NationStates Jolt Archive

ROTFLASTC.

Sorry to interrupt the guns/crime statistics/anecdotes contest, but the irony of someone lauding Thomas Jefferson as a source of wisdom and then decrying the use of Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" is simply too sweet.

Of course, what do you expect from someone that (a) dismisses his opponents as socialists and communists, (b) claims Thomas Jefferson wrote the U.S. Constitution, (c) claims the concept of seperation of Church and State comes not from the U.S. Constitution but rather from the Communist Manifesto, and (d) claims the ban on organized prayer in public schools is unconstitutional?

CT. Good to see you. What do you think of the recent Parker/Heller v DC case?

" Originally Posted by Indri
"There is no correlation between gun ownership and crime."
"
CH:
Yes there certainly is. That is why there are laws, whereby some people are restricted from owning or purchasing guns."


So you didn't make that claim? Really?
Follow the thread Kec:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029135&postcount=140

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029161&postcount=141

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029582&postcount=144

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029595&postcount=145

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029636&postcount=147

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029701&postcount=149

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031311&postcount=184

For you see, we were discussing:

correlation between gun laws and violent crime rates

Although it is easy to understand some of the underlying contributors to crime, one cannot suggest that there is no correlation between gun laws and violent crime
Once again it appears that you are confused?

OK, so you're saying we shouldn't take CDOJ data at face value?
That is an ad hominem against the CDOJ? :p The figures were obtained from Interpol according to Mauser.

All of those are based on causality of firearm ownership, not correlation. What causality do the authers maintain? You know, the primary purpose of the article?
The report is entitled:

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International
Evidence
What causality do they maintain? Try page 18:

To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic and cultural factors not the prevalence of some mere form of deadly mechanism. In this connection recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls.40
Nicely crafted, but to me it is seriously flawed.

Do you agree with that statement?

Follow the thread Kec:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029135&postcount=140

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029161&postcount=141

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029582&postcount=144

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029595&postcount=145

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029636&postcount=147

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029701&postcount=149

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031311&postcount=184

For you see, we were discussing:




Once again it appears that you are confused?


I have followed the thread. It's now down to your usual semantics game.

CH:

"one cannot suggest that there is no correlation between gun laws and violent crime?"

That is an ad hominem against the CDOJ? :p The figures were obtained from Interpol according to Mauser.

And they didn't fact check it. That's the same claim you're making against Kates/Mauser. At least you admit you've been using ad hominems.


The report is entitled:


What causality do they maintain? Try page 18:


Nicely crafted, but to me it is seriously flawed.

Do you agree with that statement?

Try highlighting the first sentence and then try again CH. A little bit more selective editing on your part.

Again your "seriously flawed" strawman. W/ few exceptions (and you may also note that they've used the macrocosmic method), it's a true correlation.

So what's going to happen is that CH is now going to pick out a few numbers from a few places (most likely NY)and make a few claims about firearm laws, then I'm going to pick out numbers from other places and refute his knowledge of the laws (again) . I'm sure CH will bring up the "Brady Bill" while ignoring again the fact that the majority of the states that were exempt due to stricter laws were also the highest crime states.

Taking CH's flawed comparison of Richmond to Kennesaw from earlier, Richmond had the same laws as VA but rising crime in comparison to statewide. It had a large poor population and an inneffective police force. Exile was implemented in '97, the same year as the drop started. It started rising again when Exile was defunded. Yet started dropping again when a push was started against gangs.

So what gun laws were enacted in the city that played the factor? Oh, right, none.

Either way, the whole thing boils down to the fact that the gun laws, whether strict or relaxed, play little effect on the actual crime rates (which they state several times) and that it has more to do w/ economic, social, and political factors.

And they didn't fact check it. That's the same claim you're making against Kates/Mauser. At least you admit you've been using ad hominems.

Try highlighting the first sentence and then try again CH. A little bit more selective editing on your part.

Again your "seriously flawed" strawman. W/ few exceptions (and you may also note that they've used the macrocosmic method), it's a true correlation.

So what's going to happen is that CH is now going to pick out a few numbers from a few places (most likely NY)and make a few claims about firearm laws, then I'm going to pick out numbers from other places and refute his knowledge of the laws (again) . I'm sure CH will bring up the "Brady Bill" while ignoring again the fact that the majority of the states that were exempt due to stricter laws were also the highest crime states.

Taking CH's flawed comparison of Richmond to Kennesaw from earlier, Richmond had the same laws as VA but rising crime in comparison to statewide. It had a large poor population and an inneffective police force. Exile was implemented in '97, the same year as the drop started. It started rising again when Exile was defunded. Yet started dropping again when a push was started against gangs.

So what gun laws were enacted in the city that played the factor? Oh, right, none.

Either way, the whole thing boils down to the fact that the gun laws, whether strict or relaxed, play little effect on the actual crime rates (which they state several times) and that it has more to do w/ economic, social, and political factors.
You are trying to evade the question that I asked. Do you agree with the following statement?


To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic and cultural factors not the prevalence of some mere form of deadly mechanism. In this connection recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls.40
Yes or no will do, and not some run on about what I will and won't do.

You are trying to evade the question that I asked. Do you agree with the following statement?


Yes or no will do, and not some run on about what I will and won't do.

I answered the question CH. Just because I won't fall into your little Socratic method of false dichotomies doesn't mean I'm "evading" anything.

If that's true, then you're evading the question as to whether Richmond has mandatory ownership.

Edit: BTW. Had you actually read the CDOJ report that I linked to, they are the ones that source INTERPOL. So it's not "according to Mauser". I guess we should question your credibility when referring to any articles then since you're making claims w/o reading the sources. At least that's been your argument so far.

Either way, the whole thing boils down to the fact that the gun laws, whether strict or relaxed, play little effect on the actual crime rates (which they state several times) and that it has more to do w/ economic, social, and political factors.
If that is the case then why do they make this declaration on page 20:

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with less.
Do you believe the above statement to be true?

If that's true, then you're evading the question as to whether Richmond has mandatory ownership.
The Richmond question had zero to do with mandatory ownership. You are backsliding.

You asked me to deal with this report that you tabled and that is exactly what I am doing. Since it is flawed you are trying to avoid the fact that you offered this report as evidence?

The Richmond question had zero to do with mandatory ownership. You are backsliding.

You claimed Richmond was a perfect comparison to Kennesaw. Try again.

You asked me to deal with this report that you tabled and that is exactly what I am doing. Since it is flawed you are trying to avoid the fact that you offered this report as evidence?

And I've already shown you where your one data point came from and that it doesn't effect the overall claim.

Try again.

If that is the case then why do they make this declaration on page 20:


Do you believe the above statement to be true?

That's not a claim of causality. The data doesn't show a correlation. Why don't you cut out the games and dispute the data. We've already played this game CH. Are you afraid of more incorrect data being presented by your government?

If you can prove something else wrong, guess what? I'll contact them again. As I said earlier, the only thing you've proven so far is that the CDOJ and INTERPOL don't fact check so we shouldn't take their data at face value.

If that's true, then you're evading the question as to whether Richmond has mandatory ownership.

The Richmond question had zero to do with mandatory ownership. You are backsliding.

You claimed Richmond was a perfect comparison to Kennesaw. Try again.

Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime.
No it is not.

One really never knows where the guns are, so it's better to just go somewhere else.

I imagine that "One really never knows where the guns are" in Richmond VA., either but it still resulted in 84 murders for a city of only 200,000 in 2005.
That was in reference to the CCW laws in Virginia. Now please stay on track.

No it is not.




That was in reference to the CCW laws in Virginia. Now please stay on track.

Um, no. Kennesaw had nothing to do w/ CCW and was about mandatory ownership.

Looks like you just derailed yourself. Try again.

Edit: Here's your quote:

"My response was perfectly fitting to his claim that "Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime."

Nothing here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13025190&postcount=106) about CCW. You're discussing the ownership law. Little bit of a credibility issue w. you now if you can't even correctly cite your own posts.

Um, no. Kennesaw had nothing to do w/ CCW and was about mandatory ownership.

Looks like you just derailed yourself. Try again.
No, it was all about this FALSE statement:

Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime.

Perhaps you agree with Myrmidonisia?

No, it was all about this FALSE statement:

Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime.

Perhaps you agree with Myrmidonisia?

Nice red herring CH. Read the edit.

Actually, just read what you just cited "gun ownership ". Not CCW. :eek:

Um, no. Kennesaw had nothing to do w/ CCW and was about mandatory ownership.

Looks like you just derailed yourself. Try again.

Edit: Here's your quote:

"My response was perfectly fitting to his claim that "Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime."

Nothing here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13025190&postcount=106) about CCW. You're discussing the ownership law. Little bit of a credibility issue w. you now if you can't even correctly cite your own posts.
I can't help it if YOU can't follow along. You of all people know that Virginia has CCW. We all know that Kennesaw has a mandatory gun law. So when Myrmidonisia states...."One really never knows where the guns are" in reference to that mandatory gun law, I stated that "One really never knows where the guns are in Richmond VA., either but it still resulted in 84 murders for a city of only 200,000 in 2005."

No one knows where the guns are in Richmond BECAUSE of CCW.

Are the lights going on now?

Minnesota passed a conceal and carry law and we've seen no real increase in crime since. We've not seen a decrease either so it hasn't helped but it also hasn't hurt. It seems almost as if there were no correlation between gun laws and crime. Are the lights going on now, Canuckistani?

How many of the 84 murders you cite were commited by someone with a conceal weapons permit?

I do not understand that whole gun issue in US.

In Europe, people can’t get access and wear guns that easy. It’s far more difficult to buy one. There’s no culture to have one as well.

And no criminality is not worse compared to US of A, in fact it is less.

Less people are killed by guns here.

A few years ago I saw in some documentary that in US that most people are killed by a family member by accident.

200 years ago there was maybe a need for everyone to carry a gun. Those days the world is more civilized (oh well, it’s not that really) and most countries have a decent police force…

There is not a clear reason to give those toys to people.

Suppose it was easy and cheap to get your own nuke. What do you think would happen rather soon?

Minnesota passed a conceal and carry law and we've seen no real increase in crime since. We've not seen a decrease either so it hasn't helped but it also hasn't hurt. It seems almost as if there were no correlation between gun laws and crime.
IF it seems to you that there is no correlation between gun laws and crime, then there shouldn't be ANY gun laws whatsoever?

