Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on February 19, 2005, 03:55:38 AM
-
99% of crime in Aces High has now vanished due to the introduction of the firing hand gun.... WTG HTC!!
;) :D
-
We told ya!!!
On a serious note, I read a statistc somewhere today that said that if the inner city crime in America was taken out of the statistics, the gun-crime(whatever that is?) rate was lower than England or Australia. I'm not sure if they meant crimes commited with guns, or homocides commited with guns. Either way, I thought it was an interesting statistic given the debate about gun control laws and the results that have been posted here for both sides of the argument.
Take out the drug infested dregs of society and the crimes that they perpetrate on each other, and our gun crime (?) level is less than that of the two gun control societies that are compared to us.
Again, I can't quote it, just heard it on the radio today.
it wasn't fox radio
-
:lol
-
Of course, the pro-gun guys won't be impressed with that 99%. They only approve of laws that work 100% - hence gun control in Britain "doesn't work" because 68 people were shot in 2003. So don't be surprised if one of 'em comes in here, points to that 1% and cries "the HTC handgun policy doesn't work!". :lol:D
-
Lazerus - that was quoted in another thread here. And, as Nashwan was quick to point out, no matter how many times it is said, it is still wrong.
-
I can't remember the exact statistics either, but I can speak from experience having worked for 7 years as a police officer in an inner city area... The vast majority of gun crimes were comitted by criminals ON criminals. Occasionally, while spraying away at their intended "adversary", they'd hit some innocent bystander or child playing with their blocks in the living room.
But of course if guns were outlawed, these types of people would surrender their firearms, or cease any attempts to obtain one because it would be illegal to own a gun.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazerus - that was quoted in another thread here. And, as Nashwan was quick to point out, no matter how many times it is said, it is still wrong.
Great, finally some definitive information. Can you link that thread for me please sir?
-
It's here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143320).
I don't know about "finally". Nashwan has been quoting the facts for as long as I can remember - often in response to someone who has "heard something".
-
Well, no facts there. At least not in reference to what I was talking about.
Maybe he heard something?
Hell mate, ya had me all worked up. I thought maybe there was something out there to solve this argument. I guess I'll just have to spend some time to find the facts that I think I heard.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
that I think I heard.
Oh! - so reliable! :aok
You don't know Nashwan. He always researches the facts about this stuff from authoritative sources such as the FBI website. He doesn't just post what he "hears", unlike some others. If he didn't do that to your satisfaction this time, it's only because he's done it 500 times before and perhaps he's getting a little tired of it. Because no matter how many times he repeats it, the pro-gun guys repeat their false comparisons. And no matter how many times they state their erroneous assessments, they're still erroneous.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh! - so reliable! :aok
You don't know Nashwan. He always researches the facts about this stuff from authoritative sources such as the FBI website. He doesn't just post what he "hears", unlike some others. If he didn't do that to your satisfaction this time, it's only because he's done it 500 times before and perhaps he's getting a little tired of it. Because no matter how many times he repeats it, the pro-gun guys repeat their false comparisons. And no matter how many times they state their erroneous assessments, they're still erroneous.
The "facts that I think I heard" was a tounge in cheek response to you posting that link as proof against what I said.
There was nothing in that link that offered factual evidence, or even biased statistics countering what I said.
But, I did read what I said, I'm just not sure where I read it or who was the source. That's why I didn't post it as fact.
I'll try to take some time tonight (12 hours from now) and see if I can find a source.
Just curious, if the info is correct, would you reconsider your position?
-
white middle class people commit homicides with guns too but... It is at a rate that would be about that of canada say. around 1.5-2 per 100,000. depending on how you read the stats.
none of this says that if those people didn't have guns they wouldn't still commit a homicide.
nashwan has been caught being "selective" in his facts and unable to explain some of the inconsitancies too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
On a serious note, I read a statistc somewhere today that said that if the inner city crime in America was taken out of the statistics, the gun-crime(whatever that is?) rate was lower than England or Australia. I'm not sure if they meant crimes commited with guns, or homocides commited with guns. Either way, I thought it was an interesting statistic given the debate about gun control laws and the results that have been posted here for both sides of the argument.
Take out the drug infested dregs of society and the crimes that they perpetrate on each other, and our gun crime (?) level is less than that of the two gun control societies that are compared to us.
Again, I can't quote it, just heard it on the radio today.
it wasn't fox radio
You can't be serious with a post like that :D
And how it compare with England if your remove of the british stat's the "inner city crime" also ?
-
Originally posted by Furball
99% of crime in Aces High has now vanished due to the introduction of the firing hand gun.... WTG HTC!!
;) :D
So when do we get panzershreks? :)
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
The "facts that I think I heard" was a tounge in cheek response to you posting that link as proof against what I said.
There was nothing in that link that offered factual evidence, or even biased statistics countering what I said.
Like I said, Nashwan has posted all the facts before, using Home Office and FBI websites as his sources. Do a search on the BBS for nashwan, then check the title to see if it's a "gun thread". It's all there.
-
:lol
Subject.
(http://www.fleurdelis.com/graphics/elizabeth_queen.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
white middle class people commit homicides with guns too but... It is at a rate that would be about that of canada say. around 1.5-2 per 100,000. depending on how you read the stats.
Lazs,
Once again, you are ignoring the fact that according to FBI records, in a great many (4,874 in 2003) cases, the race of the offender is not known. Your figures only work if you assume that all the "unknowns" are non-whites. BTW, Nashwan has pointed this out to you in the past.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fbioffender.jpg)
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Subject.
Passport.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/passport2.jpg)
-
beetle... you are talking overall homicide rate not firearms rate.
I have pointed this out to you in the past.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... you are talking overall homicide rate not firearms rate.
I have pointed this out to you in the past.
You haven't, because this is the first time I've mentioned it.
There were 14,408 homicides in the US in 2003, of which 9,638 were committed with firearms, ie the majority. The FBI website does not compile homicide stats by race AND method, so what is your source for the statement you made about the white gun homicide rate, above?
-
nashwan has been caught being "selective" in his facts and unable to explain some of the inconsitancies too.
lazs
Where?
Of course I'm "selective", this board limits posts to 10,000 characters (and I know, because I often have to edit to fit).
We're all selective, for instance I have yet to see you post anything arguing gun control is a good idea.
But I don't distort, or post things I know to be wrong, or use facts to prove something I know to be wrong.
If I'm using data from a source I'm not sure of, I post what it is, so people can make up their own minds, as for example the stuff I posted in response to Toad, from the Brady organisation.
Nearly all the stuff I post are official stats from the FBI and the Home Office.
none of this says that if those people didn't have guns they wouldn't still commit a homicide.
Of course not. We've already defied common sense on this board and "established" pushing people out of windows is as easy and effective as shooting them.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
I can't remember the exact statistics either, but I can speak from experience having worked for 7 years as a police officer in an inner city area... The vast majority of gun crimes were comitted by criminals ON criminals. Occasionally, while spraying away at their intended "adversary", they'd hit some innocent bystander or child playing with their blocks in the living room.
But of course if guns were outlawed, these types of people would surrender their firearms, or cease any attempts to obtain one because it would be illegal to own a gun.
So. whats the problem? With the exeption of an occasional innocent bystander the criminals eliminate each other and probable future criminals. Just let em have at it and eventually the problem solves itself:D
-
beet.. the FBI site does indeed post by race and method (you just said 9,000 were firearms method). I printed it out and am looking at it but the web address is not on the pages. It breaks the method down to knives and types of guns and even being pushed out of windows.
nashwan...your 'common sense' is nothing but wishful thinking... In your country banning guns did not decrease the homicide rate... In our country adding concealled carry does not increase the homicide rate.. Please show me some stats where gun laws have changed the homicide rates more than a tiny spike one way or another.
