Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 30, 2002, 10:31:12 AM
-
If you TRUELY believe in your rhetoric, then its time you put one of these signs in your front yard!
(http://home.earthlink.net/~ripsnort/Aircraft/sign01.gif)
And place this bumper sticker on your car...STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS (I dare ya! :) )
(http://home.earthlink.net/~ripsnort/Aircraft/gf-bumper.gif )
(Thks to Raww from AGW for these pics!)
-
Rip...I'm not "anti-gun" per se..hell, I love shooting the things. But, since the Con..and this recent sniper event...I find myself shaking my head at the gun fanatics (NRA etc) in your country.
I say "since the Con"...because when we went to the gun-range that day I was absolutely astounded at the sheer number and variety of weapons that anyone over the age of 18 (or whatever the rules are) can buy. I remember one wicked looking rifle...all black..which had a scope on it. I saw it and thought to myself, "whoa...that looks cool...bet it is expensive". It was $199.99..on sale. Logically any unbalanced individual, who doesn't have a crimminal record, could buy one...load it up in the parking lot and start "a-killin". That just simply frightens me.
The fact that gun-ownership is a right...and is entrenched in your constitution, seems ludicrous to me. That document was drafted right after a war...in the days in which there was very little in the way of any organised police-force..in a time when personal protection really did necessitate the owning of a gun.
I'm not so sure this is the case anymore.
That being said...I don't own any shares in Smith & Wesson, Remmington...or any gun manufacturer...if I did I would probably feel differently.
;)
-
Logically any unbalanced individual, who doesn't have a crimminal record, could buy one...load it up in the parking lot and start "a-killin". That just simply frightens me.
I think I know who is paranoid, and frightened for no cause.
Are you going to buy a gun and kill everyone?
Wait, that's POSSIBLE.
Arrest Curval before he kills unarmed people. (I own guns, avoid my house you crazed psycho)
-
If those three nursing professors at the University of Arizona had been armed, they'd probably be alive today. Their foolish decision to go to their classrooms unarmed cost them their lives. Think about that, when you send your kids to school tomorrow morning. You might want to put more than a peanut butter sandwich in their lunch boxes.
-
Originally posted by popeye
If those three nursing professors at the University of Arizona had been armed, they'd probably be alive today.
True.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Are you going to buy a gun and kill everyone?
No..but less than three months after having that experience at the Con two guys decided to start doing so in Washington.
-
Originally posted by popeye
If those three nursing professors at the University of Arizona had been armed, they'd probably be alive today. Their foolish decision to go to their classrooms unarmed cost them their lives. Think about that, when you send your kids to school tomorrow morning. You might want to put more than a peanut butter sandwich in their lunch boxes.
Maybe if they had the weapon holstered at their side. Otherwise, I'm betting the gunman would have got to them before they reached for the purse.
Go ahead and pack something extra in your kid's school lunch box. I'll bet you'll get a call from the school. Then, a call from the police department. Then, you'll be looking for another school if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, you'll have a nice visitation schedule while your kid does time.
That is... unless the unbalanced, hormonal, immature little twit manages to kill someone. Then, you can rent out his room.
-
You can not blame the gun for the actions of those two.
If they could not get a gun I am sure they could have done the same amount or more damage with small bombs.
It is not like they are hard to make, you can get books that show you how from all over the place including army surplus stores. Hell the army put it out as a Manual about improvised weapons.
People doing crazy things, ain't going to be stoped with no guns.
-
If someone had a sitcker like that on their car in Texas, three men in 10 gallon hats would show up at their car door and issue them a pistol so they comply with state law. :D
But see...if that happened in school...we all know that the parents of this screwed up child wouldn't be blamed. Games like GTA or Counter-Strike would be...cause we all know it's not the poor little child's fault...
-
that day I was absolutely astounded at the sheer number and variety of weapons that anyone over the age of 18 (or whatever the rules are) can buy. I remember one wicked looking rifle...all black..which had a scope on it.
Man, you think that's something, here in the USA we have something alot more deadly, it kills a whole lot more than all the guns together. Funny thing is, not many complain, not enough rise up in horror at the grim statistics. Over 1000 people will die in the USA today from this instrument of destruction. Where oh where is the outcry?
This rampant killer is cigarettes. Yup, every day, over 1000 people will die from smoking and yet, some people actually waste time worrying about such an small part (guns) of the problem of unnatural deaths.
Prioritize I say, go after the real killer of our countrymen.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
This rampant killer is cigarettes. Yup, every day, over 1000 people will die from smoking and yet, some people actually waste time worrying about such an small part (guns) of the problem of unnatural deaths.
Prioritize I say, go after the real killer of our countrymen.
dago
Oh come now... we all know that illegal drugs are more dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes. After all... if marijuana wasn't so bad for you, it would be legal too.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You can not blame the gun for the actions of those two.
You're right...the poor gun.
:rolleyes:
Dude..that gun was made for one purpose..to kill.
-
"If they could not get a gun I am sure they could have done the same amount or more damage with small bombs."
lol
what else floats?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Dude..that gun was made for one purpose..to kill.
So are knives... BAN KITCHEN UTENSILS!
-SW
-
You are 5 to 10 times more likely to be injured in a hit and run accident then by a firearm.
A registered licensed vehicle with a licensed driver.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
So are knives... BAN KITCHEN UTENSILS!
-SW
I use a knife to cut my food up before I put it into my mouth...not to kill it.:confused:
There are lots of non-lethal uses for knives. Give me ONE other use for a gun.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
You are 5 to 10 times more likely to be injured in a hit and run accident then by a firearm.
That may be true...as long as the gun isn't loaded and aimed at my head. Then, surprisingly, it is a bit more deadly than a car.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I use a knife to cut my food up before I put it into my mouth...not to kill it.:confused:
I use an AK-47 with a banana clip to cut my food up.... Knives are for stabbin... nor for eatin!