Are the lights going on now, Canuckistani?
Besides your poor attempt at humour, that is my line. :D

How many of the 84 murders you cite were commited by someone with a conceal weapons permit?
I don't know off hand. You could probably look it up?

What I do know is that the number of firearm related murders in Virginia in 2003 was disproportionately higher than the national average.

I can't help it if YOU can't follow along. You of all people know that Virginia has CCW. We all know that Kennesaw has a mandatory gun law. So when Myrmidonisia states...."One really never knows where the guns are" in reference to that mandatory gun law, I stated that "One really never knows where the guns are in Richmond VA., either but it still resulted in 84 murders for a city of only 200,000 in 2005."

No one knows where the guns are in Richmond BECAUSE of CCW.

Are the lights going on now?

Boy are you reaching .

Try and be honest w/ yourself and others CH. He's talking about universal ownership and you claim you changed the topic to CCW even though you never mention it and use the same words he did in reference. You chose Richmond because it has a high crime rate, not that that conversation had ANYTHING to do w/ CCW. At least you admit that you dragged a red herring across the road to change the subject.

What I do know is that the number of firearm related murders in Virginia in 2003 was disproportionately higher than the national average.

And the stats war begins. Just like I said it would.

The same is true for Chicago and handguns are banned.

DC has had years w/ 100% firearm murders and handguns are banned.

Maryland has had a murder rate of over 9/100k for over 4 years while VA has been 6.1 or below. Which state has stricter firearm laws?

Sorry CH, your implied causality isn't there.

I do not understand that whole gun issue in US.

In Europe, people can’t get access and wear guns that easy. It’s far more difficult to buy one. There’s no culture to have one as well.

And no criminality is not worse compared to US of A, in fact it is less.

Less people are killed by guns here.

And always have been even before various gun laws were enacted. Are you talking about Western Europe? Eastern is a whole different game when it comes to crime. Howabout the rest of the world?

A few years ago I saw in some documentary that in US that most people are killed by a family member by accident.

Nope. Most people are killed by criminals w/ a past record.

200 years ago there was maybe a need for everyone to carry a gun. Those days the world is more civilized (oh well, it’s not that really) and most countries have a decent police force…

200 years ago, there was also less crime. Want to claim causality?

There is not a clear reason to give those toys to people.

And now the insults begin. What a way to begin.

Suppose it was easy and cheap to get your own nuke. What do you think would happen rather soon?

And the usual slippery-slope. Do you equate a handgun to a nuke?

Hehe the old Gun row huh!

Think about this one, bearing in mind the differance in population, the USA has had gun ownership allowed to it's general populance really since it's inseption, whilst the UK has always had tighter control.

Now factor in the amount of gun crime in both countires over the last, say 50 years.

EDIT: Time for an update of an earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029721&postcount=150).

Boy did you miss the forest for the trees. I guess all those bits about the trace data being misused completely escaped you.
The following article seems to augment my claim under "National Patterns":

Murder Weapon Not the First Sold by Gun Shop (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/murder_weapon_n.html)

For gun control advocates, the ease with which Cho was able to legally get his handgun and a box of ammunition reveals the problem with Virginia's gun laws, which are regarded by law enforcement officials as among the most lax in the country.

"Virginia is, 'Let's sell it to somebody, and let's not find out anything about them.' And I think it's this disgrace that may have led to a tragedy," said Josh Horowitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

As footage recorded by an undercover team sent to Virginia by the New York Police Department shows, it's possible to buy a handgun at a Virginia gun store with no waiting period and a background check that only looks for criminal convictions.

The New York City police department says Virginia is also the top source for illegal guns used in crimes committed in New York.

The undercover team only had to produce a Virginia driver's license and fill out a few forms in order to walk out of the store with a handgun.

"It is quite frankly an easy state to buy a weapon," said New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. "The philosophy is that it appears to be an entitlement to own a handgun."
Kinda vindicates what I have been saying all along. :D

Of course you also neglect to remember that Bloomberg was critisized by the DOJ and BATFE for his out of jurisdiction sting operations.
Are you against sting operations that may keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?

The earlier crime gun reports had no disclaimer on this information (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf):

National Patterns.

National trafficking patterns account for 30 percent or more of guns traced from nine cities. The most striking case is that of New York City, NY, where 73.4 percent of crime guns came from national sources including Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Newark and Jersey City, NJ, which are located near New York, NY, experience strikingly similar national trafficking patterns with 80.2 and 74.5 percent of their crime guns coming from national sources. Other cities on the Eastern shore with high percentages of nationally sourced guns include Washington, DC (38.6 percent), and Camden, NJ (50.6 percent). A second trafficking pattern runs from the South to large cities in the Midwest. Chicago, IL, has 32.8 percent of crime guns from national sources and Detroit, MI, 44.5 percent. Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia are important national source areas for Chicago, IL. Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama are significant for Detroit, MI.
My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns.

My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns.

That stat about Detroit is pretty odd, since Michigan does not have very strict gun laws, and cities are not allowed to make their own. I'm not saying it's wrong, just strange.

Now factor in the amount of gun crime in both countires over the last, say 50 years.


You make a distinction of gun crime, not overall crime. That is like saying we have more orange peels because we have more... oranges...

I won't waste my time citing sources (mostly because libs demand them but won't agree with them), so I'll only post rhetorical questions.

Why would a criminal (who is already a law breaker) turn in a weapon (an illegal weapon with current US law), simply because the government (who declared this person an outlaw long before) passed a law stating everyone must turn in all firearms?

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

And to return to the ORIGINAL topic - NRA Slogan -

The reason why the NRA uses it

The Framers are often cited because of "original intent"

The US Constitution is worded in a less than common grammar compared to today - Therefore arguments by liberals to interperet the Constitiution often follow the lines of common usage of words by today's standards, even to the point of stating the lack of a period or the lack of a plural "s" on a word somehow defines "the people" as "the government"

Judges and scholars look to works from the Framers and dictionarys from that era to find the original intent, versus using today's grammar standards.


In the end it is a reminder to the enemies of the NRA, a slogan from a founding father so blatantly pro gun there is no argument.... Unless you try to argue outside the context of the issue, no ammount of statistical info can make the 2nd amendment invalid... ITS THE US CONSTITUTION...

Now excuse me, I need to go hold a gun so it makes me violent...

You may even compare US to entire Europe.

There is less criminality here.
There are less killings.
There are less school shootings.
There are less people in jail here. No, and I don't believe that Americans are more criminal by nature.

There are 3 times less murders in Belgium than in US, 2 times less murders in France than in US, 4 times less in Germany than in US.

These are all countries comparable to US in culture, way of life, development etc...


No, there was no less criminality in the past than present times.
But you have to compare it to the available people. One could say the streets are rather safe now, even in US. Driving with your car from NY to LA is not risking your life. 200 years ago that was another animal.

I have doubts about your opinion that most kills in US are performed by criminals. I saw other things already in countless magazines, tv documentaries...

Is it insulting name calling a gun a toy? It is a toy. But a dangerous one. It's a toy not designed for common people.

Yes I compare it to nukes. They both kill.

And if common people would have access to nukes, soon the world is destroyed because:

* Someone will use it to get what he wants.
* Someday, one child is finding dady his nuke in the bedroom and... *KABOOM*
* Most people are just stupid enough to use it.



And always have been even before various gun laws were enacted. Are you talking about Western Europe? Eastern is a whole different game when it comes to crime. Howabout the rest of the world?




Nope. Most people are killed by criminals w/ a past record.



200 years ago, there was also less crime. Want to claim causality?



And now the insults begin. What a way to begin.



And the usual slippery-slope. Do you equate a handgun to a nuke?

There is less criminality here.

Checking OECD poverty rates should tell you why there is more criminality in the US.

There are less people in jail here.

There are a lot of offenses in the US that are jailable which shouldn't be, specifically a number of drug crimes.

No, and I don't believe that Americans are more criminal by nature.

Not by nature, no, but again check out the different relative poverty rates (as the OECD rates them, because the US has a rather lower poverty threshold than most other OECD countries).


I have doubts about your opinion that most kills in US are performed by criminals. I saw other things already in countless magazines, tv documentaries...

That depends on where you live. In my little town the two murders in the last 10 years were done by a crazy man whose wife divorced him and the university football team (much of which went to prison). However, if you go to Detroit, where poverty is rampant you'll find a much higher number of habitual criminals.

Is it insulting name calling a gun a toy? It is a toy. But a dangerous one. It's a toy not designed for common people.

I'd say that calling a gun a toy downplays it's dangerous nature.


Anyway, the simple having of a gun does not make one more inclined to commit murder. I grew up with guns and have had guns my entire adult life and I've never felt the urge to use them on anyone. The real causes of our elevated crime rates is our somewhat more aggressive and violent culture and the severe relative poverty found at the bottom end of our society.

I agree I can't see a criminal handing in his gun, that though was not the point of my post. The point being your country was fucked since the begining.

HAHAHAHA... What country are you from? I might have to start a new thread...

You make a distinction of gun crime, not overall crime. That is like saying we have more orange peels because we have more... oranges...

I won't waste my time citing sources (mostly because libs demand them but won't agree with them), so I'll only post rhetorical questions.

Why would a criminal (who is already a law breaker) turn in a weapon (an illegal weapon with current US law), simply because the government (who declared this person an outlaw long before) passed a law stating everyone must turn in all firearms?

I agree I can't see a criminal handing in his gun, that though was not the point of my post. The point being your country was fucked since the begining.

That stat about Detroit is pretty odd, since Michigan does not have very strict gun laws, and cities are not allowed to make their own. I'm not saying it's wrong, just strange.
Perhaps this will help you NW? Page 6 of 9 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/states_and_territories/cy2006-michigan.pdf).

HAHAHAHA... What country are you from? I might have to start a new thread...

Heh umm Iceland.

Well, in my country there are poor parts as well like...Walonia.

Even there the killings are far more less as in US.

And I don't think entire US is poor. I think most people have a good life in US.
Sure if you compare it to most parts of the world.




Checking OECD poverty rates should tell you why there is more criminality in the US.



There are a lot of offenses in the US that are jailable which shouldn't be, specifically a number of drug crimes.



Not by nature, no, but again check out the different relative poverty rates (as the OECD rates them, because the US has a rather lower poverty threshold than most other OECD countries).




That depends on where you live. In my little town the two murders in the last 10 years were done by a crazy man whose wife divorced him and the university football team (much of which went to prison). However, if you go to Detroit, where poverty is rampant you'll find a much higher number of habitual criminals.