Your arguement seems to be that you would ban guns because it would save lives and decrease crime. You have absolutely no proof of this and in fact... all the evidense points in the other direction if anything. Soo... yu allways fall back on your "feelings" and "common sense".
you gave up your rights for nothing because you can't be objective or fair. You are firightened of guns so you would unfairly deny the rights of others to self defense.
lazs
-
oh...http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm
let people read it and decide for themselves. It breaks down crime pretty well. mountains of data.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet.. the FBI site does indeed post by race and method (you just said 9,000 were firearms method). I printed it out and am looking at it but the web address is not on the pages. It breaks the method down to knives and types of guns and even being pushed out of windows.
Yes, but it doesn't give you a breakdown by race of the offenders involved in those 9,638 gun homicides. You can have total homicides where the offenders are broken down by race, OR total homicides broken down by method. But the FBI reports do not list "gun homicides broken down by the race of the offender". So I ask again - how do you arrive at your conclusion that gun homicides committed by a white offender run at "1.5-2 per 100,000. depending on how you read the stats." ??
-
It most certainly does break offenders down by race. White, black.. other minorities... unknown. It gives the total murders and the percent committed by firearms..Since most of the crime and murder takes place in minority controlled areas it is pretty safe to assume that most of the offenders are minority. even at the rate of the known ones... Whites would be less than half the unknown. The majority of murders that are not investigated much are probly commited by minorities against minorities.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It most certainly does break offenders down by race. White, black.. other minorities... unknown. It gives the total murders and the percent committed by firearms..Since most of the crime and murder takes place in minority controlled areas it is pretty safe to assume that most of the offenders are minority. even at the rate of the known ones... Whites would be less than half the unknown. The majority of murders that are not investigated much are probly commited by minorities against minorities.
lazs
Lazs - I can't see any FBI .XLS spreadsheet on that site which analyses the race of the offender according to the method of killing that was employed. Sure, you've got spreadsheets showing homicides by race of offender, race of victim, and by method. But nowhere do I see a spreadsheet that shows the race of the offender for any particular type of homicide such as gun homicide. It only shows race in the chart analysing ALL homicides. Post me a link.
-
it breaks down homicide by race. It breaks down homicide by weapon. It does not break down weapon use by race as such.. You would have to assume that if the rate of firearms homicides is 66% then that would be pretty much true no matter the race.
lazs
-
Good Heavens!
Look at the jump in murder by fire!
We've got to get some registration going on matches and lighters and stuff. Not to mention combustibles like gasoline and kerosene. Then licensing for users of these items. Licensing must include mandatory training in the use of matches and lighters too.
Jeez! Trouble everywhere you look.
-
but on the bright side.... because of so many firearms a lot of people were spared the cruel death of being pushed out of windows.
Also... so far as guns and children and accidental death... between ages of 1-4 there were no gun weilding murderes in the last few years... must be those safe storage laws kicking in... oh wait... that holds true even where there are no safe storage laws..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You would have to assume
Yep - that's what I thought.
Mr. Toad! You're back! Not to mention combustibles like gasoline and kerosene. Then licensing for users of these items.
Then we have to do what OR and NJ have done, and ban people from pumping their own gas. :aok
-
beet... if say... all black people or all white people used only guns to commit murder or never used em... I am sure that would be called out... what the study shows is that 55% of homicides are commited with firearms. Are you saying that some races probly don't follow the 66% rule? My guess is that if anything... the minorities use firearms a little more often but not enough to matter.
But... what is the overall homicide rate in say canada?
lazs
-
I'm sure glad I'm white and not a crimminal.
:rolleyes:
Where is the frigging lock when racism rears it's ugly head?
Oh yea...it's only locked when some white guy gets shot, by a white guy, and some flipping "LIBERAL" comments on the fact that it would have been a "bling bling" ganster rant-fest had it been a rapper being shot by another rapper.
My mistake...sorry.
:rolleyes:
-
Curv, help me out... what do you find offensive in this thread?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... if say... all black people or all white people used only guns to commit murder or never used em... I am sure that would be called out... what the study shows is that 55% of homicides are commited with firearms. Are you saying that some races probly don't follow the 66% rule? My guess is that if anything... the minorities use firearms a little more often but not enough to matter.
I'm quoting the FBI sources. For 2003, the last year for which fully compiled stats are available, it is stated that there were 14,408 homicides, of which 9,638 were committed with firearms. Of those 9,638 homicides, a handgun was used in 7,701 cases. So the percentage of firearms homicides is much higher than 55% - more like 67%. These stats are available in the homicide by weapon type .XLS spreadsheet. What's this 66% rule you spoke of?
In another FBI spreadsheet, murders are analysed by age/race/sex of offender. Interestingly, the number of offenders far exceeds the number of victims, so I can only male-donkey-ume that in many homicides, several people are convicted of the same crime.
Of the 16,043 offenders, 5132 were known to be white. I suspect that it is this figure that you focus on when assessing the number of homicides by white offenders. However, the race of 4,874 of the offenders (more than 30%) is listed as "unknown". What I am saying, and what Nashwan has said in the past, is that it's highly unlikely that all of those 4,874 unknowns are black, or white. By extrapolation, we could guess that about 2,400 are blacks, and about the same are white, but this male-donkey-umption is based only on the ethnic distribution of known offenders. So your white homicide crime assessment needs to take account of this, in which case the number of white offenders far exceeds 5132 and is probably closer to 7,500.
-
Then we have to do what OR and NJ have done, and ban people from pumping their own gas.
Bet if you go to the neighborhoods where REALLY rich people live, bet they wouldnt even know how to turn the pump on.
Their so rich, even the butlers have their own butlers
(Jeeves and #2 jeeves)
Jeeves in a doctor evil voice - "Number 2, get me the keys to the gas powered machine that moves people."
Number 2 - "you mean the automobile?"
Jeeves - "Yes the (doing quotation marks with fingers) "auto-mobile."
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
white middle class people commit homicides with guns too but... It is at a rate that would be about that of canada say. around 1.5-2 per 100,000. depending on how you read the stats.
none of this says that if those people didn't have guns they wouldn't still commit a homicide.
nashwan has been caught being "selective" in his facts and unable to explain some of the inconsitancies too.
lazs
White Middle Class people don't commit homicide, it's "involuntary assisted suicide," or "post-natal abortion."
get it right :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Bet if you go to the neighborhoods where REALLY rich people live, bet they wouldnt even know how to turn the pump on.
Their so rich, even the butlers have their own butlers
(Jeeves and #2 jeeves)
Jeeves in a doctor evil voice - "Number 2, get me the keys to the gas powered machine that moves people."
Number 2 - "you mean the automobile?"
Jeeves - "Yes the (doing quotation marks with fingers) "auto-mobile."
:rofl
:rofl
-
This article might help on the statistics for crime by race.
Recently it's been found by the national census buerau that hispanics in america have been marking themselves as white/caucasian or "other". So the numbers there are quite scewed.
http://www.amren.com/997issue/997issue.html
-
beet... the 55% was a typo.. if you read down I use the correct 66% number later.
so far as white on black violent crime... there just isn't much. It allmost all black on black or black on white. My guess is that because of that most of the unsolved murders are minority on minority or minority on white. the fact that less effort is used on the murder of a black pimp or druggie than say... scott peterson to solve the crime... most of the unsolved crimes are minority.
curval is ever vigilant for any sign of percieved racism so that he can prove that he is a good liberal.... sometimes he jumps in before taking in what is being said so that he can be the first to jump on the anti racist good white guy bandwagon.
lazs
-
bustr, you really should check the editorial stance of that publication you just linked to.
