Author Topic: Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!  (Read 3800 times)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #135 on: November 02, 2002, 07:52:59 PM »
Look at it this way and let's be very generous:

Aussies ban/confiscate guns. Gun homicides stablize/possible increase but certainly no decrease.

Brits ban/confiscate guns. Gun homicides stablize/possible increase but certainly no decrease.

So far the two industrialized countries that have tried this have had less than stellar results.

After all, one would expect rates to drop dramatically after all the guns were banned/confiscated/heavily restricted.

Didn't happen.

So say we try it in the US. If we have the same experience, it will be just as ineffective but incredibly more expensive due to the larger numbers involved.

So why bother?

Why not just put all that money into more/better law enforcement? THAT has been shown to have an effect at least.

And that's putting a really optimistic view on the whole deal.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #136 on: November 02, 2002, 11:20:25 PM »
Quote
Brits ban/confiscate guns. Gun homicides stablize/possible increase but certainly no decrease.

So far the two industrialized countries that have tried this have had less than stellar results.

After all, one would expect rates to drop dramatically after all the guns were banned/confiscated/heavily restricted

I don't know about the Australian situation, so I won't comment on it.

Hand guns were already rar in Britain, and heavily regulated. Each one was registered to a particular owner, who could only transfer it to another registered owner. Guns couldn't simply be sold on to a criminal.

In short, handguns from legal owners were not a crime issue in Britain, and the ban was silly. Banning them could not have had any statisticaly significant effect on crime.

The only real comparison between crime in Britain and the US is this: Britain has more crime. More burgularies, more muggings, more robberies, more car thefts, more assaults.

America has more murders, by far.

There are perfectly good reasons to explain why.

If you commit a crime in Britain, you are less likely to get caught. Conviction rates are far lower than in America.

If you do get caught, and convicted, you are likely to serve far less prison time in Britain.

In other words, criminals have an easier time in Britain.

American criminals have easier access to guns.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #137 on: November 03, 2002, 01:00:17 AM »
Two opinions then, Nashwan:

According to Brundle (quoted above)

Quote
They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.


 You've had much tougher gun control than we have for nearly 80 years.. yet the rates have been and are converging. Comments?

And, from the other article quoted above:

Quote
...Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people...... higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.....

It should be obvious even to the most leftist-minded that the above figures illustrate the fact that America has a somewhat violent culture. We like to kill each other, apparently. And as proven above, if we don't have guns to do it, we're still gonna do it. It's just the way we are.


I certainly don't disagree that the US has a culture of violence. That's obviously true.

What I question is whether or not a ban/confiscation would change that. It hasn't changed the rates in Australia or Britain to any apreciable degree. Why, would we be any different? In fact, given our culture of violence, we might easily be worse.

Without gun homicides, according to that writer, we'd still be twice Britain's rate for all homicides.

Comments?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline steely07

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #138 on: November 03, 2002, 03:26:50 AM »
Read the whole post please lazs,the buyback program and buyback scheme only applied to full and semi auto weapons,you can still own as many rifles,shotguns as you like,providing you are properly licenced.

confiscate   Pronunciation Key  (knf-skt)
tr.v. confiscated, confiscating, confiscates
To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
To seize by or as if by authority.

Amnesty
a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment


Just defining some words some of you misunderstand the meaning of :)

 Just another point,i haven't made the mistake of commenting on a situation that i don't have the all the facts for(i've never been to the US),my comments only pertain to the Australian situation,i would ask that i am accorded the same courtesy,if you haven't lived here and had the experience,don't pretend to understand how things are in other countrys.
 
 As for the "Orwellian Newspeak",i finally won something!!!! :)
Aces High, Wing Commander, Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group: www.dickweedhbg.com

FSO Films : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFs6CAXBQoVBctljybD65fA?view_as=subscriber

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #139 on: November 03, 2002, 06:37:13 AM »
US non-gun homicides 5033

1 per 55,744 people

England and Wales 886 homicides

1 per 59,000 people

In other words, take out the gun figures, and the US is very close to the UK's figures. (figures from the official British stats, and the FBI)

Quote
You've had much tougher gun control than we have for nearly 80 years.. yet the rates have been and are converging. Comments?


1919 was the year after the first world war, where Britain had lost a large percentage of it's young men (the most likely to commit crimes of any sort)

Secondly, why was US crime so high in 1919? Do you think there is some natural reason that the US murder rate should be many times Britain's?