I'd say that calling a gun a toy downplays it's dangerous nature.


Anyway, the simple having of a gun does not make one more inclined to commit murder. I grew up with guns and have had guns my entire adult life and I've never felt the urge to use them on anyone. The real causes of our elevated crime rates is our somewhat more aggressive and violent culture and the severe relative poverty found at the bottom end of our society.

Perhaps this will help you NW? Page 6 of 9 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/states_and_territories/cy2006-michigan.pdf).

Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, just strange. Perhaps in those southern states it's easier to get weapons for those who legally shouldn't have them.

EDIT: Time for an update of an earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13029721&postcount=150).

Translation: Time for a change of topic since CH was caught in a non-truth again.


The following article seems to augment my claim under "National Patterns":

Murder Weapon Not the First Sold by Gun Shop (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/murder_weapon_n.html)


Kinda vindicates what I have been saying all along. :D

Besides this conversation having nothing to do w/ what we were talking about, actually no it doesn't vidicate anything.

VA is NOT the primary source of traced NY firearms. That would be NY itself. So much for your attacks on others for not "fact checking". There's also a "one gun a month" law in VA. Boy that works well then, doesn't it?

It's funny that they make a claim about what "law enforcement officials" believe then use a quote from an anti-gun organization. It's also possible to buy a firearm in most states w/o a waiting period and submitting a basic NICS check. Not that a waiting period stopped Cho.


Are you against sting operations that may keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?

When the investigators commit crimes and are operating outside of their jurisdiction, yes. Would you support the FBI conducting stings in Canada w/o local approval? How many criminal charges were brought up against the dealers involved in the "stings"?

The earlier crime gun reports had no disclaimer on this information (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf):


My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns.

And your "observation" is still wrong as not all guns are traced and 47% could nt be traced. Since this has been pointed out over and over, I guess this goes back to your credibility issues again since you keep using the "highlights" after I've linked the whole report:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/progressandplans.pdf

From the appendix: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/appendixb.pdf

Second, the extent of program implementation varies
from one jurisdiction to another based on each one’s
size, extent of agency computerization, information
intake procedures, firearms-focused law enforcement
activity, and the nature of its crime gun problem. At
this stage of development, it is not appropriate to
attempt to impose a single standard on all participating
jurisdictions...

The data reported here also reflects the behavior of
law enforcement agencies whose policies and practices,
including when and how firearms are recovered
and how those recoveries are recorded, are changing
in response to local attention to firearms crimes.
These changes could increase or decrease the number
of firearms trace requests made to the National
Tracing Center.
Crime rates are changing. Changes in the number of
trace requests could reflect changes in the number of
crime guns that come to the attention of law enforcement
agencies.
While the 50 participating jurisdictions represent a
wide spectrum of American life, they do not represent
a national sample of law enforcement agencies or
crime guns recovered by law enforcement agencies.


And from:http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/infoforleexecs.pdf

What is the investigative value of a crime gun
trace? A firearms trace acts as an avenue to obtain
additional investigative leads which may tie the
suspect to the firearm itself, and to other crimes
otherwise unknown if the gun had not been traced.
The appearance of an FFL or a first purchaser in
association with a crime gun or in association with
multiple crime guns does not show that either the FFL
or first purchaser has committed unlawful acts.
Rather, such information may provide a starting point
for further and more detailed investigations.
How does my agency submit a crime gun trace



Didn't you read the whole report CH? Sure looks like a disclaimer to anyone who actually reads it.

Try again.

Well, in my country there are poor parts as well like...Walonia.

Even there the killings are far more less as in US.

And I don't think entire US is poor. I think most people have a good life in US.
Sure if you compare it to most parts of the world.

I'm not saying the entire US is poor. What I'm saying is that the US has a higher relative poverty rate than other developed OECD countries. What I'm also saying is that those who are poor in the US are poorer, relative to the average income, than many of their European cousins.

Also, it doesn't matter if the poor here are rich compared to the poor in the rest of the world. What matters is relative deprivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation). Being richer than a poor African doesn't make one feel any better when you're a lot poorer than what is seen as the "norm" in your country.

You may even compare US to entire Europe.

There is less criminality here.
There are less killings.
There are less school shootings.
There are less people in jail here. No, and I don't believe that Americans are more criminal by nature.

There are 3 times less murders in Belgium than in US, 2 times less murders in France than in US, 4 times less in Germany than in US.

These are all countries comparable to US in culture, way of life, development etc...


No, there was no less criminality in the past than present times.
But you have to compare it to the available people. One could say the streets are rather safe now, even in US. Driving with your car from NY to LA is not risking your life. 200 years ago that was another animal.

I have doubts about your opinion that most kills in US are performed by criminals. I saw other things already in countless magazines, tv documentaries...

Is it insulting name calling a gun a toy? It is a toy. But a dangerous one. It's a toy not designed for common people.

Yes I compare it to nukes. They both kill.

And if common people would have access to nukes, soon the world is destroyed because:

* Someone will use it to get what he wants.
* Someday, one child is finding dady his nuke in the bedroom and... *KABOOM*
* Most people are just stupid enough to use it.

W/ all of your nonsense, here's the facts on criminals and murders:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0903MurderVictims0903.html

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

Criminal History

* Fifty-three percent of jail inmates were on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of arrest.
* Four in 10 jail inmates had a current or past sentence for a violent offense.
* Thirty-nine percent of jail inmates in 2002 had served 3 or more prior sentences to incarceration or probation, down from 44% in 1996.

Edit: As for accident statistics,

CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=apd-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=xckj7xNPK52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=.&age2=.&agegp=AllAges&deaths=112012&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1age&ethnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death)

Perhaps this will help you NW? Page 6 of 9 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/states_and_territories/cy2006-michigan.pdf).

Once again ignoring Page 2.

Heh umm Iceland.

You call THAT a country?

Where's the nonsens?

About one link, they say and I quote:

And in Newark, N.J., roughly 85 percent of homicide victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, according to police statistics.

It is possible but are those homicide criminal related? I mean if some criminal shoots his wife that's a different animal than the same criminal shooting someone while doing his uhm job.

And what's a criminal record? Paris Hilton has a criminal record as well now... Seems like in US *everyone* is having a criminal record.

If access to guns was difficult for everyone then it would be difficult for criminals as well. The outcome would be less killings, let them be criminal related or not.

Like it is in Europe... *sigh*

Criminals here do not need a gun cause most nice civilians have no gun as well.

I am not stating that there are no murders here with guns, I only see it's 3 times less compared to US. That's rather a lot. Trying to cover it up with poverty figures and stuff doesn't explain everything, cause in Europe some people are poor as well.

I think you can safely compare Europe with US. It's not some comparison between Norway and Afghanistan or something.

Europe and US are very comparable in culture, level of education, level of general development etc....




W/ all of your nonsense, here's the facts on criminals and murders:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0903MurderVictims0903.html

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

Criminal History

* Fifty-three percent of jail inmates were on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of arrest.
* Four in 10 jail inmates had a current or past sentence for a violent offense.
* Thirty-nine percent of jail inmates in 2002 had served 3 or more prior sentences to incarceration or probation, down from 44% in 1996.

You call THAT a country?

Umm whats your definition of a country then?

Where's the nonsens?

About one link, they say and I quote:



It is possible but are those homicide criminal related? I mean if some criminal shoots his wife that's a different animal than the same criminal shooting someone while doing his uhm job.

If access to guns was difficult for everyone then it would be difficult for criminals as well. The outcome would be less killings, let them be criminal related or not.

Like it is in Europe... *sigh*

Criminals here do not need a gun cause most nice civilians have no gun as well.

I am not stating that there are no murders here with guns, I only see it's 3 times less compared to US. That's rather a lot. Trying to cover it up with poverty figures and stuff doesn't explain everything, cause in Europe some people are poor as well.

I think you can safely compare Europe with US. It's not some comparison between Norway and Afghanistan or something.

Europe and US are very comparable in culture, level of education, level of general development etc....

Obviously you've never been in the US. The "culture" is not the same.

I've already shown you that it's primarily criminals committing violent crimes and not the other 80 million legal firearm owners in the US.

Here's the data on accident statistics:

CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=apd-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=xckj7xNPK52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=.&age2=.&agegp=AllAges&deaths=112012&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1age&ethnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death)

You may also want to take a look at the UK. They've made it even more difficult to own firearms yet the Home Office has had to adjust recording crime to keep the fact that it's been rising:

UK crime (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/17/ncrime17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/17/ixnewstop.html)

I was 2 times in US.

And sure there are differences but it's more or less the same.

It was not a culture shock (ok, perhaps I was amazed by the tons of very fat people).

Compare US or Europe with India and then you have another story.


Obviously you've never been in the US. The "culture" is not the same.

I've already shown you that it's primarily criminals committing violent crimes and not the other 80 million legal firearm owners in the US.

Here's the data on accident statistics:

CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=apd-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=xckj7xNPK52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=.&age2=.&agegp=AllAges&deaths=112012&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1age&ethnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death)

You may also want to take a look at the UK. They've made it even more difficult to own firearms yet the Home Office has had to adjust recording crime to keep the fact that it's been rising:

UK crime (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/17/ncrime17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/17/ixnewstop.html)

I was 2 times in US.

And sure there are differences but it's more or less the same.

It was not a culture shock (ok, perhaps I was amazed by the tons of very fat people).

Compare US or Europe with India and then you have another story.

Now we're getting into the levels of culture difference. Gotcha.

Do you still maintain that the majority of firearm deaths are by accidents?

The UK link is about misleading the amounts of criminal digits by the government.

They do that everywhere. Also in US or here in Belgium.
(Remember, your prez is elected by wrong 'counting')

There's less criminality in UK as in US. There are also far less killings.

It's rare to hear something about a school shooting in UK or in entire Europe.

There's not one school in Belgium that is having a metal detector installed...



Obviously you've never been in the US. The "culture" is not the same.

I've already shown you that it's primarily criminals committing violent crimes and not the other 80 million legal firearm owners in the US.

Here's the data on accident statistics:

CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=apd-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=xckj7xNPK52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=.&age2=.&agegp=AllAges&deaths=112012&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1age&ethnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death)

You may also want to take a look at the UK. They've made it even more difficult to own firearms yet the Home Office has had to adjust recording crime to keep the fact that it's been rising:

UK crime (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/17/ncrime17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/17/ixnewstop.html)

I think you can safely compare Europe with US. It's not some comparison between Norway and Afghanistan or something.