-
"It most certainly does break offenders down by race. White, black.. other minorities... unknown. It gives the total murders and the percent committed by firearms..Since most of the crime and murder takes place in minority controlled areas it is pretty safe to assume that most of the offenders are minority. even at the rate of the known ones... Whites would be less than half the unknown. The majority of murders that are not investigated much are probly commited by minorities against minorities."
Explain then why everyone should arm themselves?
I'm not a minority.
Or is it that I just need "protection" from the dreaded minorities...you know..in case they venture across "the tracks".
No..wait...this is where the argument turns to "guns are fun". Silly me.
It's quite amusing being referred to as a liberal. On other boards I am considered a card carrying Nazi. Just like you do with your stats lazs...you try and pigeon hole people.
-
I like Limbaugh's editorial stance also Nashwan:)
-
Each to their own. I thought perhaps you were unaware of the racist basis of the publication, but if that's what you're looking for.
-
And by placing crime statistics in 2 columns called white/black we are only describing the color of the paper used for the report? Or the FBI should makes it's reports only by numbers of crimes per human in the areas controlled by the United States? I don't know, I'm white and my 2 neices and 1 nephew have a balck father and my 3 grand neices have 3 separate black fathers. And I was born in africa but am an american citizen.
Nashwan you got a point?
-
curval... I have allways simply said that people should be given a choice as to wether to arm themselves or not... Why are you having a hard time understanding that? Why do I have to have a reason that you approve or sounds logical to you?
Who cares what sounds like a good reason to you? My contention is that I don't need a reason.... wanting to is reason enough.
Fun or protection... either are good enough... hobby is good enough ... just like em is good enough.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... I have allways simply said that people should be given a choice as to wether to arm themselves or not...
Unfortunately, your system extends that choice to criminals.
-
So does yours. You're just in denial.
-
hmm? not really. But I would extend it to criminals if I could. I would say that any man who has paid his debt should have his rights restored.
I also agree with harsher penalties for crimes involving firearms.
simple stuff really.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
So does yours. You're just in denial.
You're making the mistake of counting the "gun" crimes. Had you been paying attention, you would know that a great many "gun" crimes here are committed with replica weapons. These crimes are still considered gun crimes because the perpetrator has instilled fear into his victim to "persuade" that person to do what he/she otherwise would not have done, eg. hand over the keys to the safe/cash register.
However, the same penalties exist, whether or not the gun was real. Such a crime is still classified as an armed robbery.
So why do the criminals use replicas instead of the real thing if, as Mr. Toad suggests, guns are so readily available to criminals, and given that the same penalties exist for use of replica weapons? I mean, you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, right? Erm.... I think it has something to do with gun control. You know, they can't get their hands on the real thing.
Try again, Bufo. :aok But better make it quick, as there is to be an extended period of toodle-pippage (EuroCon 2005) after which I shall return here, and be available for consultation. :D:p
-
Originally posted by Toad
So does yours. You're just in denial.
No it doesn't extend to crimminals. As a result those crimminals are inded still able to get them, just with significantly more difficulty. This results in a lower gun-crime rate.
-
Just don't understand your own history/stats do you?
OK..try this. How many were killed in your country by actual firearms, not replicas, in 1992.
How many were killed in your country by actual firearms, not replicas, in 2002?
It'll come to you eventually.
Your criminals are still getting guns.
And Curval, it's apparently, about as easy for UK criminals as it was 10 years ago.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1109182820_beet.jpg)
Now take a look at the column that says "All weapons excluding air weapons".
Look at the number of crimes involving REAL firearms.
Look at 1994 and then at 2003. There was a decline from '94 until about '97 and since then there's been a steady increase.
Now look at the "handgun" column. Almost an identical trend. Gosh... more of those now too.
Tell me again your criminals can't get firearms.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And Curval, it's apparently, about as easy for UK criminals as it was 10 years ago.
So?
What you don't have in England is the plethora of legal handguns which are STOLEN from law abiding citizens and then used in crimes that you see in the US.
Crimminals will always get guns. It's true. Even here on this little rock that lazs equates to a small Walt Disney World. Darn difficult though, because there is not a large number of legal guns that can be stolen. Crimminals have to import them, somehow getting past the customs department. 99.9% of them wouldn't even try because if caught they would be facing a very very long time behind bars. Just having a bullet is enough to get serious jail time.
I like it...it works for me.
-
Curval,
Here's the "So" part... mostly directed to Beet, the man that doesn't know/understand gun control in his own country.
Originally posted by beet1e
So why do the criminals use replicas instead of the real thing if, as Mr. Toad suggests, guns are so readily available to criminals, and given that the same penalties exist for use of replica weapons?
I mean, you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, right? Erm.... I think it has something to do with gun control. You know, they can't get their hands on the real thing.
Allow me to emphasize his positon:
Erm.... I think it has something to do with gun control. You know, they can't get their hands on the real thing.
Now look at the stats.
Clearly, just as many "get their hands on the real thing" as they did about 10 years ago. In fact, MORE are getting their hands on the real thing and the trend is that MORE and MORE and MORE are getting their hands on the real thing.
That is the "so".
-
you guys turned my hilarious, well thought out, funniest thread evar into a serious debate. This should just be full of ROFL's.
you sux!
-
I found the statistics on guns seized by customs and excise in the UK. 264 last year, just under half handguns. According to customs, around 20% were deliberate attempts to smuggle guns to criminals, the rest were seized because of inomplete paperwork, ignorance of the law, soldiers trying to bring home trophies, etc.
Offences with handguns were down 15% last year, shotgun offences down 4%, offences with imitation firearms up 48%.
Nashwan you got a point?
Yes. Don't post reports from openly racist sites without a: a warning (nws) and b: a note letting people know how biased the information is likely to be.
-
LOL Mr. Toad! I knew there was a wall of stats coming. :D:cool:
You said (have said in the past) that "criminals can always get guns". I don't agree. They can't always get them, and that's why a high proportion of criminals in Britain resort to replicas.
No law is perfect, not even gun control law. My earlier estimate is that our gun control laws are about 97¾% effective, based on the gun homicide rate when compared with that of America.
Regrettably, I don't have time to argue this time.
You might want to give my sig. another read though. ;)
Enjoy your weekend,
toodle-pip!
:)
-
Just for you:
\beet:
Erm.... I think it has something to do with gun control. You know, they can't get their hands on the real thing.
[/b]
Now look at the stats.
1999/00 (Handguns) 3685 (Firearms) 6843
2000/01 4104 7047
2001/01 5874 10,023
2002/03 5549 10,248
Clearly, your statement is false. Not surprising, as you have repeated shown you haven't a clue as to what's going on with firearms in your country, historically or otherwise.
They do indeed get their hands on "the real thing" and the trend is that the are getting their hands on more and more of them.
As for your sig, it's a lovely fallacious argument. I haven't seen anyone claim what you say. What I have seen and said repeatedly is that your ever increasingly restrictive gun laws have not made a statistically significant difference in the firearms homicide rate. This trend is clear long before Hungerford/Dunblane, too.
I challenge you to post the firearms homicide rate for the England, Wales and Scotland in "per 100,00" for the last 50 years. (or whatever is available) Let's see what the laws have actually done for you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Curval,
Here's the "So" part... mostly directed to Beet, the man that doesn't know/understand gun control in his own country.
Allow me to emphasize his positon:
Erm.... I think it has something to do with gun control. You know, they can't get their hands on the real thing.
Now look at the stats.
Clearly, just as many "get their hands on the real thing" as they did about 10 years ago. In fact, MORE are getting their hands on the real thing and the trend is that MORE and MORE and MORE are getting their hands on the real thing.
That is the "so".
Your question was directed at me...not at Beet1e.
