Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BlueJ1 on October 11, 2007, 12:36:41 AM
-
Im surprised this didnt show up on here. Another school shooting. So far the only death was the 14! year old shooter.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html) A 14-year-old gunman opened fire at a Cleveland high school, wounding four people before turning a gun on himself, officials said. It was only after students ran past screaming "Oh my God!" that one student realized he'd been shot. Police said some victims may have been specifically targeted.
-
Yep,
A lot of time they do get passed on. I am one of the “Armed Citizens”, but I’ll bite. First where did he get the guns? If he got them from a gun store then that gun store\owner (shooter under 18) needs to go to jail. If he got the guns from friends, they needs to go to jail, if he got the guns from his family (dad ect) that person needs to go to jail. You cannot give a minor a handgun with out that minor being supervised and with an adult.
Lets all watch who they punish for getting him the guns. He is dead, from what I read, so he has already been punished. But all thing being equal, me 22 years in the Air force, 8 years with federal law enforcement and now a private citizen, will be blamed for the children being shot because I SHOOT CLAY PIGONS ON F’en SUNDAY. Who will be the first politician or zealot to start blaming me?
AAAAHHHHHHHHH
Pease.
-
I don't live that far from Cleaveand, heard about this on the radio yesterday. :/
I just graduated this last year. High School that is, and this is a bit worriesome. I wish I had more info on it. Any good links to info on it? Or is to the point where it's happened and people are still not sure what really happened?
Ie. Getting the Info to do stuff?
-
Yeah... make sure that everyone in a spot is unarmed and unable to defend themselves and then announce it to the world.
Would you put a sign on your lawn saying that "there are no guns in this home" ?
I keep waiting for all the nut job stories about shootings at pistol ranges and police stations and such.
Seems where people are armed.. and the nutters know it.. there are less shootings or... at least.. someone shoots them before they can slaughter.
schools with their no gun policies are a nutjob magnet. nutjobs are cowards and they want to kill as many as possible... where better than where our own government makes us helpless.
The alternative of course is.... metal detectors and armed police at every school... LOTS of armed police... not as good as concealled carry of course cause... the nutters know where they are so you need ten times as many.
yep.. that's the solution... disarm the citizen and then put one cop for every 3 or three citizens and...search everyone.
well worth it tho if it stops a few nuts from shooting every year right ladies?
lazs
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/11/cleveland.shooting/index.html
"Coon had been charged with domestic violence and had attempted suicide while in the seventh grade, The Plain Dealer newspaper reported, citing court and Department of Children and Family Services records."
"Coon was arrested last year in a domestic violence incident, McGrath said, and police had been to his home before for incidents that involved weapons."
This is a 14 year-old. Students are describing him as "odd". It sounds more like a nutjob. I think we are just lucky that he didn't know anything about explosives.
-
Vast majority of guns are used in stopping criminals
"Society is Safer when Criminals don't Know Who's Armed"
Remember that little sissy here who used to beat his girl because he was too limp wrist'ed to beat a man?
Ocean says week after week after week?...What a clueless dolt
-
There will always be those poor low dejetced miserable souls that volunteer to suffer greatly for the atrocities of all humanity, allowing the rest of us to get on with our day.
-
See Rule #5
Why talk about random, highly rare events that the media will cover with hours of talking heads and dire emotion for the next week? I mean, you can burn a family to death with a can of gasoline and it barely makes page 1 of state's main urban newspapers for a day (if that) but if one gangbanger pops another gangbanger it's "save the children."
Or take the Petit case, where an unarmed man was beaten to within an inch of his life, and was helpless while his wife and two daughters were raped and eventually murdered. http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/0807/komisarjevsy_ctv.html No "armed citizen" stuff from the media there. Want to protect your family? Plant cactus in your window boxes :aok
One more time:
1. Firearm legislation has been found to have no positive impact on crime according to the CDC (hardly a "pro gun" organization). Since criminals don't obey the law, such regulation only impacts legal, responsible gun owners. The rate of crime where legal gun owners is involved, is minimal.
2. Most crimes are criminal on criminal, and even in areas like the UK with a full ban the criminals are managing to smuggle in and acquire firearms in a growing state of increased firearm crime. Apparently even this punk acquired his firearms (a common .38 revolver and a .22) beyond the regulation of the law. Just like I'm sure a bunch of students in the same school sell and use illegal drugs that are banned in all states and in some cases like cocaine -- not even produced in the US. Yeah, bans really do work.
3 Mad gunman shootings are rare -- very rare. Lightning strike rare, though the publicity they receive would suggest blood in the streets on a daily basis.
4. Where is the call for "sensible" freedom of speech laws? Mad gunman crime simply didn't exist before the television age. The Texas bell tower guy was the first notable one in the 1960s, but then he had a brain tumor. Then came Columbine, and the media circus, and now you get the occasional sociopath that decides to go out with a media splash. Cho even sent his own press kit to NBC. Of course, sensible restrictions to the 1st is not a hot button issue for the MSM. For background, it was once not uncommon for students to bring guns to school to work on in shop class, or during hunting season or as part of marksmanship courses. No one though twice about it. What's changed? Certainly not the gun part of the deal.
5. Where's the outrage over all the children killed by alcohol? Every now and then you get 5 or so killed in one DUI pop, or a bad week with 2-3 major incidents and there's some media play -- but nobody much cares. And we have nearly a Columbine a week of our youth killed in alcohol deaths. I guess too many of us like to have a drink or two and feel punishing those who are irresponsible is enough.
Charon
-
“SuccessTech, a small magnet school for gifted and troubled students” (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/11/cleveland.shooting/index.html)
Why on earth would you put gifted and troubled students together in the same school? Or does gifted mean "special"? Judging by the grammar from the students in the CNN article, I'm leaning toward special.
Anyway, the real story here is not about guns but about a kid who was the product of being put through the system. I'm guessing his home life probably didn't help much either. When he snapped, had he not gotten a gun, he would have gone berserk with a sword or a machete and probably done about the same amount of damage.
-
Stupid kid.... lousy parents.
Kid dead. Fix parents (so they can't have any more)
-
no "ocean"... one law for everyone..
use alcohol badly and get punished... use a firearm badly and get punished... not.. if one person uses either of them badly.... everyone gets their human rights revolked.
lazs
-
Here's an example of media hysteria in action. It's so sad, it's almost funny. Now remember, the "arsenal" the police laid out in front of the cameras is mainly airsoft. But then why lay out toys to begin with. Kinda makes it appear to be a big bad bust that way, I suppose. Justify you existence, etc.
Apparently the media already started to run with it, but are trying to figure out how to back peddle and how to still work the evil guns angle when the guns are airsoft. Watch the obvious confusion. Watch the mom's 9mm semi-auto turn into an "assault-like weapon " (scary! scary! evil! evil!) . Note that no ammo was in the house (presumedly for the one 9mm) but it sure sounds like no airsfot bbs were found too -- PRAISE JESUS! :)
Hours later, even "Shep" over at Faux News was using the word arsenal on this story (which, frankly would be better referenced as an armory in any case).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/
My god! Guns are just so out of control! A 14 year old can own his own arsenal (of airsoft)! Hysteria. If it bleeds it leads, or even if it looks like it might potentially bleed maybe if, well, something happened and there were bullets and the arsenal was real and...
Charon
-
Oh,
Here's the CNN/AP coverage of the non event. Ridiculousness highlighted.
PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A home-schooled teenager who felt bullied amassed a cache of guns, knives and hand grenades and tried to recruit another boy for a possible school attack, authorities said Thursday.
The 14-year-old was taken into custody after police searched his bedroom in a Philadelphia suburb on Wednesday evening. He had talked about mounting a Columbine-type attack at Plymouth Whitemarsh High School, authorities said.
The weapons included a 9mm assault rifle [only if you use a very liberal use of the term] that the teenager's mother had recently bought for him, Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. said. Prosecutors are reviewing her actions.
Police also found about 30 air-powered guns, [bb guns - could put an eye out with those] plus swords, knives, hand grenades , [really? plastic bottles with black powder and a fuse that other reports say were not functional] a bomb-making book,[that's illegal?] videos of the 1999 Columbine attack in Colorado and violence-filled notebooks, Castor said. The weapons were plainly visible in the boy's bedroom, Castor said.
The search did not turn up any ammunition for the most dangerous firearm in the bunch, the assault rifle. [The ONLY firearm in the bunch, a hi-point carbine that does not fit the true definition of assault rifle] Authorities said one grenade was operable and three others were still being assembled.
"I do not think an attack was imminent and I am not certain that an attack was going to occur at all," Castor said at a news conference. "It could have simply been big talking by a kid who thought that he was bullied previously and he was going to exact his revenge." [oh...]
The teen previously attended middle school in the district but had been taught at home for more than a year after voluntarily leaving school, Castor said.
Plymouth Township police searched the home after getting a tip Wednesday from a high school student and his father.
The teen was charged as a juvenile with solicitation to commit terror and other counts and was being held at a youth facility. It was not immediately clear whether he had a lawyer. [what, no firearm violations for the bb guns?]
Castor declined to name the suspect's parents and said he did not think they had retained lawyers.
"They are now under investigation by us, concerning whether there's any complicity in putting the weapon [at least it's singular now] in this boy's hands," Castor said.
The arrest came the same day a 14-year-old in Ohio opened fire at his Cleveland high school, wounding four before killing himself.
Classes were held as usual Thursday at the Pennsylvania high school.
Charon
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JimBeam
you shouldnt punish the whole group for the actions of a few.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what, one law for some, another law for others?
Originally posted by lazs2
no "ocean"... one law for everyone..
use alcohol badly and get punished... use a firearm badly and get punished... not.. if one person uses either of them badly.... everyone gets their human rights revolked.
lazs
exactly im not saying people who brake the law shouldnt be punished..im saying people that do not brake the law should not be punished
-
Can we use the old "Guns don't kill people, people do" saying?
You take away guns, nutter will stab you, you take away knives, he will hit you int he head with a hammer, you take away hamemrs, he will break a branch off a tree and club you to death, cut down all the trees, he can always beat you with a boot, outlaw boots, he can punch you to death, cut off his hands, I guess he can bite you to death, pull out his teeth... now he's stuck on gov't assisstance cause he has no hands and no teeth, he will just drain your tax dollar to death. No way to beat the nutjobs.
Maybe we should mandate gov't birthcontrol and make people take a test proving they are competent and can afford to raise their children. It might weed out some of the nutjobs, and will help reduce your taxes at the same time. It's a win-win
-
guns dont kill people bullets do
-
You take away guns, nutter will stab you, you take away knives...
The most successful nutters, those who kill tens to hundreds at at time, use a can of gasoline and a match, fertilizer and diesel fuel or box cutters and a 757. Firearms barely make the grade. Not enough "bang for the buck" pun intended. The most disastrous school attack in US history involved dynamite.
Charon
-
It's kind of like adult males who cause an injury that requires medical treatment to a female in a drunken fight should also be punished for the assault.
That does not mean that all males much less men should be held accountable for the acts of those who do such a thing. It's simply foolish to punish the many for the act of the very few. You punish those who do the act, not those who did nothing wrong.
-
See Rule #6
-
Originally posted by Charon
The most successful nutters, those who kill tens to hundreds at at time, use a can of gasoline and a match, fertilizer and diesel fuel or box cutters and a 757. Firearms barely make the grade. Not enough "bang for the buck" pun intended. The most disastrous school attack in US history involved dynamite.
Charon
WAY too true, Charon-I'm waiting for someone to get a buncha chlorine from a Swimming-pool supply store, and figure out how to make it into poison gas.
However...One has to ask themselves, with this happening this close to a national election (well, not really close, but the campaigns' have started anyway), Will this incident be a factor? Even though gun control has been seen by many in both parties to be a political 'dead horse', will someone revive it?
I know many of you would rather hit yourself in the testicles with a ball-peen hammer than look at what these people say, but it's always wise to keep tabs on what these guys are doing and saying:http://www.bradycenter.org/
Keep an eye on it, to see if they spout out with something.
-
Originally posted by Ocean27
As for myself, I was hauled into court once - for a speeding offence - 7mph above the limit! But the police screwed up - had charged me under the wrong legislation. I was able to destroy their case in court, and was awarded costs for my trouble. Not too bright, the police. I guess some things are true the world over, eh Maverick? :lol
We are not related.
-
Not punish those except those who committed the act - I feel i'm being punished because of bad drivers who cannot handle a car above 70mph. Because of them, a blanket speed limit of 70mph applies to ALL drivers, even those who are more capable and experienced. How does this work in America? Is there a two-tier system of speed limits - one for experten and one for mere mortals? Believe it or not, just such a system operates in France - and in China, I believe. But I'm guessing that everyone is expected to adhere to the posted limit. Thus the better/more capable drivers are being punished for the folly of the bad drivers.
We already have over 20,000 gun laws. Remarkably, legal gun owners broadly tend to obey those laws. They don't typically "drive over the limit." And the same restrictive (even ridiculous in many cases) laws apply to everyone. For example, even though I have a safe full of guns I have to wait 3 days to get a new pistol after purchase as a "cooling off" period.
