Of Cars and Guns and the Nature of Man (quite long)

[Toad]

Interesting post Sparks. Thanks for a view of the "other" side of paradise!

Sorta sounds like Jefferson and Madison et al still are relevant.

 

[Toad]

Thank you Igloo!

When you get down to using my UserName as a slam, I know you have run out of ideas and airspeed at the same time!

   

Originally posted by Igloo:
.You know as well as I do that finding out how many lives were saved via gun restrictions is virtually impossible.

I absolutely do not know that. Studies on this topic are going on continuously. However, YOU can't find a single one that supports your position?

We do know, however, that lives were saved, and that in itself is a good enough reason.

No, we absolutely DO NOT "know" that. That is YOUR OPINION. You can't find anything to support it either, can you?

Must really make you upset!    (Image removed from quote.)

Are you trying to tell me that restricting gun ownership will not save lives?  Is that what you're saying?  You're saying that more people will die if guns are regulated, than if the insane gun lobbying were to continue?

I'm saying you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support your contention that "registration saves lives." In fact, there is AMPLE evidence showing that it has NO EFFECT.

Further, there is strong evidence that prosecuting criminals that use guns in crimes IS the most effective and efficient way to reduce violent crime.

I'm saying that registration is simply a "feel good" measure that has no discernable effect on decreasing the rate of violent crime. It gives the perception of "doing something" while accomplishing nothing.

I'm saying it is a waste of time and money and we have none of either to waste. There are programs that work and we need to use both of these resources on those that do.

I don't think that's a bit selfish. I think that's an intelligent approach. Fund what works. Devote your time and effort to what works. A common sense approach...not wishful thinking based on opinion, like your favorite idea.

It is a very simple concept.  Restrictions on guns saves lives.  Is your gun so loved by you that this in itself is not a valid enough purpose to lay down your firearms?

Your concept is so simple that you cannot support your premise with anything other than your opinion; producing hard data is beyond your capability.

You present your prejudice as your proof.    (Image removed from quote.)

....Lay down your firearms...."

Oops! Liberal slip there Janet Reno!    (Image removed from quote.)

Weren't you the guy saying you weren't against all guns? Weren't you the guy saying registration would not lead to confiscation?

What is this? Did you just reveal the real you? The real you that's just like every anti-gun liberal?    (Image removed from quote.)

Igloo, you know what opinions are like...and so does everyone else.

Let's see some documented support for the premise you keep spouting...instead of "opinion".

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]

[Dowding]

 

Originally posted by Sparks:
It is my perception (NOTE the use of the word perception) that the violent crime that is on the increase is that of violent robbery and attacks on innocents. It is also my experience that in the states the majority of gun or violent crime is drug related - criminal against criminal. It is also my experience here in Peterborough that I genuinely fear for my safety in MOST areas of the city after dark - not a fear of getting killed but of being violently attacked - a feeling I didn't experience in the US. Yes there were areas of every town that it was not advisable to go in but what I'm talking about here in my town in the UK is a constant threat of getting a good beating off an individual or group for no reason other than entertainment. People are being attacked on a daily basis - yes daily even in broad daylight. There is a pervasive disrespect for others amongst a section of our society that is based entirely on the power held by intimidation and violence that is left unchecked by our justice system. This abandonment of respectful members of the society leaves them weak and gives power to the criminal and violent which in turn threatens the stabilty of the society. It also alienates those respectful law abiding citizens from the law and justice systems - the very mechanisms that were created by the society to protect them and their way of life - and lets not forget that laws are there to protect a way of life, the standards we want to see as a minimum. I think that the right to carry arms and an armed police force redresses the balance and aligns the law abiding population more with the law and justice systems.

I agree with most of what you say here; I come from a pretty rough part of the country. Barnsley and its environs suffered massive unemployment (with no work available) after the Tories worked their magic, and crime increased as a result. In the old mining village near to where I used to live, buses stopped running after 6.00pm because of the frequency of attacks against bus drivers. You know not to stop as you drive through at night. In Barnsley, its a pretty tough crowd on a weekend and stabbings happen almost every weekend. My cousin was beaten up by a bunch of lads, and when he saw one of these people a few weeks later he beat him toejamless. Unfortunately, a CCTV camera saw the whole thing and he got three months.

