Who'da thunk? Guns best crime deterrent after all

[Speed55]

There's not one nation in Europe that even comes close to the population of the USA.  

Even russia's population at under 150 million is less than half of the USA's.

USA 300+ million
UK  under 70 million
Iceland under 400 thousand

So with that said, your points- 1, 2, and 3. make sense.

There will be more guns, more crime, more people in jail.

Edit:  For a comparison - look at  the borough of ny where i live.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens

It has a larger population than about 140 countries from that wiki listing.

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Angus
No matter what this bubbles....the USA has the highest:
1. Amount of arms in the hands of civilians for any western nation
2. Capital/serious crime (Murder, Armed robbery and Rape) of any western nation.
3. Amount of its population in jail of any western nation.


So, it must be because the artillery and ammo is too little,...,,,..,,,

                   What isn't mentioned in your post Angus is the fact that almost all of the violent crime in America is centered in the poor areas of the large cities. Cities that have gun control as strict as any European nation. We have about 60,000 street gang members in my area alone.

                     Send these gangstas to Iceland and see how much your laws slow them down. The vast amount of America is safer, or as safe, as any Euro country.

[Elfie]

It's because of the guns deterring crime, and the death penalty deterring murder, that America has the lowest crime and murder rates in the world. Um, wait a second...

You are the only one who has said that.

Florida enacted their CCW law in 1987, so this articles date is probably accurate. Crime rates for all types of crime fluctuate from year to year. To think that there has only been one program to train women in the use of firearms is kinda silly. I don't doubt that there was one in 1966, or 1986 and probably quite a few in between and since.

[Angus]

Poor areas in big cities = more crime.
Arm them up, and what do you expect?

BTW, how about homicide rate in RURAL areas of the USA being more than in i.e. Britain. There you have absolutely no population or racial/cultural explanation whatsoever. Nothing, nada.

And although the USA being the most populated western country, that block is pretty much on par legislationally with the core of the European Union, which happens to have more inhabitants on much less space....

[Nashwan]

Florida enacted their CCW law in 1987, so this articles date is probably accurate.

It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if it was. Let's look at what they say:

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them.

This is what Kleck had to say, in 1982:

From October 1966 to March 1967 the Orlando Police Department sponsored a program intended to train women in the safe use of firearms. It was introduced in reaction to sharp increases in the number of rapes in 1966 and was given considerable publicity in the local newspaper.

The WND story again:

Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

Kleck:

For 1966 the rape rate was 35.91 in Orlando, while it was only 4.18 for 1967, a one-year drop of 88%

Kleck doesn't mention the 25% drop in burglary in his text, but it is in the table he provides.

2 identical training programmes exactly 20 years apart, both producing an 88% drop in sex crimes, both producing a 25% drop in burglaries? Bit of a coincidence, isn't it?

In fact, if you do a search of the first line of the WND story, but change the date to 1966, you can see it quoted on lots of forums. Not only that, the Google cache of the WND page still has the date as 1966:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:b4zLKLW7H_kJ:www.wnd.com/index.php%3Ffa%3DPAGE.printable%26pageId%3D57641+When+sexual+assaults+started+rising+in+Orlando,+Fla.,+in+1966,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

So the WND page used to say 1966, but now says 1986. Odd.

Crime rates for all types of crime fluctuate from year to year. To think that there has only been one program to train women in the use of firearms is kinda silly.

Crime rates certainly fluctuate. What's silly is that the story (via Kleck) attempts to assign the cause for one of those fluctuations to a training programme for guns.

[lasersailor184]

It assigns the reason why to the PUBLICITY of the programs.  That in itself is the most important factor.



If a criminal knows you have a gun, or knows there's a good chance you have a gun, then he won't attack you.

[lazs2]

nice misdirection nashwan... the violent crime rate drops but.. non violent crime does tend to go up a little since..  criminals still need to eat too.  they just fear attacking citizens who might have a gun.

burglaries of occupied homes go way down.   unlike in your country where burglars just laugh at the homeowner and taunt him while he is hiding in his closed and they are emptying out the place.  