The funny thing is, if you are not a criminal the chance of you being a firearm homicide victim is not worth considering. While the "carnage" in the US may be higher than in Europe, and every one of the crimes gets the distortion of the media play, the real relative risk to our daily lives is minimal -- unless you hang in those circles. Far less than alcohol or any number of other factors that are part of daily living.
Charon
-
US School shootings seem to be fairly uninteresting news these days (unless a decent body count can be clocked up). It seems these are acceptable losses for the right to bare arms. It is an interesting way to look at things, good luck to you guys in the US. I think you have a hard road ahead whichever path your gun laws lead you down.
p.s any of you guys willing to take a headshot from a 1200fps air gun?
-
Why do so many people write bare instead of bear. One bears arms and one takes of his cloths to be bare.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
Why do so many people write bare instead of bear. One bears arms and one takes of his cloths to be bare.
Mark
I think it's a moot point with an armed naked guy at your door.
-
See Rule #5
What world do you live in? Such events are the source of a media circus every time they happen. 200 people get hit each year in the US by lightning. Far, far fewer than that will be killed in a deranged gunman school shooting. Far, far more youngsters will be killed as a result of alcohol, or jumping in a swimming pool, or riding a bicycle or hot rodding their first car.
Now, a lot of teenaged gang bangers do die as part of their lifestyle. But the illegal gun they possess didn't condition them to take somebody's life because he flashed the wrong gang sign or had a nice looking pair of sports shoes. In fact, a lot get stabbed to death too. Even so, a non gang banger at even the worst inner city US high school will survive just about as well (from a real world, relative risk standpoint) as a student in New Zealand.
Chicago has about 3 million people. Even though it is a high crime "gun violence" city only about 400-600 people die each year total from homicide. Say 80 percent are firearm related -- average at 400. About 80 percent of these are criminals killed by other criminals. So, out of 3 million people roughly 80 innocents are killed by firearms -- robberies, domestic violence, drunken rage, etc. Do the math. 0.0026 percent of the non criminal Chicago population is killed each year because of our right to bear arms. Of course we don't know how many of those would have been killed if no gun was present. And, we don't know how many people were saved because they had a gun and criminals are cowards. (Actually, not many in Chicago, since really only the criminals have guns in that city.)
Now, do the math on alcohol, or motorcycle accidents or any number of other behaviors -- like sex, for example. Logically, our privilege (not right) to get soused is FAR more destructive to us as a society. Do you want to bet more than 80 people contract HIV each year in Chicago?
p.s any of you guys willing to take a headshot from a 1200fps air gun?
Airsoft. You know what Airsoft is right? Toy BB guns that shoot plastic pellets at 250-400fps. Has about 1/10 the energy of a typical paintball gun. They are toys. People play army with them. They shoot each other in the head all the time.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I think it's a moot point with an armed naked guy at your door.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Mark
-
Originally posted by Charon
Chicago has about 3 million people. Even though it is a high crime "gun violence" city only about 400-600 people die each year total from homicide. Say 80 percent are firearm related -- average at 400.
New Zealand has ~4 million people, we have a reasonable above average gun ownership level, and 45 murders per year ( http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nz-new-zealand/cri-crime )
You figure out what world I live in.
-
You figure out what world I live in.
It's certainly not America, given the lack of knowledge expressed in your fact-free opinion piece.
What's your gang violence like Vulcan? You do have aggressive street gangs like MS13, ect. fighting inner city gang wars to control the crack cocaine market? Right? That's your world? All 4 million New Zealand residents live in some 230 square urban miles just like a major US city like Chicago?
How many of those 4 million live below the poverty line in a major urban area? Historically, what per capita percent of your population has been murdered each year for the past 100 years? How does that reflect relative to countries were there is both more and less gun ownership? Has the gun regulation in your country changed that? Were you less safe 50 years ago? More safe today?
According to this link you current homicide rates have been fairly consistent going back to the 1970s. Same for the US for that matter, with both having a bump in the late 70s early 1980s. and there is more data on the US showing a consistent homicide rate all the way back to about 1900. Same for the UK. During this range of times the availability and restrictions on firearms have varied greatly in all these countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
The most dramatic example is in the UK though, where it used to be easier to own and carry a firearm than in the US, and now there is a total ban. Guess what, firearm crime (and violent crime in general) is shooting up. The reason is not related to the tool or its legal availability, but to the criminal structure in place. US style street gangs are now popping up in areas they never existed before in Europe. And, if these criminals want a gun they get one off a smuggler just like the illegal drugs they sell. Of course, those who want to be able to defend themselves now lack that option.
Here's an article on this issue:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/
Charon
T
-
Originally posted by Charon
It's certainly not America, given the lack of knowledge expressed in your fact-free opinion piece.
And what exactly was my fact free opinion piece. The only two opinions I offered were 1) that shootings in the us are no longer leading news items and 2) you guys have a hard road ahead whether you get more restrictive laws OR less restrictive laws.
But you seemed to be reading something else into it? Perhaps you are insecure about the current state of things in the US?
Yes NZ has poverty, we have one of the largest polynesian populations in the Pacific. Yes we have drug problems, yes we have gangs, and yes we even have the occasional shooting. Yes we can own firearms, yes they are licensed, yes a lot of people in NZ participate in hunting (especially given rabbits, possums, wild goats, and deer are considered pests here).
My point is perhaps you guys should start looking beyond your borders to see what potentially can happen. I'm not saying you shouldn't own handguns, from what I read hear I wouldn't want to live in the US without from the stuff I read here. But maybe a long term plan on where your country wants to end up with guns would be a good idea.
-
Dont forget the scorpions.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Dont forget the scorpions.
Jets......
-
vulcan... school shootings are the result of government making them "no gun zones"... if teachers were allowed to carry with permits...concealed.. the shootings would stop.
Is a few shootings the price we have to pay? is it "worth it" as you say?
yes.. it most certainly is...
"Or take the Petit case, where an unarmed man was beaten to within an inch of his life, and was helpless while his wife and two daughters were raped and eventually murdered. http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/08...rjevsy_ctv.html No "armed citizen" stuff from the media there. Want to protect your family? Plant cactus in your window boxes "
If it prevents one of those things happening it is worth it... the numbers say that 1.5 to 3 million crimes are prevented a year with firearms... if only one percent of those would have ended like the above without firearms... then, yes... it is most definitly worth it.
And to compare rural NZ with it's white population to America is laughable. Your "natives" are not restless.... yet..
lazs
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301379,00.html
Oh noes !!!!leventyone!!!
I love the picture of all those 'guns' on the table there. Only 1 is a real gun, the others are BB/Air Soft.
My oh my how you can trump up a non-story on a slow news day.
-
the Drive By Media, just drove by ........
-
that is why I don't read newspapers or watch the news... it is all such crap.
lazs
-
If the story isn't interesting enough, make up some stuff to spice it up. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan... school shootings are the result of government making them "no gun zones
Man thats almost sig worthy lazs :)
-
And what exactly was my fact free opinion piece. The only two opinions I offered were 1) that shootings in the us are no longer leading news items and 2) you guys have a hard road ahead whether you get more restrictive laws OR less restrictive laws.
Been out of town for a few days.
We'll, point 1 is not accurate. You don't even have to have a shooting for the gun angle to be played up. If a crime involves arson, a knife or fists it barely makes the local news. A similar crime (from a loss of life perspective) will make the national news for days). The media is on a crusade on this issue that is clearly (and easily documented) different from other forms of crime.
Point 2 - Firearm regulation has not been found to impact crime, and this in research by the CDC. In England where there is a full ban on firearm ownership (for all practical purposes) firearm crime is on the rise. The criminals simply smuggle in the guns like they smuggle in the drugs.
But you seemed to be reading something else into it? Perhaps you are insecure about the current state of things in the US?
Yes NZ has poverty, we have one of the largest polynesian populations in the Pacific. Yes we have drug problems, yes we have gangs, and yes we even have the occasional shooting. Yes we can own firearms, yes they are licensed, yes a lot of people in NZ participate in hunting (especially given rabbits, possums, wild goats, and deer are considered pests here).
My point is perhaps you guys should start looking beyond your borders to see what potentially can happen. I'm not saying you shouldn't own handguns, from what I read hear I wouldn't want to live in the US without from the stuff I read here. But maybe a long term plan on where your country wants to end up with guns would be a good idea.
The one thing that people who have not spent much time in the US fail to understand is that we do not have what could broadly be considered a "firearm" problem. I have lived here 42 years now and have yet to hear a firearm fired in a criminal manner or see one being used in a crime. This includes 5 years or so spent in an "average" neighborhood in Chicago.
Statistically, the vast majority 70-80 percent of both shooters and victims have extensive criminal records. Off the top of my head, about 90 percent of firearm homicides happen in about 5 counties (containing a major US city).
I just spent a few days in Eastern Tennessee in the suburbs of a mid-sized town (for the state) where legal gun ownership is far higher than Chicago or New York or LA (per capita and in total, I would believe). Where you could see the occasional sign peppered with shotgun pellets (cringed a bit on the whole "know your target and what lies beyond" thing). And yet, the doors were not locked of a day or night, people home or otherwise.
We have always had an urban crime problem. The US didn't spend 1000 years murdering and oppressing the diversity out of the local peasants so they knew their place in society. Even the slaves failed to accept their role during or after slavery. Poor minorities or immigrants simply did not accept they should have a limited place in society. You could always come to the US from Ireland, Italy, Latin America or as a Jew or former Slave and advance to the top class of society through Ca$h. You could take the long, time honored honest way like most, or a shortcut. Just look at Joe Kennedy. From rum runner to the pinnacle of polite, East Coast society. The roots can be seen in the "Gangs of New York" movie (though it is a lot of Hollywood as well.)
What is happening now in Europe though, is a change in this dynamic. US style street gangs are arriving, the eastern European mafia is arriving, and you even have the radical Muslim thing taking root. The traditional society thing is starting to match the US experience. Some places will likely never see that. A country like New Zealand or Iceland perhaps. Large urbanized industrial Westernized democracies will though. To the extent as the US? Population densities would suggest not. BUT, i have no doubt that the major urban areas will shortly be more similar than different compared to the US -- firearm regulation or not.
As far as your gang problems, can you, with a straight face, claim gang problems like this?
MS-13
In 2002 in the city of Tegucigalpa in the Honduras, MS-13 members boarded a public bus and immediately executed 28 people including 7 small children. Again, they left a message written on the front of the bus taunting government officials...
As a result of the poor conditions in El Salvador, many MS-13 members have illegally immigrated to our nation where our law enforcement efforts and prisons seem tame when compared to their homeland.
MS-13 members in our country are known to be involved in all aspects of criminal activity. Some law enforcement sources have reported that because of their ties to their former homeland, MS-13 members have access to sophisticated weapons thus making firearms trafficking one of their many criminal enterprises.
Despite their access to weaponry, there have been many high-profile murders and assaults in which MS-13 have used machetes to attack their victims.
The federal government has increased efforts to locate and deport illegal MS-13 members living in our nation but with the lack of cooperation from many cities whom support sanctuaries policies, has made the government’s job an uphill battle.
http://www.knowgangs.com/gang_resources/profiles/ms13/
Seems like more of an immigration and criminal justice enforcement problem than something that can be solved by further regulating legal firearm owners.
Charon
-
Man thats almost sig worthy lazs
====
and true. Where better place to take a gun and kill people than in a gun free zone......like duh!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan... school shootings are the result of government making them "no gun zones"... if teachers were allowed to carry with permits...concealed.. the shootings would stop.
In France, the teachers do not have guns or permits, and there are no school shootings.
-
In France, the teachers do not have guns or permits, and there are no school shootings.
====
For some odd reason I still don't want to go to France :rolleyes:
-
Off the top of my head, about 90 percent of firearm homicides happen in about 5 counties (containing a major US city).
Nothing like. The top 5 states account for less than half of all firearm homicide in the US (California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Maryland reported 4,226 firearms homicides in 2006, the rest of the states another 5,951)
This excludes a few thousand murders where there was no information on the weapon types used, but it's not going to change the ratio much.
Statistically, the vast majority 70-80 percent of both shooters and victims have extensive criminal records.
I have been hearing that for years. The Labour government opened the gates to immigration in Britain in 1997. One third of the population of London was born abroad (and that doesn't include the children of immigrants born here). Yet London (population about 7 million) had 170 murders last year. The only comparably sized US city is New York, with approx 8 million people, and that had 480 murders.
Phoenix, with only 1.5 million people, had 234 murders, Houston, with 2 million, had 377.
The largest US city which had less murders than London was Las Vegas, with only 1.3 million people, which had 152 murders.
And that's despite the fact the US imprisons about 5 times as many people as the UK, per capita.
In England where there is a full ban on firearm ownership (for all practical purposes)
There are several million firearms and shotguns legally held in Britain.
firearm crime is on the rise.
Real firearms crime isn't. According to the Metropolitan police (who cover London), 80% of all "firearms" crimes involved replicas, low powered air weapons, or other things that looked like guns.