That doesn't answer my "So?" at all. What you have done is continued your discussion with Beet1e..not me.
-
Allow me to attempt to clarify then.
This is a statement, not a question:
And Curval, it's apparently, about as easy for UK criminals as it was 10 years ago.
It is a statement in response to your:
Curval: No it doesn't extend to crimminals. As a result those crimminals are inded still able to get them, just with significantly more difficulty. This results in a lower gun-crime rate.
Particularly it's in response to:
crimminals are inded still able to get them, just with significantly more difficulty
It may or may not be without significantly more difficulty. That's unproven either way. What is proven is that firearms and "banned" handgun crimes are in a statiscally significant, clear upward trend. It's also proven that the totals now are as much or greater than they were nearly 10 years ago.
The rest of that post IS clearly directed at Beet; don't see how there could be any confusion about that.
Hope this helps.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Clearly, your statement is false. Not surprising, as you have repeated shown you haven't a clue as to what's going on with firearms in your country, historically or otherwise.
They do indeed get their hands on "the real thing" and the trend is that the are getting their hands on more and more of them.
What you said was "criminals can always get guns". And I disagree with that entirely. That's why our gun homicide rate is as low as it is, and is why it represents a small proportion of total homicides, most of which have to be committed with much less efficient methods.
You're pointing to the fact that some crimes/homicides are committed with guns in Britain each year. And I have never disputed that fact. But having pointed this out, you then add words to the effect that "criminals can always get guns". This is false. But I do concede that good though our gun control laws are, they are not perfect, and criminals can sometimes get guns. There's a world of difference between that, and saying that they can always get guns.
As for my sig., it's only fallacious because another calendar year has rolled around. The year being referred to was 2003. Otherwise I agree entirely with Nashwan. It's not fallacious at all. It is fact.
-
What's clear is that your criminal class can get guns enough to raise your firearms offences very significantly.
After the 1998 Dunblane-generated handgun prohibition your 1999 handgun offences were 3685. Three years (reports) later, they were at 5549. That's an increase of ~66%.
Overall firearms offences tell the same story. 1999 = 5209, 2003 = 10,248. A near doubling!
Oh, yes indeed.. it seems your criminals can get sufficient access to firearms. Again, your laws did little or nothing.
You sig block simply presents a strawman argument. That's why it's ignored so totally.
It isn't "gun control doesn't work" it's "increasingly restrictive gun laws have not made a statistically significant difference in the firearms homicide rate." (As we've just seen above; in fact, it would seem things have gotten significantly WORSE).
Again, I challenge you to to post the firearms homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland in "per 100,00" for the last 50 years. (or whatever is available) Let's see what the laws have actually done for you.
Without researching, I'll wager there's very little statistically significant difference in the firearms homicide rate from before Hungerford to now. In fact, I doubt there's little difference between 1950 and now.
-
Oh, and one other thing about your strawman argument:
Why Britain needs more guns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm)
...Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms...
"not weapons availability"... goodness, the Office of Health Economics figured it out. Surely you will sooner or later.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Overall firearms offences tell the same story. 1999 = 5209, 2003 = 10,248. A near doubling!
You're still missing the point. Even if a replica is used, that still counts as a "firearms" offence, and would have been included in your figures.
Again, I challenge you to to post the firearms homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland in "per 100,00" for the last 50 years. (or whatever is available) Let's see what the laws have actually done for you.
Why stop at England? Why not look at France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia, NZ, Japan, Bermuda...... all those countries have MUCH lower gun crime than the US.
30-all, your serve.
As for your other points - I haven't got time this side of the weekend.
-
"A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms..."
I wasn't aware that Londoners ever had unrestricted access to firearms. If you were to listen to lazs it is/was only the gentry that were allowed guns.
So, what are you saying...New Yorkers like to shoot each other? WTG on that. :aok
Ahh...but no...it was "culture" that made New Yorkers shoot each other over that 200 year span (which 200 years btw?). Is this another veiled attempt to blame minorities or is it just American cowboy style culture we should all emulate?
-
Curval, before you "go off half cocked" why don't you read the link.
Some of your questions are answered and some are not even addressed. It's a BBC article, btw.
-
Interestingly, curval, there was a time when Britain had no firearms laws. There had never been a need in the years before guns were invented. But they started thinking about it in 1911.
There is a report called the Blackwell report that observes that 6 police officers were shot and killed in the years 1908-1912, which is a little over one a year. In most cases, the perpetrators were common street villains. That tally compares with only TWO police officers shot and killed in mainland Britain since 1983 - despite all the new crime problems that did not exist 100 years ago.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You're still missing the point. Even if a replica is used, that still counts as a "firearms" offence, and would have been included in your figures.
Nearly all of the replicas are airguns, which is why I used the numbers that EXCLUDE airguns. Additionally, there is a SEPARATE COLUMN in that report for "imitations" which is where the "replica" crimes are counted. So.. once again.. you are simply wrong. The handgun count is for real handguns, up about 66%.
Up 66% years and years after your handgun ban. :rofl
Why stop at England? Why not look at France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia, NZ, Japan, Bermuda...... all those countries have MUCH lower gun crime than the US.
[/b]
Because it is about England's laws which you so proudly prattle. I challenge to take an objective look at what those laws have accomplished. Let's look at the firearms homicide rate per 100,000 for as many years back as are available.
30-all, your serve.
[/b]
No, more like Game, Set, Match - Toad... Again.
As for your other points - I haven't got time this side of the weekend.
Not only do you not have time, you don't have any argument that makes sense.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Curval, before you "go off half cocked" why don't you read the link.
Some of your questions are answered and some are not even addressed. It's a BBC article, btw.
I was just quoting your quote my friend. :)
Yea yea Malcolm's work has ironically been pointed out before. It's just an extension of our little discussion really, her's, Lott's and many others on both sides of the position's last name merely have more letters after them. ;)
It may be BBC, but she wrote the article for them.
-
"There had never been a need in the years before guns were invented."
LOL!
That concept is just completely lost on most Americans. :)
Anyway...I did enjoy Toad's little article, but what I REALLY liked about it were the responses right underneath (these were the viewable ones and that's all of them):
With around 30,000 gun deaths a year, I think we should look elsewhere than the US for ideas on this subject. More legally-owned guns means more chances for accidental deaths in the home from guns, more teenagers finding their parents' guns and playing with them, more chances for legal guns to be stolen by criminals to be used by criminals.
R K Bulmer, UK
I'd rather, if my granny were to be mugged, that she had the choice to pull out her purse, or her .45 Magnum. She's a little too old to learn kung-fu, or to run away. She may well hand her purse over anyway, but at least she has the choice. Criminals carry guns anyway, so it's about time the rest of the population had the same choice.
Sid, UK
I can't see the average British citizen wanting to take pot shots at potential muggers, however a right to self defence, not something chewed to incoherence by the lawyers, would do more to restore people's respect for the law than a personal armoury - that and more police to investigate existing crimes.
Andy, UK
I'm an expat living in Texas, where we all as citizens have a right to carry guns. I do not personally carry a weapon, but criminals do not know that. That is a deterrent. I am armed to the teeth at home in my "castle". Criminals have a question they ask themselves when they think about approaching a house out in the country: Is that family armed or not? More than likely they are.
And Barnett, Texas, US
I find this notion ludicrous. We do not need a nation of armed vigilantes (potential or otherwise) to ensure the peace, but rather active citizens who are willing to stand together against crime in their neighborhoods and cooperate with local authorities to apprehend criminals. This is the way to reduce crime. To draw a link between gun ownership and an overall drop in crime in the US is spurious and the article does not have enough evidence to point to a causative relationship between the two.