Europe and US are very comparable in culture, level of education, level of general development etc....

I don't think you can compare them as safely as you think. I've lived in Europe for about 3 years of my adult life, and in the US for the rest (I'm only 25). Also, living on the border, I've spent quite a lot of time in Canada. Americans are just more violent on average. In France, Germany, or even Canada if you bump in to someone in a bar apologies are made and everyone goes about their business. In the US a fight is quite possible. Also, in my experience (I'm aware of the limitations of anecdotal evidence, so take this with a hefty grain of salt) when a fight starts in the US it is likelier than it will continue until someone is seriously hurt than in Europe or Canada.

Also, about "hiding behind poverty numbers" that's a very silly thing to say. Poverty causes crime. This is why Sweden (according to the OECD) has an 8% poverty rate, while the US has 24%. source (http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_34637_34483705_1_1_1_1,00.html) Now compare crime rates.

I'm sorry, but just eliminating guns from the US will not solve our violent crime problems. The US is not Europe, we are not Europeans. The solution should be first to tackle our ludicrous relative poverty problem and then see what to do from there. And to be honest, given the specifics of US culture it would be much more practical to reduce poverty than to confiscate all guns.

If you really want to see the sort of poverty that occurs in places in the US, check out this site about the ruins of Detroit.

http://detroityes.com/downtown/index.html

The UK link is about misleading the amounts of criminal digits by the government.

They do that everywhere. Also in US or here in Belgium.
(Remember, your prez is elected by wrong 'counting')

There's less criminality in UK as in US. There are also far less killings.

It's rare to hear something about a school shooting in UK or in entire Europe.

There's not one school in Belgium that is having a metal detector installed...

I never said the UK was higher than the US. I said that even after they've made it "tougher" to get guns, crime rates went up.

You also don't have a gang culture that is glorified in the media. You even admit there's less criminality. It has nothing to do w/ firearms.

The election bit is just another ad hominem.

As a Belgian citizen I feel more affinity and I see more equal things between Belgians and Americans than between Belgians and Albanians (members of a European country).

It's rare that people would fight or even kill for that one here.
It could happen but it is really rare. We smoke a cigarette and wait for the police.

I don't say there are NO differences between US and Europe, but don't forget we share a lot as well:

* We watch the same sh*ty TV programs and movies.
* We listen both to Britney Spears (at least you do :p)
* We eat the same junk food (McDonalds, Pizza Hut)
* We have a comparable morality and culture. We don't do blood revenge, we do not cut off the clitoris of our women.
* We understand each other very well.
* We both can't smoke cigarettes anymore in our restaurants.

Sure there are differences. I'm Belgian, I lived a year in Paris. French people are also different as Belgians, but it didn't cost me lot of efforts to adapt myself. I could easily adapt myself to Americans.

But I can't do that to Indian people by instance.




I don't think you can compare them as safely as you think. I've lived in Europe for about 3 years of my adult life, and in the US for the rest (I'm only 25). Also, living on the border, I've spent quite a lot of time in Canada. Americans are just more violent on average. In France, Germany, or even Canada if you bump in to someone in a bar apologies are made and everyone goes about their business. In the US a fight is quite possible. Also, in my experience (I'm aware of the limitations of anecdotal evidence, so take this with a hefty grain of salt) when a fight starts in the US it is likelier than it will continue until someone is seriously hurt than in Europe or Canada.

Also, about "hiding behind poverty numbers" that's a very silly thing to say. Poverty causes crime. This is why Sweden (according to the OECD) has an 8% poverty rate, while the US has 24%. source (http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_34637_34483705_1_1_1_1,00.html) Now compare crime rates.

I'm sorry, but just eliminating guns from the US will not solve our violent crime problems. The US is not Europe, we are not Europeans. The solution should be first to tackle our ludicrous relative poverty problem and then see what to do from there. And to be honest, given the specifics of US culture it would be much more practical to reduce poverty than to confiscate all guns.

If you really want to see the sort of poverty that occurs in places in the US, check out this site about the ruins of Detroit.

http://detroityes.com/downtown/index.html

It's rare that people would fight or even kill for that one here.
It could happen but it is really rare. We smoke a cigarette and wait for the police.

I don't say there are NO differences between US and Europe, but don't forget we share a lot as well:

* We watch the same sh*ty TV programs and movies.
* We listen both to Britney Spears (at least you do :p)
* We eat the same junk food (McDonalds, Pizza Hut)
* We have a comparable morality and culture. We don't do blood revenge, we do not cut off the clitoris of our women.
* We understand each other very well.
* We both can't smoke cigarettes anymore in our restaurants.

Sure there are differences. I'm Belgian, I lived a year in Paris. French people are also different as Belgians, but it didn't cost me lot of efforts to adapt myself. I could easily adapt myself to Americans.

But I can't do that to Indian people by instance.

I understand what you're saying but the criminal mentality differs. How common is it for someone to kill over a pair of shoes, or for wearing a different color.

One of the reasons the UK crime is increasing is because that type of mentality is increasing in the "yob" subculture.

It's rare that people would fight or even kill for that one here.
It could happen but it is really rare. We smoke a cigarette and wait for the police.

I don't say there are NO differences between US and Europe, but don't forget we share a lot as well:

I'm aware that there is a lot that is the same. I lived in Angers, France (Dept 49) for 6 months, and Friedberg, Hesse, Germany for 2.5 years. I'm quite familiar with European culture. However, there are things that are different. Such as the example of fighting in bars that I gave. Bar fights are rather common here (especially in bars in rougher parts of cities) far more common than in Europe.

I do not understand that whole gun issue in US.

In Europe, people can’t get access and wear guns that easy. It’s far more difficult to buy one. There’s no culture to have one as well.

And no criminality is not worse compared to US of A, in fact it is less.

Less people are killed by guns here.

A few years ago I saw in some documentary that in US that most people are killed by a family member by accident.

200 years ago there was maybe a need for everyone to carry a gun. Those days the world is more civilized (oh well, it’s not that really) and most countries have a decent police force…

There is not a clear reason to give those toys to people.

Suppose it was easy and cheap to get your own nuke. What do you think would happen rather soon?

Every nation is different. Here in the US, not only do people have firearms for protection, there are those of us that enjoy shooting sports, such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Also, firearms aren't toys (that attitude causes a lot of firearms accidents).

Finally, as to the whole guns = nukes argument, that's stupid. A firearm is nothing like a nuclear weapon. A firearm is controllable and easy to aim in such a way as to limit what the bullet will damage, whereas once a nuke is set off, it pretty much destroys everyone/everything in the blast radius (tons of collateral damage).

Translation: Time for a change of topic since CH was caught in a non-truth again.
Polite way of calling me a liar? If you can't understand where I was coming from then you probably never will.

Besides this conversation having nothing to do w/ what we were talking about,
Actually we were talking about your flawed more guns = less crime "touted report" but you sidetracked because the pressure was on.

VA is NOT the primary source of traced NY firearms. That would be NY itself. So much for your attacks on others for not "fact checking".
Perhaps you should take that up with the NYPD?

The New York City police department says Virginia is also the top source for illegal guns used in crimes committed in New York.

It's funny that they make a claim about what "law enforcement officials" believe then use a quote from an anti-gun organization.
What you apparently fail to grasp is that Virginia's gun laws are "among the most lax in the country". You appear to support laissez faire mon ami!!

It's also possible to buy a firearm in most states w/o a waiting period and submitting a basic NICS check.
That is part of the bigger problem. Time to tighten up the rules huh?

Not that a waiting period stopped Cho.
Ummmm wasn't it the fact that Cho had a mental health issue?

When the investigators commit crimes and are operating outside of their jurisdiction, yes.
Sometimes drastic measures need to be taken to wake up the public as to the problems that these guys face on a regular basis.

Would you support the FBI conducting stings in Canada w/o local approval?
You are talking about different countries, not different States within the same country.

How many criminal charges were brought up against the dealers involved in the "stings"?
You tell me? The shop in question has sold several guns used in homicides.


And your "observation" is still wrong as not all guns are traced and 47% could nt be traced. Since this has been pointed out over and over, I guess this goes back to your credibility issues again since you keep using the "highlights" after I've linked the whole report:
I just go by the words used in the document!!

National Patterns. National trafficking patterns account for 30 percent or more of guns traced from nine cities. The most striking case is that of New York City, NY, where 73.4 percent of crime guns came from national sources including Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Newark and Jersey City, NJ, which are located near New York, NY, experience strikingly similar national trafficking patterns with 80.2 and 74.5 percent of their crime guns coming from national sources. Other cities on the Eastern shore with high percentages of nationally sourced guns include Washington, DC (38.6 percent), and Camden, NJ (50.6 percent). A second trafficking pattern runs from the South to large cities in the Midwest. Chicago, IL, has 32.8 percent of crime guns from national sources and Detroit, MI, 44.5 percent. Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia are important national source areas for Chicago, IL. Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama are significant for Detroit, MI.
Hmmmm "trafficking patterns". Mostly from the South. "Important national source". My observation is that most traced crime guns come from the South. That is not really a surprise.

Edit: Kec.....don't you want to find out the sources of these "illegal guns" that are killing people? Why are you fighting too hard on this issue?

Polite way of calling me a liar? If you can't understand where I was coming from then you probably never will.

I understand exactly where your coming from. The same as the VPC.


Actually we were talking about your flawed more guns = less crime "touted report" but you sidetracked because the pressure was on.
Besides the fact that you continue to misrepresent the causality claimed in the paper was not that..

Actually, I asked you to show the evidence of "serious flaws". You chose to go off on several tangents and to go to an old part of the thread.

You may forgotten this particular quote just a few pages back:

EDIT: Time for an update of an earlier post.

So who was sidetracking again?


Perhaps you should take that up with the NYPD?

Is that your way of saying you don't have any evidence to support that statement from an obviously biased source? I guess you just take it at face value. Right?

What you appear to grasp is that Virginia's gun laws are "among the most lax in the country". You appear to support laissez faire mon ami!!

Nice strawman CH. I guess having an additional instant check system as well as 1 gun a month = "most lax in the country" according to you even though most states don't have either.

Seems the NYPD was wrong.

To bad you don't have any evidence to support this claim either.

Edit:

Hell, even the Brady Campaign (http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA) doesn't make that claim.