Then I went to study in Durham, amongst a similar community where unemployment is high due to the wholesale destruction of the old mining and heavy industries. Student beatings were quite high (compared to the national average) - although I never had any problems (mainly because I hung around with lads from the Karate club). Numerically, only a handful of people were ever attacked while I was there (for 4 years).

My point is - I have experience of what you talk about, I don't come from some cushy middleclass background or live 'down south'. The way I see it, most of the criminality you describe is petty and oportunistic. At the moment, it is only the organised criminals who get their hands on firearms (as it has always been). I cannot see how relaxing the laws on gun ownership will not cause arms to proliferate down to the lower criminal classes, and muggings will be at gun point. How does that solve the problem and address the anti-social attitudes you describe? Having householders armed will not deter the criminal - the same drives will be there. And this time the burglar will be armed. When it comes to armed police, I really do think that criminals will find it more justifiable to use arms against the police. At the moment, if most people saw someone with a gun, they would be pretty scared and call the police immediately. If guns became more widespread, and therefore more acceptable, I'm sure this would not be the case.

It is simple, indisputable fact that sentences are heavier for armed crime than unarmed (especially against the police), and I think this goes someway to prevent criminals using arms in crime.

 

In their eyes the gun is merely a tool for increasing their power in any situation - if guns didn't exist it would be crossbows or something else. The gun is merely available, convenient and easy to use - the best tool for the job.

I don't see people rampaging around the country with crossbows. I also disagree that the gun is easy to obtain over here. Perhaps you know better?

You assert that arms are widespread throughout the UK. I think this is not true. There are 60 million people in the UK, yet there very few cases where arms are used against the public (as you say, crims shooting crims is a hazard of the job). Each case gets coverage, because armed police brandishing MP5s makes a great opening 'shot'. It's not as though there are unreported cases. Take the most recent one, where the Noye witness is murdered in his car. It made every newspaper and TV news bulletin for days. Or how about those couple of lads who went on a drive-by spree in a BMW a couple of years ago. These are isolated cases, and the odds of being caught up in them are greater than being hit by a meteorite.

 

The lynchmobs looking for peadophiles in Plymouth shows my point, the individual feels they cannot protect themselves or their family adequately and so look to others to join them and give them the strength they need.

I don't understand how you can make this statement. Are you saying that if people had access to guns, paedophiles would not exist, or at least be unable to operate? If this is true, then why are there paedophiles in the States?

 

I'm sorry but why should we consider a man like Noye back into our society EVER again...

Well, one of the key ideas behind the prison system is not only the protection of society, but is also rehabilitation. This is decided on a case by case basis. Not all lifers get out early (the Krays, Mira Hindley, the Yorkshire Ripper). I personally believe that there should be room also for appeal, if new evidence comes to light. The alternative is a system which still contains 'The Birmingham Six', 'Guildford 4' etc. One reason case is appropiate here. A man was sentenced to life for the rape and buggery of a women in 1984. The women turned out to be a drug addict and confessed 15 years later to a friend that she had made the hole thing up. The friend told the police and the man is released. In the meantime his son has been adopted and told his father is dead, he has suffered greatly since he would not go to a secure wing and was treated badly by the other imates because they thought he wa a nonce. In your system, where life means life, would there be room for rehabilitation or reviews of sentencing?

You also made the point in an earlier post "...remember no death penalty here or even whole of life sentaences here in jolly old UK...".

Considering the f**k ups in the judicial system, thank god we don't.

[Igloo]

Toad, I made reference to your username because you made reference to Hitler in an attempt to nullify the opinions of anyone who would like to see guns off the street.  

Do I seriously have to produce numbers that show regulation of guns saves lives?  Are you that hard headed against the idea?  It is common sense.  People use guns to kill other people.  Regulation of guns limits the accesibility of guns, thereby lowering the percentage of individuals with guns who shoot people.

Have guns been seriously regulated in the US? No, so how is it possible for me to get numbers on this? Perhaps comparing the number of gun related deaths in the US to countries with gun restrictions? Fine.

265 people a day were shot in 1997. - Sadly, this is the lowest number yet.

"The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000." -- The Associated Press.

"The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Dr. Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article." - The Associated Press.