Sean Aaron
It is clear that the knee jerk reaction after Dunblane has achieved precisely nothing except reduce our chances of any sporting shooting success. The politicians have consistently read this matter wrongly. Perhaps it is time to give the academics a chance?
Alan Preddy, UK
Allowing homeowners to arm themselves will simply encourage potential burglars to arm themselves, and I don't particularly want to get into a gunfight for a colour television.
Mike, UK
This is like saying that raising the speed limit in built-up areas will cut pedestrian deaths since cars will spend less time passing through.
J, UK
Rarely do we get to hear such a flimsy argument based on misused and easily quoted statistics as Prof. Malcolm's. More avaliability of firearms in the UK would bring us more Dunblanes and perhaps a Columbine.
J.Canning, UK
Can you imagine the number of mistakes, accidents, acts of temporary insanity, etc. that would result from having guns freely available? I wonder what the police think of this crazy idea - what policeman would dare to investigate a "domestic quarrel" call, not knowing what firepower he might face?
Gordon, Canada,
More guns in the UK would mean less crime. If crimnals fear the use of firearms by citizens then they will be less likly to committe an offense. People should have the right to own firearms as well as carry them in the UK.
Ian, UK
These are mostly people who live in the UK.
Strangely they don't like Professors from America telling them what they do or don't "need" when it comes to guns.
-
The rest on the next, and last, viewable page:
As a mother, an expat and most relevantly a resident of Dunblane when Thomas Hamilton took his legally held weapons into our school, this academic is just wrong! I recently spent four weeks ducking and diving my way around my neighbourhood in fear of a sniper. As much as I tried to shelter my eight-year-old, the stress of this experience cannot be measured. Guns have no place in civilised society, find some other solution!
M, Washington,DC, USA
Professor Malcolm isn't saying there'd be fewer shootings (accidental and otherwise) but fewer burglaries, muggings and rapes. This seems unarguably true; the question is whether it's a price worth paying. There is no direct link between civilian gun ownership and crime - the areas of the UK with the highest crime rates are hardly those with the most legally-owned guns. The government should get tough on the causes of crime, not the tools.
Paul Williams, UK
I'm an expat living in Singapore - here there is mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession of a gun. The Police are armed and appear to have a no-nonsense policy. Even with the recent terrorist threats here I've never felt safer. I don't want to live in a country that needs me to carry a gun.
Chris Shaw, Singapore
California has 12m fewer people than the UK but gun crime is 18 times what it is here. The professor's assertions are the kind of empty-headed nonsense that the American gun lobby has been touting for years. The facts and figures tell the true story.
Robert, UK
The stats tell the real story: there are more legal guns in the US and there are more murders. That's all we need to know.
Alex, UK
Perhaps Prof Malcolm should address her comments to the parents of a six-year-old who has just accidentally shot dead her younger brother. This "independent" academic is part of a large and powerful industry determined to continue the trade in weapons that have no purpose other than killing human beings. With this anti-life attitude Americans struggle for my sympathy.
Karl Upston-Hooper, New Zealand
The author compares the mugging rate of London and New York, why didn't she mention the billions of dollars New York has put into hiring more police officers, because this would weaken her argument. If this argument is taken seriously then we have learned nothing from history, in history I mean Columbine High School. Does Britain want its own Columbine?
Kashef, Canada
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, but lets face it, most people are not responsible enough to own and operate a gun in safety. Gun ownership is not necessary in a society that informs on criminals and helps the police to root out crime in the neighbourhoods.
Greg, Canada
In this country they don't even give the police guns so what hope do we have.
Roger, UK
I'm also an expat living in the US, and I do have guns at home - rifles for deer hunting which I do for food, not sport. That said, I disagree with the commentator, who is clearly unaware of the striking differential in handgun homicides between the US and the UK. There are tens of thousands of these in the US overall, compared to a few dozen in the UK.
Mick, US
-
Well, do you think I should quote the whole article? Or just the most germane part?
Here are the questions of yours to which I referred:
Ahh...but no...it was "culture" that made New Yorkers shoot each other over that 200 year span (which 200 years btw?). Is this another veiled attempt to blame minorities or is it just American cowboy style culture we should all emulate?
According to the Office of Health Economics in London, yes it is cultural. Now is that a veiled attempt to blame minorities? I don't know; I suspect that since that remark must be taken over 200 years it would not be but you'd have to ask the Office of Health Economics in London to be sure.
You think the OHE is a front for Malcom and Lott? I don't know but this is how they describe themselves on their website:
The Office of Health Economics provides independent research, advisory and consultancy services on policy implications and economic issues within the pharmaceutical, healthcare and biotechnology industries. Its main areas of focus are the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, healthcare systems – their financing and organisation, and the economics of health technology assessment.
Should you emulate us? Probably not; it wouldn't suit your culture, would it? Pink shorts on a cowboy? ;)
In a way, there's linkage to that thread on Libertarianism. I think there is an underlying thread of Libertarianism in our culture. I think it why we have the Constitution we have too. Jefferson is viewed as pretty Libertarian by a lot of folks.
TJ: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Me too. You? Maybe not, I don't know.
-
"You think the OHE is a front for Malcom and Lott? I don't know but this is how they describe themselves on their website: "
Now someone else is going off half-cocked.
Please, point that little gem out in what I said?
I was just suggesting that the entire gun debate on this board is the same as Lott, Malcolm etc vs. the anti-gun acedemics...but that they (acedmics in general, on both sides) have more letters after their names...such as "MA, Phd" etc.
I have a few though..but just boring old accounting ones...
BA, CA, CPA
-
TJ: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
All those gun crimes in your country are "inconveniences" of attending too much liberty"?
I'm not so sure TJ would like that suggestion.
-
By the way...this guy is the British version of Airhead:
"I'd rather, if my granny were to be mugged, that she had the choice to pull out her purse, or her .45 Magnum. She's a little too old to learn kung-fu, or to run away. She may well hand her purse over anyway, but at least she has the choice. Criminals carry guns anyway, so it's about time the rest of the population had the same choice.
Sid, UK"
He made it on the BBC too.!
:lol
Best troll ever.
-
No, I didn't say that you said that.
I was asking a question. Therefore the "?" thingie.
I'm near certain, however, that someone will be along to discredit the OHE. After all, can't have a UK organization saying "particular cultural factors" are at the root of the difference. Oh no.. it HAS to be the gun laws that haven't changed the firearms homicide rate.
As for "What Would TJ Think", you don't have to wonder.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-- Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
-- Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."
-- Letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."
-- Letter to -----, 1803. ME 10:365
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."
-- Letter to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407
As for the quotes after the BBC article, I'd say those are strong evidence of differences caused by "particular cultural factors".
I'm glad they have it their way. I'm much more glad we have it our way.
-
Good morning! :)
I'll have to let Curval and Nashwan handle this one, as I'm off to the Eurocon in about 2 hours. No time to look at your stats, Toad. All I can say is that if you're quoting BBC stats, the last time you did that you quoted a figure which I was able to prove was out by 57%.
Yes our gun laws have contained gun crime quite well, I think. Of Curval's quotes, I can relate to these three in particular. I'm an expat living in Singapore - here there is mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession of a gun. The Police are armed and appear to have a no-nonsense policy. Even with the recent terrorist threats here I've never felt safer. I don't want to live in a country that needs me to carry a gun.
Chris Shaw, Singapore
California has 12m fewer people than the UK but gun crime is 18 times what it is here. The professor's assertions are the kind of empty-headed nonsense that the American gun lobby has been touting for years. The facts and figures tell the true story.
Robert, UK
The stats tell the real story: there are more legal guns in the US and there are more murders. That's all we need to know.
Alex, UK
Indeed.