Thirdly, Britain has spent the 20th century moving to a more "enlightened"  view, that criminals should be rehabilitated, not locked up for very long, certainly not executed. America still punishes criminals. That's why all crime in Britain is now more common than in America.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #140 on: November 03, 2002, 06:45:14 AM »
Lazs -! Sorry to take so long getting back to you.

No I didnt say Id seen more of America than you. Youve lived there all your life, after all. But I have been to numerous US states. May I ask how many you have been to yourself?

Rioting in Britain tends to occur when there is an issue of discontent. For example, there was rioting when the Thatcher government implemented the Community Charge a new way to collect tax based on where you live. Very unpopular. Replaced by Council Tax. Those riots were in 1989. The other main riots I remember were the Croxteth and Toxteth riots of 1981. Those were two districts of Liverpool which were unemployment blackspots and also areas of high crime. I dont expect you to understand the issues involved, because clearly your news media at the time did not. Besides, your country does not have any what I would call quality broadsheet newspapers, and Americas TV news programmes focus on local news in the beginning, before moving on to foreign issues. I can tell you that I was in Concord,CA at the time of those Liverpool riots, and to read about it in the available local rags like the Oakland Times made me think that the whole of Britain had come under siege. I was so worried that I called my brother to find out if everything was OK. And he said, from his home in Winchester Oh yes, everythings OK. Life goes on much the same. The riots are confined to localised trouble spots. Theres nothing like that happening down here
Quote
That a relative few are killed in accidental shootings? I don't argue that... I argue that in America... more lives are saved by handguns than are ever lost to them... you would apear (like your aussie bretheren) to be content to condem the people whose lives have been saved to death.
I am interested to see how you substantiate this claim. If so many lives were saved by handguns, then please tell me the nature of the threat from which those lives were delivered. Criminals with guns, by any chance? I know that when dealing with stats, the bald figures dont always tell the full story, and some quantification is needed. A bit like Aces High scores, really. LOL!  Right, Lazs? ;)
Quote
I like choice. I like having the advantage when someone is trying to perpetuate a crime on me.
Huh?  Oh, you mean perpetrate! You like having an advantage. Trouble is in your society, the other guy is just as likely or even more likely to be armed himself. So the perceived advantage you have of being armed is cancelled out by the other guy being armed, with the added danger that one or both of you will be seriously injured or killed. So best you resolve your differences with the other guy by peaceful means. That's what we do here, without recourse to guns.

Ah, Mr. Toad. :) Well, we are agreed on what you said:
Quote
Why not just put all that money into more/better law enforcement? THAT has been shown to have an effect at least.
And that's exactly what I was talking about in New York City.

The trouble is with John Doe going out to buy a gun is that it doesn't solve anything because John typically lives in a relatively crime free area. So, when there is any talk of John having to surrender his gun, he whines that it won't cut crime. Well of course it won't! And the simple reason is that there was no crime in his area to begin with. :rolleyes: When I was working in America (Denver, 1996-1997), I frequently noted how often the Americans would tackle a problem in the wrong way. I was an mainframe database consultant back then, and the company had cobbled together a customer care and billing system. It did not perform well, and some of the managers were baying for more processor power. But an expert in his field, my friend Steve M was able to point out time after time that a small amount of redesign work to SQL queries and/or changes to the data structure was all that was needed to make a transaction run in a few seconds rather than a couple of hours. The Americans always went in for the sledgehammer approach.  And their attitude to guns seems little different. Crime hotspot in a particular troublesome area of Los Angeles? Perceived solution: Arm all Californians, from Crescent City to San Diego. Better solution: Understand the problems involved, and give law enforcement the resources they need to apply their expertise to contain the problem in the areas where it exists. The same US knee-jerk reaction occurred on Sept 12th, 2001. Al Qa'eda atrocity? Perceived solution: Go out and buy a gun. (and many did) And for what? Does Al Qa'eda have a policy of making house calls? Better Solution: Allow law enforcement agencies such as the CIA to work with its foreign counterparts (MI6, Mossad) to gather intelligence with a view to targeting the terrorist groups responsible.