The Met police have a team dedicated to investigating black on black murders in London, which usually involve the drugs trade. 72% of the "firearms" they recovered in 2003 were not real guns (I don't have figures for subsequent years)
-
Nothing like. The top 5 states account for less than half of all firearm homicide in the US (California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Maryland reported 4,226 firearms homicides in 2006, the rest of the states another 5,951)
This excludes a few thousand murders where there was no information on the weapon types used, but it's not going to change the ratio much.
I was a bit off on that (but then I stated it was uncertain to begin with). Here's the actual:
With these limitations in mind, the SHR data show that 84% of the 3,139 counties in the United States reported no juvenile homicide offenders in 1995. Another 10% reported only one juvenile homicide offender. In contrast, 25% of all known juvenile homicide offenders were reported in just five counties. These were the counties that contain the following cities: Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, and New York City. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/juvoff/hom_off.html
Pretty much what I had in mind though. Especially since, if you look at the top 39 cities (most major cities have gang problems, as do some rural areas) you find that all have a per capita homicide rate far higher than the national average of 5 / 1000000 (about 50 / 100000 to 7 /100000) What's not covered that even in these cities we are talking about a few select neighborhoods where most of that crime is committed. This indicates (as is common sense to anyone who actually lives here) that firearm crime is not a broadly national problem. http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/reference/murders_us_2003.html
I have been hearing that for years. The Labour government opened the gates to immigration in Britain in 1997. One third of the population of London was born abroad (and that doesn't include the children of immigrants born here). Yet London (population about 7 million) had 170 murders last year. The only comparably sized US city is New York, with approx 8 million people, and that had 480 murders.
Phoenix, with only 1.5 million people, had 234 murders, Houston, with 2 million, had 377.
The largest US city which had less murders than London was Las Vegas, with only 1.3 million people, which had 152 murders.
And that's despite the fact the US imprisons about 5 times as many people as the UK, per capita.
Well, it's easy to make apple and orange comparisons. Urbanization is extremely different between the US and UK. Once you get past London, there is virtually no comparison. This has already been covered by me in previous threads, but here's a population density refresher:
London 7,074,265
Birmingham 1,020,589
Leeds 726,939
Glasgow 616,430
Sheffield 530,375
Bradford 483,422
Liverpool 467,995
Edinburgh 448,850
Manchester 430,818
Bristol 399,633
As a comparison:
New York 8,214,426 2
Los Angeles 3,849,368 3
Chicago 2,873,326 4
Houston 2144491
Phoenix 1,512,986 6
Philadelphia 1448396
San Antonio 1296682
San Diego 1256951
Dallas 1232940
San Jose 929,936
Also, as I noted, the majority of firearm homicide is criminal on criminal. From the notoriously anti-gun USA Today:
WASHINGTON — A spike in murders in many cities is claiming a startling number of victims with criminal records, police say, suggesting that drug and gang wars are behind the escalating violence....
In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.
Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.
In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
And, as noted, the source of the crime has been different between the US and "traditional" Europe. The EU itself knows the difference between traditional criminal patterns in the US and Europe, and how the "US Model" is increasingly gaining a foothold in Europe. This report "Street Gang Violence in Europe": http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/3/4/413 covers it. It clearly talks about the emergence of US style gangs (thats part II, page 135). "Gangstas or Lager Louts? Working class streeetgangs in Manchester (P153)" is very specific. The gangs in Britain chapter (P154) is particularly focused on the recent rise in US style ethnic gangs and the extreme violence that goes with them.
Then there is news coverage like this in the UK: Senior police officers have been warning for several months that a growing number of teenagers in big cities are becoming involved in gun crime.
The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.
Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.
“Illegal firearms have become increasingly accessible to younger offenders who appear more likely to use these firearms recklessly,” a report on gun crime commissioned by the Home Office cautioned last year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece
Per capita homicide in Manchester eclipses that of Washington DC, as I recall.
And then there is this bit, which shows a similar "who's the firearm criminal? link to the US pattern:
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns
And this very USA like pattern:
Mr Hogan-Howe said that youths were being protected by a wall of silence, and he demanded a new law to compel the public to give information about gun crime. He said that action must be taken to break down the power base of families involved in gun crime. “Families who do nothing to stop their children’s involvement in gun crime put society at risk and could find themselves identifying their child in the morgue,” he said.
The crime is, by and large, not coming from legal gun owners. It's coming from criminals killing other criminals.
There are several million firearms and shotguns legally held in Britain.
Well, sort of...
The Firearm Certificate - this is issued to U.K. residents, covering rifles, shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than two, and airguns with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft-lbs. This certificate will list the firearm(s) possessed, and those allowed to be purchased or acquired, together with the quantity of ammunition that may be held, purchased or acquired. There may also be strict limitations on exactly where the firearm(s) may be used. This certificate will not entitle the holder to purchase automatic, semi-automatic (other than .22 rimfire), or pump-action (other than .22 rimfire) rifles. Any air rifle with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ft/lbs, or air pistol greater than 6 ft/lbs, may not be purchased unless you possess a Firearms Certificate authorising you to do so. Handguns are now effectively banned.
The Shotgun Certificate - will show the names and serial numbers of any shotguns possessed. There are currently no restrictions on the acquisition of shotguns, providing the details of any transaction are noted on the certificate, and the issuing police authority informed. It is necessary to produce your certificate when purchasing cartridges. For the purposes of the certificate, a shotgun is defined as a smoothbore gun, with barrel(s) at least 24" (610mm) long. Semi-automatics and pump-actions must have a magazine capacity of no more than two shots: this has be a permanent restriction, verified by either the London or Birmingham Proof Houses.
Real firearms crime isn't. According to the Metropolitan police (who cover London), 80% of all "firearms" crimes involved replicas, low powered air weapons, or other things that looked like guns.
The Met police have a team dedicated to investigating black on black murders in London, which usually involve the drugs trade. 72% of the "firearms" they recovered in 2003 were not real guns (I don't have figures for subsequent years)
Apparently a lot of those "replicas" have been modified to go "bang."
In 1994, a detective with the Flying Squad was wounded after one of two armed robbers he was pursuing fired a reactivated Czech-made Skorpion machine gun at him.
It is thought to be the first time that a reactivated weapon had been used in London...
Nine out of ten firearms used by criminals in the UK have been manufactured abroad.... With weapons also brought in by post, parcel couriers and ordered through the internet, the challenge for the law enforcement agencies is self-evidently immense. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2644233.stm
Nothing remotely suggests that people like me are a problem, yet the regulations are heavily focused on people like me.
Charon
-
well said charon as usual..
It is important to note that the most leathal and concealable firearm would be a sawed off shotgun... if the criminal class decides to use firearms for killing then the most leathal is already in jolly old england just waiting the 10 minute hacksaw modification.
Also... I could build a firearm.. gun laws are useless except to take away the human right to defend yourself from those who respect the law.... no matter how immoral it is.
lazs
-
Well, it's easy to make apple and orange comparisons. Urbanization is extremely different between the US and UK. Once you get past London, there is virtually no comparison. This has already been covered by me in previous threads, but here's a population density refresher:
London 7,074,265
Birmingham 1,020,589
Leeds 726,939
Glasgow 616,430
Sheffield 530,375
Bradford 483,422
Liverpool 467,995
Edinburgh 448,850
Manchester 430,818
Bristol 399,633
As a comparison:
New York 8,214,426 2
Los Angeles 3,849,368 3
Chicago 2,873,326 4
Houston 2144491
Phoenix 1,512,986 6
Philadelphia 1448396
San Antonio 1296682
San Diego 1256951
Dallas 1232940
San Jose 929,936
Sorry, I don't see the difference. Remember the US has just over 5 times the population, so would of course have more large cities. But the UK has 2 cities of over 1 million, to fit the US should have 10. It actually has 9.
Remember we are talking per capita murder rates. (and this doesn't explain how London, which is huge even by US standards, and has a massive immigrant problem, has such a low murder rate (less than half the US average, and far less than any big US city)
The UK actually has a higher percentage of its population living in an urban area than the US, 89% vs 80%.
Pretty much what I had in mind though. Especially since, if you look at the top 39 cities (most major cities have gang problems, as do some rural areas) you find that all have a per capita homicide rate far higher than the national average of 5 / 1000000 (about 50 / 100000 to 7 /100000) What's not covered that even in these cities we are talking about a few select neighborhoods where most of that crime is committed. This indicates (as is common sense to anyone who actually lives here) that firearm crime is not a broadly national problem.
If you take out the worst 5 states, the US still has a very high murder rate compared to the average of the rest of the first world (immigrants and all). And that's against the average elsewhere. The UK would have a much lower rate if you ignored London, Manchester etc, France if you ingored Paris and Marseilles....
Then there is news coverage like this in the UK:
quote:Senior police officers have been warning for several months that a growing number of teenagers in big cities are becoming involved in gun crime.
The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.
Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.
“Illegal firearms have become increasingly accessible to younger offenders who appear more likely to use these firearms recklessly,” a report on gun crime commissioned by the Home Office cautioned last year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2317307.ece
Well, look at the figures the article is getting hysterical over: "This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks"
Compare that with the US where about 20 young people are killed in gun attacks a week.
As I pointed out earlier, "firearms" crimes are any crimes involving something that looks like a gun. In their more honest moments, even the Met Police admit that the vast majority of such incidents do not involve real firearms.
That's why the number of people getting shot and killed has been going down, not up (58 last year, less than the early 90s despite the massive increase in immigration).
As to price of guns, the price for shotguns is about right, as they have much less strict controls, and criminals don't like them (too hard to conceal). New proper handguns, according to a home office study, start at £1000 ($2000) and go up from there, £150 was the cheapest reported price for a handgun that had been used in a crime (and of course carries the risk of whoever gets caught with it being charged with murder).
Cheap replicas and blank firers, converted to fire either 22 LR or blanks with ball bearings attached, start at about £500 ($1000)
Per capita homicide in Manchester eclipses that of Washington DC, as I recall.
Per capita homicide in Manchester is about 2.2 per 100,000 people, far lower than the US average, let alone the worst in the US.
There is some statistic out there about one tiny part of Manchester and its murder rate, but comparing areas with tiny populations is silly, because 1 or 2 incidents distorts the figures. (The "city" of Cumberland Gap in the US has a murder rate of 1000 per 100,000 people, nearly 200 times the US average)
And then there is this bit, which shows a similar "who's the firearm criminal? link to the US pattern:
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns
And this very USA like pattern:
quote:Mr Hogan-Howe said that youths were being protected by a wall of silence, and he demanded a new law to compel the public to give information about gun crime. He said that action must be taken to break down the power base of families involved in gun crime. “Families who do nothing to stop their children’s involvement in gun crime put society at risk and could find themselves identifying their child in the morgue,” he said.
That is of course true all over the western world. Crime, especially violent crime, is concentrated in cities.
The crime is, by and large, not coming from legal gun owners. It's coming from criminals killing other criminals.
Well, if they are murdering people then by definition they cannot be legal gun owners. But the point in the US is that criminals have easy access to firearms because they steal them off legal owners.
That's not an option in the UK, because there are very few handguns in circulation, so most criminals have to make do without a gun (which is why we get an average of just over 1 person shot dead per week, whereas the US gets 30+ per day).
Apparently a lot of those "replicas" have been modified to go "bang."
That's certainly the main type of "firearm" in circulation amongst criminals, but the Met police are talking about things that are not firearms. A modified replica is a firearm.
Nothing remotely suggests that people like me are a problem, yet the regulations are heavily focused on people like me.
The point is that if you have easy access to guns, so does everyone else.
You cannot have millions of guns in private hands and expect criminals will obey the laws and not get hold of them. If criminals obeyed laws, they wouldn't be criminals.
-
Sorry, I don't see the difference. Remember the US has just over 5 times the population, so would of course have more large cities. But the UK has 2 cities of over 1 million, to fit the US should have 10. It actually has 9.
Remember we are talking per capita murder rates. (and this doesn't explain how London, which is huge even by US standards, and has a massive immigrant problem, has such a low murder rate (less than half the US average, and far less than any big US city)
The UK actually has a higher percentage of its population living in an urban area than the US, 89% vs 80%.
That was only part of the deal. The other part are the very dissimilar crime patterns historically as that European study on the spread of US style violent criminal gangs covers. Urbanization is a factor, the gangs strive in that environment. As the USA Today article pointed out, 70 - 90 percent of the homicide problem is criminal on criminal (mostly gang related or wanna be gang related). There is a wealth of individual city statistics that support this.
Why did the UK have a lower crime rate than the US when your average gentleman could go into a shop, buy a pistol and put it in his coat pocket and walk the streets easier than you could in the US?
I would also like to see the breakdown on population densities and how an urban areas is defined. The UK has a greater (notably greater) population density. This is skewed, I imagine, in that we have some huge states with very limited urban areas where you can drive for miles (10s to hundreds even) without crossing through an "urban" area (small town). Anecdotally, I noticed that shortly after I left London I was already in the "quaint village" environment. I can drive 70 miles outside of Chicago and still be in communities with populations of 60,000. On the East Coast, you tend to run into major cities within such a radius. Similar on the West.