I've been to Singapore - I thought the death sentence was only if the gun was actually fired. Otherwise it's a long jail sentence, and maybe a whooping. But I agree absolutely with what was said - No-one except the police is armed, and I can honestly say I never felt safer walking around late on a Saturday night.
Once again Mr. Toad is focussing on percentage changes in Britain, as these appear to support his argument better. For example, if the gun homicide tally had risen by 17 in 2004, Mr. Toad would be able to crow that there had been a "massive 25% increase in gun homicides despite the 1997 legislation", to which he is fond of referring as a "ban", conveniently overlooking the fact that it has never been possible, in mine or my parents' lifetimes, for a citizen such as me to walk into a shop and buy a .38 calibre revolver, or equivalent.
But, if the gun homicide in USA increased by 17, it would be a blip - hardly noticeable - and would be dismissed as "the price worth paying for the right to bear arms".
That's unproven either way. What is proven is that firearms and "banned" handgun crimes are in a statiscally significant, clear upward trend.
Nashwan corrected you thus: Offences with handguns were down 15% last year, shotgun offences down 4%, offences with imitation firearms up 48%.
- and I have no reason to doubt it.
Gun homicides were down by about 15 in 2003, compared with the previous year. Learn the concept of year on year fluctuations.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, I didn't say that you said that.
I was asking a question. Therefore the "?" thingie.
As for "What Would TJ Think", you don't have to wonder.
But why were you asking that question? It just "sprang to mind"? Odd. I didn't hint at anything close to what your question was asking about.
Quoting what a man said in the late 1700s and early 1800s to back up arguments surrounding a modern problem is somewhat superfluous, but predictable. Too bad he isn't around to ask him ourselves whether the tens of thousands killed by guns each year in the US are "inconveniences" of attending too much liberty"?
California wasn't even a state when he wrote those quotes.
:p
As you say...you like it "your way": the Brits who responded to Malcolm's article like it "theirs".
-
Originally posted by Curval
But why were you asking that question?
[/b]
Because the "antis" here like to immediately dismiss ANYTHING by Malcom or Lott; makes it much easier than discussing it point-by-point.
Quoting what a man said in the late 1700s
[/b]
You're the one who is
not so sure TJ would like that suggestion
[/b].
You can either research what he said or dig him up and ask him. I think you'll come out far better if you just research for a lot of reasons. Mainly, if you dig him up, he still won't answer and you'll most certainly tick off the US government.
Unlike you, I have no doubt.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
-- Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
He probably had no problem with subjects being debarred the use of arms though. :)
and early 1800s to back up arguments surrounding a modern problem is somewhat superfluous, but predictable. Too bad he isn't around to ask him ourselves whether the tens of thousands killed by guns each year in the US are "inconveniences" of attending too much liberty"?
California wasn't even a state when he wrote those quotes.
:p
As you say...you like it "your way": the Brits who responded to Malcolm's article like it "theirs". [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, btw, California wasn't a State when he wrote our Declaration of Independence and much of the Constitution either. Go figger.
-
curval... what country has 30,000 firearms deaths a year?
you continue to not get it when confronted with the facts. more guns in a society do not equal more homicides... less guns do not equal less homicides. You have to take into account cultural differences that is true..
but.. if you add guns to the U.S. mix you don't get more homicides you get less (area specific) if you take them away or make them more restricted you get more crime (area specific)... in your country the same thing exists on a different or culturaly driven scale..
Replica or whatever... your country thinks that they are guns and outlaws their use and acounts them as guns. There is probly slightly less penalty for using em so they are atractive to some elements of the criminal class...
lazs
-
Those numbers are from the Home Office, I believe.
You still don't want to discuss graphing your firearms homicides over the last 50 years (or for whatever period reliable data is available) and highlighting key years where restrictive legislations/bans were enacted do you?
For good reason... it will show that your laws have little to do with your stats. Rather, as the Office of Health Economics observed it's more because of your culture.
Some more Home Office numbers for you.
Homicide Trend
(http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_Homicide.gif)
Causing Death By Dangerous Driving
(http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_Causing_death_by_dangerous_driving.gif)
Better put your butter knives in your auto's glove box, lock the car and, as a nation, throw away all of your keys. After all, no price it too high.
Trend Total Violent Crime
(http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_TOTAL_VIOLENT_CRIME.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... what country has 30,000 firearms deaths a year?
you continue to not get it when confronted with the facts. more guns in a society do not equal more homicides... less guns do not equal less homicides. You have to take into account cultural differences that is true..
On your question above..I'm afraid you will have to ask R K Bulmer, UK ...it isn't my quote it is his/hers.
No, you are absolutely right..I don't get it.
Are you now arguing that culture differences are the ONLY reason for a greater incidence of gun crime in the US.
If so then what is wrong with your culture?
What is wrong, in my opinion, is that you guys want to take the words and works of guys who wrote your constitution as a bible on how to behave at any given point in history. You cling to your right to bear arms and claim that less guns equals more crime and then explain the greater incidence of gun crimes in the US as "cultural differences".
Quite amazing.
-
And as to yours and Toad's presentation of "facts", I'm sorry but I live, for the most part, by the adage:
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
-
Sounds like the old
"Those numbers are inconvenient for me so I'll just say they're either wrong, irrelevant or just simply ignore them."
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sounds like the old
"Those numbers are inconvenient for me so I'll just say they're either wrong, irrelevant or just simply ignore them."
Nashwan...is that you hacking Toad's BBS access?
:p
-
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares4.jpg)
-
Curval......... it's obvious.
After the 1998 Dunblane-generated handgun prohibition the 1999 handgun offences were 3685. Three years (reports) later, they were at 5549. That's an increase of ~66%.
Those are numbers from the Home Office.
So what good did it do to ban handguns?
Some might say "it would have been worse". There's absolutely no proof of that.
OTOH, there is clear proof that after the ban, offences went up.
Feel free to ignore those inconvenient figures.
-
Originally posted by Curval
You cling to your right to bear arms and claim that less guns equals more crime and then explain the greater incidence of gun crimes in the US as "cultural differences".
Quite amazing.
This is where everyone drifts away from the point. The point isn't "gun crime" or "gun related homicide, it's CRIME period.
Having guns does not cause an increase homicides . And it's been shown that, in America, cities and states that offer concealed carry permits usually see a drop in crime.
Take away every gun in America, and the homicide rate will probably be the same or higher. So why is the gun always the issue with people rather than society and crime??? That's the amazing thing to me.
-
Because you can't blame people. You have to blame inanimate objects.
But you knew that, right? ;)
-
You are drawing a completely meaningless correlation there Toad. The %age figure is mighty impressive though.
Here's what Alex in the UK had to say about Malcolm's stats:
The stats tell the real story: there are more legal guns in the US and there are more murders. That's all we need to know.
Alex, UK
Keep your guns. Have fun. Kill each other all you like. Just don't try and tell me, or anyone living in a country that does not allow guns, that I'd be much better off, safer, whatever...if we had more guns.
I don't buy it.
-
Nuke,
Even when your stats show gun crime going down after bring in a legal concealment law does not take away the fact that you guys have WAAAAAAAY more gun crime. It dropped a bit, but it was a "drop in the bucket".
-
Curval, again you are using the term "gun crime". That's where you are getting tripped up.
-
That is what we are discussing Nuke. Crimes in which guns are used.
-
Originally posted by Curval
That is what we are discussing Nuke. Crimes in which guns are used.
Well, if that is the case, I will concede hands down that the US has more crimes in which guns are used than any country who has a gun ban. That's just logical. We have guns, the UK basically does not. Simple.
That does not translate into guns=more crime though.
-
Meaningless correlation? They pass a law banning handguns and their handgun offences go way up? From Home Office stats?
Meaningless to you, I guess.