"Also at the bottom of the list were South Korea with .12 per 100,000 people, followed by Hong Kong with .14, Mauritius with .19, Singapore with .21, Taiwan with .37 and England and Wales with .41." The Associated Press.

"The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in America than in Europe, Canada or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia."

"The CDC said the 21 percent decline in the gun death rate occurred during a period in which violent crime also fell 21 percent,
  as reported by the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics." -- This shows that violent crimes and guns are very related.

Restricting guns is only one step towards solving this crisis.  Education is key too, but both have to be implimented.



------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[CavemanJ]

My turn

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Toad, I made reference to your username because you made reference to Hitler in an attempt to nullify the opinions of anyone who would like to see guns off the street.  

Let's see.... looks like an attempt to destroy Toad's credibility to me, since Toad brought up a quote from Hitler.  Course I guess the anti-gun liberals have forgotten that after Hitler had all of the guns registered he had them all confiscated, and along came the era we love to celebrate in this simulation.

 

Do I seriously have to produce numbers that show regulation of guns saves lives?  Are you that hard headed against the idea?  It is common sense.  People use guns to kill other people.  Regulation of guns limits the accesibility of guns, thereby lowering the percentage of individuals with guns who shoot people.

Regulation will have a small effect on the number of deaths.  Take the guns away from the law abiding owners and accidents at home will become zero.  But those deaths will be replaced by the criminals killing more people who can't defend themselves.  There are hundreds of gun laws already on the books, but there is no enforcement.  Do you really think more laws are the way to go?  What about enforcement of current laws?
I'm sure every criminal in the US is waiting for the Uncle Sam to say "ok boys, hand in the guns, you can't play with them anymore."  Then all criminals will line up to turn in thier guns.  NOT!
So how's this going to "lower the percentage of individuals with guns who shoot people"?  Most of the people who kill other people are criminals.

 

Have guns been seriously regulated in the US? No, so how is it possible for me to get numbers on this? Perhaps comparing the number of gun related deaths in the US to countries with gun restrictions? Fine.

We can look at numbers of deaths.  Just like the good anti-gun liberal you try to make guns look evil.  Of course the US is going to have alot more gun related deaths than anywhere else in the world.


 

"The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000." -- The Associated Press.

[/b]

hmmmm... how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have?  Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something.


 

Restricting guns is only one step towards solving this crisis.  Education is key too, but both have to be implimented.

They're already resticted more than cars are (and cars cause more deaths).  Education is sorely lacking and really needs to be beefed up.

Get rid of the criminal element and you'll get rid of most of the gun problem.

Ooops, sorry, forgot, you liberal types believe the guns are evil and make people into criminals

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
"The CDC said the 21 percent decline in the gun death rate occurred during a period in which violent crime also fell 21 percent,
  as reported by the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics." -- This shows that violent crimes and guns are very related.

Ooops, missed one.

Right here you make our point for us.  A 21 percent drop in gun death rate occurs simulteanously with a 21 percent drop in violent crime rate.
Musta been that week I was in the bed sick and dinnae leave the house.
Seriously, tell me how MORE regulation is going to affect anything, other than accidents at home (which should be prevented with education).  Go read all the laws about guns already on the books, and quit pushing for more knee-jerk, feel-good legislation that only tries to sweep the problem under the rug instead of fixing it

[Eagler]

Sorry, I have a hard time believing stats and polls. Numbers are so easily distorted for one's agenda I doubt their accuracy. Having worked for several marketing research firms, I can tell you first hand, the facts are only as accurate as the one recording them. You can ask a question 10 different ways to get the answer you are looking for, depending on who is performing the poll/interview and why. It amazes me when people take the results of these polls as gospel or the fact that a poll maybe based on as few as 1000 selected candidates but Joe six pack think it’s the way the nation thinks.
Eagler
Oh please disregard the above post if the recent polls show Bush in the lead  

[Igloo]

Eagler, lol, you guys are the ones that asked for the stats.

"how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something."

That is my point!  The number of guns per 100,000 people in Japan is much lower, thereby accounting for the lower ratio of deaths from guns.  How much clearer do I have to write this for you?

Regarding Toads post.  He/She was trying to associate the regulation of guns with hitler.  That is very clear and a very manipulative course to take.