There are lots of non-lethal uses for knives. Give me ONE other use for a gun.
You can wittle down a tree in a matter of seconds with tripod mounted .50cal squad assault weapon...
-SW
-
Originally posted by Curval
That may be true...as long as the gun isn't loaded and aimed at my head. Then, surprisingly, it is a bit more deadly than a car.
That's the difference Curval. Cars are *ALWAYS* loaded, and usually pointed at someone. :(
-
Dude..that gun was made for one purpose..to kill.
Hmmm... it strikes me that many guns (largely pistols) in the US are purchased not to kill, but so that the owner will not be killed. I appreciate that this is a nice difference, but I feel that it's an important one.
-
<<>>
Guns are also good for target practice, so you can be more accurate when you go out killing stuff.
ra
-
Originally posted by qts
Hmmm... it strikes me that many guns (largely pistols) in the US are purchased not to kill, but so that the owner will not be killed. I appreciate that this is a nice difference, but I feel that it's an important one.
Wrong...at least with respect to this post. Rip posted a pic inviting people to ROB houses because the owner didn't have a gun. So guns are purchased to prevent robbery, rape etc...not just to prevent death.
And if you purchase a gun to use it, even to stop someone from killing you, you better intend on killing with it. Nothing pisses off yer average crimminal than being winged.:p
-
Heh, it's funny.
Someone says "handguns are used against people and kill some of them" and the automatic response is "so does cars [insert other thing] here". The intent is not the same and furthermore, it's a straw man argument.
It's akin to saying "anthrax kills people" and then answer "well, food poisoning kills people too, we should ban food". It's not in the same category.
Pro-gunners have so many better arguments than this. I'd acknowledge that guns are an effective tool for killing people and that is exactly why they're a useful tool - a DETERRANT. If guns were non lethal, few would be afraid to attack a gun owner. Guns equals the playing ground - no matter how big a guy your facing, no matter how good he is at fighting, a shot to the groin will make him beg for mercy :D
I think you should have more stringent laws in the US concerning who can acquire a gun. But, I am not sure it's a bad idea to have 'the right to bear arms'. My thinking is that it's ok for balanced people and that there needs to be some sort of evaluation - or at least some required training. I got guns - hunting rifles - but I had to get certified as a hunter before that (and that means some theory and plenty of shooting, safety regulations, firearms regulation theory and so on).
Have it as a right. But, as with cars, include proper training as a prerequisite. Not sure you can call it a right then, technically, but hopefully you get my drift.
Guns are fun. I love shooting. I love the calm state of mind I get into, the almost Zen like condition, when you stand up and support that heavy rifle with your arms, line up the target and watch the crosshair dance across the target in rythm with your breathing and pulse. I love the you get when you suddenly realize you've squeezed the trigger.
Nordic trap is fast paced requiring the shooter to have good reflexes, excellent 3-d vision and a great psyche. It's like tennis without an adversary to try to psyche out.
Beyond the pure sport of shooting guns there is self protection. And I am inclined to agree with pro-gunners that the only one that truly protect me is ME.
If others want to rely on underpaid functionaries that are overworked, that's for them to decide.
Me, I'd like to be self reliant.
Sheeit, I AM turning into a diddlying nutter. Two more month and I'll be in church with Ammo, HBlair and Ripsnort. Another month after that I'll work as a mechanic next to Creamo.
-
Santa,
What makes you think I attend church? I've never posted my personal religious feelings on this board, I've only posted that the religious types are the first to be blasted in posts.
As far as my religious beliefs, you can email me and I'll give them to you...I don't feel comfortable posting them on this BBS, too much venom.
-
OH NOOOOO curval! A BLACK gun... now that has to be evil!
I bet there would be less school shootings if it was common knowledge that 10% or more of the staff were concealed carry permit owners and were likely armed. Guns prevent way more crimes than they aid.
rips tongue in cheek post is relevant here... it is common knowledge that schools are filled with helpless, unarmed people who can not fight back.... look how good that works out.
tell ya what tho.... I will stay out of your bussiness and not try to own everyone in the tourist trap where yu live.
But really.... how many of you anti gun people have the courage to put those signs on your front lawn?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
But really.... how many of you anti gun people have the courage to put those signs on your front lawn?
lazs
I don't need to lazs...guns are illegal here. It is assumed that you DON'T have a gun.
It is funny being labeled "anti-gun" though, when everytime I go away I try and get to the gun range.
Re: the black gun thing...I only mentioned it because it was COOL looking.
Actually Bermuda doesn't really "do" tourism in a big way anymore lazs...get with the times. We are all Re-insurnace, Accounting and Banking now. Stuff you really don't need to worry about.:p
-
The same can be said for the argument that we license and register cars why not guns... but then again, you probably already heard that one.
The English gun control experience provides a concrete example of American gun owners' worst fear: the goverment steadily whittling firearms rights away over a period of decades.
(taken from the BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
-
you are right curval.. I don't really worry that much about finances.. other people do it for me. Not that I have that much... and not that that matters right?
But really... who cares what happens in bermuda.. not worth mentioning.. not relevant to any conversation about the U.S.
I do like the way the aussies found out how much you can trust your government and regestration... pitiful.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
But really.... how many of you anti gun people have the courage to put those signs on your front lawn?
lazs
I wonder more how many gun owners will put those signs on thier front lawns to attract potential criminals into coming within range of a bullet?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
But really... who cares what happens in bermuda.. not worth mentioning.. not relevant to any conversation about the U.S.
I do like the way the aussies found out how much you can trust your government and regestration... pitiful.
lazs
I don't see where Rip's little sign says "Only for those in the u.s."..do you?