That is part of the bigger problem. Time to tighten up the rules huh?

Nope, time to start putting criminals away instead of letting them out on bail, parole, and probation and stopping "sanctuary cities" like Newark, NJ discovered to their detriment.

Seems you still haven't shown the correlation or causality of firearm laws and crime.


Ummmm wasn't it the fact that Cho had a mental health issue?

Which wouldn't have been covered under any state. Your point?


Sometimes drastic measures need to be taken to wake up the public as to the problems that these guys face on a regular basis.
You are talking about different countries, not different States within the same country.

Sorry CH, it's the same thing. It's called extrajurisdictional authority and it doesn't exist. An officer from one state or locality cannot go and arrest someone in another just like the FBI can't go and arrest someone in Canada. That's why we have Federal authorities.

Or are you now a supporter of vigilante justice?

You tell me? The shop in question has sold several guns used in homicides.

Since you don't know (maybe if you had actually read about it a little), Of all the shops NY pursued "stings" against, there weren't any that had criminal charges brought against them. Why? Because there was no evidence of them committing illegal actions.

The "shop in question" also sells over 2,500 firearms per year. Do the math.

Maybe you should try reading the BATFE and CRS reports on what trace data says or are you still taking the article at face value?

The "shop in question", while selling over 2,500 firearms/year, has had several firearms used in homicides traced back to it over the course of several years. Now you tell me CH, based off of 'trace data", did the shop sell the firearms directly to the killers? How many degrees of separation were there? One, Two, Twenty?


I just go by the words used in the document!!

*snip selective editing*
[

Just apparently not all of them. You're selectively ignoring words like these:

For these and other reasons, the available data from
the participating jurisdictions does not yet constitute
a fully developed statistical series from which reliable
comparisons can be made from one reporting period
to the next or from one participating jurisdiction to
another.

Face it CH. You claimed there wasn't a disclaimer in the report. I showed there was after having to post the FULL ARTICLE several times and you kept going back to the "highlights". Credibility on your part? I think not.

The disclaimer, then as now, states that overall statistics can't be made from those numbers. I guess I have to quote from the CRS report (again) since you obviously didn't read it either:"

By those and perhaps other factors, firearm trace data may be biased: consequently, such data cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public.
Neither the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — the principal federal agency charged with the collection of national crime statistics — nor ATF has endorsed the use of firearm trace data for any purpose other than advancing compliance with firearms commerce laws and bona fide criminal investigations.

And (you'll love this):

At the same time, ATF’s findings might have undergirded the policies of a number of municipalities, under which civil lawsuits were pursued against the gun industry for gun violence in their jurisdictions. This is despite the fact that ATF has consistently stated that trace frequency, in and of itself, is not indicative of criminal activity by an FFL. In conclusion, the ATF firearms trace database is
an operational system designed to aid in ongoing investigations, rather than a system to
capture “crime gun” statistics.9

So what's that CH? The ATF has always stated that the numbers aren't for the use of statistical causality? I've posted this before and you didn't read it yet kept making claims based upon it?

Maybe you should try reading the reports.

Isn't it nicely ironic that what you're doing w/ trace data is one of the primary reasons the Tiahrt Amendment came into existance?

Edit: I don't support your measures of "finding the illegal guns". Yours involve putting the onus on legal gun owners and not the criminals. You know, kind of like your belief that CCW will cause crime to increase because it will force criminals to shoot first?

You support Bloomburg's actions. Guess what. He overstepped his authority and paid private investigators to break the law in another state. He based his vigilante actions on trace data. Guess he didn't read the article as well. Those are the kinds of measures you're endorsing.
Had he actually wanted to be legit, he should have worked w/ the BATFE and VA authorities. Instead, he performed his actions in secret and fought w/ the BATFE about turning over the evidence. Why would he do that? You tell me.

What you apparently fail to grasp is that Virginia's gun laws are "among the most lax in the country". You appear to support laissez faire mon ami!!

Nice strawman CH. I guess having an additional instant check system as well as 1 gun a month = "most lax in the country" according to you even though most states don't have either.

To bad you don't have any evidence to support this claim either.

Edit:Hell, even the Brady Campaign (http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA) doesn't make that claim.
I gun per month and "instant check system" huh?

From the Brady web site: Virginia Gun Laws (http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA)

GUN SHOW CHECKS
Are background checks required at gun shows? No

No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.
How alarming is that? And it certainly supports the contention that Virginia's State gun laws are indeed ""among the most lax in the country".

I gun per month and "instant check system" huh?

From the Brady web site: Virginia Gun Laws (http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA)

GUN SHOW CHECKS

How alarming is that? And it certainly supports the contention that Virginia's State gun laws are indeed ""among the most lax in the country".

Yep. State background checks.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

The majority of states do not require non-ffl's to use NICS at firearm shows or between private sales and neither do they have 1gun/month.

Edit: And why would that be? Oh, right, the Brady Bill doesn't allow non-ffl access to NICS. Would you support them being allowed to access it for transfers?

Try again CH.

Yep. State background checks.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

The majority of states do not require non-ffl's to use NICS at firearm shows or between private sales and neither do they have 1gun/month.

Edit: And why would that be? Oh, right, the Brady Bill doesn't allow non-ffl access to NICS. Would you support them being allowed to access it for transfers?

Try again CH.
So the information on the Brady web site in this regard is inaccurate?

So the information on the Brady web site in this regard is inaccurate?

It's accurate, just not the entire story. There are no requirements for non-ffl's to go through NICS in VA or most states. To make it a requirement (such as in CA and various proposed legislations) they need to go through an FFL dealer.

Would you support a provision allowing non-FFL access to NICS?

So far, all you've pointed out is that INTERPOL and CDOJ reports are faulty.
No the authors' report is wrong due to inadequate research, not verifying their information and/or not cross referencing the data with other data sources? Cherry picking comes to mind!!

One point does not "seriously flawed" make.
Since you didn't directly answer the following questions, I will (answers in bold).

From what I have read so far, there is more than one point that makes this report seriously flawed:

a) where does it state the year that the gun bans took place? It doesn't.

b) what dates did the gun ban take effect in the various countries? No dates specified.

c) what were the murder rates before and after the banning of guns? Not shown or indicated.

d) where guns are allowed, is there any strict gun control in those countries? Not specified.

e) why do the authors pick different years when comparing the countries and why only one year? A snapshot does not reflect trends. I call it cherry picking to give the results the authors want to base their flawed report.

f) for many years, Russia's murder rate (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447353&rendertype=figure&id=f1) was at or lower than the US rate (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)and it spiked in the early 1990's. Why? Break up of Russia? Economic collapse? You would think this would be important info for their paper.

More apparent errors in the data (Table 1) that the authors supplied:

It shows the murder rate for Switzerland as 0.99 [2003], Finland 1.98 [2004]

From the Ninth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_survey/CTS9ByIndicatorExtract.pdf)it shows:

Switzerlands murder rate at 2.59 (2003) and 2.94 (2004)

Finland murder rate at 2.75 (2004)

Haven't checked all their numbers yet but......

Time to rewrite their report????

More (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html):

There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000)

No the authors' report is wrong due to inadequate research, not verifying their information and/or not cross referencing the data with other data sources? Cherry picking comes to mind!!

So, once again you're saying that we shouldn't take the CDOJ or INTERPOL at face value. Gotcha. So I should expect numerous cross referenced sources from every single data point you present?


Since you didn't directly answer the following questions, I will (answers in bold).

*snip red herring questions*

Already answered those CH. They aren't claiming firearm causality. It's correlation. As for the different years, not all years are available for all countries. You should have seen that when you read the reports. Oh, wait, nevermind.


for many years, Russia's murder rate (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447353&rendertype=figure&id=f1) was at or lower than the US rate (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)and it spiked in the early 1990's. Why? Break up of Russia? Economic collapse? You would think this would be important info for their paper.

Apparently you keep ignoring the claimed causality. Politics, economics, and culture.

More apparent errors in the data (Table 1) that the authors supplied:

It shows the murder rate for Switzerland as 0.99 [2003], Finland 1.98 [2004]

From the Ninth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_survey/CTS9ByIndicatorExtract.pdf)it shows:

Switzerlands murder rate at 2.59 (2003) and 2.94 (2004)

Finland murder rate at 2.75 (2004)

Haven't checked all their numbers yet but......

Time to rewrite their report????

All from the CDOJ/INTERPOL again. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/0080485-002-XIE.pdf

You're correct though. The CDOJ needs to do some serious fact checking before they publish official reports. I've emailed Mauser again and checked the Canada and Germany numbers. They both match.

As for the "cherry-picking" comment, do I need to refer to your selective numbers for Richmond again?

Would you answer my question: Would you support a provision allowing non-FFL access to NICS?

More (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html):

There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000)

Have you read the entire report and fact checked every data point? Do you stand behind it 100%?


Edit:

Would you care to provide a link to that article like I have provided links?

Here's an interesting bit from the link:

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

Are you now accepting cross year data?

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid.


It is a true statement though. You see... if guns are outlawed, owning a gun would be illegal, correct? So, owning a gun when guns are illegal would mean you are breaking the law, and therefore a criminal. Outlaw is just another word for criminal. Anyone who owned a gun would therefore be an outlaw, anyone who was not an outlaw would not have a gun, and anyone without a gun would not be an outlaw(assuming they committed no other crimes).

Have you read the entire report and fact checked every data point?Nope. Just like you.

Do you stand behind it 100%?I have yet to see it refuted.



Here's an interesting bit from the link:

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

Are you now accepting cross year data?
If you can accept a flawed report (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso), I guess I can accept cross year data?

Nope. Just like you.

Ah, so you're lowering your standards. Got it.

I have yet to see it refuted.

I have yet to see it.

If you can accept a flawed report, I guess I can accept cross year data?

So it's OK for you but not for me. Got it.

Now, are you actually going to present the article you cited or are you just going off of the internet link because the web page linked to didn't contain a single piece of evidence supporting the claimed correlation of "developed nations" besides the US.

U.S. crime and violence rates—including burglary, robbery, car theft, and assault rates, as assessed in victimization surveys—are comparable to those of other industrialized nations. What is not comparable is our rate of lethal violence, and the majority of our homicides are firearm homicides. Studies show that high income nations that have more guns have more homicides because of higher rates of firearm homicide (Hemenway and Miller 2000; Hepburn and Hemenway 2004).
Well that is amazing!!

Well that is amazing!!

It's so amazing that there isn't even a source provided by you.