If you take out the worst 5 states, the US still has a very high murder rate compared to the average of the rest of the first world (immigrants and all). And that's against the average elsewhere. The UK would have a much lower rate if you ignored London, Manchester etc, France if you ingored Paris and Marseilles....
What is the real, individual risk of that "high murder rate?" Is there any real world, daily life difference between say 5/100000 and 2/100000. There are numerous daily activities that are far more risky that we don't give a second thought. The carnage from alcohol is enormously greater. Especially since, as a non-criminal my risk is about 10 - 30 percent of that gross figure. However, should such a rare event happen I at least have some opportunity to defend myself and my family.
Well, look at the figures the article is getting hysterical over: "This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks"
Compare that with the US where about 20 young people are killed in gun attacks a week.
As I pointed out earlier, "firearms" crimes are any crimes involving something that looks like a gun. In their more honest moments, even the Met Police admit that the vast majority of such incidents do not involve real firearms.
That's why the number of people getting shot and killed has been going down, not up (58 last year, less than the early 90s despite the massive increase in immigration).
There does seem to be a range of statistics:
From 2002: GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Telegraph. Police chiefs fear that Britain is witnessing the kind of cocaine-fuelled violence that burst upon American cities in the 1980s. Cocaine, particularly from Jamaica, now floods into Britain, while the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
From 2003: Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm
Now they are talking about gun crime. And, I never really saw a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or knife point, or killed by either. But, since in the US most (vastly most) firearm homicide involves one criminal killing another the broader impact of gun crime has some meaning since it's more likely to impact the innocent. There does seem to be an increase (dramatic) in violence in general in the UK including home invasions that makes the US look positively safe, per capita. The type of crime non criminals are likley to experience as the victim.
And there is this disturbing bit:
From 2007: THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.
The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.
This weekend the Tories said the figures challenged claims by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that gun crime was falling. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, tells her in a letter today that the “staggering findings” show her claims that gun crime has fallen are “inaccurate and misleading”...
But in his letter to Smith, released today, Davis said these claims were contradicted by figures “buried” in a Home Office statistical bulletin, published ear-lier this year. “[Here] we find the most revealing indication of the true gun-re-lated violence sweeping Britain. Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece
Not unusual, politicians play the same game here to show how "effective" their policies are. Daley in Chicago recently did much the same.
As to price of guns, the price for shotguns is about right, as they have much less strict controls, and criminals don't like them (too hard to conceal). New proper handguns, according to a home office study, start at £1000 ($2000) and go up from there, £150 was the cheapest reported price for a handgun that had been used in a crime (and of course carries the risk of whoever gets caught with it being charged with murder).
Cheap replicas and blank firers, converted to fire either 22 LR or blanks with ball bearings attached, start at about £500 ($1000)
Then there is this from BBC:
One interviewee claimed to have earned £52,000 in one week from gun crime.
Home Office research disclosed extraordinary details about the lives of firearm-toting criminals, including their fear of getting caught with a gun which a previous owner had used in a crime.
In response to their findings, the university researchers said the authorities needed to do more to tackle the conversion of imitation guns into live-firing weapons.
The study found that imitation weapons could be bought for less than £100.
Sawn-off shotguns, which are often used by serious armed robbers and favoured for their "significant intimidatory value", could be bought for between £50 and £200, the report said.
Automatic weapons such as machine guns could carry a price tag of £4,000, although the cheapest went for just £800.
Handguns were cheaper if they had already been used in a crime, costing from £150, but a new 9mm model could cost between £1,000 and £1,400. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6180559.stm
About in line with US retail prices, though fully automatic weapons are far more expensive in the US.
The point is that if you have easy access to guns, so does everyone else.
I will readily admit, and have in the past, that it is easier for criminals to get access to guns in the US. So what? During the Regan crack down on Marijuana in the mid 1980s it was difficult to find that drug for 12 to 18 months. Then alternative sources of supply readily developed.
Explain how the wholesale availability of cocaine and other illegal drugs that are banned throughout the US, every country on our border and in many cases are not prone to domestic production in the US climate. These drugs have been banned for over 3 decades or more. And yet, they are as available as ever. How will banning firearms prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms if they feel they need them? Seems to be trending that way in the UK now. How would you prevent this when you can't readily impact the importation of tons of illegal drugs that are easier to detect using dogs, etc?
Why was homicide lower in the UK compared to the US (or even the UK today) before there was any gun control regulation? Why do virtually all of the UK news reports and that study I linked cite the rise of violent (US Style) street gangs as the source of UK gun violence?
Why is there so much more homicide in highly regulated countries like Mexico (x3 the homicide rate) and Russia (x6 the homicide rate) than in the Cowboy land of the US? http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/
You can blame the tool, but that won't solve the problem. Politicians like blaming tools vs. people. The media finds tools to be a very PC subject to address. Activists similarly like to blame tools vs people. But when someone can easily kill another for flashing the wrong gang sign or for a pair of sports shoes you have a far bigger problem than the fact he used a gun to do it.
Charon
-
Here's a sad perspective from some UK/Commonwealth firearm owners on seeing their rights evaporate. These are the people ultimately impacted by regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I just spent a few days in Eastern Tennessee in the suburbs of a mid-sized town (for the state) where legal gun ownership is far higher than Chicago or New York or LA (per capita and in total, I would believe). Where you could see the occasional sign peppered with shotgun pellets (cringed a bit on the whole "know your target and what lies beyond" thing). And yet, the doors were not locked of a day or night, people home or otherwise.
Sorry you had to come during a drought, East Tennessee is usually the "greenest state in the land of the free". What town were you in? Hope you had a good time, we do our best to be hospitable.
As for the signs, we don't shoot the signs without knowing what is behind them. Nothing to worry about there. Guns are a way of life here, we know they are only as dangerous as the guy holding them, and are only a tool. They are the best tool to have in a self defence situation, quick and efficient at stopping an enemy in his tracks. They are a neccesary item of life, and we are safe as long as we have them.
As for the "arsenal" of weapons the kid had, those aren't weapons. The kids around here shoot those at each other every day, no deaths or even injuries yet.
-
If you even need to put a face to Laz' argument about women being more than eager to trade freedom for (false) security, the woman preaching at &:51 in that report is it.
-
Why did the UK have a lower crime rate than the US when your average gentleman could go into a shop, buy a pistol and put it in his coat pocket and walk the streets easier than you could in the US?
I don't think it did.
Historical crime rates are a problem because recording and reporting crime was a bit haphazard. But the murder rates in the UK and US at the start of the 20th century were similar. Britain began controlling handgun sales early in the 20th century.
I would also like to see the breakdown on population densities and how an urban areas is defined. The UK has a greater (notably greater) population density. This is skewed, I imagine, in that we have some huge states with very limited urban areas where you can drive for miles (10s to hundreds even) without crossing through an "urban" area (small town). Anecdotally, I noticed that shortly after I left London I was already in the "quaint village" environment.
Depends which direction you leave London. Go west and you enter Slough, population about 120,000. Straight after Slough is Maidenhead, with a population of about 60,000, then Reading, with about 200,000.
Or try Manchester. You list it as having a population of about 450,000, but that's just Manchester itself. It's part of one large urban area including Salford, Bolton, Rochdale, Trafford, Oldham, Stockport etc that has a population of over 2.5 million.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1192708641_manchester.jpg)
You can see Greater Manchester there, but also Warrington (pop 200,000) and Liverpool, which has about 1 million people, including the Wirral and St Helens.
What is the real, individual risk of that "high murder rate?" Is there any real world, daily life difference between say 5/100000 and 2/100000.
The actual numbers are 5.6 and 1.4 per 100,000, I think.
How much difference? Well, the US has about 300,000,000 people, so the "extra" murders, the difference between 1.4 and 5.6 is about 12,500 people.
How much difference does 12,500 extra murders a year make? I suspect it's a lot, if you are one of the 12,500, or the friend or relative of one of them.
From 2002: GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Telegraph. Police chiefs fear that Britain is witnessing the kind of cocaine-fuelled violence that burst upon American cities in the 1980s. Cocaine, particularly from Jamaica, now floods into Britain, while the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../24/nguns24.xml
From 2003: Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm
Now they are talking about gun crime.
Yes, but that includes replicas and other things that look like guns.
You have to understand that the vast majority of what the police refer to as guns are incapable of killing.
Similarly, gun "injuries" include cases of shock or stress caused by the presence of the "firearm", and cases where the "firearm" or other weapon was used as a blunt instrument.
The one figure they cannot fudge is the number of people killed with firearms, and that was 56 in the 12 months to this June (the latest figures were released today), exactly the same as in 1992 (56 in 92, 74 in 93, 66 in 94, 70 in 95)
The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.
There were 49 people killed with firearms in 98/99, 56 in 06/07. As I said, that's the one statistic they can't fudge. They can't record a death as anything but, but they can say someone who has seen a gun is "shocked" or "stressed" and record them as "injured".
If real gun crime had really increased to such an extent, you would see 3 real, unfudgeable statistics increase. You would see a rise in the number of people getting shot dead, you would see a rise in the number of police getting shot and killed, and you would see a rise in the number of people getting shot by the police.
There hasn't been a rise in any of those hard statistics.
About in line with US retail prices,
A new 9mm handgun costs at least $2000 in the US? I find that hard to believe.
Explain how the wholesale availability of cocaine and other illegal drugs that are banned throughout the US, every country on our border and in many cases are not prone to domestic production in the US climate. These drugs have been banned for over 3 decades or more. And yet, they are as available as ever. How will banning firearms prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms if they feel they need them?
Cost.
Smuggle a kilo of hard drugs in to the US and you generate $50,000 or more in profit.
Who's going to buy a handgun for $50,000?
Some guns will always be available. Handguns in the UK are part of the drugs scene, with drug gangs needing them to control their territories. As such, any gang will have access to a firearm or two. Even if it costs them thousands to smuggle them in, it's just a cost of doing business.
But those guns are rare, not brought out unless needed to deal with rivals, and don't end up being used to rob people in the streets, break in to houses, rob late night shops, etc.
And, I never really saw a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or knife point, or killed by either.
Looking at the data from the FBI, robberies with firearms are far more likely to end up with a dead victim than robberies with knives.
There does seem to be an increase (dramatic) in violence in general in the UK
Oh, the police recorded violence crimes have been soaring, since the police now record even shouting as a "violent crime". In fact, from the police point of view, the more minor the "crime" they solve, the better. The Home Office monitor how many crimes they "solve", and if they solve a really minor offence, they can get the credit without having to prepare a case for court. The ideal thing for the police nowadays is to find two people arguing, write it up as two crimes of violence, tell the "perpetrators" not to do it again, and record two violent crimes, solved by "other means".
Real violence, though, has been falling since the 90s.
including home invasions that makes the US look positively safe, per capita.
Only I can't see much difference in the number of "home invasions" between the UK and US, especially when you take all the robberies in people's homes that are recorded in the US.
Malcolm of Lott or Kleck has some bogus statistic out there that "home invasions" hardly ever happen in the US, but the NCVS shows a very different picture.
Why was homicide lower in the UK compared to the US (or even the UK today) before there was any gun control regulation?
It wasn't. US and UK homicide rates were pretty close in the early years of the 20th century. Britain passed an act requiring a licence for handguns in 1903, about the same time the murder rate started to climb in the US.
Why is there so much more homicide in highly regulated countries like Mexico (x3 the homicide rate) and Russia (x6 the homicide rate) than in the Cowboy land of the US?
Because they are not highly regulated. They are third world countries with very lax policing, massive corruption and organised crime.
You can blame the tool, but that won't solve the problem. Politicians like blaming tools vs. people. The media finds tools to be a very PC subject to address. Activists similarly like to blame tools vs people. But when someone can easily kill another for flashing the wrong gang sign or for a pair of sports shoes you have a far bigger problem than the fact he used a gun to do it.
Or when someone who has a problem at work or school can go back with a gun.
You've basically got 3 options. Say 12,500 extra people getting murdered a year is a price well worth paying for you to be able to have a gun, control guns, or control people.
But understand something. Gun control, or people control, does not involve them controlling other people, or other people's guns. There is no practical way to restrict just some people, short of putting them in prison, and the US already has a truly massive prison population.
-
nashwan.. I will make it simple for you... what gun law that you passed has prevented anyone from killing another?
You admit that (at least) anyone can get a shotgun... certainly a criminal can without to much trouble.. it can be sawed off to pistol length and in your horrible weather.. even a long one could be hid in a trenchcoat.
So why doesn't it happen? what gun law prevents it? What gun law have you passed that decreased crime? If I wanted to do a school shooting in england... how many could I kill with a sawed off shotgun or two and a pocket full of ammo? 10? 30? who would stop me? do you think the shotgun would be more or less effective than a handgun?
What law in your country makes sure that this could not happen?
lazs
-
and nashwan.. I have watched you do this for years... if we point out that there was no more crime in your country when you could have guns you say that it only looks that way because it was reported differently back then but you can't say how much the real difference is.. only that it is in your favor.