You have no other option.   I would never stand for your way of life.

you don't mind being a victim.. we do.. simple as that.   I don't really see how devolving back to the strongest man wins is such a leap of civilization tho.

lazs

[Nashwan]

It's not misdirection, it's pointing out that the story has the date wrong by 20 years, and that whilst the claim is the training caused the 88% drop, 3 years earlier rape fell by 100%, and there is no explanation offered for that.

It's an attempt by a gun advocate (Kleck) to attribute cause to random variation.

burglaries of occupied homes go way down. unlike in your country where burglars just laugh at the homeowner and taunt him while he is hiding in his closed and they are emptying out the place.

No, not really. See the typical home has far more weapons in it than a burglar carries. The burglar here can't get a gun, so he typically only carries a short crowbar or knife.

Now, given a choice between taking on someone with a gun and someone with a knife or crowbar, I would feel much more at risk facing the man with the gun.

You have no other option. I would never stand for your way of life.

Of course we have an option. Just like you, we are armed as well as the burglars. It's just here both sides have less lethal weapons, making fighting back a much more realistic option.

A lot less people get killed by burglars here as a result.

you don't mind being a victim.. we do.. simple as that.

No, I don't want to be a victim. I don't want a crack head pointing a gun at me.  Don't forget, over 16,000 Americans were the ultimate victims last year, losing their lives to criminals. You are far less likely to be a victim of serious crime, let alone murder, in the UK.

I don't really see how devolving back to the strongest man wins is such a leap of civilization tho.

I don't see how arming criminals works. The statistics back me up, too. About 50 people are murdered during thefts, burglaries and robberies in England and Wales each year. In the US, even with a much higher "unknown" total, it's about 1,300 each year.

Personally, I wouldn't want that much risk of being a victim.

[Arlo]

Maybe you've already covered this, Laz ... but ... exactly how many times have you had to use a gun from your collection to protect your life or the life of a friend or family member to date? And ... just how secure is your house from intrusion while you and your family is away and criminals are out and about illegally arming themselves?

I'm not a victim because I'm smart enough not to be and I'm not looking (certainly not hoping) for a situation where I require a gun to defend myself. Having said that, I can still find a way, with or without a Desert Eagle, to do so. Hell, we even play a game where situational awareness is "a way of life."

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo

I'm not a victim because I'm smart enough not to be and I'm not looking (certainly not hoping) for a situation where I require a gun to defend myself.

thats what most victims think, "it will never happen to me, I'm too smart".

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
thats what most victims think, "it will never happen to me, I'm too smart".

Well it hasn't yet. I'm thinkin' your definition of "victim" entails a bit of wishful thinkin'. Got more than that? I do. I deal in facts, ma'am.

[Charon]

Now, given a choice between taking on someone with a gun and someone with a knife or crowbar, I would feel much more at risk facing the man with the gun.

I have gotten in the habit of checking out some of those real life behind bars federal prison shows. Most of the vicious animals I see there would simply take your cricket bat or golf club out of your hands and shove it up your bellybutton before they went on to rape and kill the rest of your family. Kind of like running into an even more sociopathic Mike Tyson type (in his prime) who realizes that you could send him back to jail if he doesn't do something about it.

You see security camera films of shankings where the victim is already dead before he hits the ground, stabbed perhaps 10 times or so in that 3 second time frame. Far stronger, quicker and with a life of violent conditioning. No remorse and no fear, unless you have a means to kill them that they can't physically dominate.

With a gun, in my own home, and with some personal training it is far more in my favor compared to any kind of H2H fighting even if the other guy has a gun. Especially if there is more than one. I can pull a trigger as easily as any of them, and my shots will more likely hit what I am shooting at. Just like the 80 year old guy who recently saved his own life from a home invasion using a pistol where it was obvious that the criminals (multiple, stronger and younger) wanted him dead from the beginning.

Of course, with a gun ban the criminals will still have a gun if they think they need one, just like they have plenty of banned crack cocaine and heroin to sell if they decide to do that. Perfect parallel. Drugs are banned in all 50 states and the countries on our border (and hemisphere for that matter). Can't even produce many domestically. Yet, they are available in abundant supply.