------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Eagler, lol, you guys are the ones that asked for the stats.

"how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something."

That is my point!  The number of guns per 100,000 people in Japan is much lower, thereby accounting for the lower ratio of deaths from guns.  How much clearer do I have to write this for you?

So let's have the numbers of guns for Japan then.  We can figure out the deaths per gun, like Toad compared at the top of this thread for guns and cars.


Regarding Toads post.  He/She was trying to associate the regulation of guns with hitler.  That is very clear and a very manipulative course to take.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Manipulative?  Getting paranoid are we?
He was pointing out a historical precendent.  Go read history dude, that really happened.  And it weren't all the good it was cracked up to be neither.

Heed the lessons from past, lest ye be doomed to repeat them.

[Sparks]

Originally posted by Dowding

I agree with most of what you say here; I come from a pretty rough part of the country. Barnsley and its environs suffered massive unemployment (with no work available) after the Tories worked their magic, and crime increased as a result. In the old mining village near to where I used to live, buses stopped running after 6.00pm because of the frequency of attacks against bus drivers. You know not to stop as you drive through at night. In Barnsley, its a pretty tough crowd on a weekend and stabbings happen almost every weekend.

Why should we tolerate this - is this an enviroment you consider quality and safe - I don't.

My cousin was beaten up by a bunch of lads, and when he saw one of these people a few weeks later he beat him toejamless. Unfortunately, a CCTV camera saw the whole thing and he got three months.

Why did they beat him ?? because they knew they had power over him....

Then I went to study in Durham, amongst a similar community where unemployment is high due to the wholesale destruction of the old mining and heavy industries. Student beatings were quite high (compared to the national average) - although I never had any problems (mainly because I hung around with lads from the Karate club). Numerically, only a handful of people were ever attacked while I was there (for 4 years).

You seem to contradict yourself here.

My point is - I have experience of what you talk about, I don't come from some cushy middleclass background or live 'down south'.

I had never made that suggestion.

The way I see it, most of the criminality you describe is petty and oportunistic.

I don't class a violent beating as petty and opportunistic - traumatising possibly - petty no.

At the moment, it is only the organised criminals who get their hands on firearms (as it has always been). I cannot see how relaxing the laws on gun ownership will not cause arms to proliferate down to the lower criminal classes, and muggings will be at gun point. How does that solve the problem and address the anti-social attitudes you describe? Having householders armed will not deter the criminal - the same drives will be there. And this time the burglar will be armed. When it comes to armed police, I really do think that criminals will find it more justifiable to use arms against the police. At the moment, if most people saw someone with a gun, they would be pretty scared and call the police immediately. If guns became more widespread, and therefore more acceptable, I'm sure this would not be the case.

Believe me if you see someone with a gun you call the police pretty quick no matter wher you live.

It is simple, indisputable fact that sentences are heavier for armed crime than unarmed (especially against the police), and I think this goes someway to prevent criminals using arms in crime.

Well lets see what the Home Office Crime Survey says about whether criminals are using guns less.

I don't see people rampaging around the country with crossbows. I also disagree that the gun is easy to obtain over here. Perhaps you know better?

Maybe not crossbows but it was an example only. As far as gun availability is concerned - I'll try to illuminate that in a minute.

You assert that arms are widespread throughout the UK. I think this is not true. There are 60 million people in the UK, yet there very few cases where arms are used against the public (as you say, crims shooting crims is a hazard of the job). Each case gets coverage, because armed police brandishing MP5s makes a great opening 'shot'. It's not as though there are unreported cases. Take the most recent one, where the Noye witness is murdered in his car. It made every newspaper and TV news bulletin for days. Or how about those couple of lads who went on a drive-by spree in a BMW a couple of years ago. These are isolated cases, and the odds of being caught up in them are greater than being hit by a meteorite.

Again - let me give some numbers to these "rare cases"..

I don't understand how you can make this statement. Are you saying that if people had access to guns, paedophiles would not exist, or at least be unable to operate? If this is true, then why are there paedophiles in the States?

Of course I'm not saying if people had guns peadophiles would not exist - I do think if people held arms they wouldn't feel the need to form a mob as they would feel more empowered to protect themselves.