Please clarify the Aussie thing...I am not aware that we had a Bermuda/Aussie issue.
-
I think you should have more stringent laws in the US concerning who can acquire a gun. But, I am not sure it's a bad idea to have 'the right to bear arms'. My thinking is that it's ok for balanced people and that there needs to be some sort of evaluation - or at least some required training. I got guns - hunting rifles - but I had to get certified as a hunter before that (and that means some theory and plenty of shooting, safety regulations, firearms regulation theory and so on).
Exactly. Civilian pistol ranges can be scary places. Both from a lack of safety at times and some of the people you see packing. I bough a gun because I like shooting in the way some people like Golf, and I missed the smell of break-free after I left the military (funny, I never missed it while in the military :)) I didn't buy one with dreams of the day I would confront that home intruder, and really show him, or because I ever expected to meet a home intruder (most rob when nobody is at home anyway). None of my pistols are accessible now in a ready to use fashion.
A few years back a guy killed his daughter. She wasn't supposed to be home, he came in late heard noises and grabbed his piece instead of the phone. His daughter jumped out of the closet to surprise him, and well, the surprise worked.
As for concealed carry, etc. Please. Even in Chicago there are very few places that one feels afraid for one's life, and those you can avoid unless you live there. If you live there, then concealed carry (illegal) is the norm anyway. Or take road rage. The Kennedy Expressway would make Omaha Beach seem tame if everyone carried a gun. It might improve driving manners somewhat though, which would be a good thing ;)
Guns are not toys, but it seems that many people buy them because they look cool on TV and they are fairly painless to get if you have the $$$. No training classes, no time investment or money investment beyond the FOID card and weapon. Take this "Counter NINJA" at http://www.geekswithguns.com. Do you really want him living next to you when "I thought it wasn't loaded" happens? Would he still be rambo jr. if he had to go through some boring training program?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Curval
Rip...I'm not "anti-gun" per se..hell, I love shooting the things. But, since the Con..and this recent sniper event...I find myself shaking my head at the gun fanatics (NRA etc) in your country.
I say "since the Con"...because when we went to the gun-range that day I was absolutely astounded at the sheer number and variety of weapons that anyone over the age of 18 (or whatever the rules are) can buy. I remember one wicked looking rifle...all black..which had a scope on it. I saw it and thought to myself, "whoa...that looks cool...bet it is expensive". It was $199.99..on sale. Logically any unbalanced individual, who doesn't have a crimminal record, could buy one...load it up in the parking lot and start "a-killin". That just simply frightens me.
The fact that gun-ownership is a right...and is entrenched in your constitution, seems ludicrous to me. That document was drafted right after a war...in the days in which there was very little in the way of any organised police-force..in a time when personal protection really did necessitate the owning of a gun.
I'm not so sure this is the case anymore.
That being said...I don't own any shares in Smith & Wesson, Remmington...or any gun manufacturer...if I did I would probably feel differently.
;)
I respectfully request you read the following document to understand why the USA's founding fathers felt gun ownership was not only a right, but a duty, and why the right is every bit as relevant today...
Here's the link:
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html
-
So if I don't own a gun I'm some kind of wimp? "Please don't hurt me, I won't resist"... what a load of crap!
There is more than one way to resist.. numbnuts. I don't own a gun and I guarantee that were I to catch someone unawares in my house they would not be happy about it. Buncha tough guys out there thinking that you need a gun to be a man! Get real!
-
Hey, if it wasnt for rifles, South Dakota would be absolutely overrun with Prarie Dogs. So there, they have a great use. Plus them little fellers sometimes flip real neat when ya whack em. :)
dago
-
How about you gun wackos post this in your front yard:
I HAVE A GUN IN MY 3RD DRAWER NEXT TO MY BED. IF I HEAR YOU COMING I WILL SHOOT. BEST THING FOR YOU TO DO IS SHOOT ME FIRST.
-
There is more than one way to resist.. numbnuts. I don't own a gun and I guarantee that were I to catch someone unawares in my house they would not be happy about it.
Making the assumption are you that of course the burgalar won't have a gun? If he did, you might not get the opportunity to show what a good old tough guy you are! :eek:
dago
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
....that were I to catch someone unawares in my house they would not be happy about it....
MT, you'll have to get up pretty early in the morning to catch me looking in your bedroom window.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I use a knife to cut my food up before I put it into my mouth...not to kill it.:confused:
There are lots of non-lethal uses for knives. Give me ONE other use for a gun.
So why do we have all those nukes? Deterrent maybe? Ah, maybe if I have a gun I can scare someone away or subdue them and not actually have to kill them? But if it's me or them, I prefer it be them.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So why do we have all those nukes? Deterrent maybe? Ah, maybe if I have a gun I can scare someone away or subdue them and not actually have to kill them? But if it's me or them, I prefer it be them.
If you pull out a gun and are not prepared to actually use it you are a lunatic. Scaring people is not what guns were made for...they were made to kill.
-
What are you talking about?
You may want to be more clear in the future. I think you mean this floats like toejam? But I am not sure since it is so criptic.
You think I am wrong? Why?
I am not sure where to find the statistics, but the FBI claims bombings in the US for murder are on the rise at an alarming rate.
-
People have guns and use it to protect themselves and some like target shooting some even like to hunt. You ban guns and criminals will move to the next deadly weapon or even easier, just buy their guns off the BLACK MARKET. I mean banning guns just makes it so your average joe schmoe can't defend himself against someone robbing his house. You think a criminal will think "hmm gun's are illegal now, i guess I better not commit a crime with a gun."
My father used to be a Seargant in the NYC Police department when I was growing up. You'd be surprised how much of the guns that criminals get are actually guns smuggled in from outside the country or Black Market guns. I remember him bringing back pictures of a capture he made of stuff like TEC-9s and stuff. Hell even a Desert Eagle and even some chinese AK copy with a 10 round magazine and scope. All purchased off the black market.