Care to provide one or are you going to just link selectively edited cutnpastes?

Ah, so you're lowering your standards. Got it.
I have to because you are having a difficult time following along. :p

I have yet to see it.
I thought you knew it all. :rolleyes:

So it's OK for you but not for me. Got it.
Over the years you have thrown out all kinds of stuff expecting people to buy it. This is kinda representative of a five year span:

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.gif

It's so amazing that there isn't even a source provided by you.

Care to provide one or are you going to just link selectively edited cutnpastes?
A Public Health Approach to Firearms Policy (http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/085-Part%202-Chapter%206.pdf)

Studies comparing U.S. regions, states, or cities also find that areas with more firearms have more homicides, primarily because of higher rates of firearm homicide. The association between guns and homicide holds even after controlling for levels of violent crime, unemployment, poverty, urbanization, and alcohol consumption (Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway 2002c). Case-control studies find that a gun in the home is a risk factor for committing a murder and for being murdered (Hepburn and Hemenway 2004). The large majority of perpetrators and victims of lethal violence are male. Few male-on-male homicides appear to be the carefully planned actions of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill. More people are murdered during arguments with someone they know than during the commission of a robbery.
He is saying just what I believe.

I have to because you are having a difficult time following along. :p

Zing.


I thought you knew it all. :rolleyes:

Just like w/ most things, you thought wrong.


Over the years you have thrown out all kinds of stuff expecting people to buy it. This is kinda representative of a five year span:

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

And how does that show the correlation between firearm ownership and crime? What are the ownership rates of the countries listed? The numbers of firearms compared to the number of homicides and accidents?

Really CH, you're just taking all this at face value. That says alot about the hoplophobes out there.

A Public Health Approach to Firearms Policy (http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/085-Part%202-Chapter%206.pdf)


He is saying just what I believe.

It has to be belief because there are very few pieces of corroborating data in there. This for example:

Edit: added a few things I thought of overnight.

Twenty-five other high-income, populous countries.

What countries? what years? Why limited to "high income"? What are the ownership levels of those countries and their specific crime rates?

Note: The fifteen states (included in this table) with the highest average levels of household gun ownership...
(based on the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System)

Vs.

The six states (included in this table) with the lowest
average levels of household gun ownership were Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and New York.

What about the other 29 states? Are there variations among the different states? What about Wash. DC? Why only 2001? Where are the actual datasets? Oh here they are:

http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/002976.html

Now look at the numbers when they haven't been "controlled for". Makes a different story now doesn't it? How did he "control" for them? Where are the specifics on that?

Look at Kentucky and Louisiana. Nearly the same population and firearm ownership. KY has 1/3 the firearm homicide. Several of the highest ownership states have sub 1 rates, just a little higher than HI w/ a similar population and 1/4 the ownership or less.

What were these "Controls" he used to change those numbers?

"The majority of Americans who die unintentionally from firearms are under twentyfive years of age. Not surprisingly, in states with more guns, many more youth as well as adults die from firearm accidents".

Nice bit of selective phrasing there. "Unintentionally"? How about "intentionally"? Why doesn't he include the highest risk factor 17-25 in his charts? What states are those highest in? What are the homicides and injuries usually in result of?

More guns = more gun accidents? Well duh. More cars, more car accidents etc. Howabout from other accidents?

Suicides:

Same thing. The primary suicide demographic are males between 18-35. Why are they not counted? Would it skew the results? Oh, right, it would as most of Western Europe , Canada and Japan have higher suicide rates than the US and less ownership. In fact, after Australia banned most firearms, the suicide rate stayed the same as they just performed weapon substitution.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad303.pdf

Women: "Guns in the house are at higher risk." Legal guns or illegal guns? Were the husbands restricted from ownership when it happened?

"Instead, Congress is considering giving the industry immunity from tort liability for negligence."

False.

Like
aspirin bottles, new guns could also readily be made childproof, with minimum trigger pull standards to prevent very young children from shooting them.

"Readily made childproof" = only "very young children"?

What's very young? Are the "very young children" the ones pulling the triggers?

"promote personalized, or smart, guns that only the authorized user can fire."

Technology that isn't reliable and even the police don't want.

"Sniper rifles available to civilians can shoot .50-caliber rounds capable of downing helicopters."

Any firearm is "capable of downing helicopters" if you hit a vital part. At least he didn't say airplanes.

"Caseless ammunition reduces the ability of law enforcement officials to identify a crime weapon by the cartridge left at the scene."

Another type of tech that's still in development for military firearms, unreliable, and extraordinarily expensive. Not something criminals tend to use.

"Various types of ammunition, such as Glaser safety slugs"

Designed to stop blow through, a common argument from anti's. All they do is effectively turn a bullet into shot. They're also over $2 each.

"ATF agents cannot now pose as felons in sting operations,"

because that's called entrapment.

"Requiring all firearm transfers to pass through licensed dealers, with the required background checks
and paper trail, would reduce the enormous flow of firearms to the illegal market"

See? While at the same time he's supporting the civil lawsuits against dealers and manufacturers to shut them down, all based off "trace data"

"While evidence regarding the effects of these more permissive gun-carrying policies is
not conclusive, the best scientific studies suggest that they may increase rather
than reduce crime overall"

So even though the evidence from every state w/ CCW shows that CCW holders are significantly less likely to commit ANY crime, crime "may" go up? Where's these "best scientific studies"? What are the numbers? oh, here it is (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_comment.pdf). More "controlled data". So Hemenway is making a causality when the report he cites doesn't compare the CCW holders to non CCW holders as well as the fact that murder rates dropped controlled or not. Looking at the charts, they even admit that it's based off of incomplete data.

"It is not clear why allowing individuals whom the police want to prohibit from carrying guns to do so should
boost public safety."

Because people don't believe in "pre-crime".

"Gun leaders do this partly by fomenting fear and anger among
gun owners, portraying any minor gun policy initiative as a veiled attempt to confiscate
everyone’s guns"

Kind of like the hoplophobes claim that having a gun in the house will automatically cause death and destruction, that the gun will just be taken away from you, and the gun lobby wants to give guns to children? That kind of fear mongering?

"it still totals some three million members."

Really? The NRA at the time was still over 4m. The current estimates are at 3.6m. That's only one organization.

"By contrast, gun-control groups have smaller memberships, and many members have little knowledge of firearms;"

Like the author. Trust me, this comes across. So we should have people who don't know what they're talking about determining technical based legislation?

"reasonable gun policies"

Nice terminology. The BC et al. consider the DC handgun ban,.50 cal bans, "Assault weapon" bans and the confiscations that occured in NY, CA, and NJ (which Hemenway considers only fear mongering) to be "reasonable".

"Motorists in the United States must obtain a driver’s license and register their automobiles."

Only if they're using them on public roads. Not on private land. We've gone over this bit before.

And on the bias bit, look who funded the paper:

the Joyce Foundation

By their own admission, they only fund anti-gun organizations and reports including the VPC who have called for bans on "intermediate power sniper rifles" and have it as policy to misdirect the public to promote bans and other legislation.



Here are the bits that really put the whole study into question:

"The percentage of households with a firearm has declined in the past two decades; about one in three households now contains a firearm."

Now assuming this is true, crime still increased and decreased proportionally in all states over those years. His causality and correlations should have lead to a universal drop among the general populace and an increase among the decreasing legal owners.

And this flat out lie:

Rather than producing and promoting firearms that appear primarily designed
for criminal use, such as those that do not retain fingerprints, manufacturers could produce guns with unique, tamper-resistant serial numbers.

Now the onus is on you to find a single instance of any manufacturer promoting a firearm that doesn't retain fingerprints. Find an instance of a firearm that exists that doesn't retain fingerprints.

Where is this technology for "tamper-resistant" serial numbers?

Pretty flawed CH.

Edit:
I'm going to bed now. I'll fisk your response later in the morning.

And this flat out lie:

Rather than producing and promoting firearms that appear primarily designed
for criminal use, such as those that do not retain fingerprints, manufacturers could produce guns with unique, tamper-resistant serial numbers.

Now the onus is on you to find a single instance of any manufacturer promoting a firearm that doesn't retain fingerprints. Find an instance of a firearm that exists that doesn't retain fingerprints.
Apparently this was noted in a decision by an Illinois Court:

The five justices said the gun industry puts fewer restrictions on its dealers than do makers of chemicals or paint and produces criminal-friendly products such as easily concealable guns and weapons with fingerprint-resistant coating.



Where is this technology for "tamper-resistant" serial numbers?

Note: The fifteen states (included in this table) with the highest average levels of household gun ownership...
(based on the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System)

Vs.

The six states (included in this table) with the lowest
average levels of household gun ownership were Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York.

What about the other 29 states? Are there variations among the different states? Where are the actual datasets? Oh here they are:

http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/002976.html

Now look at the numbers when they haven't been "controlled for". Makes a different story now doesn't it? How did he "control" for them? Where are the specifics on that?

Look at Kentucky and Louisiana. Nearly the same population and firearm ownership. KY has 1/3 the firearm homicide. Several of the highest ownership states have sub 1 rates, just a little higher than HI w/ a similar population and 1/4 the ownership or less.

What were these "Controls" he used to change those numbers?
Ummm the erroneous one dimensional data set that you linked to, was not the data set used by Hemenway....he used the following:

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) (online), 2003. Available at www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars (accessed January 15, 2004).
Also, Hemenway's data was cross sectional, with multiple controls.

Apparently this was noted in a decision by an Illinois Court:

So find the gun CH.

Ummm the erroneous one dimensional data set that you linked to, was not the data set used by Hemenway....he used the following:


Also, Hemenway's data was cross sectional, with multiple controls.

You should try reading CH:

"Using the EXACT same data sources that Miller et al did, here is, in table form, showing -- state by state -- for 2004, the exact homicides by firearm. Note that I exclude suicides and accidents. This chart ONLY shows what police in those states have termed homicides. This data comes from the CDC's WISQARS site, the same one the authors of the study claim that they used.

In the last column, I list the percentage of homes that have firearms and this column takes it's data from -- again -- the BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) Report as listed in Miller's study."

Now what "controls" were these? To "control" the data to make it say whatever he wanted? So he didn't use the data sets he said he used? Apparently you didn't read his report.

Here's another statement from Hemenway:

"The majority of Americans who die unintentionally from firearms are under twentyfive years of age." No date is given for this claim but one can assume it's for 2003 or 2000, depending on the cited paper and since it's in present tense.