Way more gun crime.. which the Office of Econmic Health attributes primarily to cultural differences, NOT gun availability. But feel free to ignore that too.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
In fact, I'd even say that those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Plenty of guns around my house, my neighborhood, my city, my state, my nation. I've never felt "unsafe" due to firearms. To the contrary, "safety" is a given around here.
I guess you may need the absence of guns to feel safe? Whatever floats your boat.
-
Some might say "it would have been worse". There's absolutely no proof of that. - Toad
LOL...but your stats prove that it was the gun ban that RESULTED in an increase of gun crime Toad? Please.
There was, I am sure, a number of factors that caused that increase. I doubt very much if ANY of it RESULTED from the ban.
That's just crazy. What, did the British crimminals suddenly say to themselves "Cool, guns are now banned...so we are gonna use 'em."?
No.
-
No, like Beet you miss the point. Deliberately?
The ban did not accomplish anything[/u][/i] with respect to reducing handgun crime.
It was pointless. It merely denied law-abiding handgun owners of their guns.
Yet it's viewed as some sort of triumph.
And handgun crime trends up.
Bravo.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Some might say "it would have been worse". There's absolutely no proof of that. - Toad
There was, I am sure, a number of factors that caused that increase. I doubt very much if ANY of it RESULTED from the ban.
So what did the gun ban accomplish then?
The funny thing about the whole gun ban in the UK is that it was never needed and, once in place did nothing to slow down or stop crime or even "gun crime"
Even Beetle has said the there has never been more than around 100 gun related deaths in the UK, pre-ban or post ban.
It was pointless to ban handguns in the UK.
-
You do not know that it did nothing. As you have already said it may have, it just can't be proven.
I don't have a crystal ball....and I don't live in the UK.
Guns were banned here since 1971. I know of ONE death by firearms since that time.
Are you suggesting that in my island's case the gun ban didn't work? I assure you that it has...very effectively.
-
Originally posted by Curval
.
Are you suggesting that in my island's case the gun ban didn't work? I assure you that it has...very effectively.
Did your homicide rate drop after the gun ban?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Guns were banned here since 1971. I know of ONE death by firearms since that time.
How many deaths by firearms in the previous 35 years?
If it's around 1, I'd say your ban did nothing as well as England's did nothing.
-
Yup, just before the ban our governor, his aide-de-cap and his dog were all shot and killed.
Dunno how many before that...but just take those figures...Bermuda experienced a 75% drop in gun related death as a direct result of the gun ban in the way Toad views his statistics.
Impressive huh?
-
Curval, is your nation any more safe now that guns are banned? Did homicides and crime go down as a result of the gun ban?
-
I just showed you that we had a 75% drop in gun related deaths from just prior to 1971 to date.
Don't now try and muddy the waters. Those are the numbers.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I just showed you that we had a 75% drop in gun related deaths from just prior to 1971 to date.
Don't now try and muddy the waters. Those are the numbers.
I'm asking if the homicide or crime rates have been lowered as a result of the gun ban.
You know, as in "X" number of homicides each year, "X" number of crimes. Has that changed or been lowered as a result of the gun ban?
-
It is a silly question...you are trying to get me to pull stats to prove some point of yours. Do you own research if you want to make a point...I'm not gonna do it for you.
:p
-
I'm not trying to get you to do that. I have tried to look up Burmuda crime stats to no avail.
You know what I'm getting at anyway. I suspect that the crime rates have not changed or been lowered as a result of banning guns.
Now, when you say you have reduced "gun related deaths", I'm just wondering if overal homicides have been lowered as a result of the gun ban.
If the crime rates have not changed or been lowered, and the same average number of people are murdered in any given year, why does it matter that "gun related" homicides are down by 75%?
That's like saying you banned tire irons ( because someone used one to kill another), then claiming tire-iron related deaths are down.
-
You count the Guv's dog in that? :) Wouldn't it be 66% even if you counted the dog? 3 before.. 1 after.. "saved 2 (including the dog). You're the bean counter here.
Again..... how many deaths in the 35 years prior due to firearms crime?
You, of course, have no idea. So you base your opinion on..... what? Nothing? No data?
Violent crime on the rise (http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20050209&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=102090091&SectionCat=&Template=printart)
Bermuda's once shining reputation as safe and tranquil island paradise is being undermined by the continued proliferation of violent crime.
Year end crime statistics released yesterday by the Bermuda Police Service reveal a 13 percent increase in violent crime from 2003 and a more-than 20 percent increase from 2002.
Tell me Curval.. why doesn't Bermuda publish actual crime states like most of the rest of the developed countries? The Uniform Code stats? Because there's no trouble in paradise? Don't want to scare the touristas?
You guys have one of the highest incarceration rates if I'm not mistaken?
-
No...that is saying that in order to kill someone here you gotta get "up close and personal" and not risk "missing" and killing an innocent.
You know what stat would be REALLY interesting? The number of ACCIDENTAL gun deaths per year here. I'm guessing none. How about you guys?
-
Originally posted by Curval
It is a silly question...
:p
Yeah, real silly to ask if banning guns has lowered your homicide rates. ;)
-
Originally posted by Curval
No...that is saying that in order to kill someone here you gotta get "up close and personal" and not risk "missing" and killing an innocent.
You know what stat would be REALLY interesting? The number of ACCIDENTAL gun deaths per year here. I'm guessing none. How about you guys?
What would be even more interesting would to see the total number of accidental deaths each year, then see how many are gun related.
Then maybe we could pick the highest causes of accidental deaths and just ban those. You know, things like swimming pools, alcohol, motorcycle riding, car driving and on and on......they cause more death than guns afterall.
-
"Tell me Curval.. why doesn't Bermuda publish actual crime states like most of the rest of the developed countries? The Uniform Code stats? Because there's no trouble in paradise? Don't want to scare the touristas? "
Dunno..you'll have to take that up with the government.
...and by the way...SURE I include the dog in that. I place more value on my dogs that most "people". I'm betting you feel similarly.
;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What would be even more interesting is to see the total number of accidental deaths each year, then see how many are gun related.
What would that prove? Nothing.
-
I edited it Curval.....
-
Curval, whats the main cause of accidental death in Burmuda?
Since you don't have guns, what do people use to murder people with now?
-
And I'm sure Curval would like to closely examine accidental motor vehicle deaths with respect to accidental firearms deaths.
Let's see.. Bermuda has few big cars, right? Mostly just scooters? How yas doin' on the motor vehicle death stats?
-
LOL....what on earth do scotter accidents have "to do" with banning guns?
You guys are grasping at straws.
-
Curval, you are the one grasping at straws. You like to put "gun" deaths in a seperate catagory as any other deaths for some reason.
Do you not care about drownings in swimming pools, for instance?
And you are confusing the argument. It's not about guns, it's about homicide, crime and ( because you indroduced this) accidental deaths.
If you were honest with yourself, you would want to look into your homicide and crime rates, and see if banning guns lowered either.
-
Nuke..banning guns is designed to decrease gun-related crime...correct?
-
I beleive the point is, if crime statistics are on the rise in the face of an all out gun ban, then the gun ban accomplished very little than to remove guns as an accidental source of death amongst the law abiding. Do the current crime statistics for Curval's island show criminal vs criminal crime is on the increase, or is it an increase of criminal victimizing the law abiding?
Toad what is being ignored that you set in motion is the overall increase in "CRIME" since firearms were banned or given up in the UK. You are being played for the wording of your question. You specified "GUNS" and in the UK deaths by "GUNS" has always been almost non-existant. So Curval and Co. have been correct in their assurtions as long as they stick to the rules of your original question. Kinda purial, but you stepped into it.