Some people claim "Oh any idiot can get a gun and kill people." This is true but think about it, any idiot can walk into a place with a sword or a chainsaw or some kind of other crazy weapon and kill people. Hell people can go mad and run people down with their car. Gun's just have a bad reputation.
Gun's are fun to shoot, I enjoy firing one whenever I get the chance. It's just like a sport, see how well you can shoot. Well some people like to play sports, some people like to fish, and some people prefer hunting and shooting with guns. Banning guns for sport is similiar to banning Footballs because "people can get hurt."
I never really understood why anti-gun people act that way. I don't feel a threat from guns. The chances are very low. Cases like the sniper and the arizona things are just occurences that happen and are milked for all it's worth by the liberal media. The same media who think shooting games are evil. I mean come on, give me a break.
Just allow people whom have no criminal record and enjoy firearms to have them.
I leave you with one last thing: my father used to say that if punishments for gun crimes were increased that gun crimes would go down. Imagine this, if you rob a store with a firearm you get a minimum of 20 years jail time. Who want's to waste 20 years of their life (and imagine spending your prime years of 20-40 in jail) in a prision? I for sure wouldn't. If a criminal can commit robbery with a gun and get out of jail in a few years it's not much deterence, but if he knows he's going to waste a lot of his life in jail it will deter him away from crime with guns.
-
Originally posted by Curval
If you pull out a gun and are not prepared to actually use it you are a lunatic. Scaring people is not what guns were made for...they were made to kill.
I agree that you should be prepared to use a gun if you pull one. Just because you do pull it doesn't mean you have to use it though. What do you imagine the ratio is between the times a cop pulls a gun and the times he's killed someone with it?
To get a bit technical here, guns are made to make a profit for the manufacturer in most cases. I've owned guns to both kill and to serve as the deterrent I mentioned.
-
mt... doubtless you are of superhuman strength and manliness but many in our society lack your master race breeding... some are old and infirm or even ... women. The saying "god did not create men equal. colonel colt did" is relevent here. Oddly enough.... criminals tend to prey on the weak.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mt... doubtless you are of superhuman strength and manliness but many in our society lack your master race breeding... some are old and infirm or even ... women. The saying "god did not create men equal. colonel colt did" is relevent here. Oddly enough.... criminals tend to prey on the weak.
lazs
It's interesting that an adverstisement can become a "saying."
-
Depending on where I lived in the US I would probably own a gun.
Check out these statics.
Detroit: Population is about a million. Homicides in 1999: 224.
Windsor 1999 (which is directly across the boarder from Detroit): Population is about six hundred thousand) Homicides in 1999: 4.
-
<
Windsor 1999 (which is directly across the boarder from Detroit): Population is about six hundred thousand) Homicides in 1999: 4.>>
Farkin Canucks can't shoot, their bullets are killing people in Detroit!
-
LOL! :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How about you gun wackos post this in your front yard:
I HAVE A GUN IN MY 3RD DRAWER NEXT TO MY BED. IF I HEAR YOU COMING I WILL SHOOT. BEST THING FOR YOU TO DO IS SHOOT ME FIRST.
I do..it says
Warning: Intruders will be shot dead.
Its helps w/the liablity thing.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What are you talking about?
You may want to be more clear in the future. I think you mean this floats like toejam? But I am not sure since it is so criptic.
You think I am wrong? Why?
I am not sure where to find the statistics, but the FBI claims bombings in the US for murder are on the rise at an alarming rate.
sorry. It was a monty python quote.
The correct response is small rocks.
-
Originally posted by batdog
I do..it says
Warning: Intruders will be shot dead.
Its helps w/the liablity thing.
xBAT
No it doesn't, it indicates a premeditation to shoot someone regardless of whether your life is in danger. It's like people that think having a "beware of dog" sign reduces your liability in case of a dog bite- if your dog bites me I will prove by that sign you knew your dog was dangerous and didn't take the extra precautions necessary to protect the public. On the other hand if my dog bites you I will swear my dog has never bitten anyone before... no matter how many people he's really bitten.
-
How about "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"?
Always liked that one.
Oh and deterrence works. I've been drunk more than once, and during a few of that times I've thought that the officer wanting to remove me from wherever I was puking was being an arse and probably should be punched on the nose.
Because of the gun, I only puked in his patrol car.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
No it doesn't, it indicates a premeditation to shoot someone regardless of whether your life is in danger. It's like people that think having a "beware of dog" sign reduces your liability in case of a dog bite- if your dog bites me I will prove by that sign you knew your dog was dangerous and didn't take the extra precautions necessary to protect the public. On the other hand if my dog bites you I will swear my dog has never bitten anyone before... no matter how many people he's really bitten.
Friggin lawyers... Shakespeare was right:mad:
Just a thought... What weapon did Ted Bundy use? he killed dozens...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
If you TRUELY believe in your rhetoric, then its time you put one of these signs in your front yard!
(http://home.earthlink.net/~ripsnort/Aircraft/sign01.gif)
And place this bumper sticker on your car...STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS (I dare ya! :) )
(http://home.earthlink.net/~ripsnort/Aircraft/gf-bumper.gif )
(Thks to Raww from AGW for these pics!)
LOL!! Oh gawd Rip! Too funny man :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How about you gun wackos post this in your front yard:
I HAVE A GUN IN MY 3RD DRAWER NEXT TO MY BED. IF I HEAR YOU COMING I WILL SHOOT. BEST THING FOR YOU TO DO IS SHOOT ME FIRST.
LOL!!! :)
-
Originally posted by ra
<
Windsor 1999 (which is directly across the boarder from Detroit): Population is about six hundred thousand) Homicides in 1999: 4.>>
Farkin Canucks can't shoot, their bullets are killing people in Detroit!