According to Wisqars, in 2004, there were 649 unintentional deaths by firearm for all age groups. For the ages of 1-25, there were 247. 38%. Not a mojority.

Assuming he stayed w/ the "early nineties" wording before switching over to 1996-2001 for the charts(as looking at each individual year shows he did), the numbers for 1990-1994 for under 25 were 3926/7143. 55%

For 1990 alone it was 772/1416. Still 55%.

True, that's a "majority".

By 2000, however,(three years before he finished this report) it was 306/776. 39%. Not a majority. The same holds true since at least as early as '96. Over three years before his self cited other paper.

So even assuming he used the same wording from his 2000 paper, it would seem he would have to added over a decade of pre-'96 data to more current to come out w/ a "majority" or he intentionally used old data to make a current claim. Since he cites having accessed WISQARS for numbers in 2004, either way it shows nothing but a case of blatant intellectual dishonesty.

You should try reading CH:

"Using the EXACT same data sources that Miller et al did, here is, in table form, showing -- state by state -- for 2004, the exact homicides by firearm. Note that I exclude suicides and accidents. This chart ONLY shows what police in those states have termed homicides. This data comes from the CDC's WISQARS site, the same one the authors of the study claim that they used.

In the last column, I list the percentage of homes that have firearms and this column takes it's data from -- again -- the BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) Report as listed in Miller's study."

Now what "controls" were these? To "control" the data to make it say whatever he wanted? So he didn't use the data sets he said he used? Apparently you didn't read his report.

Here's another statement from Hemenway:

"The majority of Americans who die unintentionally from firearms are under twentyfive years of age." No date is given for this claim but one can assume it's for 2003 or 2000, depending on the cited paper and since it's in present tense.

According to Wisqars, in 2004, there were 649 unintentional deaths by firearm for all age groups. For the ages of 1-25, there were 247. 38%. Not a mojority.

Assuming he stayed w/ the "early nineties" wording before switching over to 1996-2001 for the charts(as looking at each individual year shows he did), the numbers for 1990-1994 for under 25 were 3926/7143. 55%

For 1990 alone it was 772/1416. Still 55%.

True, that's a "majority".

By 2000, however,(three years before he finished this report) it was 306/776. 39%. Not a majority. The same holds true since at least as early as '96. Over three years before his self cited other paper.

So even assuming he used the same wording from his 2000 paper, it would seem he would have to added over a decade of pre-'96 data to more current to come out w/ a "majority" or he intentionally used old data to make a current claim. Since he cites having accessed WISQARS for numbers in 2004, either way it shows nothing but a case of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Apparently the NRA asked similar or related questions about the same data
you question (coincidence-not likely). Here is Hemenway's response:

Response to the NRA---June 2007 (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/david-hemenway/files/Response_to_the_NRA_2007.pdf)

You talk about "intellectual dishonesty" a lot and yet you back the seriously flawed report by Kates and Mauser. Kinda hypocritical huh?

Apparently the NRA asked similar or related questions about the same data
you question (coincidence-not likely). Here is Hemenway's response:

Response to the NRA---June 2007 (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/david-hemenway/files/Response_to_the_NRA_2007.pdf)

You talk about "intellectual dishonesty" a lot and yet you back the seriously flawed report by Kates and Mauser. Kinda hypocritical huh?

And not a single thing mentioned in that article disputes what I said nor covers the selectively chosen years or demographics they used in their article in regards to homicide or suicide. You know. That thing called "cherry-picking".

It also doesn't cover your claim that the numbers I linked to weren't the numbers they used.

They also do not describe the discrepancy in their claim (using present tense terminology) that more people under 25 die from firearm accidents than anyone else when that hadn't been true for over eight years.

Here's an interesting little bit:

(2) The editorial staff writes: “Hemenway, Miller and Azrael (sic) believed that their study proved that Right-to-Carry laws caused people to behave dangerously and thus directly led to people shooting or threatening others with a gun.”
Response: We say nothing along those lines. No variable in our analysis has anything to do with Right-to-Carry Laws, or shooting people or threatening anyone with a gun.

Really?

"Nonetheless, in the past decade, many states
have required police to issue gun-carrying permits to anyone who is not expressly
prohibited by statute, even if police have reason to believe that individual may misuse
the firearm.

"While evidence regarding the effects of these more permissive gun-carrying policies is
not conclusive, the best scientific studies suggest that they may increase rather
than reduce crime overall"

So they say CCW holders may have increased crime.

Care to defend that statement CH? I guess they didn't read their own report.


The only thing "seriously flawed" about the M/K report is their reliance on the data from INTERPOL which is different from the UN data. The INTERPOL data shows attempted and completed homicides combined then shows what percentage were "attempted". The UN report shows that same total number "completed" then that percentage as an additional number.

Which is right? I've contacted the Swiss authorities and am awaiting a response. What have you done to show which is accurate besides question the article or are you taking one report over the other at "face-value"?

(nice little ad hominem BTW) Care to show any evidence that I've used anything from the NRA for this?

So my dad wants to get one of them carbine versions of the AR-15, but I think the Israeli made Galil's are a lot cooler.

What do you guys think? :rolleyes:

So my dad wants to get one of them carbine versions of the AR-15, but I think the Israeli made Galil's are a lot cooler.

What do you guys think? :rolleyes:

Get an AK clone. I hear Yugos are of very good quality.

Get an AK clone. I hear Yugos are of very good quality.

I already have an AK.

I already have an AK.

Ok, send me yours, and get another one.

Problem solved.

So my dad wants to get one of them carbine versions of the AR-15, but I think the Israeli made Galil's are a lot cooler.

What do you guys think? :rolleyes:

Why decide? Get both.

I am a gun owner and a hunter and I love the outdoors.

I support the NRA to a degree but do not think they always do right. I do not see a need for 'assualt rifles' or full automatic weapons in the hands of non-military or police. However I understand that the NRA is so extreme because the other leftist anti-gun lobby is also extreme and would like to outlaw ALL guns. This is crazy imo. IF automatic or 'ausault' rifles were outlawed, then the next step is semi-automatic. Then guns that hold more then one in a clip or chamber. Then pistols. Then all guns.

Guns don't kill people, people do is an old and overused slogan also. BUT it is true.

As I have always said, if you want to lower crime and violent attacks you have to start with the education system and at the home level. That is the only way to end crime as we see it today.

I am a gun owner and a hunter and I love the outdoors.

Just the kind of people we need for a thread like this! Gun owners who can respect firearms but don't have their heads up their asses!

I support the NRA to a degree but do not think they always do right. I do not see a need for 'assualt rifles' or full automatic weapons in the hands of non-military or police.

Automatic weapons ARE illegal unless you get a permit for one. And you're right, there is absolutely no reason to own an assault rifle.

On the other hand... I do love my AK-47. Then again, I'm not the kind of person that would go out and kill people with it.

But this of course, doesn't mean that people don't do these sorts of things.

However I understand that the NRA is so extreme because the other leftist anti-gun lobby is also extreme and would like to outlaw ALL guns. This is crazy imo. IF automatic or 'ausault' rifles were outlawed, then the next step is semi-automatic. Then guns that hold more then one in a clip or chamber. Then pistols. Then all guns.

They'd like to outlaw guns, but that's never going to happen. Not now anyay. The NRA just uses this as leverage so they can make it legal for all the raving lunatics in this country to get their hands on dangerous weapons that have the capability of killing large numbers of people in a short ammount of time.


Guns don't kill people, people do is an old and overused slogan also. BUT it is true.

Guns don't kill people, but they sure as hell make it a lot easier.

As I have always said, if you want to lower crime and violent attacks you have to start with the education system and at the home level. That is the only way to end crime as we see it today.

Agreed.

So my dad wants to get one of them carbine versions of the AR-15, but I think the Israeli made Galil's are a lot cooler.

What do you guys think? :rolleyes:

I like the AR-15 due to its versatility (there's literally tons of add-ons, and can easily change calibers with a different barreled upper), so that's what I have. However, I don't have any experience with the Galil, so I may not be the best advice giver on this choice.

Of course, you could always do what Kecibukia suggested, and get both. :D

Automatic weapons ARE illegal unless you get a permit for one. And you're right, there is absolutely no reason to own an assault rifle.

Actually, class III (full auto/select fire) weapons are restricted. There is no permit, but there is a tax stamp that you need to get. Here's the procedure: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1254040

Which is right? I've contacted the Swiss authorities and am awaiting a response.
No reply yet?

What have you done to show which is accurate besides question the article or are you taking one report over the other at "face-value"?
I wrote an email to David Hemenway and this is his response:

The report that Kecibukia discusses is a brief synopsis of my book,
Private Guns Public Health, University of Michigan 2006, which goes into more depth and answers some of the questions. The book in turn is a synopsis of hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles, which go into far more detail. Our website (HICRC) summarizes most of our journal articles about guns-- from Google scholar you can find the abstracts, and if you have access to the journals via the internet (as Harvard provides) you can download any of the gun articles.

Kecibukia is correct that the under age 24 no longer account for the
majority of accidental gun fatalities. The sentence in the book was correct when I originally wrote it (probably in 2000 or 2001 when data were available for the 1990s up to 1998) but the sentence should have the dates specified, or a citation.
Cheers,
David
I found two articles that are relevant:

States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html)

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.

Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html)

Boston, MA -- In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of suicide in the U.S., researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the April 2000issue of The Journal of Trauma.

"We found that where there are more guns, there are more suicides," said Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management at HSPH and lead author of the study.

I like the AR-15 due to its versatility (there's literally tons of add-ons, and can easily change calibers with a different barreled upper), so that's what I have. However, I don't have any experience with the Galil, so I may not be the best advice giver on this choice.

Of course, you could always do what Kecibukia suggested, and get both. :D

The AR-15 is just too damn girly and expensive.

For the price of one AR-15 I could get like 7 mosin-nagants or 5 AK-47s.

The AR-15 is just too damn girly and expensive.

For the price of one AR-15 I could get like 7 mosin-nagants or 5 AK-47s.

Mosin Nangat ftw.

I think I shall start collecting those. 20 mean looking rifles with half meter long rifles will make perfect mantlepieces.

The AR-15 is just too damn girly and expensive.

For the price of one AR-15 I could get like 7 mosin-nagants or 5 AK-47s.

What's girly about the AR-15? And expensive? I paid less than $700 for mine.

No reply yet?