If guns were freely available here, it wouldn't just be me that could go out and buy one. All the local knobheads would want theirs too. Then when one such knobhead gets dumped by his girl, who goes instead to his arch enemy, his self esteem is crushed to powder and he feels he has nothing to lose. He has a few beers at the local pub when in comes his old girlfriend, arm in arm with his worst enemy. It's more than he can take, and he goes home to fetch his new toy to bring back so he can shoot his enemy, shoot the girl, and save the last bullet for himself. We would have a US style killing spree, and I'd be worried about being caught in the crossfire. You think I'm talking bollocks? Well think again, because that's what happened at the Embarcadero Center in San Francisco in Feb-1982. I was there and within mile of the building where it happened. A guy had been dumped by his wife or girl, so he showed up with a gun to mete out some sort of justice. He was shot dead by Police. I guess that's one of those situations identified by Lazs as a case where handguns save lives. :rolleyes:

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #141 on: November 03, 2002, 09:43:23 AM »
To paraphrase:

John Doe has never needed his gun and probably won't ever, so why should he object if it is taken from him.

(Also because a less frugal method was used once in a denver office than what an alternative would have cost if this mysterious 'Steve' is to be believed.)

To further paraphrase:

To each according to need...

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #142 on: November 03, 2002, 10:26:41 AM »
Hiya Fatty, and thanks for reading so far into my latest post. :)  We talked the other day about rural America (not in parks, no rangers about etc.) Well here's a small shot from AZ - a little off topic, but just something to amuse while we wait for the others to cobble together some more material. I came upon this spot on the way back from Tucson to Phoenix, having been to visit an old WB pal, =kjbl=. I had told him how I find desert to be fascinating, and beautiful in its own way, so he suggested an alternate route on the way back - I think this was on SR-79.

I felt perfectly safe here, but not for the reasons Lazs gave, which were relaxed gun laws. To be honest, I had no clue about AZ gun law, and the thought had not even entered my head. I distinctly remember not being asked by =kjbl= if I had a firearm for personal safety given that I was going to use this remote route.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #143 on: November 03, 2002, 10:43:18 AM »
Nashwan,

Non-gun homicide rates. Another example of why one should not take everything one reads on the 'net as true. Your US figures correspond with

Injury Mortality Reports, 1999+

a great page that lets you really research US injury/death from all causes and sort by many factors.

So, you are correct and that article appears to be wrong.

The "best" comparison I could find is this, which says it uses FBI and Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1997 (rates per 100,000)

Country Year

United States 1999

Total Homicide 5.70
Firearm Homicide 3.72 (corresponds with the CDC 1999 rate 3.94)
Non-Gun Homicide 1.98 (CDC 2.20)

England/Wales 1997
 
Total Homicide 1.41
Firearm Homicide 0.11
Non-Gun Homicide 1.30



 

A digression now, if you will. Found this while looking at Newsmax, a source I'm a bit skeptical about. But it bears on what we discussed earlier.

Did England/Wales change it's method of reporting in 1998? Is it possible that the first guy  quoted was right? ("right" prior to '98?)

Britain: From Bad to Worse

Quote
...More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism."...

...Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes...

...Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge. In January 2000, official street-crime rates in London were more than double the official rate from the year before. ..."


So were they "cooking the books" prior to 1998? Do you have access to the Report from the Inspector of the Constabulary?


Now then.....

Quote
1919 was the year after the first world war, where Britain had lost a large percentage of it's young men (the most likely to commit crimes of any sort)


Well, then, wouldn't one expect Britain's crime rate to decrease during the passage of this particular generation's active "crime committing" years?

As you say, theoretically, an entire generation of criminals was nearly wiped out, along with the rest of the "good" male population of that generation. So, the rates should have gone down but instead they increased, despite the early attempts at gun control in Britain I'd think.

Quote
Secondly, why was US crime so high in 1919? Do you think there is some natural reason that the US murder rate should be many times Britain's?


Well, the post-war era in the US was wild. The Volstead Act and Prohibition (ah.. Prohibition... you see where that stuff leads, eh?  ;) ) merely added fuel to the fire of the "Roaring Twenties".

As to "natural reason", no I can't think of a "natural reason" but there is absolutely no shortage of information showing that the US has had a more violent internal society than England over the period 1776-2002. Nonetheless, trend lines show you guys doing well in catching up to us in overall violence.
 

Quote
Thirdly, Britain has spent the 20th century moving to a more "enlightened" view, that criminals should be rehabilitated, not locked up for very long, certainly not executed. America still punishes criminals. That's why all crime in Britain is now more common than in America.