LOL!!!! :)
-
I’ve been following the gun debate on these boards. I had my own debate with raww on AGW around June 2001. There are wider issues at stake than I first realised. I have some questions and I’m seeking answers. I’m not trying to rubbish anyone’s beliefs, and I’m not picking on anyone in this post.
Looking at Ripsnort’s initial post, with the signs etc., it seems that the principal reason for owning a gun is to keep it in the home to ward off an attack from outside. Now I know that many of you guys claim to enjoy shooting at firing ranges or the like, but I would stick my neck out and estimate that of the total number of gun licensees in the US, fewer than 5% use their guns for sporting purposes. In fact the figure is probably closer to fewer than 1%. What I don’t quite understand is why so many of you guys feel threatened when many of you live in smart middle class neighbourhoods. In fairness, I have to say that were I to be compelled to live in some run down toejam hole like the Cabrini Green housing estate in Chicago, or parts of Los Angeles like Compton or the Watts district, I might be happier with a gun. But I’d be far happier to move out. But in the areas of the US where I lived – Concord,CA, NYC upper west side – I never felt threatened, and slept well at nights. Ripsnort has a nice car, and in an earlier post outlined the provision he’d made for his kids so it follows that he lives somewhere nice. So why the need for a gun?
Perhaps the most interesting comments come from Lazs. He has visited London in the past, and would not have been allowed to bring any guns into the country. In one of my earlier threads (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65269) about Venice, Lazs said this: A fellow flight sim guy took me to a bar in a seedy part of london that was supposedly risky.. I felt about in as much danger as I would at a church bingo nite...
And yet Lazs keeps a gun in his own home where, one assumes, he feels threatened. Now I know that Lazs goes to firing ranges etc., but is this the only reason he keeps a gun at home? I suspect not. It is more likely that like may others here, he keeps a gun for self defence. So there we have it. Lazs feels safer at a rough bar in a risky area of London than he does in his own home. :confused:
Why is this? Lazs is not the only American to visit London, and all the ones that do come would have to leave their guns behind. And when they do come, they feel safe. Why? Well, there are far fewer guns in England than in the US, and the murder rate is lower. But to listen to the pro-gun lobby - guys like raww on AGW, one is led to believe that a gun owner is a better citizen than a non-owner. People are saying that guns prevent more crimes than the number of crimes involving guns. And if the average gun owner is a stable, responsible person, why does he feel threatened in his own home? I can think of a few possibilities, but here are the first ones to spring to mind. - Maybe you are a responsible citizen. But to keep a gun to ward off a threat from outside undermines the belief that gun owners are safe and responsible. If you really believed that, you wouldn't need a gun because the only other people with guns would be safe and responsible. But you do keep a gun for self defence, and the answer must be that you know there are criminals out there with guns by whom you feel threatened, ie American gun control laws don't work.
- You don't really feel threatened, but you own a gun because the law allows it, and you want nothing more than to exercise your rights.
- Paranoia. I said that many Americans visit London/England, but the number is down 20% since September 11th, 2001. People are afraid to fly these days. In the aftermath of the al Qaeda atrocities last year, many people went out and bought guns. Why? Were they expecting bin Laden to show up on their doorstep? Or do they have conceal/carry permits and fancy themselves as self appointed guardians of the law?
-
"Ripsnort has a nice car, and in an earlier post outlined the provision he’d made for his kids so it follows that he lives somewhere nice. So why the need for a gun?"
To answer your question simply, I did not always live in a nice neighborhood.
To explain my situation further..my Father always traveled with a gun in the glovebox when we were growing up. Back then, he kept it locked (the glove box) and there was no "mystery" to guns with us since we basically had been around them since we could walk (My dad was an advid hunter). He was a regional sales manager and traveled alot, and being Ex-101st Airborne, felt it was necessary back in the 1960's with the chaos that reigned supreme where he traveled (Chicago, Detroit)
Well, I picked up the habit of carrying a weapon with me whenever I travel, and have since I was 21. A weapon in the glovebox, and I have a shotgun in the house for home protection but its primary usage is hunting game.
-
"So why the need for a gun?"
A gun is like a fire extinguisher... useless until you need it.
I carry one while hiking to the fishing spots... This area, there has historically been some illicit agriculture, and in the past few years mushroom hunters. Both groups practice territoriality, and I wanted to be able to return fire if requested. It is also handy to make some noise to scare off the odd black bear.
It helped finish off a deer that totaled my car a few years ago as well. Buck jumped out from no where, and I hit him doing at least 50. A bullet ended his suffering.
-
"What I don’t quite understand is why so many of you guys feel threatened when many of you live in smart middle class neighbourhoods"
A lot of it is the US media. Our television news dwells on violence, as does our entertainment media. Studies show that the average person overestimates his/her risk of being a victim of crime many times the reality.
When the DC sniper was still at large, the news media reported every known detail of the shootings 24 hours a day. Many people in the area stopped going outside. The truth was that their risk of being killed in a traffic accident while driving to the shopping center was many, many times greater than that of being shot by the sniper.
The real risks in our society: obesity, smoking, drug abuse, traffic accidents, and the like, don't make exciting news.
-
Popeye, in the circle I live in, we call that "Media-hyped and armed" ;)
Incidently, you left out the Number 1 killer in the USA in your "list".
-
beetle... again.. you need to read what people are saying. I fire about 2-3000 rounds of pistol ammo a year. I enjoy it.
england is not the U.S. I would not mind having a gun in the U.K. but am not allowed. I would emphaticly not want to live in the uk.. Lot of things wrong with the U.S. a lot of the things that are wrong with the U.S. are because we have so much freedom. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I know 2 former limey's that are now U.S. citizens and they feel the same. They both own guns.