BTW. How's that ban on cheap samurai swords and pointy kitchen knives coming? I hear there is a new ban now on previously deactivated firearms as well. And how do those bans work in Manchester? Still more per capita homicides than DC in Moss Side, Longsight, and the suburb of Hulm?

In most of America, our homicide rate is directly comparable to Europe even with far more guns in all areas. We simply have more Manchesters (and always have back to the Gangs of New York days), though that is starting to change and not in your favor.

Charon

[Nashwan]

With a gun, in my own home, and with some personal training it is far more than in my favor compared to any kind of H2H fighting even if the other guy has a gun.

And yet the statistics don't back you up. Americans are armed, yet are murdered at a far greater rate than Britons. American police are armed, but are murdered at many times the rate of unarmed British police.

Mentioning prisoners brings up a good point. The murder rate in US prisons is about 5 per 100,000 people, actually below the overall US rate. The murder rate in British prisons is 4.9 per 100,000 (last time I checked) almost identical to the US rate, and several times higher than the UK population as a whole.

Of course, they can't get guns in prison.

Of course, with a gun ban the criminals will still have a gun if they think they need one, just like they have plenty of banned crack cocaine and heroin to sell if they decide to do that.

No, criminals get their guns through the same channels as the legal population, just with an extra step (most of the time). They buy their guns legally, they buy them second hand, they steal them from those who have bought them legally.

Drugs are banned in all 50 states and the countries on our border (and hemisphere for that matter). Can't even produce many domestically. Yet, they are available in abundant supply.

There's a big difference with drugs. A kilo of hard drugs makes about $100,000, after being cut. You make a lot of money on drugs.

A handgun weighs about a kilo, with some ammo. How many criminals can afford to buy a $100,000 handgun?

There just isn't the money to be made in supplying illegal handguns. Push the price up to the thousands of dollars that would make the trade worthwhile, and most criminals can't afford them any more.

BTW. How's that ban on cheap samurai swords and pointy kitchen knives coming? I hear there is a new ban now on previously deactivated firearms as well. And how do those bans work in Manchester? Still more per capita homicides than DC in Moss Side, Longsight, and the suburb of Hulm?

Lies, damned lies and gun lobby statistics.

Manchester had a murder rate of 2.19 per 100,000 last year. The US as a whole has 5.7 murders per 100,000 people (the US rate excludes negligent homicide, the UK rates include it)

Obviously you can subdivide a city, for example if 1 person in a 2 person house is murdered, then the rate for the house is 50,000 per 100,000. If 100 people live in the street, then the rate is 1,000 per 100,000. But if you compare like with like, then Manchester has a rate of 2.19 per 100,000, Washington was about 50 last time I checked.

Overall, 49 people were murdered with guns in England and Wales last year, something over 12,000 in the US, iirc.
 
In terms of total murders, again bearing in mind the UK figures include negligence, the US figures exclude it, England and Wales saw 1.4 murders per 100,000, the US 5.7 per 100,000.

In most of America, our homicide rate is directly comparable to Europe even with far more guns in all areas.

No. Only 3 US states have a rate as low or lower than the average for England and Wales, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota. The other 47 states are higher.

We simply have more Manchesters (and always have back to the Gangs of New York days), though that is starting to change and not in your favor.

We actually have more of our population in urban areas than the US does. And the figures are not really changing. I remember these debates on this board going back to 2000 or so. The gun advocates then were claiming that the US rate was falling, and the UK rate rising, and America would soon be safer than Britain. Only since then our rate has declined slightly, yours has increased slightly, and we are still far safer in Britain.

[Curval]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_us/wendy_s_shooting

'Nuther shooting...and the gunman killed himself before any armed citizen could intervene....as usual.

[lazs2]

nashwan..  you will admit that your country is nothing at all like ours in makeup of the population?    

Still... you have many times the number of burglaries in an occupied home.  You don't seriously think that granny with a crowbar is a match for a 30 year old felon with a crowbar do you?    The stats show that the crowbar is not stopping your burglars.. they laugh at you... their victims.  they break into your homes while you run and hide.

no thanks.

lazs