And in closing for now, this bit for Beet1e, Spook and Nashwan, since it underlines this point of his:

Gun Homicides

Quote
Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

Sources cited by the above excerpt:

An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).


So the idea that the majority of US gun homicide is by that rampaging next door neighbor is........ more "hollywood" than real.

For Spook and Beet1e, it once again highlights the futility of taking guns away from the law-abiding citizen. And, indeed, stats from both Australia and England seem to show this. Even the link supplied by Spook in the other thread points it out.

For Nashwan, it merely shows that not even the US is keeping them in jail long enough, so don't feel too badly about England's "enlightened" approach. Our "unenlightened" approach isn't doing much better.

Criminals. You let these guys out of jail and what do you know? They go back to their old jobs a lot of the time.

It bears repeating:

Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #144 on: November 03, 2002, 11:58:34 AM »
beetle... asside from how you "feel.... you haven't said anything.  Just your normal wall-0-words and anecdotal stuff.   FBI claims that firearms are used 1,000,000+ times per year to stop crime.  We have a particularly nasty group of criminals in the U.S..... they are not content to rob or rape... if you will look at the stats... the criminal background of the murders in this country you will see that you would be ill advised to "submit".

"submit"... maybe that is what you feel is the right thing... as brits you submit to thugs all the time... your rate rises and rises... but... since everyone is unarmed.... no harm done eh mate?   bull... I would get pissed at a strongarm robbery..  I would like to resist with a firearm..  That does not mean shoot... necesarrily.   I don't want to live in a country that puts me at the mercy of the strongarm criminal...  I didn't like being reminded that pickpockets were everywhere while in london.

AZ... I feel pretty safe there too..  I believe it is because of the lax gun laws..  still... I wouldn't want to wear a sign that said "hi I'm a brit who thinks that being armed is barbaric... please don't harm me"   The reason you are safe is because no one knows if you are are aren't... it is possible/likely that you are... In Fla. this was proven... when the crooks couldn't rob the locals anymore because of relaxed gun laws they went after the people with... "hi I'm a tourist and unarmed" signs on em...  What signs you say?   well... the rental car signs on their bumpers..  and.... these tourists were not treated well at the hands of our breed of criminal... they mostly just died.   The car rental places solved the problem by removing the bumper stickers...  Now... no one knew who was or wasn't armed... end of problem.... just likeyou...

you enjoyed the protection that lax gun laws in Az provided for you without even knowing it.   Walking in Central Park at nite... it would be assumed by criminals that you were not armed.

but... far from being some "self appointed protector of the community" (where did I say I was?) ...  I simply prefer to defend myself from tyranny from within or without.   If that benifiets my countrymen then so much the better.   If there is some slight cost involved then I (and my countrymen) are willing to pay it.    Besides.... it is simply our right as free and independent Americans at this point in time.
lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #145 on: November 03, 2002, 12:09:42 PM »
steely... maybe I don't understand registration and confiscation...

In your aus.  you were told under pain of law to register all your firarms.   At some point... you were told that certain types of previously legal firearms were now socially unacceptable and now illegal... but.. the government offered to "buy back" your now illegal firearms and set a time limit that you could be forced to sell your property in... and "amnesty" period..

If you declined to participate in this program and kept your personal property and were later caught with it....it would be ... what?   what is the word?  

next year some other type that you own may be deemed illegal but so long as you give it up voluntarrily it won't be... what is that word?
lazs

Offline -dead-

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
“The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” --  Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, June 5, 2006.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #147 on: November 03, 2002, 03:14:00 PM »
Quote
So were they "cooking the books" prior to 1998? Do you have access to the Report from the Inspector of the Constabulary?

The inspector of constabulary reports are here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/annual.htm

Can't find anything like Newsmax's quotes in them.

In fact, a google search of their quotation about murder rates turned up only the Newsmax article itself, yet a google search of a quote inside one of the inspectors reports, a pdf file, pointed straight back to that file.

In other words, if what Newsmax was quoting was true, Google would probably have found the original report.

The report I think they are reffering to can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/otr00.htm

It does point out the under reportng of crime that used to go on, for example if there was damage to a door lock, police would often record the offence as vandalism rather than attempted burgulary. Same for damage to windows etc.

However, I can't see anything of the sort relating to homicide, and their quote is most definately not in the report.