I didn't feel safe in england because no one was armed.... I felt safe because everypone was such a socialist and... black people sounding like sir alec guiness was a little unbalancing.
We have a large population of alienated criminal blacks and non english speakers here illegaly (criminals) who "own" parts of most American cities. That is where most of the violence takes place but.... It has spilled out and will again. Only a fool thinks otherwise.
socialism is too high a price to pay to have our blacks and illegals sound like alec guiness.... and I LIKE guns. They are marvelous works of the mechanical (and any other kind) art. They are precision tools that the greatest craftsmen on earth have devised. They require sqills that are fun to aquire and... They are the best defense against those who would rob u of life or liberty. They give the old and the infirm a fighting chance.
Unlike socialism... I see no downside to firearms. So why do people who have the choice.... and those who have the choice made for them, hate guns so much? Why do they wish to take mine away from me? I surmise it is mostly ignorance but for a lot of people whos choice has been removed for their government ....
You will never convince me that it isn't simple jealousy that drives them.
lazs
lazs
-
Rip,
Best I can tell heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US, so "obesity" and "smoking" are associated risks that can be minimized by individual behavior. The CDC claims that smoking is the "leading cause of preventable death" in the US.
What did I miss? "Old age"? Even a really big gun ain't going to help you there. ;)
-
Popeye, yes, Heart disease...lets hope the media doesn't focus on Heart disease like they do guns, then we'd have to give up butter! Because we all know ITS THE BUTTER THAT KILLS, NOT THE PERSON THAT INGESTS IT! :)
-
You won't have to give up butter. However, there might be a waiting period, and background checks....
-
..and laws on the books that are not enforced too? ;)
-
OK Lazs, fair comment(s). I know you go to a firing range or equivalent. Can you remember whereabouts you were in London when you heard the blacks that sounded like Alec Guinness? It would help me to form my own judgement about what you said in the Venice thread.
What I should have said is that you feel safe enough in London to risk going unarmed into a supposedly dodgy neighbourhood - indeed, a place where alcohol is consumed, and you felt safer doing that than some Americans feel in the security of their white middle class homes. You were prepared to go unarmed, whereas some folks here are quite emphatic about needing a gun for self defence in the home! But what's this... I felt safe because everypone was such a socialist
Not everyone in England is a socialist. I'm not a socialist. What does one's political orientation have to do with their risk assessment with regard to deadly weapons? Since you brought up socialism, I should comment on Russia - until ten years ago a Communist/socialist state, but whose homicide rate in the years 1997-1999 was three times that of the USA. So where do you get the idea that socialists are of no threat? I mean, what does that have to do with the price of fish? Or did the murder rate mushroom because Communism was outlawed?
Well Lazs, just to make you feel safe, here is something black - sounds remarkably like Sir Alec Guinness...
-
Well you are leaving out something, you discounted it, but it is why I owned guns, I bought my first gun(that was not a hand me down from my old man) when I was taking classes, to become a reserve cop.
I would have bought it eventually anyway, I just love guns, I like taking them apart to see how they work, like Laz says the are a mechanical Marvel. I have taken every gun I own apart, almost all the way to clean them and see what makes them tick, the only one I didn't was the 1911 my dad built and had a custom trigger job done on it. He told me NEVER take it apart and I respect that since I may not be able to get it back together as well as the pistol smith did. The gun was built for one thing, putting .45 inch holes in paper.
Their are two primary reasons I own guns, one they interest me and I like seeing how they work.
The second is to shoot for fun, both my Girlfriend and I enjoy shooting allot, and when I was doing it all the time I was shooting close to 400 rounds a week, just for fun.
Maybe you are a responsible citizen. But to keep a gun to ward off a threat from outside undermines the belief that gun owners are safe and responsible. If you really believed that, you wouldn't need a gun because the only other people with guns would be safe and responsible. But you do keep a gun for self defense, and the answer must be that you know there are criminals out there with guns by whom you feel threatened, i.e. American gun control laws don't work.
I have felt threatened, but not recently and my guns stay locked up, but if I need them I know they are there, and do not assume the only threat to worry about is a man with a gun. A man with a knife within 20 feet of you is just as bad. ANY intruder in my home is a threat, and I would like the odds stacked in my favor if I have to deal with it.
You don't really feel threatened, but you own a gun because the law allows it, and you want nothing more than to exercise your rights.
Not at all, I truly like guns, I wish I had the cash to truly collect them.
I do cherish the right to bare arms though, and I do believe at some point, (I hope not in my life time) They are going to be needed to put a new government in place.
Paranoia. I said that many Americans visit London/England, but the number is down 20% since September 11th, 2001. People are afraid to fly these days. In the aftermath of the al Qaeda atrocities last year, many people went out and bought guns. Why? Were they expecting bin Laden to show up on their doorstep? Or do they have conceal/carry permits and fancy themselves as self appointed guardians of the law?
I am not paranoid, but I do believe it is better to have a gun and not need one then be dead cause I didn't have one when I did.
The news media in the country sucks, it is all about ratings, to get ratings they scare people. I flew on sept 11 and was not worried at all.
You did not live here long enough to understand why this is really important to many people.
I do believe, that if this right goes away, the rest will follow.
-
GTO -
I flew on sept 11 and was not worried at all.
Did you mean outside the US, and/or a year other than 2001? Because the US airspace was shut down on 11 Sept 2001. A limey friend of mine who lives in the US (and does not own a gun) flew on September 15th, 2001 and said he was one of only two passengers on the flight. Clearly many people were worried.
-
No sept 11 this year, one year after.
and no not out of the U.S.
The airport was very empty, lol best flight I ever took, I think I will do it again next year and hope it is the same.
-
Look everyone! Lazs is an Racist.
