearms? We don't, it's only handguns that are banned, you can still buy a shotgun or rifle should you so please.

Why do people insist on using the UK as a country that bans firearms? We don't, it's only handguns that are banned, you can still buy a shotgun or rifle should you so please.

Really? You can keep them at home w/o restrictions or registrations?

Anyway, people. Time for me to go. I know, you're all sad, but don't worry I'll be back soon. Until then, just keep showcasing your country as the giant example of what not to do, so that we can all learn from you. Very brave, most selfless too. Sacrificing your own country for the benefit of the rest of the west like that. You're like one giant 'beta test' of modern liberties and rights. Full of awesome ideas, and shocking failures. Leading the world, only to be trashed by version 1.1. Keep it up. ;)

Really? You can keep them at home w/o restrictions or registrations?

No, you apply for a licence and then you must keep them in a locked cabinet at home.

No, you apply for a licence and then you must keep them in a locked cabinet at home.

So two methods that make it prohibitively difficult for people to own and that have no proven effect of crime.

Anyway, people. Time for me to go. I know, you're all sad, but don't worry I'll be back soon. Until then, just keep showcasing your country as the giant example of what not to do, so that we can all learn from you. Very brave, most selfless too. Sacrificing your own country for the benefit of the rest of the west like that. You're like one giant 'beta test' of modern liberties and rights. Full of awesome ideas, and shocking failures. Leading the world, only to be trashed by version 1.1. Keep it up. ;)

Translation: Now that I've been asked to back up my assertions, I'm going to bow out and do some generalized US bashing as a convienent red herring.

So two methods that make it prohibitively difficult for people to own and that have no proven effect of crime.

So you advocate the allowing of felons to own guns and truly believe that if someone can afford a £500 shot gun can't afford a £50 metal cabinet?

ah, so people in the uk can have firearms.....they're just in violation of the law if they do anything useful with them

So you advocate the allowing of felons to own guns and truly believe that if someone can afford a £500 shot gun can't afford a £50 metal cabinet?

Oh, lets make a slippery slope. Since I think restrictive laws are not needed, I must want to give firearms to felons. Now you get to show me where I supported that.

Since most firearms don't cost nearly that much and most gun safes cost more, your numbers really mean little. You said that anyone can get one if they so choose. Apparently they can't unless they can afford all the extra expenses the gov't requires of it to "safely" keep them.

ah, so people in the uk can have firearms.....they're just in violation of the law if they do anything useful with them

Well if by useful you mean going hunting then no.

If by usful you mean shooting people then yes.

Well if by useful you mean going hunting then no.

If by usful you mean shooting people then yes.

Seems hunting is under attack as well.

Gun control makes me think of the folks who oppose having violence on TV, even if that's part of a constitutional right.

Oh, lets make a slippery slope. Since I think restrictive laws are not needed, I must want to give firearms to felons. Now you get to show me where I supported that.

The use of a licencing system is used to prevent felons from legally buying guns, you don't like licences QED.

Since most firearms don't cost nearly that much and most gun safes cost more, your numbers really mean little. You said that anyone can get one if they so choose. Apparently they can't unless they can afford all the extra expenses the gov't requires of it to "safely" keep them.

Where did I mention a gun safe? I said they must be locked in a cabinet, a friend of mine uses a very nice mahogany dresser to keep his in.

Seems hunting is under attack as well.

But that has noting to do with gun control. You will note that the recent ban on fox hunting was limited to hunting with hounds and hunting with a rifle or shotgun is still perfectly legal.

The use of a licencing system is used to prevent felons from legally buying guns, you don't like licences QED.

False. NICS. No "license" required. Nice slippery slope.



Where did I mention a gun safe? I said they must be locked in a cabinet, a friend of mine uses a very nice mahogany dresser to keep his in.

And there are no legal definitions for where it must be locked up? I find that doubtful.

"Well if by useful you mean going hunting then no.

If by usful you mean shooting people then yes."----Fartsniffage


make up your mind....you either have it locked in a cabinet or you have it ready for use to defend yourself....you cannot have it both ways

But that has noting to do with gun control. You will note that the recent ban on fox hunting was limited to hunting with hounds and hunting with a rifle or shotgun is still perfectly legal.

So you don't believe that the groups going after hunting aren't also after the use of rifles and shotguns?

http://www.killhunting.org.uk/

make up your mind....you either have it locked in a cabinet or you have it ready for use to defend yourself....you cannot have it both ways

Well if is in in you possesion then you don't need to have it locked up. That would make hunting very dificult. What you aren't allowed to do is leave them lying around the house where they can be easily stolen.

So you don't believe that the groups going after hunting aren't also after the use of rifles and shotguns?

http://www.killhunting.org.uk/

I never said that. What I said is that it is not for the reasons of gun control and as such has no affect on this discussion.

Well if is in in you possesion then you don't need to have it locked up. That would make hunting very dificult. What you aren't allowed to do is leave them lying around the house where they can be easily stolen.

So blaming the owner for the actions of criminals is OK in your book?

Well if is in in you possesion then you don't need to have it locked up. That would make hunting very dificult. What you aren't allowed to do is leave them lying around the house where they can be easily stolen.

oh i do like that - as long as you have it on you, no cabinet and lockup, just like usa so carry it always - i'd respect that :D :D

I never said that. What I said is that it is not for the reasons of gun control and as such has no affect on this discussion.

But it is one more reason for groups to claim you don't "need" firearms if there's no hunting available. Therefore it does have an affect.

False. NICS. No "license" required. Nice slippery slope.

