Author Topic: Crime Drops 99%! (Read 2271 times)

Curval · « **Reply #75 on:** February 23, 2005, 09:07:53 PM »

By the way...this guy is the British version of Airhead:

"I'd rather, if my granny were to be mugged, that she had the choice to pull out her purse, or her .45 Magnum. She's a little too old to learn kung-fu, or to run away. She may well hand her purse over anyway, but at least she has the choice. Criminals carry guns anyway, so it's about time the rest of the population had the same choice.
Sid, UK"

He made it on the BBC too.!

Best troll ever.

Toad · « **Reply #76 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:07:40 AM »

No, I didn't say that you said that.

I was asking a question. Therefore the "?" thingie.

I'm near certain, however, that someone will be along to discredit the OHE. After all, can't have a UK organization saying "particular cultural factors" are at the root of the difference. Oh no.. it HAS to be the gun laws that haven't changed the firearms homicide rate.

As for "What Would TJ Think", you don't have to wonder.

Quote

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

-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.

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

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

-- Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

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

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."

-- Letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

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

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."

-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

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

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

-- Letter to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

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

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

-- Letter to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

As for the quotes after the BBC article, I'd say those are strong evidence of differences caused by "particular cultural factors".

I'm glad they have it their way. I'm much more glad we have it our way.

beet1e · « **Reply #77 on:** February 24, 2005, 01:23:22 AM »

Good morning!

I'll have to let Curval and Nashwan handle this one, as I'm off to the Eurocon in about 2 hours. No time to look at your stats, Toad. All I can say is that if you're quoting BBC stats, the last time you did that you quoted a figure which I was able to prove was out by 57%.

Yes our gun laws have contained gun crime quite well, I think. Of Curval's quotes, I can relate to these three in particular.

Quote

I'm an expat living in Singapore - here there is mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession of a gun. The Police are armed and appear to have a no-nonsense policy. Even with the recent terrorist threats here I've never felt safer. I don't want to live in a country that needs me to carry a gun.
Chris Shaw, Singapore

California has 12m fewer people than the UK but gun crime is 18 times what it is here. The professor's assertions are the kind of empty-headed nonsense that the American gun lobby has been touting for years. The facts and figures tell the true story.
Robert, UK

The stats tell the real story: there are more legal guns in the US and there are more murders. That's all we need to know.
Alex, UK

Indeed.

I've been to Singapore - I thought the death sentence was only if the gun was actually fired. Otherwise it's a long jail sentence, and maybe a whooping. But I agree absolutely with what was said - No-one except the police is armed, and I can honestly say I never felt safer walking around late on a Saturday night.

Once again Mr. Toad is focussing on percentage changes in Britain, as these appear to support his argument better. For example, if the gun homicide tally had risen by 17 in 2004, Mr. Toad would be able to crow that there had been a "massive 25% increase in gun homicides despite the 1997 legislation", to which he is fond of referring as a "ban", conveniently overlooking the fact that it has never been possible, in mine or my parents' lifetimes, for a citizen such as me to walk into a shop and buy a .38 calibre revolver, or equivalent.

But, if the gun homicide in USA increased by 17, it would be a blip - hardly noticeable - and would be dismissed as "the price worth paying for the right to bear arms".

Quote

That's unproven either way. What is proven is that firearms and "banned" handgun crimes are in a statiscally significant, clear upward trend.

Nashwan corrected you thus:

Quote

Offences with handguns were down 15% last year, shotgun offences down 4%, offences with imitation firearms up 48%.

- and I have no reason to doubt it.

Gun homicides were down by about 15 in 2003, compared with the previous year. Learn the concept of year on year fluctuations.

Curval · « **Reply #78 on:** February 24, 2005, 06:08:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
No, I didn't say that you said that.

I was asking a question. Therefore the "?" thingie.

As for "What Would TJ Think", you don't have to wonder.

But why were you asking that question? It just "sprang to mind"? Odd. I didn't hint at anything close to what your question was asking about.

Quoting what a man said in the late 1700s and early 1800s to back up arguments surrounding a modern problem is somewhat superfluous, but predictable. Too bad he isn't around to ask him ourselves whether the tens of thousands killed by guns each year in the US are "inconveniences" of attending too much liberty"?

California wasn't even a state when he wrote those quotes.

As you say...you like it "your way": the Brits who responded to Malcolm's article like it "theirs".

Toad · « **Reply #79 on:** February 24, 2005, 08:45:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
But why were you asking that question?

[/b]

Because the "antis" here like to immediately dismiss ANYTHING by Malcom or Lott; makes it much easier than discussing it point-by-point.

Quote

Quoting what a man said in the late 1700s

[/b]

You're the one who is

Quote

not so sure TJ would like that suggestion

[/b].