If we point out that your gun crime is rising despite your idiotic and immoral gun laws.. you say that the way it is defined has been changed and that you can't count that data...
If we say your country is nothing like ours you say the census is different..
Seems to me that you can't say anything about your country... you even mentioning data from such a country as yours that changes the rules all the time is worthless...
Fact is.. the data is what it is... gun crime is on the rise.. normal citizens are the victims and not one gun law you have ever passed has decreased crime... you have citizens hiding under their beds while the burglars ransack the place.. you have smash and grab and law of the strongest arm...
No thanks
Your crime will get more not less as you become less english speaking, lilly white, protestant.
You can change the way you report the stats all you want but the people are seeing through it.
lazs
-
Historical crime rates are a problem because recording and reporting crime was a bit haphazard. But the murder rates in the UK and US at the start
of the 20th century were similar. Britain began controlling handgun sales early in the 20th century.
Frankly, they are quite similar now -- in real life terms -- but, I can find the following positions that say different. What are your sources? I can find plenty that disagree with your position.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Here are a bunch of charts from 1981 - 1996: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm
More support from this book "Violence In America" (look at Chapter 3 & 4) : http://books.google.com/books?id=9GF6nJuW5XcC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=murder+rates+england+historic&source=web&ots=S1_NvOJEXO&sig=hVgdhRwJuORqMdn5j4Z0SCVHM5o#PPA82,M1
That noted conservative think tank Harvard published this piece: Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violence
...For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian." http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm
And, as I have read, the earliest UK gun control measures were due to a fear of anarchists and communists more than a perceived criminal problem.
The actual numbers are 5.6 and 1.4 per 100,000, I think.
How much difference? Well, the US has about 300,000,000 people, so the "extra" murders, the difference between 1.4 and 5.6 is about 12,500 people.
How much difference does 12,500 extra murders a year make? I suspect it's a lot, if you are one of the 12,500, or the friend or relative of one of them.
Got me there. Didn't see enough difference really in the long run between 5 and 5.6 and 1.4 and 2 - per 100,000 people. But 12,500 deaths is A LOT. More in fact, than we have firearm homicides each year in the US:
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,611
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.7
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,250
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.8
But yes, each death is a tragedy to the family and society, at least for the 10-30 percent of non-criminals killed. However, it is far less of a tragedy than the toll alcohol takes on society, not only in the US but in Europe.
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence. To analyze alcohol-related health impacts, CDC estimated the number of alcohol-attributable deaths (AADs) and years of potential life lost (YPLLs) in the United States during 2001. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that approximately 75,766 AADs and 2.3 million YPLLs, or approximately 30 years of life lost on average per AAD, were attributable to excessive alcohol use in 2001. These results emphasize the importance of adopting effective strategies* to reduce excessive drinking, including increasing alcohol excise taxes and screening for alcohol misuse in clinical settings. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm
Alcohol is SO destructive that it is practically CRIMINAL to be distracted by firearm violence. I'm sure, for the good of society using the same per capita approach, you would have to agree.
If real gun crime had really increased to such an extent, you would see 3 real, unfudgeable statistics increase. You would see a rise in the number of people getting shot dead, you would see a rise in the number of police getting shot and killed, and you would see a rise in the number of people getting shot by the police.
No, I think home invasions, etc. are viable in this case given the likelihood that the home owner is unarmed (but they you only have to be bigger, or have more of your buddies for that to work anyway).
But those guns are rare, not brought out unless needed to deal with rivals, and don't end up being used to rob people in the streets, break in to houses, rob late night shops, etc.
As noted above, take away guns from the good people and you just have to be bigger or stronger to force your will. I have lived in safe suburbs, and an average Chicago neighborhood and have traveled through below average neighborhoods. I have been afraid of being mugged at times (and was mugged once with no firearms involved). I was not particularly afraid of being shot in a mugging since statistically that is not common or not really necessary for most violent predators and an unarmed victim.
Or when someone who has a problem at work or school can go back with a gun.
You've basically got 3 options. Say 12,500 extra people getting murdered a year is a price well worth paying for you to be able to have a gun, control guns, or control people.
But understand something. Gun control, or people control, does not involve them controlling other people, or other people's guns. There is no practical way to restrict just some people, short of putting them in prison, and the US already has a truly massive prison population.
Fortunately such events are very rare -- 10-30 percent of all homicide at best. As noted, with a total homicide rate of about 17000 (WARNING GENERIC FIGURE USED!) out of 300 million the 12,500 "extra deaths" is a bit unlikley. However, somewhere between 100,000 and 2.5 million times per year a firearm is used in self defense (to include brandishing the gun without shots fired) according to 13 individual studies.
A Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (an anti gun group), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. So, even using the most biased low ball figure (I believe that only counts "shots fired,") firearms are used to defend a citizen far more than they are used to kill a citizen. Using the DOJ figures, they are used at least 3 times more often in defense than in the commission of a general firearm crime).
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
The reality I experience every day as an American is simple.
At no point do I fear gun violence as an actual, real fear. Statistically, I am far more at risk from alcohol than firearms. Similarly, even if I lived in the worst neighborhood in America (and didn't stand out as an outsider target) my personal risk from a firearm death would be marginal, at best. The overwhelming majority of people in even the worst neighborhoods do not die from a gunshot wound. In fact, they tend to be at higher risk for heart disease, alcohol and tobacco so that itself balances the total mortality risk.
So, yes. The ability to provide a safety switch to the government and potential tyranny, and the ability to provide for my personal defense and the ability to enjoy a safe, disciplined hobby are worth the cost of firearms, especially since there are even greater Ills we have no interest in suppressing.
Charon
-
nashwan.. I will make it simple for you... what gun law that you passed has prevented anyone from killing another?
The various firearms acts.
It is of course hard to prove the negative that someone wasn't killed, who would otherwise have been, but Marcus Sarjeant is one definite example.
You admit that (at least) anyone can get a shotgun... certainly a criminal can without to much trouble.. it can be sawed off to pistol length and in your horrible weather.. even a long one could be hid in a trenchcoat.
A sawn off shotgun is still not concealable in most situations. People tend to take their coats off indoors, which leaves the man with the long coat and rigid posture looking a bit odd, to say the least.
So why doesn't it happen?
Because criminals want small concealable handguns. That's true in the US as well, where they have a range of weapons available. (the weapon of choice is the handgun, not AK47 with bayonet attachment, extended magazine etc. ie handguns not assault weapons)
If I wanted to do a school shooting in england... how many could I kill with a sawed off shotgun or two and a pocket full of ammo?
Probably none, because you be more likely to get spotted entering the building. You would also be vulnerable when stopping to reload, would have a poor effective range, and the kids could run faster than you could fire.
do you think the shotgun would be more or less effective than a handgun?
A lot less effective.
What law in your country makes sure that this could not happen?
The firearms acts mean you have to have a licence, which means a cooling off period, and deters nutters and criminals. Even criminals are not going to sell a shotgun to someone they don't know, or someone who they think wants it for a massacre.
and nashwan.. I have watched you do this for years... if we point out that there was no more crime in your country when you could have guns you say that it only looks that way because it was reported differently back then but you can't say how much the real difference is.. only that it is in your favor.
No, I am saying the 19th century and earlier had very different policing standards, and you cannot compare.
If we point out that your gun crime is rising despite your idiotic and immoral gun laws.. you say that the way it is defined has been changed and that you can't count that data...
Which is true. Broadly speaking, police recorded crime has been rising, whilst the survey based BCS has been falling. The police are recording more crime, the public are experiencing less.
Seems to me that you can't say anything about your country... you even mentioning data from such a country as yours that changes the rules all the time is worthless...
No, you can say plenty. Just don't look for the truth in headlines. Headlines are distorted to provide a good story.
No one ever sold a newspaper by saying "Crime down slightly". You sell newspapers by finding some crime, the more serious the better, that you can portray as rising. Whether or not its true, or whether there are particular circumstances, doesn't really matter much.
Fact is.. the data is what it is... gun crime is on the rise..
If you understand that "gun" includes "toy gun", "air gun", "replica gun", etc, then yes.
What you or I would regard as a gun, something that shoots bullets with sufficient force to kill, no.
You can change the way you report the stats all you want but the people are seeing through it.
Well, if they hadn't changed the stats then things would be a lot clearer, I agree. But if you actually look at the basic stats, then the position is clear.
-
nashwan... you have never seen a sawn off shotgun I presume. It is indeed very concealable.
Not to mention that I know I could get a handgun in your country in a week if I wanted.
No.. you are simply wrong and won't admit it... no law you have passed stops people from killing others with the most deadly close range gun there is... the shotgun.
my proof would have to be that historicaly you never killed many even when you had handguns available.. you don't kill with sawed off shotguns because you never killed with any gun...regardless of the law.
What law have you passed that would keep someone from being able to get a shotgun easily and sawing it off in 10 minutes and taking it to a school and shooting kids...
I will make it simple for you... it would be harder to conceal one of those compact umbrellas than a sawn off shotgun.. you can reduce the length to less than a foot. The smallest woman could conceal one and get it into a school.
Your kids would be slaughtered... just like ours... because... just like ours... they would be helpless to resist.
in several of our shootings short barreled shotguns were concealed and used... not even sever cut down but legal 18" ones.
There is no reason for it not to happen in your country but.. so far it hasn't.
Don't you get it? apples and oranges... not the same countries and not the same people... There is no law that you have that prevents a school shooting.
In fact... I would say that it would be much easier in your country. Yep... I stick with that... for at least the first few... it would be much easier. no metal detectors or armed police in the school.
lazs
-
Frankly, they are quite similar now -- in real life terms -- but, I can find the following positions that say different. What are your sources? I can find plenty that disagree with your position.
Sources for what?
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Handguns were certainly rare in the UK in the late 19th century, although there was approx one policeman shot and killed per year at the time.
As to the rates converging, the US rate certainly fell throughout the 90s, from 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991 to 5.5 in 2000. But the US rate has been static or slightly upwards since, coming in at 5.5, 5.6 or 5.7 per year.
As to the UK rate, 2002 was remarkable in that a public inquiry into Harold Shipman concluded he had murdered several hundred elderly patients over decades. All those murders were recorded in 2002. Apart from that, the UK rate has been in the 1.4 - 1.5 range for the best part of a decade.
Alcohol is SO destructive that it is practically CRIMINAL to be distracted by firearm violence. I'm sure, for the good of society using the same per capita approach, you would have to agree.
Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders. Secondly, alcohol has health benefits for those who use it in moderation, and thirdly, the birth rate would go through the floor without alcohol ;)
Seriously, though, if someone wants to drink themselves to death, that is their choice. If firearms were only used in suicides, then there wouldn't be much cause to restrict access to them.
As noted above, take away guns from the good people and you just have to be bigger or stronger to force your will.
And equip a burglar with a gun and he doesn't have to be bigger or stronger.
The idea that people can protect themselves or their families with guns is a fantasy, I'm afraid. Borne out by the figures (about 200 criminals shot dead by the public, 12,000 people shot dead by criminals), by the number of policemen murdered with guns (50+ in the US per year, where the police are all armed, about 0.5 per lear in the UK where the police are almost never armed).
If the secret service couldn't stop the Kennedys or Reagan getting shot, what chance does a member of the public have?
In very rare cases guns enable a member of the public to defend themselves. In a great many cases, guns enable criminals to rob, rape and murder.
I was not particularly afraid of being shot in a mugging since statistically that is not common or not really necessary for most violent predators and an unarmed victim.
So you would rather be unarmed facing an armed robber?
Fortunately such events are very rare -- 10-30 percent of all homicide at best. As noted, with a total homicide rate of about 17000 (WARNING GENERIC FIGURE USED!) out of 300 million the 12,500 "extra deaths" is a bit unlikley.
No need for the warning, that's remarkably accurate. According to the FBI 17,034 people were murdered in the US last year.
I'd say somewhere above 10,000 extra deaths is in the right ballpark.
As I said, not many in the grand scheme of things, but certainly a major impact for those affected.
However, somewhere between 100,000 and 2.5 million times per year a firearm is used in self defense (to include brandishing the gun without shots fired) according to 13 individual studies.
The only figure I've seen that stands any scrutiny was in the order of 100,000 in the high crime mid 90s. At a time when there were over 1 million crimes committed with firearms a year.
A Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (an anti gun group), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. So, even using the most biased low ball figure (I believe that only counts "shots fired,")
The 108,000 figure comes from face to face interviews. The higher figures all come from telephoning people at random and asking them if they'd used a gun to defend thesmelves.
The same method, telephoning at random and asking questions, results in similar figures for numbers of Americans kidnapped by aliens a year.
Any reputable pollster will tell you that if you ask people if they have carried out some heroic or meritorius deed, some will lie. If you ask people how much money they donate to charity, if they cheat on their wives, if they served as navy SEALs etc, some will lie. Not many, but some.
The figure of 2 - 3 million DGUs means about 1 percent of those telephoned at random reported a DGU. Think 1 percent of people will lie?