The UK doesn't use NCIS. You go to a police station and fill out a form, a few days later you are either granted a license or not. I doubt the firearms industry is big enough over here to make it econically worth while putting in an instant check system.

And there are no legal definitions for where it must be locked up? I find that doubtful.

I could be wrong, feel free to prove me so.

So blaming the owner for the actions of criminals is OK in your book?

How is the owner being blamed by the government asking them to take steps to prevent crime?

"Well if is in in you possesion then you don't need to have it locked up. That would make hunting very dificult. What you aren't allowed to do is leave them lying around the house where they can be easily stolen."----Fartsniffage

so you CAN carry a firearm with you to dinner? since they don't allow pistols, do you just lean your shotgun or rifle against your table/booth?

oh i do like that - as long as you have it on you, no cabinet and lockup, just like usa so carry it always - i'd respect that :D :D

Unfortunatly the police frown on you wondering around with a rifle slung over you're shoulder.

"Well if is in in you possesion then you don't need to have it locked up. That would make hunting very dificult. What you aren't allowed to do is leave them lying around the house where they can be easily stolen."----Fartsniffage

so you CAN carry a firearm with you to dinner? since they don't allow pistols, do you just lean your shotgun or rifle against your table/booth?

No.

The UK doesn't use NCIS. You go to a police station and fill out a form, a few days later you are either granted a license or not. I doubt the firearms industry is big enough over here to make it econically worth while putting in an instant check system.

Nice moving of the goalposts. You claimed because I opposed licensing I supported letting felons have firearms.

Like I said, it is just another method to restrict civilian ownership.



I could be wrong, feel free to prove me so.

http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/security.htm

OK. It's up to the police to determine if it's "safe" or not as well as you need ing to prove you "need" one.

Sounds like your friend may be in violation.

How is the owner being blamed by the government asking them to take steps to prevent crime?

Because it has not been shown to reduce crime in any way and only makes it more difficult for civilians to legally own them.

They are being punished for the actions of criminals.

wait, fart.....you just said a couple minutes ago that people can use their firearms and don't have to have them locked up while they are in their possesion.........and now you are saying that people CANNOT carry them.

there are only two possibilities: 1) the human right to self defense is respected and people can defend themselves with firearms if need be or 2) the right is not respected

wait, fart.....you just said a couple minutes ago that people can use their firearms and don't have to have them locked up while they are in their possesion.........and now you are saying that people CANNOT carry them.

there are only two possibilities: 1) the human right to self defense is respected and people can defend themselves with firearms if need be or 2) the right is not respected

http://www.ukgundealer.com/rules.htm

"It is an offence to fire a gun within 50 feet of a roadway, public footpath or bridleway if by doing so any member of the public is endangered. It is an offence to carry a loaded gun in a public place without good reason. An gun may be considered loaded even if the bullets (or pellets in thecase of air rifles) are in a detached magazine."

The touchstone of the current UK law is that you must have 'good reason' to own a firearm, I think - a shooting club, hunting, or competitive sports are examples. http://www.parker-hale.com/law.htm Interestingly, self defense is not given as good reason anywhere I could see.

Regardless of what side of the gun control argument you're on, I think we can all come to a consensus that the video in that link was one of the dumbest things ever created by man. :p
What ARE YOU SAYIN'?! :mad: :sniper:

Unfortunatly the police frown on you wondering around with a rifle slung over you're shoulder.

I've done it before. In Texas rifles can be taken pretty much anywhere, so long as the bolt is open and/or unloaded.

Well if by useful you mean going hunting then no.

If by usful you mean shooting people then yes.

One of the uses of firearms is shooting people who intend you harm.

How does his suggestion possibly relate to 'killing millions'? That was a really crap analogy. How about putting fluoride in the tap water even though most people brush their teeth. Most people are put throught the inconvenience of having thier teeth cleaned twice, but those that don't are also having their teeth cleaned. A very small number of hippies (criminals) will avoid flouride by not drinking tap water at their massive inconvenience.

because you are putting into effect a law (like outlawing handguns, or personal weapons in general) that is suppose to affect the criminal element. Now maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't, but who is DOES affect are those millions of legal gun owners and turning them into potential criminals at worst, and giving them a pretty massive inconveniance at best.

A better question is why should it be? My prime minister (a man with whom I rarely agree with) astutely put it once "Who says you have a right to own firearms?". Fair enough, the USAmericans have it in their constitution. Thats their own stupid problem to overcome. I simply don't see how owning a weapon is can be considered a basic human right.

If a person decides to buy a gun for self defence because he feels that his situation is thus that requires it (within reason, ie: machine guns arn't really practical self defence weapons, where as a handgun might be), then that is the reason "why [it] should be".

I won't, of course, answer to wheither it is or it isn't a basic human right, though some believe it ties to the fact that self-defence is a basic human right and that follows my argument above.

Besides, if a woman feels she needs to keep a gun to protect herself from her husband, why is she still living with him???

Why do any battered women still with their husbends? There are lots of reasons. Maybe she grew up never believing in her own worth. Maybe they have children and she wories that if she leaves the children will suffer more. Maybe she believes that she could never make it on her own. Maybe she believes that if she does leave, he will track her down and kill her. Maybe she believes that if she tries to leave, and he finds her, that he'll kill her. Maybe, above it all, she still loves him.

Reason beyond reason why she still might be living with him.

It's rare. In fact, if you're a civilian, you are:

1. more likely to hit per shot than the police
2. more likely to kill your assailant than the police
3. less likely to lose your weapon to an assailant than the police

1) sounds like quite a bit of bullshit.
2) I can believe
3) no bloody way. Policemen are trained in weapons retention and have holsters to that point.