Offices, weekend. If they respond, I'll post it.


I wrote an email to David Hemenway and this is his response:

So he's not keeping current for his claims. It wasn't true in '98 either.


I found two articles that are relevant:

States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html)

You going to pay the $60?

Guns in Homes Strongly Associated with Higher Rates of Suicide (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html)

At least they admit they want to get rid of all guns.

"The bottom line, says Miller, is that "people are less likely to die from attempting suicide when they don't have access to guns in homes."

Only if they don't want really want to commit suicide in the first place. As shown by the fact that the US is only in the middle of the list w/ the highest mostly being highly restrictive countries and that Australia's remained the same after the gun bans due to weapon substitution.

At least you decided not to defend their denial of the CCW claim.

Both articles funded by an anti-gun organization.

At least they admit they want to get rid of all guns.

"The bottom line, says Miller, is that "people are less likely to die from attempting suicide when they don't have access to guns in homes."
How is that an admission that they admit they want to get rid of all guns?

The way I read that is that it is a statement of fact period. The author neither states nor implies a personal preference.

The other possibility is that there may be guns in the home, but if they are secured or stored properly, then the would be suicider would not have access to those guns.

How is that an admission that they admit they want to get rid of all guns?

The way I read that is that it is a statement of fact period. The author neither states nor implies a personal preference.

The other possibility is that there may be guns in the home, but if they are secured or stored properly, then the would be suicider would not have access to those guns.

"Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide," says Miller.

Even though that's not true as someone who actually wants to commit suicide will do it anyway.

Of course you read it the way you do. Now if you actually read what they write, that CCW holders 'may' increase crime, is more prone to violent actions, etc. along w/ their cherry-picking , you'ld see it in a different light.

I do not see a need for 'assualt rifles' or full automatic weapons in the hands of non-military or police.

Why do you support tyranny?

Since the whole purpose of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can always mount an effective revolt should it become necessary, any government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is absurd and illegitimate.

Parity is essential if a revolt is to have a chance.

Yep. State background checks.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

The majority of states do not require non-ffl's to use NICS at firearm shows or between private sales and neither do they have 1gun/month.

Edit: And why would that be? Oh, right, the Brady Bill doesn't allow non-ffl access to NICS. Would you support them being allowed to access it for transfers?

Try again CH.
UPDATE:

Why Aren't Criminal Background Checks Required for All Gun Sales? (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Business/story?id=1843600&page=1)

Did you know that there is no federal requirement for criminal background checks for all gun sales? As a gun owner and avid shooter, I believe in a strong second amendment. But in today's world, it's crazy to allow convicted criminals and suspected terrorists to be able to buy an unlimited number of easily concealable, high powered weapons from unlicensed arms dealers and at thousands of gun shows without even asking to see an ID or running a simple background check.

More than 50 percent of guns sold in our country are sold by private, unlicensed arms dealers, but only federally licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks. In fact, there are documented cases in which al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and IRA terrorists have exploited a loophole in the gun laws to purchase military style, high capacity weapons at legal gun shows where anybody can walk in and can buy guns without having to show ID or go through a simple background check. This is madness.
Madness indeed!! This again verifies what I was saying earlier in regards to the other article.

And as far as non FFL's are concerned, there should be no such thing. All dealers should be federally licenced period.

UPDATE:

Why Aren't Criminal Background Checks Required for All Gun Sales? (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Business/story?id=1843600&page=1)


Madness indeed!! This again verifies what I was saying earlier in regards to the other article.

And as far as non FFL's are concerned, there should be no such thing. All dealers should be federally licenced period.

A non FFL is a private sale. Say for example, my brother in law decided he had way too many firearms to fit in his safe. He could decide to sell one/more of them off. He wouldn't be able to access the NICS check system though, since he doesn't own an FFL. I believe this is what Kecibukia was referring to.

A non FFL is a private sale. Say for example, my brother in law decided he had way too many firearms to fit in his safe. He could decide to sell one/more of them off. He wouldn't be able to access the NICS check system though, since he doesn't own an FFL. I believe this is what Kecibukia was referring to.
Actually, he was trying to refute the following, saying that there were limitations to the number of guns that can be purchased:

GUN SHOW CHECKS (http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA)
Are background checks required at gun shows? No

No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Gun shows can operate on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want at gun shows, including assault weapons. No records are required to be kept on gun show sales by private individuals or gun collectors, making it almost impossible for police to trace such weapons if they are used in a crime.
And yes, that is madness!!

Actually, he was trying to refute the following, saying that there were limitations to the number of guns that can be purchased:

The majority of states do not require non-ffl's to use NICS at firearm shows or between private sales and neither do they have 1gun/month.

To me, it looks like he's saying that many states DON'T have a limitation to the number of firearms that can be purchased per month. I know CT doesn't have a restriction. I could buy 30 firearms tommorow (if I had the money). Granted, that would get me on a few lists (ATF, FBI, etc), but it wouldn't be illegal.

And yes, that is madness!!

Since a non-FFL (private individual or collector) cannot access the NICS system, and the form 4473 requires an FFL # (which a private individual or collector won't have), what do you suggest for records of a private sale? Would a handwritten note work for you? How long should a person keep such a note or record?

Also, how can juveniles buy firearms? A private seller or collector still has to follow the law regarding the age a person can purchase a firearm (making sure the person is over 18 for purchasing a rifle or shotgun, and 21 for a hangun). I know if I were selling my AR-15 (or any other firearm), I'd make sure to check to make sure they were over 18 (I don't want to go to jai)l.

As to preventing a convicted felon (or anyone else disqualified from owning a firearm) from obtaining one at a gun show or private sale, maybe non-FFLs should be allowed to access NICS (I believe Kecibukia has suggested that at least once on this thread).

What exactly would you propose then? That nobody be allowed to sell or purchase a gun privately? The only way that would be practicable is with universal registration of all firearm serial numbers. What about the 200-odd million guns already in circulation in the USA? Would you check door to door to make sure every house had no unregistered firearms? Most gun show sales, like most firearms sales, are to law-abiding citizens who will never use or allow the use their weapons for criminal purposes. Freedom means you have to give your neighbors and fellow-citizens the benefit of the doubt.

Incidentally, I have purchased a firearm at a gun show, and was put through the federal background check in a pretty quick, painless process. Background checking at the FFL/customer level is the most effective way to keep guns away from criminals, because there are already laws against "straw purchasing" of firearms by an eligible customer to give to an ineligible one.

yea i mean u got to trust in the ones members of the nra because i hunt and shoot recreationaly and if you say that we need to get of the guns wat does freedom mean. any one who supports the get red of guns idea they probaly dont see the long time effects. sure gun violence might go down. but wat about people like me who live in the country or rural areas need it at times to get food like me. and also theres the part of Right to Bear Arms. i tell u we are fine with the way it is KEEP GUNS.

UPDATE:

Why Aren't Criminal Background Checks Required for All Gun Sales? (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Business/story?id=1843600&page=1)


Madness indeed!! This again verifies what I was saying earlier in regards to the other article.

And as far as non FFL's are concerned, there should be no such thing. All dealers should be federally licenced period.

So anyone who sells a privately owned firearm is a "dealer"? I seem to recall you supporting the measure to cut down on FFL dealers.

You know, citing an article w/ Sugarmann as a source is just going to lead to trouble for you. He's right on one point. The Number of FFL dealers has declined. Because the BATFE went and collected all the licenses of people who they felt weren't primarily in the business of selling. Nothing to do w/ "sales trends". As for the number of gun sales declining, that's his own imagination working overtime. Most companies/dealers are listing record sales and the number of CCW holders keeps increasing.

Actually, he was trying to refute the following, saying that there were limitations to the number of guns that can be purchased:


And yes, that is madness!!

Good god CH. You know we weren't talking about the number of firearms that can be purchased exclusively. I "refuted" your claims that there was no state level background checks and through VA , there is 1 gun/month. Which most states don't have. We were talking about NICS, background checks, and the allegation that VA has "among the weakest laws" BS. You keep red herring the topic back to private sales at shows. I guess you're having to go back to the dishonesty thing again. You selectively edited posts and stated I made claims I didn't. Maybe if you actually read the site you link to (even the Brady Bunch) you might learn something:

One-handgun-per-month law.

Look CH. It's on the site.


Background Check At State Level
Do state police perform a background check in addition to federal NICS check? Yes

Oh, look. That's there too.

So you lied. Flat out.

Now you're going to go round and round trying to dodge your way out of it through your usual word games. Just like w/ your "I was talking about Concealed Carry even though nobody else was" bit from earlier.

To me, it looks like he's saying that many states DON'T have a limitation to the number of firearms that can be purchased per month. I know CT doesn't have a restriction. I could buy 30 firearms tommorow (if I had the money). Granted, that would get me on a few lists (ATF, FBI, etc), but it wouldn't be illegal.



Since a non-FFL (private individual or collector) cannot access the NICS system, and the form 4473 requires an FFL # (which a private individual or collector won't have), what do you suggest for records of a private sale? Would a handwritten note work for you? How long should a person keep such a note or record?

Also, how can juveniles buy firearms? A private seller or collector still has to follow the law regarding the age a person can purchase a firearm (making sure the person is over 18 for purchasing a rifle or shotgun, and 21 for a hangun). I know if I were selling my AR-15 (or any other firearm), I'd make sure to check to make sure they were over 18 (I don't want to go to jai)l.

As to preventing a convicted felon (or anyone else disqualified from owning a firearm) from obtaining one at a gun show or private sale, maybe non-FFLs should be allowed to access NICS (I believe Kecibukia has suggested that at least once on this thread).

CH, like all the anti's, don't want private access to NICS. They want all sales to go through FFL dealers which they then accuse of being "rogue" and defending 3rd party lawsuits to shut them down based off of trace data.

That's why he's refused to answer the question several times.

CH, like all the anti's, don't want private access to NICS. They want all sales to go through FFL dealers which they then accuse of being "rogue" and defending 3rd party lawsuits to shut them down based off of trace data.

That's why he's refused to answer the question several times.
I did answer the question:

And as far as non FFL's are concerned, there should be no such thing. All dealers should be federally licenced period.
That also means no private person to person sale of guns without legal documentation.

I did answer the question:


That also means no private person to person sale of guns without legal documentation.

The two aren't the same. There would be documentation if non-FFL's could access NICS.

Since you support the decrease in FFL holders and the lawsuits against them but want to require all sellers to have one, it shows your true motives.