I did a bit of research today at the Home Office web site and found some very interesting data (for me anyway)


First thing to remember is that from 1 July 1997 the ownership of a handgun over .22 calibre was made illegal.

Second and importantly a shotgun IS NOT a Firearm in these statistics they are dealt with separately.
 
Ok - the Firearms Certificate Statistics for England and Wales, 1997 (issued 19 Nov 1998) says this:-

Certificates on issue end 1997 was 133,600 - down from 141,900 from end 1996 - a decrease in people cetified to hold weapons of 6%.
The weapons covered by the certificates fell from 418,300 in 1996 to 305,000 in 1997 - a fall of 27%

Clearly the law abiding gun holders had done their bit and complied with the legal requirements and surrendered their weapons.

So how has a decrease in the legally owned weapons of 27% reduced gun related crime

I'll turn here to the Recorded Crime Statistics April 1999 to March 2000:-
Firearms act offences 1998/99 - 3,325 (quite a few for such "rare instances" don't you think - nearly ten a day.
Firearms act offences 1999/200 - 3,143 - a fall of a massive..... 5.5%

So while registered weapon ownership falls by over a quarter gun related crime falls by only 1/20th - so where is the link of legal gun ownership to gun related crime levels ??

So what have we seen during this widening of the social power gap between the crimanl classes and the justice system / law abiding classes ??
Once again I'll turn to the 1999/2000 Crime figures.
"Offences of violence against the person showed a 16% rise compared to a 10% fall the previous year. Sexual offences rose by 4% and robberies increased by 26%"
Violence against the person crimes rose from 502,788 to 581,036....
"The largest percentage increases within violence against the person were in harrassment, assault on a constable and common assault."
Harrassment rose by 25%
assault on a constable rose by 21%
Common assault rose by 28%

Now I'll move on to your last point:-

Well, one of the key ideas behind the prison system is not only the protection of society, but is also rehabilitation. This is decided on a case by case basis.

Oh so we rehabilitate our criminals ??
Lets see what the Home Office says...

Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.118
"The Prison Population in 1999 A statistcal Review"
Key Point
"57% of prisoners discharged from prison in 1996 were reconvicted of a standard offence within 2 years of release"

Now thats not just charged in 2 years, that's charged, appeared in court and convicted within 2 years.!!!!! and more than half of them !!!!!

Not all lifers get out early (the Krays, Mira Hindley, the Yorkshire Ripper).

I think you'll find that those people had multiple life sentences to run consecutively.

I personally believe that there should be room also for appeal, if new evidence comes to light. The alternative is a system which still contains 'The Birmingham Six', 'Guildford 4' etc. One reason case is appropiate here. A man was sentenced to life for the rape and buggery of a women in 1984. The women turned out to be a drug addict and confessed 15 years later to a friend that she had made the hole thing up. The friend told the police and the man is released. In the meantime his son has been adopted and told his father is dead, he has suffered greatly since he would not go to a secure wing and was treated badly by the other imates because they thought he wa a nonce. In your system, where life means life, would there be room for rehabilitation or reviews of sentencing?

Of course there should be an appeal system - I never suggested there shouldn't...

All in all the figures show me at least that the problem is the growth in power of the criminal society not the legal ownership of firearms.

I end with this :-
Again from "The Prison Population in 1999 A statistcal Review"
These are quotes:
"There were 4200 prisoners serving life sentences on 30 June 1999 - three quarters of these were convicted murderers".
"The number of prisoners in England and Wales expressed as a rate per 100,000 population was the second highest in Western Europe in 1999"
"The greatest proportion of male sentenced prisoners (21%) was held for 'violence against the person offences'"

And yet with all those sickos out there you would think there would be a lot of refusals of firearms certificates - "Two percent of applications for new firearms certificates made during 1997 were refused, much the same as in 1996" " The percentage of applications for renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates that were refused in 1997 were both less than half of one percent" - obviously these gun owners are a bunch of right wing loonies set to shoot the milkman at the first opportunity...

On 31st December 1997 there were 1,648,057 shotguns and firearms legally held and registered in the UK - this is AFTER the removal of large bore handguns - and yet less than half of one percent of the certificate holders were seen as unfit to hold them at renewal time.

[Igloo]

Toad was attempting to draw parallels between hitler and people who are for gun regristration.  Or could you not see that?

