What do you brits think of this book and author?

[lazs2]

but beetle... even when you had lax firearms laws you didn't see any increase in overall homicides.... you did not see any overall decrease in the amount when you gave away your freedoms either.

we don't see an increase in homicides when a state has no gun laws but we see a slight increase in (overall) homicides when draconian ones are enacted.

you gave up your rights for nothing unless you just don't like certain ways of dying over others.   In fact... you not only gave up your rights for nothing but you may have made overall crime worse.

but you can say that gun homicides have dropped... for now.

no more or less people get murdered in the uk no matter what the gun laws are.   you gave away your rights like women.... for nothing and because you let the government and your women make you hysterical.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
no more or less people get murdered in the uk no matter what the gun laws are.    

You're missing the point. Or, more likely, evading it. Forget what laws are in force because law abiders do not commit homicides with guns. The gun related homicide rate is in direct proportion to the number of guns in circulation. Some years, the US has seen more than 10,000 people killed by guns. Do you think that might just have something to do with the availability of guns?

[lazs2]

you are missing the point.... would you rather that they were all pushed out windows?    the states with the least laws have the least OVERALL homicides.    

OVERALL homicides is all that counts.   If  you eliminated guns entirely you would just have an increase in stabbing and bludeoning to take up the slack.... like you do in the UK

your government took your rights away from yu with the help of your women and..... for nothing.  

what did you gain besides a rising crime rate and the knowledge that as economics decline and drug use go up you will simply be left defenseless?

you gave up your (and your fellow mans) rights for nothing.
laz

[Nashwan]

Some years, the US has seen more than 10,000 people killed by guns.

Practically every year since the 60s, I think.

The US homicide figures are often misrepresented. The FBI gets reports from local police forces. Usually those reports include details of the victim, method of killing, probably reasons (where known) etc. However, not all homicide reports come with that supplemental detail.

The FBI publishes the overall figure, and also the figures broken down into weapons, race, motive etc. However, the figures are raw figures only, and don't take into account the homicides for which they have no supplemental data.

For 2002, the FBI lists 16,204 homicides (not counting negligent homicide)

However, when you look at the detailed table, Murder Victims by Weapon, they show a total of 14,054 homicides, 9369 by firearm. That's a rate of about 66% murdered with a firearm. If you apply that 66% to the total figure, including those where the FBI haven't been informed of the method of killing, you get 10,694 homicides with a firearm.

Note, this does not mean counting deaths where the cause is uknown or unclear, only homicides where the cause, along with other details, hasn't been reported.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
OVERALL homicides is all that counts.   If  you eliminated guns entirely you would just have an increase in stabbing and bludeoning to take up the slack.... like you do in the UK

Wrong again. A minority of homicides in Britain are committed with a gun, whereas most homicides in the US are carried out with guns. We have about 750 homicides a year, out of which about 60 are shootings.  That 750 is still a lot less than 10,000 tally that the US has seen some years. Even scaling it up to allow for the smaller population brings us nowhere close to the US homicide rate, and certainly not the gun related homicides.

I wonder why there are so many shootings in the US. Do think the availability of guns might just have something to do with it?

[lazs2]

beetle... if you could magically remove all the guns in the uk... you would not have 60 less homicides per year... you would have 60 less gun homicides a year.

if you could remove all the guns from everyone in the U.S. you would not have 9,000+ less homicides a year... you would have 9,000 less firearms homicides a year and..... a growing crime rate.

if there even are any people in the U.S. who would murder with a gun but would not murder by any other means.... they would be a very small amount and not worth the increase in crime and loss of freedom that silly laws like yours have caused.

you gave up your rights for nothing.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
if you could remove all the guns from everyone in the U.S. you would not have 9,000+ less homicides a year... you would have 9,000 less firearms homicides a year and..... a growing crime rate.

Britain has the same social deprivation/ethnic related powderkeg as the US. If all the guns that were removed from the US were distributed here, our homicide rate would skyrocket, which to me sounds like... a growing crime rate.  I think the availability of guns might have something to do with it, don't you think?

Nashwan - what are your sources? I can't find much data since about 2000.

[lazs2]

no beetle... that is the whole point... if it was raining guns in england the HOMICIDE rate would not go up... yu may find this hard to believe but.... england has been a "powder keg" in the past and had no fireams restrictions... the homicide rate stays steady regardless of firearms availability.

you gave up your rights for nothing...

lazs

[beet1e]

Lazs,

Back in the middle ages (the period you refer to when we did have guns) there were no socially deprived ethnic minorities and no gangs dealing drugs and no drug dealing/gang related turf wars. Modern Britain is very different. I don't agree that the homicide rate would remain unchanged if those people got guns. I mean - just look at America...

... I think it could be something to do with the availability of guns. The British (and other governments) seem to agree. What do you think?

[lazs2]

I think that except for going down slightly in  the rate of homicide in areas of the U.S. that have no or less restrictions of firearms ownership and carry laws.... I think that that other than that....

There is no difference.   if it were raining firearms it would make no difference... your 1996 ban has not made a difference.   Guns don't make people kill.   They don't even make people more likely to kill..  

The homicide rate stays the same... it would stay the same no matter what gun laws were enacted or recinded (with the possible exception of minors and insane people)

I think..... you gave up your rights for nothing.   justify it any way you want.

lazs

[Nashwan]

Beetle, the best source for the US crime figures is the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

The 2002 figures have been released in the last few weeks.

The overall homicide figure:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html

Victims by weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t210

Note the lower total figure, which represents only those homicides where additional data is available.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
There is no difference.   if it were raining firearms it would make no difference... your 1996 ban has not made a difference.   Guns don't make people kill.   They don't even make people more likely to kill..  

But the majority of homicides in the US are achieved by handguns. Why's that then? Might it just be because of the availability of guns?

[Holden McGroin]

Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was all pushed out of windows?"
-Archie Bunker

[Torque]

Originally posted by beet1e
But the majority of homicides in the US are achieved by handguns. Why's that then? Might it just be because of the availability of guns?

Hey Beetle checkout the race stats in Nash's last links.

[gunnss]

Originally posted by beet1e
People needed killing?

I always remember a scene from an old Western I saw on TV. There was a gun fight going on between two guys in the main street of a small township. Gunfire was blazing between the two men, while the gentrified classes went about their business -           To condone such killings sounds like you would like a return to the days of America's Wild West.

Note,
I grew up in the "Wild West"......

My family emmigrated in the 1800s from Wales, and settled in Southern Idaho.  And while one of my Grandmother's cousins made a name fo himself robbing trains and Banks actual shootouts were rare to non existant, most of the westerns seen in the movies and on TV are just propaganda...much like romantacised tales of Tirante lo Blank, Amadis of Gaules or Percivale and the Green Knight.  The actuality of the old west was that armed Bandits were met by an aroused and armed Population, and rather than shooting they genrally just made for the hills.  and with the exception of "Uncle" George no one in my family ever saw a Gunfight.......

As for Unca George he made it out of Bolivia with an unheard of amount of gold and silver and retired in Canada in the 1920s.  Also of note the old west shown in the movies lasted till after WW I and hasent died out yet, and wear a funny hat

Gunns