-
beetle... I was prepared to go unarmed in your country because... it was your country. I followed the rules. I felt england was like a big theme park. very clean with strict rules and iI allways felt like I would be kicked out if I broke some park rule. I don't want to live there... a little island with little narrow roads and I allways felt crowded. A bizzare land with strange taxes (they tax televisions USE there) where a dented car is illegal and it is against the law to eat or drink while in the car. Nobody armed except the police and the government... gloomy weather and.... warnings everywhere to watch out for picl pockets. Not really for me. Given the choice I would like the freedom to go armed or not in your country. I don't feel unsafe in my own country 99% of the time but I feel that it is my decision and not yours or the govenments wether I go armed or not.... in my home or elsewhere.
and... I know I have mentioned this more than once but.. I don't drink.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Look everyone! Lazs is an Racist.
Brainwashed PC police out in force!
Umm, show me where please?
-
I don't quite get this notion about guns and how it'll protect you in your home. In your own home you are not judge/jury/exocutioner. Believe it or not, you still have a duty of safety on your property even to a trespasser. Most often though, that handgun in the house is found by a child or weilded during a domestic disturbance with deadly consequences. I'm not against guns within certain parameters (I don't want everyone twirling them on the street and playing "cowboy"), but I have elected not to have them in this house and I will risk the loss of property. But I don't live in fear. And I guarantee you, a robber/thief/rapist is not going to knock on your door first and announce his presence to you and count to 20-alligator for you to get your gun before he comes in.
I'll still never understand that case many yeras back where the Japanese exchange student was shot and killed on the front doorstep of some guy's house on Halloween night...and he was found innocent of all charges!
-
Lazs
I followed the rules. I felt england was like a big theme park. very clean with strict rules and iI allways felt like I would be kicked out if I broke some park rule. I don't want to live there... a little island with little narrow roads and I allways felt crowded. A bizzare land with strange taxes (they tax televisions USE there) where a dented car is illegal and it is against the law to eat or drink while in the car.
I thought I was the one who could not stick to the point. This thread is about guns, but here you go talking about roads, taxes, televisions etc...
My point was made for me in one of your earlier posts. You came to England and said you felt as threatened as at a Church bingo night - even in a toejamty area of London. Well I can tell you that where I live is much nicer than that, so now you can see why I feel no need to own a gun. By the way, we can own guns if we want to. We have firing ranges here too, but most people don't bother.
Just remember next time you're in England - We decide whether or not you can have a gun while you're here. :D
I didn't know you were a non-drinker. You said you were in a bar in London. I know you don't have to drink alcohol in bars, but it does seem a strange place to visit if you don't. But then again, I visited St. Paul's Cathedral earlier this month, and I am "non-denominational", so to speak...
-
In your own home you are not judge/jury/exocutioner. Believe it or not, you still have a duty of safety on your property even to a trespasser
But it is ok for the intruder to be????
So you think it is wrong to defend yourself?
Most often though, that handgun in the house is found by a child or weilded during a domestic disturbance with deadly consequences
You have any number to back that up?
-
We decide whether or not you can have a gun while you're here.
I think thats Laz's point and it is not you making the call anymore, it's your government.
I agree with Laz on this, it should not be your choice, or the governments.
-
GTO - yes, that remark was very tongue in cheek. You know how Lazs and I like ribbing eachother. :D
I tell you what... There's a gun shop in a nearby town. I'm going to go up there tomorrow, and find out just what gun I can have. I already know that I can own a shotgun if I want to. Someone here said they use a shotgun in the house - Ripsnort? The only thing is that I also know that it's not legal to shorten the barrel, so a shotgun might be cumbersome.
-
good idea beetle... go see what is involved with your buying a gun and keeping it in your home or motor home while traveling. Let me know what types of guns you are allowed to have. find out about ammo too... how much you can have in the home and what tyes of reloading equipment you are allowed to have. I also said that given a choice... I would go armed in england on occasion. I would like to have a gun in the car or hotel for instance. I really don't feel that your criminals, while just as busy, are as violent and bloodthirsty as ours. We have a particularly hopless and drug addicted segment to our criminal class that takes delight in inflicting pain and death. Even the fairly harmless ones seem to be too talkative. If nothing else, the times I've used a gun have shortened the conversation.
puck... don't bother with the stat it's a myth but... I give you permission to not have a firearm. I won't vote for a law forcing you to have one.
lazs
-
To reiterate, the preceding discussion concerns the actual use of guns to thwart crimes in progress. At first glance the evidence also supports the gun lobby's claim that widespread gun ownership deters the criminal from even attempting confrontation crimes. In 1982 the redneck Atlanta suburb, Kennesaw, became a laughingstock by requiring that a gun be kept in every household. But the joke redounded as the resulting publicity seemed to produce a virtual end to residential burglary which continues to this day. [36] Similar results appeared from a highly publicized 1966 program in which 3,000 civilian women received defensive handgun training from Orlando, Fl. police. As of 1967, rape had dropped 88.2% in Orlando and aggravated assault and burglary 25%. While rape gradually increased again after the year-long program ended, five years later the rate was still 13% below the pre-program level; during that same period rape had increased 64% nationally, 96.1% in Florida and over 300% in the immediate area around Orlando. [37]
If every city adopted such programs to dramatize civilian gun ownership confrontation crime would drop (though not as much as in the examples described which probably involved some displacement of crime to the communities around Kennesaw and Orlando). In fact the experience in Orlando and Kennesaw is by no means unique; similar programs have produced similar results in Detroit, New Orleans and other cities. [37] But, as a practical matter, the controversiality of private gun ownership precludes such programs in most cities. That is apparently why the Orlando program lasted only one year.