LOL, read up on some history?  I am a historian by profession.  An archaeologist to be more percise.

Anyways, what's the use?  You love your guns and will stick with them regardless of any facts I produce.  You'll stick with what you have already concluded to be true, regardless of any new information.  So, what's the point? Seriously...

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Toad]

Igloo,

Parallels?

You said I attempted to draw parallels between guns and cars. In fact, I DID draw parallels and they are valid.

You chose not to respond or attempt to disprove the parallels. Because you can't.

There IS a parallel in that post that upsets you.

Clinton talks of restricting Constitutional rights. Reno talks of confiscating guns.

Hitler favored registration.

You can't see a parallel there? You can't see the leaders of two different societies at different times proposing the same solution to violent crime? You can't see that the solution DID NOT WORK EITHER TIME?

You chose not to respond or attempt to disprove this parallel. Other than       "Mommy, Mommy! Toad said HITLER!!!"   ) Because you can't.

You can't see these parallels because you close your eyes.

Not ONE TIME in all your posts have you ever provided ANYTHING but your opinion as support for your positions.

You can't prove or justify a single thing you say. Yet of course you ignore indisputable facts. You simply dodge the issue and throw out another "red herring".

Tell me this Igloo:

How do you explain the success of Project Exile in Richmond, VA? I posted the link to two sites that discuss it. Read those and tell me how you conclude that registration will save more lives than locking up violent criminals that use guns?

Violent crime is down 60% in Richmond in ONE YEAR.

Then show me a place where Registration has done that.

No opinion now, Igloo...show me a successful registration program that dropped violent crime.

Enough OPINION...put up or shut up.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-10-2000).]

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Toad was attempting to draw parallels between hitler and people who are for gun regristration.  Or could you not see that?

LOL, read up on some history?  I am a historian by profession.  An archaeologist to be more percise.

Anyways, what's the use?  You love your guns and will stick with them regardless of any facts I produce.  You'll stick with what you have already concluded to be true, regardless of any new information.  So, what's the point? Seriously...

Archaeologist huh?  That's cool.  Guess I'll have to start calling your Dr. Jones  

Granted my  knowledge of archaeology is limited, but isn't it mainly ancient history and piecing together fragments from long, long, long, long ago?  A little difference there between archaeology and recent history.

Yes, I love my guns and, yes, I'll defend my right to keep them to the end.  I have first hand experience with how dangerous they, and I'll show you the scars on my calve to prove it.  Then I'll show you the 9mm slug that made those scars, as I put it on a chain to wear.

Toad has made the point much more eloquently than I could with his last post.  You're very opinionated on this, and that's fine.  But it seems that your education on the subject is somewhat lacking.

Yes, there is a problem in the US.  Responsible, law-abiding gun owners, such as myself, try to do our parts to promote education and solutions that really work to solve the problem.  Emotional, uneducated (on this matter) liberals scream that guns are evil and are working to have them banned and force thier morals and way of life on the rest of us.  BTW, the problem isn't the guns, it's the criminals and the lack of proper instruction on firearm safety/handling/storage.

 

"how many guns per 100,000 people does the US have, and how many guns per 100,000 people does Japan have? Then those numbers you're throwing around might mean something."

That is my point! The number of guns per 100,000 people in Japan is much lower, thereby accounting for the lower ratio of deaths from guns. How much clearer do I have to write this for you?

Where are the numbers so we can calculate the deaths per gun?  Or have you already done that and been surprised by the result and dinnae want to say?

Gun related deaths are going to be less in any country that won't let thier people have guns.  That's a basic fact.  But when you start comparing the ratios of the number of people in a country to the number of guns those people have to the number of gun related deaths you'll get a surprise.
Some like to compare England/UK to the US in the great gun debate.  What's the population of England?  1/10th that of the US?  More?  Less?  (too lazy to dig it up right now).  You can't compare that directly, so you gotta look at the ratios.  And when you do that the numbers the anti gun crowd love to scream dinnae look that bad.  And it really pisses the anti-gun people off, so they try to keep that from the uneducated public who believe everything they hear/see on good morning America.  Crying shame that so many are trying to dupe thier fellow Americans so they can force thier beliefs on the rest of us I think.