You can either research what he said or dig him up and ask him. I think you'll come out far better if you just research for a lot of reasons. Mainly, if you dig him up, he still won't answer and you'll most certainly tick off the US government.

Unlike you, I have no doubt.

Quote

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."

-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

He probably had no problem with subjects being debarred the use of arms though.

and early 1800s to back up arguments surrounding a modern problem is somewhat superfluous, but predictable. Too bad he isn't around to ask him ourselves whether the tens of thousands killed by guns each year in the US are "inconveniences" of attending too much liberty"?

California wasn't even a state when he wrote those quotes.

As you say...you like it "your way": the Brits who responded to Malcolm's article like it "theirs". [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, btw, California wasn't a State when he wrote our Declaration of Independence and much of the Constitution either. Go figger.

lazs2 · « **Reply #80 on:** February 24, 2005, 08:47:15 AM »

curval... what country has 30,000 firearms deaths a year?

you continue to not get it when confronted with the facts. more guns in a society do not equal more homicides... less guns do not equal less homicides. You have to take into account cultural differences that is true..

but.. if you add guns to the U.S. mix you don't get more homicides you get less (area specific) if you take them away or make them more restricted you get more crime (area specific)... in your country the same thing exists on a different or culturaly driven scale..

Replica or whatever... your country thinks that they are guns and outlaws their use and acounts them as guns. There is probly slightly less penalty for using em so they are atractive to some elements of the criminal class...

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #81 on:** February 24, 2005, 09:04:14 AM »

Those numbers are from the Home Office, I believe.

You still don't want to discuss graphing your firearms homicides over the last 50 years (or for whatever period reliable data is available) and highlighting key years where restrictive legislations/bans were enacted do you?

For good reason... it will show that your laws have little to do with your stats. Rather, as the Office of Health Economics observed it's more because of your culture.

Some more Home Office numbers for you.

Homicide Trend

Causing Death By Dangerous Driving

Better put your butter knives in your auto's glove box, lock the car and, as a nation, throw away all of your keys. After all, no price it too high.

Trend Total Violent Crime

Curval · « **Reply #82 on:** February 24, 2005, 10:13:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
curval... what country has 30,000 firearms deaths a year?

you continue to not get it when confronted with the facts. more guns in a society do not equal more homicides... less guns do not equal less homicides. You have to take into account cultural differences that is true..

On your question above..I'm afraid you will have to ask R K Bulmer, UK ...it isn't my quote it is his/hers.

No, you are absolutely right..I don't get it.

Are you now arguing that culture differences are the ONLY reason for a greater incidence of gun crime in the US.

If so then what is wrong with your culture?

What is wrong, in my opinion, is that you guys want to take the words and works of guys who wrote your constitution as a bible on how to behave at any given point in history. You cling to your right to bear arms and claim that less guns equals more crime and then explain the greater incidence of gun crimes in the US as "cultural differences".

Quite amazing.

Curval · « **Reply #83 on:** February 24, 2005, 10:20:24 AM »

And as to yours and Toad's presentation of "facts", I'm sorry but I live, for the most part, by the adage:

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Toad · « **Reply #84 on:** February 24, 2005, 10:54:33 AM »

Sounds like the old

"Those numbers are inconvenient for me so I'll just say they're either wrong, irrelevant or just simply ignore them."

Curval · « **Reply #85 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:29:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Sounds like the old

"Those numbers are inconvenient for me so I'll just say they're either wrong, irrelevant or just simply ignore them."

Nashwan...is that you hacking Toad's BBS access?

Furball · « **Reply #86 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:32:53 PM »

Toad · « **Reply #87 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:41:04 PM »

Curval......... it's obvious.

After the 1998 Dunblane-generated handgun prohibition the 1999 handgun offences were 3685. Three years (reports) later, they were at 5549. That's an increase of ~66%.

Those are numbers from the Home Office.

So what good did it do to ban handguns?

Some might say "it would have been worse". There's absolutely no proof of that.

OTOH, there is clear proof that after the ban, offences went up.

Feel free to ignore those inconvenient figures.

NUKE · « **Reply #88 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:54:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
You cling to your right to bear arms and claim that less guns equals more crime and then explain the greater incidence of gun crimes in the US as "cultural differences".

Quite amazing.

This is where everyone drifts away from the point. The point isn't "gun crime" or "gun related homicide, it's CRIME period.

Having guns does not cause an increase homicides . And it's been shown that, in America, cities and states that offer concealed carry permits usually see a drop in crime.

Take away every gun in America, and the homicide rate will probably be the same or higher. So why is the gun always the issue with people rather than society and crime??? That's the amazing thing to me.

Toad · « **Reply #89 on:** February 24, 2005, 12:56:16 PM »

Because you can't blame people. You have to blame inanimate objects.

But you knew that, right?