There's a check on those figures, too. Kleck (or was it Lott?) reported that citizens shot at, and hit, over 200,000 criminals. Yet the FBI records something like 200 criminals shot and killed by citizens.
200,000 people shot cannot possibly lead to 200 people killed.
So, even using the most biased low ball figure (I believe that only counts "shots fired,")
I believe the DOJ study came up with approx 100,000 DGUs in total, not just in which shots were fired.
firearms are used to defend a citizen far more than they are used to kill a citizen.
You are not comparing like with like. The number of DGUs should be compared with the number of crimes in which a firearm was used, and in the mid 90s, when these studies were done, I believe it was over 1 million such crimes.
We also know that criminals shot and killed some 12,000 people last year, and citizens shot and killed about 200.
So guns are used to commit crimes about 10 times more often than they are used to stop crimes, and criminals kill with guns about 60 times more often than citizens kill criminals with guns.
At no point do I fear gun violence as an actual, real fear. Statistically, I am far more at risk from alcohol than firearms. Similarly, even if I lived in the worst neighborhood in America (and didn't stand out as an outsider target) my personal risk from a firearm death would be marginal, at best. The overwhelming majority of people in even the worst neighborhoods do not die from a gunshot wound. In fact, they tend to be at higher risk for heart disease, alcohol and tobacco so that itself balances the total mortality risk.
Yes, the risk is quite small. The number killed is pretty high, though. It still amounts to thousands killed, and tens of thousands losing friends and relatives, every year.
So, yes. The ability to provide a safety switch to the government and potential tyranny, and the ability to provide for my personal defense and the ability to enjoy a safe, disciplined hobby are worth the cost of firearms, especially since there are even greater Ills we have no interest in suppressing.
I think they are both illusory benefits. I can't think of a government overthrown with sporting guns in modern times, and the fact that US policemen, all armed, get murdered at 20 times the rate of British policemen shows that your chances of defending yourself are much better if neither side has guns, rather than both having them.
-
NAsh/....
You said ..Shotgun is allot less effective then a handgun?
WOW!!!
Clueless dolt come to mind on that statement..maybe you meant the other way around
Laz was not talking about a 4-10 gauge either..even though that would mangle you up just as much maybe more then your typical pistol
-
nashwan,
You lost all credibility when you made this statement.
"Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders."
There are quite a few folks who are assaulted by drunks, hit by drunk drivers and other problems due to people who can't handle alcohol.
-
You said ..Shotgun is allot less effective then a handgun?
WOW!!!
Clueless dolt come to mind on that statement..maybe you meant the other way around
No, I meant what I said. A sawn off shotgun is a lot less effective than a semi auto pistol for mass killings. Not as concealable, low capacity, too long to reload, poor range.
Oh, and bulky ammunition.
Offhand, can you name the mass shootings carried out with sawn off shotguns? I can name several where handguns were used, but can't think of any with sawn offs.
Surely if they are more effective than handguns, then some spree killers will have realised that, and used them successfully to kill large numbers of people?
"Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders."
There are quite a few folks who are assaulted by drunks, hit by drunk drivers and other problems due to people who can't handle alcohol.
Well, there are about 500,000 people who are the victims of firearms crime in the US. 12,000 plus are murdered with firearms.
There are lots of statistics for alcohol related deaths, but nearly all such deaths are of the person who consumed the alcohol.
-
Sources for what?
Just how rare they were.
As to the rates converging, the US rate certainly fell throughout the 90s, from 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991 to 5.5 in 2000. But the US rate has been static or slightly upwards since, coming in at 5.5, 5.6 or 5.7 per year.
Which, in our horribly violent modern times puts us right about where we were in 1950. pretty consistent all the way back to 1900 with the usual spikes associated with the criminal prohibition of alcohol and various drugs and the associated black market activities.
Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders.
Not so.
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 17,602 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities. Drunk (those at or above an illegal BAC of .08) drivers were involved in 13,470 fatalities in 2006.This is about the same as 2005, when 17,590 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes and 13,582 people were killed in crashes involving drunk drivers.
This matches pretty well the total homicide figure and eclipses the firearm homicide figure. An interesting aside are the firearm homicide deaths that also involve alcohol.
Secondly, alcohol has health benefits for those who use it in moderation, and thirdly, the birth rate would go through the floor without alcohol.
I agree, and it would have severely limited my social life during my 20s :) I'm not personally pushing for alcohol prohibition, rather an equal approach to punishing the irresponsible user rather than the substance. FWIW, Two, and likely three of my friends -- fairly good friends, have died alcohol related deaths. Not one from a firearm.
And equip a burglar with a gun and he doesn't have to be bigger or stronger.
The idea that people can protect themselves or their families with guns is a fantasy, I'm afraid. Borne out by the figures (about 200 criminals shot dead by the public, 12,000 people shot dead by criminals), by the number of policemen murdered with guns (50+ in the US per year, where the police are all armed, about 0.5 per lear in the UK where the police are almost never armed).
If the secret service couldn't stop the Kennedys or Reagan getting shot, what chance does a member of the public have?
In very rare cases guns enable a member of the public to defend themselves. In a great many cases, guns enable criminals to rob, rape and murder.
As noted, the most conservative, pro gun control statistics put defensive firearm usage at 100000. The department of Justice figure is 1.5 million, as stated before. You don't need to shoot to deter. Criminals are not ideological warriors willing to sacrafice their lives at all costs. If you are not easy meat they are not interested.
o need for the warning, that's remarkably accurate. According to the FBI 17,034 people were murdered in the US last year.
I'd say somewhere above 10,000 extra deaths is in the right ballpark.
As I said, not many in the grand scheme of things, but certainly a major impact for those affected.
Of which 70 to 90 percent had extensive criminal records. Criminals killing other criminals in gangland warfare.
The 108,000 figure comes from face to face interviews. The higher figures all come from telephoning people at random and asking them if they'd used a gun to defend thesmelves.
The same method, telephoning at random and asking questions, results in similar figures for numbers of Americans kidnapped by aliens a year.
Any reputable pollster will tell you that if you ask people if they have carried out some heroic or meritorius deed, some will lie. If you ask people how much money they donate to charity, if they cheat on their wives, if they served as navy SEALs etc, some will lie. Not many, but some.
The figure of 2 - 3 million DGUs means about 1 percent of those telephoned at random reported a DGU. Think 1 percent of people will lie?
There's a check on those figures, too. Kleck (or was it Lott?) reported that citizens shot at, and hit, over 200,000 criminals. Yet the FBI records something like 200 criminals shot and killed by citizens.
200,000 people shot cannot possibly lead to 200 people killed.
I'll let Dr. Kleck respond to this one.
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government.
As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
I believe the DOJ study came up with approx 100,000 DGUs in total, not just in which shots were fired.
You are not comparing like with like. The number of DGUs should be compared with the number of crimes in which a firearm was used, and in the mid 90s, when these studies were done, I believe it was over 1 million such crimes.
We also know that criminals shot and killed some 12,000 people last year, and citizens shot and killed about 200.
So guns are used to commit crimes about 10 times more often than they are used to stop crimes, and criminals kill with guns about 60 times more often than citizens kill criminals with guns.
As long as you use the study that best fits your personal opinion, while similarly overlooking the fact that most of the "12,000 people" were in fact criminals themselves killed by other criminals. The Department of Justice survey in 1994 (under the anti gun Clinton Administration even) titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. This is not the NCVS study. Here is a list of 13 studies. http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html The lowest DGU figure in the 13 studies is about 777,000. The NCVS is really unique in it's extraordinary low ball figure, but not surprising give the structure of the study and the group behind it.
Yes, the risk is quite small. The number killed is pretty high, though. It still amounts to thousands killed, and tens of thousands losing friends and relatives, every year.
So does having unprotected sex, eating fatty foods, drinking, driving, even being employed, as I recall.
-
I think they are both illusory benefits. I can't think of a government overthrown with sporting guns in modern times, and the fact that US policemen, all armed, get murdered at 20 times the rate of British policemen shows that your chances of defending yourself are much better if neither side has guns, rather than both having them.
Really? here's how I see it.
When I was my hardest, out of basic training, I might have had the physicality when faced by an unarmed, violent criminal predator to escape, or perhaps gain control of an improvised weapon. That would be my only chance. I watch some of these prison shows on cable. The people doing hard time are vicious, and have roughly the physicality of a professional boxer. Now, older and much softer, here's how it plays for me:
Criminal armed/me unarmed -- I lose
Criminals armed/me unarmed -- I lose
Criminal unarmed/me unarmed -- I lose
Criminal unarmed/me armed -- I win
Criminal armed/me armed -- draw, though I likely win since I train with my weapon
Criminals armed/me armed -- draw, though I likely win since I train with my weapon
Mavrick, Lazs, Xargos --chime in. You are all familiar with the criminal set from various perspectives :) Just how effective is the average person having some fisticuffs with one of these 22 year old street/prison hardened thugs at 2:00 am in your living room? Are they just like the bully most of us encountered in the school yard? How well can a 120 lb woman resist one of these rapists? How about a 70 year old man?
Basically, without a firearm I have to hope the criminal(s) spare me and my family. Hope they decide not to rape and murder my wife or children. Unfortunately, the whole "unarmed" criminal and victim thing really didn't go down all that well for Dr. Petit though. http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_205090555.html Tough luck, that. Wife and 11 year old daughter raped, husband severely beaten, both daughters and wife killed (tried to burn them to death, but perhaps they died of smoke inhalation first).
There are plenty of examples where a gun equalized the victim with the victimizer. Their lives count just as much as the innocent victims of violence involving a firearm. As a counterpoint, Here are literally dozens of examples of self defense shootings: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/labels/MI.html
As to the government thing, I can cite plenty of genocides in modern time committed on unarmed populations, and have previously discussed in great detail how an armed population deters a Govt. without too many shots having to be fired.
-
Offhand, can you name the mass shootings carried out with sawn off shotguns? I can name several where handguns were used, but can't think of any with sawn offs.
I can name two individual mass killings involving a match and a can of gasoline that each eclipse the Brady bunch published fact sheet totals for firearms mass killings with a list going back 20 years. The deadliest school mass killing involved dynamite. The deadliest home grown terror mass killing involved diesel fuel and fertilizer. The London tube bombers used bombs. The Spanish train bombings used bombs. 911 involved airliners and box cutters. We can add alcohol related vehicular homicide to the list if we move mass down to 3-5 victims. Serial killers seldom use a gun in their crimes, yet pull up a Virginia Tech body count with greater frequency.
Guns are fairly ineffective at mass killings, short of a Babi Yar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar) type of setting, but then you start playing into the whole unarmed population thing on the flip side. Genocide does come out of the barrel of a gun -- one held by a soldier or police official on an unarmed minority group. Fact: Gun control got it's start in the US as an effort in the South to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks:aok
You can add up all the deranged mass murder firearm killings in a year (a Columbine or VT) and still run a greater risk of getting hit by lightning. For all the media attention they are rare events. And, as I have pointed out before you can burn a family of 5 to death and it barely makes the front page of the regional daily paper. Just not sexy enough, and no agenda to promote. Even the Petit killing got less play in the media than one would expect given the horrific nature of the crime.
Charon
-
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." - ARISTOTLE, Politics
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - ADAMS, SAMUEL, in Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - HENRY, PATRICK, June 9, 1788, Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." -
JEFFERSON, THOMAS
"Be not afraid of any man no matter what his size; when danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize." - Legend on a Colt revolver
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 U.S. murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford
"If you've got a gun law that criminals will obey, why not just turn it into a murder law that criminals will obey ---- then we won't have to worry about the gun part." -- Andrew Ford
"I didn't see any NRA officials killing babies in Waco." - O’ROURKE, P.J.
-
Just so you know where to place your faith, check out Warren vs District of Columbia.
On March 16, 1975, three female roommates living in a townhouse in the District were awakened by the sound of the back door being kicked in. Before the woman sleeping in the second floor bedroom could react and flee, she was attacked by two men, who repeatedly beat, raped and sodomized her.
Two other women on the floor above heard their roommate's screams and acted. Carolyn Warren called police at 6:43 a.m. and was assured help was on the way. She and her other roommate then crawled out a window onto a roof for safety.
From their vantage, they saw a police car slowly drive past, then move on through a back alley, never stopping. The terrified women crawled back into the house and again called police. After hiding for half an hour and hearing silence downstairs, they assumed police had arrived. But when they descended to the second floor, they, too, were confronted by the attackers.
The police, in fact, did not respond at all to the second desperate plea for help. The three women were held captive for an unspeakable 14 hours of repeated beatings, rapes and assaults.
Warren and the other victims sued the District and the police department. In 1978, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
Later in 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals went further and ruled, "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
-
Originally posted by Charon
Remove the section of Nashwine being destroyed.
You right, nash has shown he has no logic and worse, not an open enough mind to learn.
At this point your wasting your time arguing with him.
He assumes criminals are superhuman. They are losers who pray on the weak and he wants to take the tools of protection away from the weak because he cant see the value of at least having the choice. Freedom is lost on him.
Most gun owners who enjoy the hobby are better shots then you average crook.
I practice enough I know I can hit what I need to.