Toad for President  

[Igloo]

Well, like you said, you love your gun and will stick with it to the end.  Is there anything I could say that would change your opinion?

I'm not for outlawing guns.  Putting restrictions on them, as well as attacking the criminals will have a better affect than just doing one or the other.

I'm an Egyptologist (an archaeologist working with the ancient Egyptian civilization).  I've also done some work with the war of 1812.  Your right to bear arms comes from that time and those conditions which were present to allow for same do not exist anymore today.  That is my point.  The constitution, in some respect, is outdated.  

Countries like Canada, who have serious gun restrictions, are doing just fine with them.  Nobody is having their rights violated and the number of gun related deaths is one of the lowest in the world.  You said it yourself, the number of guns in society is a direct ratio to the number of gun related deaths.  IF you attack those criminals, yes, gun related deaths go down.  But if you attack the crimanals and work to seriously regulate guns, you nap it in the butt at both ends.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[This message has been edited by Igloo (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Dowding]

I never said we should tolerate such an environment. My point is that throwing guns at the situation will not solve the problem of violent crime.

When it comes to my cousin, are you saying that he should have been armed while going round the pubs and clubs? If not, then I don't see what you are trying to say.

'Petty' refered to theft (like in car stereos) and 'opportunistic' referred to getting beaten up in the street (i.e. no prior planning). All crime is traumatising.

 

Believe me if you see someone with a gun you call the police pretty quick no matter wher you live.

Did you see 'Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends' on Monday? He was in South Africa talking to the Boars. Many of them were armed with handguns (and heavy calibre automatic weapons), and people didn't even bat an eyelid, nevermind call the police. They were all licensed, legally held weapons.

 

I do think if people held arms they wouldn't feel the need to form a mob as they would feel more empowered to protect themselves.

So you concede that guns will not eradicate the paedophile or his filthy actions. I'm not against the mob specifically, put the wrongful targeting of people based on rumour (in the traditional Arthur Miller style). Considering that the activity would still proceed, if people were armed with guns, wouldn't innocent people still get hurt?

Your information is interesting (saved me the trouble, I guess  ).

 

Firearms act offences 1998/99 - 3,325 (quite a few for such "rare instances" don't you think - nearly ten a day.
Firearms act offences 1999/200 - 3,143 - a fall of a massive..... 5.5%

Firstly, ten a day isn't really that significant compared to the crimes more likely to affect you - e.g. mugging, car theft, alcohol induced violence, maybe even rape. I'll try to find out the exact figures for these. Also, a firearms offence is much more likely to be 'detected' (to use Police terminology), by its conspicuous nature. The crimes I gave above, probably have much lower detection rates (especially rape).

Another point, is that it has been to soon since the change in legislation, to make any real conclusions from any of the data given. Any change could be idiosyncratic of the statistics not of reality; maybe in ten years there will be an official report commissioned to look at the data.

In reply to your statistics describing an increase in criminality - are you saying this a direct consequence of the decrease in the number of weapons from "...418,300 in 1996 to 305,000 in 1997..."? Or that if guns hadn't been restricted, crime levels would have remained the same? I have no answer as to what has caused the increase - but there are far more factors to consider than simply the raw data. Changes in the way the police report crimes, and the policy behind 'quotas' might have an effect, for instance.

Deterrance is often used as an excuse to justify household gun ownership - I personally believe that having one gun per 120 people has never deterred any criminal.

I never said that prisons were successful in rehabilitation (read my post again) - I said rehabilitation was a key idea behind the prison service. I personally think criminals should serve their sentence, unless an appeal is successful. But the key question here, I think, is whether the tax payer will pay the BILLIONS needed to build the new prisons already needed by a prison service at bursting point?

 

All in all the figures show me at least that the problem is the growth in power of the criminal society not the legal ownership of firearms.

Might be the case, might not. This growth in 'power of the criminal society' can't simply be attributed to the removal of 27% of guns from society. They were never widespread enough before the new legislation.

As for the refusal of licences - the police have to have very concrete grounds for removing such a 'fundamental' right (as seen by our American brothers). They gave that nutter in Dublane a license for years - very little was known by the police about his strange behaviour. That goes for all social deviants - they tend to hide it pretty well. That might also explain the low refusal rate.