Crime has increased in the UK, Canada and Australia since their enactments of total or near total banning of gun ownership of the law abiding public. I do not know if this is because the criminal elements in each country are emboldend by the disarmement of the public or not. But they seem to be going hand in hand. The UK public are not being assaulted by firearms because it's a small island and easy to control the flow of goods in and out by the police. But the public is seeing an increase in violent crime by other methods.
Our american argument is that we are seeing a decrease in violent crime against the law abiding especially in those states that have shall issue laws, CCW laws and or do not infringe on the 2nd amendmant or state level constitutional right to keep and bare arms.
So from these differences one might suggest allowing the law abiding UK public to bare arms again or the UK become a super police state so that criminal activity can be responded to by a greater number of boots on the ground.
-
Well, with all the slaughter on your roads... and Bermuda stats are right up there.. I'd think that of course you'd want to ban the evil inanimate motor vehicles too.
Trouble in Paradise?
Unsolved Murders (http://www.bermuda.org.uk/unsolved_murders.htm)
Those are just the unsolved ones. Big on the stabbing with sharp instruments over there I guess. Surely the plan to ban butterknives can't be far off.
Isn't it interesting that Bermuda doesn't participate in the UN's International Crime Victims Survey.
I have found references that say Bermuda's murder rate per 100k is about the same as the US rate.
-
As I've said before, crime rates for individual countries are culturally based.
For instance, if the Japanese government suddenly passed a law allowing unrestricted ownership of firearms, and many Japanese citizens availed themselves of the new-found right, would they begin slaughtering their neighbors willy-nilly? I think not. They are too disciplined and respectful a people to do that.
On the other hand, they might invade Manchuria.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I have found references that say Bermuda's murder rate per 100k is about the same as the US rate.
lol
Really?
Considering our population is about 65,000 I'd question the source.
-
C'mon, yer a bean counter. They give your rates per 20k but you can still compare apples to apples. It's only math.
-
Toad I took a look at your links and some other research. Looks like Curval's island is experiencing the same demographics for crime that is common for much of the western world. Increases in violence by the minority populations for drugs, cultural and economic differences. I guess we caucasians are a bunch of wimps. We seem to be a tad squeemish about rending each others epidermis during social disputes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
C'mon, yer a bean counter. They give your rates per 20k but you can still compare apples to apples. It's only math.
Yea yea, I know. Just busting your chops. :)
-
Originally posted by bustr
Toad I took a look at your links and some other research. Looks like Curval's island is experiencing the same demographics for crime that is common for much of the western world. Increases in violence by the minority populations for drugs, cultural and economic differences. I guess we caucasians are a bunch of wimps. We seem to be a tad squeemish about rending each others epidermis during social disputes.
Correctamundo.
Are you suggesting we should arm ourselves here as a result? My opinion is that it would simply make matters worse...much worse.
(btw the population of Bermuda is about 70% black...it isn't just a caucasian thing)
-
Would it reduce the violent crime rate? Would it have saved any of the victems of these violent crimes from being victemised? In my personal case the one time I needed a conceled firearm, I had it and the perp and I both lived.
So what do you do for the victems of violence on your island who needed an equalizer before they attained victem status on the official island report? I know it's always easier to talk about social governmental sollutions. But what about that poor lower class woman living in one of the crime areas who could have defended herself but for the lack of a firearm? Or are they all criminals and deserve what they do to each other? Kind of a prevailing social class attitiude in the west about these things.
-
Ahhh...but balance those same women living alone in a poor neighborhood against all the accidental and "bystander" victims in a natural increase in gun-play from the moment you were to legalise guns here.
What about all of them?
What about the inevitable prevalence of stolen weapons being used in future crimes? Most crimes are committed with stolen blackmarket weapons and not with lawfully owned guns in the US right?
We have had an alarming increase in violent crime in recent years, it's true. But we don't need to cross the line into "arming" our population quite yet and I hope we never do.
If you want to play with guns though you can join a club...or the Regiment.
-
A Bermudan Colt.
(http://www.kitchenshop.com/catalog/media/IVC-2008_L.jpg)
-
lol Toad.
-
curval... yu realize that if you ban something to prevent homicides and crime and then homicides and crime do not go down... you have banned something for no reason?
Like dogs more than most people? why then are you worried about homicide rates at all? Fraid the peasants might get around to the "good" humans like yourself?
lazs
-
Ok Curval, then you leave these low income people disarmed. Violent crime is increasing. They are actualy dieing and not a statistical bystander like yourself. Are you advocating they just grin and bare it and contiue dieing?
-
So now I'm an evil rich conservative standing by while the poor get preyed on by the crimminals.
LOL
Just a page or two ago I was a typical liberal.
You and lazs need to get together.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I'm as much of a potential victim as low income people bustr...more so in fact. I actually HAVE something to steal.
-
I have no clue how you vote ideologicaly. I dont think Laz has much to say to me. Having something to steal is not always the reason for the violence.
Doing the reasearch for your island the violence is happeneing with more frequency in the poorer demographic groups. Unless your government is scewing the stats for some unknown reason.
Curval it reads like you don't want to answer the question on what to do for your violence victems who want to save their own lives. That kinda leaves them in the pickle our neanderthal ansestors were in with cave bears.
You sound like you personaly have decided to play life's lottery and take your chances on not becomeing a victem before you pass off this planet. It is a common human trait. And in turn you really don't want to give a direct answer that can leave you labeled and locked into a corner that might paint you in a bad light.
At least with Laz he gives a direct blunt answer to these kinds of questions.
-
But Bustr... Curval knows the answer and knows WE know the answer.
If his wife, his kids or his life were threatened, he'd pick up anything he could use as a weapon and do the best he could. Of course, he'd be wishing he had a pistol when the big guy with the kitchen knife came after him but.. .hey, a broom is better than nothing.
;)
-
Nine iron Toad...nine iron.
;)
One thing is for sure...I don't have to worry that my kids will get hit by a stray bullet, hurt/killed accidentally with a gun, or that the guys who are committing the violence now have easy access to guns..legal or otherwise.
-
Toad,
Curval is right in the issue of collateral damage. It is always a concern, or should be. I worry about it in my home when I drill the possibilites. I don't wish to harm the innocent or my loved ones in the process of neutralising a perp.
Many countries now deny citizens the opportunity to save their lives from violent encounters sighting this as one of the reasons. When you look at the cold statistics, the governments and some citizens can justify this direction based on the "real" numbers. After all they aren't dropping in the hundreds of thousands. Small populations will have smaller numbers of violent deaths and violent crimes in apperance to the U.S. as a whole.
If you take your statistics against a state by state basis and compaire only one of the 50 states at a time, the deaths and acts of violence per 100,000 are about the same, and some states less for a given population.
But back to the original topic...I think... What do you do for those persons who "will" become a violent death or violence victem statistic, who for the lack of a means of self defence other wise would not have been?
Curval's argument, of what I can infer, argues the "WHAT IF" that the possibility exists that collateral damage "MAY" happen. The preponderance of the government statistices are people "will die from violence" and "be violently accosted" every year. So far Ive only really heard a great silence on this board concerning what to do for these people we know will be statistics each year. Under other circumstances the silence can be infered as a tacit approval.
-
A well known American once wrote the following:
" You die and go to Heaven, I'll stay here in Bermuda." - Mark Twain
-
Originally posted by Curval
Yup, just before the ban our governor, his aide-de-cap and his dog were all shot and killed.
Impressive huh?
It was a "Love Triangle" that went wrong....became a Double Murder Suicide real fast. Who would have guessed that the dog was packin heat?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Curval
A well known American once wrote the following:
" You die and go to Heaven, I'll stay here in Bermuda." - Mark Twain
Bet he's not on-line in Burmuda....
:D