But mostly because I enjoy it. I do not live in fear, and have never seen a gun used in an illegal way.
Nash is the best the euro women who value safety over freedom can offer on the debate, he is much better then other loser. But in the end its a religion for him as well. . Either way I would rather have the choice to take my life in my own hands then cower and hope the cops may get here in time. You know like a man should.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
For some odd reason I still don't want to go to France
So - the French win twice!
-
charon has ripped every arguement of nashwans apart but it is good to hit the high spots.
I could kill a half dozen or more in england with a sawn off shotgun.. the wounds would be more devestating than handgun wounds and I would have a higher hit probability.. I would not even need to have a severly sawn off one for the first few school shootings.. the gun would be far more effective than a handgun for snap shots on fleeing students at any range up to about 40 yards.. I could conceal it in a trench coat. It could even have a folding stock. plenty of room for the "bulky" ammo...
alcohol kills more innocents than drunks. alcohol affects every single one of our lives in a negative way...still.. we have it and I will support peoples freedom to use it.. when they abuse it they need to be punished.
Between 1.5 and 3 million crimes are stopped a year with firearms... it is true that criminals using firearms are more likely to shoot you than vice versa... very true... but.. stopping the assault (for a normal human) is just as good...better.. and more moral.. than killing the assailant. he wants to kill us.. we only want to stop him. The stats explain themselves.. gun owners are not criminals... we do not seek to kill... only to defend. Is nashwan saying that because we don't kill the now harmless criminal... our guns are ineffective for defending ourselves?
complete nonsense and illogical... while he shivers under his bed hoping the bad men will go away... we confront them and chase them off or hold them for the police. Half of all burglaries in his country happen the way I describe...
smash and grab is an expression from his country.. the law of the fittest is his law.
The shooting "victims" he talks about are most often other criminals with long records themselves and.. I really won't miss em in any case.
how many law abiding citizens murder other law abiding citizens with firearms? The concealed carry records will show that it is really an insignificant amount.
As for charons question... the thugs I knew... The normal citizen would stand a chance if they were tough and ready and... they happened to catch the guy naked and alone. otherwise... not much chance. the guys I knew always used what you would consider despicable tactics... hitting from behind.. use of anything as a club or knife and boots and chairs and pool sticks... you never faced them.. you faced them and all the guys with em.
I did see a guy who was about to be beat to death make it to his car and get a gun and chase everyone off.. I don't know if it saved his life but it sure saved him from an extreme beating.
What is irrefuteable is that once a person has the right to be armed.. he does not want to give it up... police here don't want to give it up when they retire... they know what it is like on the street. The only reason a person who has known his human right to defend himself will give that up is if evil people like nashwan take it away from him with the threat of losing everything he has if he doesn't comply.. and even then.. he resists because...he knows he is right and that the law is immoral.
lazs
-
No, I think Nashwan does a pretty good job presenting the facts, and the sources to back up his statements, which is far more than the average poster does. That much is clear from the way the ad hominem attacks have now started, because the posters of such attacks have run out of gas.
nash has shown he has no logic and worse, not an open enough mind to learn.
I can't think of anyone less deserving of this. Nashwine
Say no more. Personal attacks are the last resort of the unworthy. A swine - for disagreeing with you? Oh puhleeze... :rolleyes:
-
Just how rare they were.
Murders at the turn of the century?
For the US, 1.2 per 100,000:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm
Note how the rate drops as low as 1.1 by 1903, 1.3 in 1904, then begins its rapid rise, 2.1, 3.9, 4.9. It drops back slightly before increasing again, hitting 6.2 by 1914.
The rate in England and Wales in 1900 was 0.96 per 100,000, pretty close to the US rate. However, ours didn't increase, dropping slightly to 0.81 in 1910. Then again, we had the first pistol licensing act in 1903...
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 17,602 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities. Drunk (those at or above an illegal BAC of .08) drivers were involved in 13,470 fatalities in 2006.This is about the same as 2005, when 17,590 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes and 13,582 people were killed in crashes involving drunk drivers.
How many of the dead were the ones who were drunk? A pretty large proportion, I'd bet. Of course, firearms murders excludes all those who killed themselves, accidental deaths, etc.
As noted, the most conservative, pro gun control statistics put defensive firearm usage at 100000. The department of Justice figure is 1.5 million, as stated before. You don't need to shoot to deter. Criminals are not ideological warriors willing to sacrafice their lives at all costs. If you are not easy meat they are not interested.
They put it at about 100,000 in the high crime mid 90s.
Of which 70 to 90 percent had extensive criminal records.
Source for a national figure, rather than just a local one?
I'm sure that's true for certain high crime inner cities with extensive gang warfare, but I doubt it for general murders.
As long as you use the study that best fits your personal opinion,
No, I use the study that seems most credible.
I know that any credible opinion poll will tell the the margin of error is 1 - 3%. Kleck found that about 1% had used guns defensively.
But above all, what Kleck's respondents said does not match with the figures known.
According to Kleck, his interviews showed that there had been 2.5 million DGUs in a year.
They also said that in 15.6% of those cases, they had fired at the criminal (not warning shots, fired to hit). That's 390,000 criminals shot at.
Just over half those who fired, 8.3% of the total DGUs, told Kleck that they had hit the criminal. That's 207,500 criminals shot.
However, the police only recorded about 200 criminals shot and killed.
So either less than 1 in 1,000 shot criminals dies, there are loads of bodies lying in the bushes no one knows about, or people were lying to Kleck.
Kleck's "explanation" is that people overestimate their accuracy, and that a lot less than half those who shot hit the criminal. But if you assume only 1 in 10 of those hit dies, that means that 2,000 criminals were hit, out of 390,000 shot at.
That would mean only 1 in 200 who fired at the criminal actually hit, and an accuracy of less than 0.5%, in close quarters with criminals, isn't credible either.
Kleck's figures don't match up to the hard facts that are known. The fact that the method he used is known to be faulty is almost besides the fact, compared to that.
The Department of Justice survey in 1994 (under the anti gun Clinton Administration even) titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
Using exactly the same method. Note that the DOJ themselves point out the errors, and discount the result:
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack. "
"The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.
Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52"
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7."
"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals
are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders.
That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number
of gunshot cases.[14]"
"Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based
on screening the general population is likely to
have a positive bias. The reason can best be
explained by use of an epidemiological
framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject
to error, whether the "test" is a medical
examination for cancer or an interview question for
DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or
"false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber
the former, the population prevalence will be
exaggerated.
The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the
case of rare events boils down to a matter of
arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in
1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1
can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any
of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even
2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result
will be a positive bias--regardless of whether the
one true positive tells the truth.
Respondents might falsely provide a positive
response to the DGU question for any of a number of
reasons:
o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories.
o They may actually have used a gun defensively
within the last couple of years but falsely report
it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why
that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
defensively within the time frame may have decided
not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the
arithmetic dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate."
"The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims. Most
NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
DGU question, falsely or otherwise."
"The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether
consumers who buy guns for protection against crime
get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate
of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates
the true number, as do other estimates based on
similar surveys."
You are relying on a survey that the survey takers point out the error in, and discount the results.
I know you want to believe in Kleck's figure, but the method is known to be flawed, and the results do not match the facts known.
Incidentally, doesn't this board have direct evidence that people lie to claim DGU? And even self defence in general?
Criminal armed/me armed -- draw, though I likely win since I train with my weapon
So secret service armed, criminal armed = draw? What is the win/lose record on that one? I know the secret service normally uncover plots in advance, what is their actual record if a nut gets close enough to pull a gun? The only two cases I can think of are the other Kennedy and Reagan, both got shot despite multiple armed security around them.
The truth is the criminal has a huge advantage in such cases, because he knows what is about to happen. He has the initiative.
If you can avoid the initial bounce you stand some sort of chance, I suppose, but the statistics show your chances are not good.
-
Basically, without a firearm I have to hope the criminal(s) spare me and my family.
If the criminals are armed you have to hope the same.
There are plenty of examples where a gun equalized the victim with the victimizer.
Yes, but there are far, far more where the criminal used a gun to kill the victim.
How about a famous people example?
George Harrison, Beatle. Attacked in his house in Britain by a deranged man with a knife. Harrison was stabbed several times before he and his wife overpowered the man. Harrison spent a few days in hospital and made a full recovery.
John Lennon, Beatle. Attacked in the street by a deranged man with a gun. Shot and killed.
The statistics aren't on your side, here. Far more people are victim of an armed criminal than use a gun to defend themselves, far more are killed by a criminal than kill the criminal whilst defending themselves.
I know that doesn't fit with the Hollywood image where the good guy kills the baddies and saves the day, but sadly life isn't like that.
As to the government thing, I can cite plenty of genocides in modern time committed on unarmed populations,
Plenty on armed ones, too.
The fact is successful insurgencies always have access to military weapons, not sporting rifles and handguns. Handguns in particular are practically useless in a military context.
I can name two individual mass killings involving a match and a can of gasoline that each eclipse the Brady bunch published fact sheet totals for firearms mass killings with a list going back 20 years.
And yet fire is used to murder about 130 people a year in the US, compared to 12,000 or so for firearms.
The deadliest school mass killing involved dynamite. The deadliest home grown terror mass killing involved diesel fuel and fertilizer. The London tube bombers used bombs. The Spanish train bombings used bombs. 911 involved airliners and box cutters. We can add alcohol related vehicular homicide to the list if we move mass down to 3-5 victims.
Big terrorist attacks take organisation, and are by nature infrequent. Even if you take 2001, whilst the terrorists killed 3,000, criminals shot dead nearly 4 times as many. In the years of this century, terrorists have killed about 3,000 people in America. Criminals with guns have killed about 70,000.
Certainly you can kill with bombs, but not so easily. The last 7 "bombings" in Britain have resulted in 1 terrorist burning himself to death, the police shooting 1 man by mistake, and a few trivial injuries.
Look at Columbine, despite the extensive preparations and home made bombs, all the deaths came from gunfire, the bombs killed no one.
Oklahoma was a spectacular attack, but killed far less people that week than criminals with guns did.
He assumes criminals are superhuman.
No. I assume criminals have the initiative. If you are behind the counter of a shop, you have no idea when or if a criminal is going to walk through the doors. The criminal outside knows exactly when, though.
They are losers who pray on the weak and he wants to take the tools of protection away from the weak because he cant see the value of at least having the choice.
No, I want to take the tools of violence away from the criminal.
Far more crimes are committed with guns in the US than stopped with them. Far more people are murdered by criminals than manage to kill the criminal.
Either way I would rather have the choice to take my life in my own hands then cower and hope the cops may get here in time. You know like a man should.
But I don't have to, do I? I don't have to cower and hope the criminal isn't carrying a gun, I know he isn't. I can defend myself with improvised weapons in my house much better than a criminal, who can only carry what's easily concealable.
You seem to think that if both have guns you are safer than if neither do. But the evidence doesn't back that up. If you can defend yourself, why can't US policemen? Why are they, armed, at so much more risk (20 times per capita) than British police men, unarmed?
-
how does he present stats that prove his point? he claims alcohol hurts no one but the people drinking? do you agree with this?
He claims that guns are a net negative but the FBI stats show that they prevent 1.5-3 million crimes a year... he uses the shallow stat of who kills the most... do you think that unless you kill with a gun that it is useless.
He is not so much wrong as he is ignorant. He doesn't look at the stats that he himself quotes. more than half our homicides are comited by one race... why should I be defenseless against them?
We don't have half our burglaries done while we shiver under the bed like his country does.. it is rare here... studies show that burglars fear homeowners here... there the treat em with the contempt that unarmed people deserve.
swine? I never said he was swine but... if he wishes to disarm me then it is not just a conversation or a debate... he is an evil man... if he came to disarm me by himself.. if he had the guts that is... I would resist... I would shoot him if he persisted and left me no other choice and not feel bad at all about it.
you don't get to vote on my rights. you can try to talk me out of em but when you use the weight of government to take them away then you are the enemy and you are immoral.
lazs
-
nashwan.. forget kleck if you like.. the FBI stats are what I quoted.
as for the beatles... the truth is that for attacks with a handgun... 80% of the people survive... look at Reagan if this is a celebrity only discussion.
In knife attacks.. guess what? 80% survive.
As for shooting at the bad guys... who cares if you miss if he runs away... only a criminal shoots to kill when he doesn't have to. In concealed carry stats... the criminal has lost almost every time. of the 60-80 million gun owners.. quite a few are not familiar with their guns... often it is a gun that they have not shot before or only a few times.
In criminal cases of police shootings... investigations show that criminals practice about 3-5 times as much as police. These are the criminals who are willing to shoot it out with the police... run into one of them.. and you are in trouble. they are a rare breed tho... only a handful a decade.
The vast majority of criminals with guns are not familiar with them at all tho. they are young urban minorities who can't hit the broad side of a barn and only do well when they get the drop on someone at close range.