Incidentally, weren't the "rising" figures for violent crime in Britain used to show how banning guns increased violent crime? And now this report is admitting the truth, that the "rise" was purely down to improved recording by the police. The British Crime Survey, which is a more accurate guide to crime figures, shows violent crime falling in Britain throughout the late ninties.

Quote
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition."

I very much doubt it's ever been true, in recent times.

For one thing, there hasn't been a large jump in murder figures, that moving to an initial classification system (which is certainly what's in place now) from one based on trial outcomes, would have caused.

Secondly, murder cases usually take a long time in Britain, with the defence always trying to delay as long as possible. The results of a trial would often not show up in figures until two years later.

Thirdly, does this sound plausible to you:

Quote
Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.


A woman found beaten to death outside a bar, three suspects, no crime recorded? That's simply too far fetched.

And how would it count as a 3 person homicide in America? Homicide stats consist primarily of the number of victims, not the number of assailants.

Quote
Well, then, wouldn't one expect Britain's crime rate to decrease during the passage of this particular generation's active "crime committing" years?

Normally, yes. But those years were very hard in Britain, which was left paying back all it's own war debt's, plus Russia's.

Quote
Well, the post-war era in the US was wild. The Volstead Act and Prohibition (ah.. Prohibition... you see where that stuff leads, eh?  ) merely added fuel to the fire of the "Roaring Twenties".

Exactly. There are perfectly valid reasons why America should have had a substantially higher murder rate than Britain then, which sort of makes the claim that the two countries are "converging" naturall. The question should be why they haven't converged yet.

Quote
Nonetheless, trend lines show you guys doing well in catching up to us in overall violence.

They show we've passed you in overall violence. Not suprising, when we have less police, lowever conviction rates, less prison time, more criminals on the streets.

The government brought in a mandatory 3 year sentence (1.5 years served, 50% remission) for domestic burgulars convicted for a third time. Judges fought for an opt out if they felt 3 years was too long, and got it. In the several years it's been in force, less than 10 repeat burgulars have got a 3 year sentence.

Quote
For Nashwan, it merely shows that not even the US is keeping them in jail long enough, so don't feel too badly about England's "enlightened" approach. Our "unenlightened" approach isn't doing much better.

It's a hell of a lot better than here, believe me.

Two days ago my car was broken in to, outside my house. I dashed outside, the thieves ran before I got there (frightened by the alarm). The police noted the crime, but said they were too busy to send anyone out to investigate it.

Yesterday, some hooligans placed a firework launch tube in the ground, and aimed it at my neighbours car. (which was in line with his house) The firework exploded on the wall, setting several car alarms off, and rattling the windows of every house in the street (It was a very big rocket). Again, the police were too busy to come out and investigate, even though a passerby had good descriptions of those involved.

As an example, New York has a slightly lower population than London, and a lower crime rate. It has 48,000 police officers and civilian support staff. London has 38,000, despite the fact the Met police have to carry out tasks that are carried out by the FBI, Secret Service etc in New York.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #148 on: November 03, 2002, 03:27:48 PM »
Geez Lazs, I know youre almost out of steam, but lets at least have some consistency. You talk about us Brits submitting to thugs all the time, and yet earlier you said you were in a rough area of London and added that you felt as threatened as you might at a Church bingo night.

Then you tell me that I enjoyed personal safety in AZ thanks to laws I dont even know about. And if thats true, to what do you think I attribute my sense of personal security when Im out and about in England, like today?
Quote
FBI claims that firearms are used 1,000,000+ times per year to stop crime.
How many occurrences were handled by law enforcement agencies, and how many were handled by self appointed gun toting guardians of the peace? And what was the nature of the crime they stopped? Criminals with guns?

I know all about that car rental sticker business. Those that were killed werent killed purely because they had a rental sticker if that were the case, Id be dead too. But Im alive. No, they were killed because they got lost and wandered into a bad area that they didnt know about. Same thing would have happened with or without a rental sticker. But youre right. The stickers made it easier for the criminals to identify potential victims. I know better than to walk in Central Park at night. There have been two occasions that I remember inadvertently driving into bad neighbourhoods. Both times, I just made sure all the doors were locked, and then just turned around and drove away before anyone had even noticed me.