If the little old lady puts a round through the ceiling and the burglar runs off... In my estimation.. that is a successful use of the firearm... you would say that it proves the gun is useless.
lazs
-
Here's an example of Gun use preventing crime, not resulting in injury to criminal (injury to his pride yes, physical inury, no.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303429,00.html
-
the numbers say that 1.5 to 3 million crimes are prevented a year with firearms - lazs
That seems like an incredibly high number. If only it were true. But is it? Well let's see...
The population is around 300 million. If 3 million crimes are prevented every year by firearms, and those crimes are attempted by different people, that's one crime attempted, and prevented by firearms, for every 100 people in the US! But of that 300 million population, a large proportion would be below the age of criminal responsibility (around 10%?), and a further 15% would be elderly/infirm or otherwise incapable of committing an offence whose prevention depended on firearms.
So that means that every year, 1 in every 75 people in the US who are capable of it commits an offence or attempts to commit an offence which is prevented by firearms.
But according to Nashw, the number of offences committed successfully, that firearms were not able to prevent, is much much higher. If the ratio were 3 to 1, that means that a further 3 people in every 75 (1 in 25) commit an offence which could have been stopped by firearms, but wasn't and so they got away with it. Or if you're saying that those offences are committed by repeat offenders then it doesn't say much for crime prevention.
The figures seem wild, and I see that no link has been provided to substantiate them.
-
could you believe that a criminal..commits more then 1 crime a year!!?? gasp the horrah!
-
"Tajuan Bullock"
-
How many of the dead were the ones who were drunk? A pretty large proportion, I'd bet. Of course, firearms murders excludes all those who killed themselves, accidental deaths, etc.
We don't really know, do we. I do know that anecdotally its very common for them to take at least one other person with them. We recently had a string of underage DUI fatalities in the Chicago area and you saw passenger killed 3-4 at a pop. It's not uncommon anecdotally for the drunk driver to survive while others perish. Drive on the highway at 11:00 pm Friday or Saturday and you see people clearly putting your life in danger with your own eyes. Not that hard to spot.
Source for a national figure, rather than just a local one?
I'm sure that's true for certain high crime inner cities with extensive gang warfare, but I doubt it for general murders.
As I already pointed out earlier national figures are hard to come by. Perhaps you have some figures to prove your point?
This is just Wiki, but it shows the Urban nature of US crime.
Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[22] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[23] Rates of gun-related homicides are greatest in southern and western states.[24]
Then there's this. A bit dated, but...
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 [Guncite note: 50.1% had prior convictions (Kleck and Bordua at p. 293)]. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
Again, if you actually lived here you wouldn't have to rely on statistics to know where the firearm crime actually occurs. In Illinois there are a handful of neighborhoods in Chicago. A few parts of Aurora/Joliet (pop. 285,000) , a slice of Elgin (pop. 94,487) and parts of Waukegan (pop. 93,389). Chicago would be the only formal "urban" area in the mix. Aurora/Joliet would qualify as the 14th largest cities in the UK (about like Nottingham), though here it is just another suburban area in the Chicago metropolitan area that most people on the board likley never heard of.
They put it at about 100,000 in the high crime mid 90s.
No, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. I linked to the criticism of it's methodology, which starts with the gun violence angle being an aside and finishes with possibly having to incriminate yourself to answer truthfully in some cases.
As I've already posted, these 13 other studies ( http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html ) find DGUs from almost 800,000 to 3 million times per year. None lower that 777,000. Now, you're going to want to highlight the study that best supports your position as do I. But, the NCVS study is extraordinarily unique, while the DOJ study found 1.5 million and in fact fits in the middle of the pack with those 13 studies., by far the most unusual response, is the only accurate one? What's wrong with each of the
No, I use the study that seems most credible.
I know that any credible opinion poll will tell the the margin of error is 1 - 3%. Kleck found that about 1% had used guns defensively.
But above all, what Kleck's respondents said does not match with the figures known.
According to Kleck, his interviews showed that there had been 2.5 million DGUs in a year.
They also said that in 15.6% of those cases, they had fired at the criminal (not warning shots, fired to hit). That's 390,000 criminals shot at.
Just over half those who fired, 8.3% of the total DGUs, told Kleck that they had hit the criminal. That's 207,500 criminals shot.
However, the police only recorded about 200 criminals shot and killed.
So either less than 1 in 1,000 shot criminals dies, there are loads of bodies lying in the bushes no one knows about, or people were lying to Kleck.
Kleck's "explanation" is that people overestimate their accuracy, and that a lot less than half those who shot hit the criminal. But if you assume only 1 in 10 of those hit dies, that means that 2,000 criminals were hit, out of 390,000 shot at.
That would mean only 1 in 200 who fired at the criminal actually hit, and an accuracy of less than 0.5%, in close quarters with criminals, isn't credible either.
Kleck's figures don't match up to the hard facts that are known. The fact that the method he used is known to be faulty is almost besides the fact, compared to that.
You're welcom to your opinion. I have no problem with the opinions of Dr. Kleck:
Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see curriculum vita and this overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).
Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns:
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.
The fact is people do use firearms for self defense. Beyond people actually shooting and hitting the other person there will be inaccuracies in their subjective view of the event. Still, except for the NEVC study the others show a much higher DGU. All of the others. The census bureau NEVC study must have got it right without even trying. Or maybe its own flaws in methodology came into play to set it so far apart for those other 13 studies.
Using exactly the same method. Note that the DOJ themselves point out the errors, and discount the result:
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack. "
"The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?"
Actually the DOJ didn't like the results any more than you do. This is the Clinton Administration DOJ, a decidedly unfriendly administration to the 2nd Amendment. If you are familiar with the US bureaucratic system you clearly understand how politicized such things become. Take, for example, the positions of the EPA under Clinton or Bush or Regan or Carter, etc. Or look at all of the neutral to positive marijuana studies that get routinely ignored by the appropriate government agencies, even when they commissioned the study. And even take the conclusion of the DOJ rebuttal:
The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money's worth. The NSPOF based
estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.
For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable reference. Such information is vital to the evaluation of the ongoing debate over government regulation of gun transactions, possession, and use.
Lol. The part that goes against the administrations gun control efforts is "exaggerated" but the rest of the study is just swell :)
Now, the DOJ under the Bush administration came out with a piece strongly supporting the Individual rights model of the 2nd. Nothing new really -- the founders/framers expressed their thoughts pretty clearly and you don't have to just rely on a linguistic interpretation of the comma and the regulated militia stuff. But, I have not pushed that personally since, frankly, it's tainted by association with Bush/Ashcroft. The DOJ is a political organization that changes with the administration. In fact, the real shift in the public/media/political perception on the rights issue is coming from people like Lawrence Tribe, who came to the same conclusions yet have a lifelong history of liberal though and came to this conclusion "regrettably."
-
And yet fire is used to murder about 130 people a year in the US, compared to 12,000 or so for firearms.
No, this response was to your "Mad Nutter" mass killing thing. I honestly think you are trying to confuse the issue. In fact you switch and swap a number of other times [edit: between the mass killing argument and the general criminality argument]. I'll only address this one. There is a difference between the typical criminal use of a firearm and the rare mass killings that get all the media attention. You seemed to make that distinction and I have addressed each individually.
You said this: Offhand, can you name the mass shootings carried out with sawn off shotguns? I can name several where handguns were used, but can't think of any with sawn offs.
I said this: I can name two individual mass killings involving a match and a can of gasoline that each eclipse the Brady bunch published fact sheet totals for firearms mass killings with a list going back 20 years. The deadliest school mass killing involved dynamite. The deadliest home grown terror mass killing involved diesel fuel and fertilizer. The London tube bombers used bombs. The Spanish train bombings used bombs. 911 involved airliners and box cutters. We can add alcohol related vehicular homicide to the list if we move mass down to 3-5 victims. Serial killers seldom use a gun in their crimes, yet pull up a Virginia Tech body count with greater frequency.
Lets look at those totals (The brady figures are actually a bit incomplete, so I made some additions and even included international incidents) :)
* The McDonald's shooting - On July 18, 1984 21
* 20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14
* 06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14
* The Louisville, Kentucky, September 14, 1989 7
* The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, 8
* 13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17
* 28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35
* 29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12
* Colombine - April 20, 1999 -- 12 victims
* 27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland 14
* 26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16
* Virginia Tech 32
202 in 22 years. Just the US figures: 106
Average number of people killed by lightning per year in the US: about 200. Over 22 years: 4,400
The notable Arson Incidents (though plenty of smaller ones result in mass killings):
* Happy Land Social Club -- 87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_Fire
* Dupont Plaza Hotel fire -- 97 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_fire
Now, I have said in the past that either of these incidents eclipse the Brady figure, but as noted their attention to detail on this issue is no stronger than in general for the group. My additions don't really change the fact that the most successful mass killers do not use guns. Once you get away from the big incidents firearms still come up short:
Dr. Kleck also states that "Oddly enough, mass killings are actually less likely to involve the use of guns of any kind than homicides involving small numbers of victims. For all murders and non negligent manslaughters covered in Supplementary Homicide Reports (about 90% of all U.S. killings) for the period 1976 to 1992, only 48.3% of victims killed in incidents with four or more victims were killed with guns, compared to 62.3% of those killed in incidents with three or fewer victims. This is mainly due to the large share of mass killings committed with arson, which is rarely involved in ordinary homicides." http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
George Harrison, Beatle. Attacked in his house in Britain by a deranged man with a knife. Harrison was stabbed several times before he and his wife overpowered the man. Harrison spent a few days in hospital and made a full recovery.
John Lennon, Beatle. Attacked in the street by a deranged man with a gun. Shot and killed.
You make a big deal out of Kleck's research and then you trot out something as pointless as this?
The statistics aren't on your side, here. Far more people are victim of an armed criminal than use a gun to defend themselves, far more are killed by a criminal than kill the criminal whilst defending themselves.
Well have to agree to disagree. I'll take the findings of the 13 studies (of varying quality certainly but some by clearly anti-gun sources like Time and the LA Times) that show a minimum of 770,000 DGUs over the one you support that is, at best, flawed in its own right.
Plenty on armed ones, too.
Which ones are those again?
The fact is successful insurgencies always have access to military weapons, not sporting rifles and handguns. Handguns in particular are practically useless in a military context.
That's why no modern military fields a handgun, I suppose. Why SOCOM decided 9mm didn't have the punch they wanted. While similar criticisms can be found for the combat use of the Beretta platform in Iraq. What about all those Enfields used by the taliban against the Russians where the reach of a 303 beat the 7.62X39. Once you remove the ability to use non-violent riot control methods you force the supporters of tyranny (military, police and civilian) to look a bit closer at their commitment to what would be, at best, a shaky cause. Once you have to kill large numbers of YOUR people and the collateral damage is YOUR people you may question the regime a bit.
No. I assume criminals have the initiative. If you are behind the counter of a shop, you have no idea when or if a criminal is going to walk through the doors. The criminal outside knows exactly when, though.
I posted a link showing dozens of real world examples where your position fails. The criminal, in my unknown house in the middle of the night is not at an advantage. An assassin trying to kill one person with a detailed plan perhaps -- that focus group of Reagan and Lennon again. That is not your average home invader or stickup man though. In fact, lately there seems to be somewhat of a rash of self defense shooting going on that end badly for the criminal.
You bring up the Police thing. Now, the police, by the very nature of their jobs seek out criminals on a daily basis. Across the US, in 2004:
Seventy-two local, state and federal officers died from traffic-related accidents while 57, about one-third, died from shootings, the organizations said. A variety of causes led to the other deaths.
There were 368 justifiable homicides committed by police that same year. It sucks that desperate criminals kill police, but the police seem to come out on top 6 times as often and you do hear very mixed reports on the level of common firearm training possessed by many officers.
No, I want to take the tools of violence away from the criminal.
Just how will you do that? The only response you really need to make frankly. How will you take the firearms away from the criminals. How will you do a better job than, say, taking the drugs away from the drug dealers?
Charon
-
also.. while wars are not fought with handguns per se.... resistance fighters depend on them.. revolutionaries depend on them.. covert killers depend on them... they most defintely have their place.
nashwan can be ignored on the strength of two comments... that alcohol hurts only the person drinking it and that a shotgun is less effective than a handgun for shooting unarmed students.
The rest is just poor interpretation of data. It is also ignoring the facts and comparing cultures. apples and oranges.
As his country becomes more like ours.. he will see more guns and more violence from the bad guys... he will see his police carrying more and more weapons more and more openly.
Only the poor citizens will be unarmed.
lazs
-
Bottom line is England never did have any sort of major problem with gun homicide.
They restricted firearms initially because of the Red Scare.
If you look at their stats, there's basically no change in their gun homicide rate from the advent of modern handguns to present.
Many of them try to attribute this to their ever more restrictive gun laws, one following upon the other to keep their wild, unruly criminal element in check.
However, it's pretty obvious that their society just never was that violent and certainly not anywhere near as violent as ours has since the very beginning of the US.
It's their societal mores that keep their gun homicide low, not their gun laws.
As Laz correctly points out though, their society is at the start of what amounts to a sea change.
I believe that sooner or later the fact that it was not their gun laws that kept their gun homicide rate low will become obvious to even the most casual observer.