Anyway, some light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Toad says that killing people is part of American culture. LOL!  And I dont see anyone disagreeing. Given that this is the case, Can you now finally see why I think its ludicrous to have 200 million guns out on the streets? The problem is that while John Doe might be a law abiding citizen today, who knows what might become of him tomorrow? Maybe most gun owners will never lose their marbles, but there are many that do. And thats when we see the all to frequent armed killing sprees taking place. It has been found (not my research) that those individuals who are socially inept are drawn to firearms. Being in a gun club and being able to shoot straight alleviates their feelings of inadequacy. That is certainly the way the papers profiled Michael Ryan, perpetrator of the Hungerford Disaster here in 1986, in which Ryan killed about 16 people before killing himself. So there we have it easy steps to mass murder:
  • Socially inadequate person buys gun for target practice and joins gun club.
  • Marble loss triggered by some personal crisis or another.
  • The desire to seek revenge on the world - = killing spree, often culminating in the perpetrator's own death either as suicide, or by police bullet.
  • Americans dismissing it all by saying that killing eachother is part of their culture, the killer was a nutcase and it could have happened at any time, guns dont kill only people kill :rolleyes: yap-yap-yap-1st amendment-yap-yap...
And don't bother to give me stats about the likelihood of another mass killing spree. The DC sniper's rifle has only just stopped smoking, and any gun death of this kind is one too many.

Lets just wait and see. Lets wait for the next mass killing spree. And when it happens, Im going to examine the facts and see how close to the mark I was in this thread. There will come a time when another formerly responsible citizen goes berserk with a gun and kills about 10 people. Maybe it will be here maybe in the US. (My guess is the US, within the next 6 months) And that's a tragedy. Maybe I'm not the one burying my head in the sand?

One last thing Lazs. You keep avoiding one of my questions, so I will pose the question again. No I didnt say Id seen more of America than you. Youve lived there all your life, after all. But I have been to numerous US states. May I ask how many you have been to yourself?

Wall-o-words it may be, Lazs, but it sure keeps you coming back for more. :D
« Last Edit: November 03, 2002, 03:49:20 PM by beet1e »

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!
« Reply #149 on: November 03, 2002, 05:26:41 PM »
Still looking round for clues. Found this:

"In April 1998, a new set of crime recording rules was adopted. As the October 12, 1999 Home Office Statistical Bulletin noted, "under the new counting rules, the statistics wherever possible measure one crime per victim; this will greatly improve the comparability between notifiable offence figures and victim surveys". Now, if 15 flats were hit by a burglar, 15 crimes would be recorded."

But that's not from an "official" site. It's merely a site restating the idea. Any idea on where to look for the October 12, 1999 Home Office Statistical Bulletin?

In any event, if they recording rules changed in '99, has there been enough data posted (2000, 2001) to determine a trend?


On the "plausible" question, no it doesn't. However, I try not to clip quotes too much in order to give a true sense of what the author is saying. Even if some of it may "not look good". I wondered about that part when I read it and that's why I left it in. Best for all to be "upfront" about the quotes.

The "lost criminal generation". OK, a whole generation-class of criminals didn't make it back from France. England introduces gun controls. These things should mitigate crime, particularly violent crime. Yet the rates still went up due to "hard times"? That doesn't sound real plausible to me.

On "convergence" I think the point is we've been coming down from our "natural high" without severe gun controls. You folks, on the other hand, seem to be climbing up to meet us despite severe gun controls.  Therefore, I'm thinking the gun controls aren't that big a player. I think there are other, more significant factors at work here.

Beet1e:

No, I said America has a more violent culture. Not the same thing.

Quote
The problem is that while John Doe might be a law abiding citizen today, who knows what might become of him tomorrow?


Repeated in case you missed it.

Quote
data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles.


Something in excess of 75% of the murders are by career criminals with prior felonies. The second part intimates that you can add about 12% to that due to the perps being juveniles. 87% perpetrated by known criminals.

Clearly, your "Joe Average" scenario is not as likely as you would like to paint it.

Quote
and any gun death of this kind is one too many


So, you're willing to deny the entire population of the UK or the US the ability to use "banned" firearms in ways that have absolutely no relationship to crime whatsoever on the off chance that you might be able to prevent a such a crime from happening?

And yet you tacitly admit that it can still happen in the UK.

Quote
Maybe it will be here maybe in the US


Gives me the impression that you don't believe UK laws are the solution, either.

And indeed, it appears that is the case.

Would you please post the homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland for each year since the ban?

Thanks.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!