Oddly, I found this in an ANTI-gun artical
-
Lazs - OK, I will do that tomorrow. By the way, I'm not trying to take away your right to have a gun if that's what you want. I am not into the "rights of citizens to bear arms" argument. For me, it's a simple case of wondering why people feel the need to have guns, against a somewhat sinister backdrop of appalling loss of life caused by guns in the USA.
-
===========
But it is ok for the intruder to be????
So you think it is wrong to defend yourself?
-gTora2
===========
No one said it was okay for the intruder to be judge/jury/exocutioner. I never even touched on the subject of it being wrong to defend yourself. We need to work on our reading/comprehension skills, don't we? I was just mentioning some things about the law in the area of "defending your home" as I understand it.
I'm just talking about my understanding of the law and I do have some law background in my studies though I'm not a lawyer. Yes, the law allows you to defend yourself but you better be able to prove that the use of potentially deadly force was necessary by you. I still remember what one law professor told the class "if there is an intruder in your home, lock yourself in your bathroom and if he comes after you, shoot to kill and not to wound so he can't tell his side of the story in court." Well, something very close to that. Did you know if you leave your garden hose out and someone trips on it and gets injured (whether he is tresspassing or not) and can prove it was negligent to leave it out and it's a hazard there is a case against you? Or your porch step has a crack in it and someone trips on it and falls... There is a duty to tresspassers (whether a criminal, a child, a police officer inspecting something or fireman to check on smoke) that your property is safe and just hauling off and shooting someone who says "boo! I'm gonna take your stereo" is not warranting of deadly force. You are *supposed* to call the police and let them handle the situation. But in practice, we have oodles of examples to the contrary and all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say "i just don't understand." Trust me, the judge will not send the criminal to the chair for stealing your t.v. so you are not *supposed* to use that kind of force in that situation. So be careful when you hear a bump in the night and pull out your gun. The end result may be something worse than just losing a few posessions. But what do I know? I fly for Knight.
-
Jeez, so you think gun owners are going to just shoot anything that moves?
Well, I will tell you how it is for me. I sleep with a locked door, If someone tries to come through that door they will get shot, ONLY after I warn them off by yelling the police are on the way(yes I would call the police). AND only after I confirm who I am going to shoot.
I will not go hunting for them.
You may want your life in the cops hands, but 15 plus minutes for them to show up if you have an armed intruder in the house.
Maybe you should post in more clear manor before you insult me next time. What you said implied what I asked and you really should have explained it better, if you had I never would had to ask.
I also noticed no facts to back up your last post about how guns kill their owners and kids etc.
-
I don't own any guns.
I own two swords though.
The only person I have heard who had to use a sword to defend his home made the intruder run in terror.
(I'm not anti-gun, I just don't own any. If you want to own 500 assault rifles, have at and have fun.)
-
Jeez, so you think gun owners are going to just shoot anything that moves?
No.
-
Very interesting thread guys,i just have a question for Lazs,and a comment as well..
Laz you said
I do like the way the aussies found out how much you can trust your government and regestration... pitiful.
I am an aussie,and don't know quite what you meant by that,unless it's the fact that semi auto and full auto rifles are now illegal,fair enough IMHO,even a big croc can be killed by a single shot rifle or pistol of large enough calibre,and that's about the biggest,nastiest animal in Oz you are likely to encounter,and then only in the N.T or far north queensland or W.A.
This ban was put in place after the Port Arthur massacre (24 dead),and i've never heard a good enough argument (at least for aussie conditions)for the owning of these kind of weapons (unless you are an arms collector,fair enough in that case)
My comment,
Living in a relatively gun free environment(yep the criminals still have em of course)is a good feeling,and i ask you to consider this,if someone is shot in Australia,it is headline news,i think you would need a 24hour channel to list the victims in the 'States(no offence intended at all),just think about it folks,:)
Steely
flame away at my ignorance if you will :)
-
I had a look around, and i know there are lies, damn lies and so on. But this really got my bile duct swimming with joy :)
However this
(http://www.skunkulike.co.uk/ahi/graph.gif)
tends to suggest that keeping the status quo on gun control in the US is likely to result in significantly fewer American children around.
Now you have to ask yourselves, is that a bad thing?
I accept that many people in the US need a gun to make them feel safe from everyone else in the US with a gun. But then again, that also seems to be the problem.
I get the feeling you are living in fear of armed robbers all the time. I'm kinda thankful that I don't feel that I need a gun in the house to defend my family from unspecified horrors.
Of course a gun is not going to stop them being killed by a car or much else. In fact the chances of them being attacked by an armed stranger are minute compared to the chances of them being murdered by a member of their own family.
Those of you with guns and children in the house know all about safety, however, so you're not going to wake up one morning to find your disgruntled adolescent high on drugs and pointing that smoking, cheap die stamped, far eastern SMG loaded with Glaser Safeties, at your dead wife. Even though it's far likelier than being assaulted by armed perps.
I wonder if they make Darwin awards to entire nations?
Seriously though. No one in the US is going to make gun control stick. They're wedded to the gun, their nation was forged by it, the west was won with it, it's a symbol of fierce independence from a fiercely independent country. It would be a bit like people trying to get Tea Control Laws passed in the UK, or an Anti-Videogames lobby in Japan. Why bother when the tide is against you?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The same can be said for the argument that we license and register cars why not guns... but then again, you probably already heard that one.
The English gun control experience provides a concrete example of American gun owners' worst fear: the goverment steadily whittling firearms rights away over a period of decades.
(taken from the BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
Absolutely, but also absolutely no correlation, anywhere, between the two. Gun crime had been rising steadily anyway, and the measure was to prevent Dunblanes, not Kwik-E-Mart hold ups. In that sense it has so far been 100% successful.
Sheesh
Incidentally this survey was commissioned by the Countryside Alliance (sort of British Redneck Assoc) to prove that they should be allowed to kill burglars for sport.
And we're still only talking about 3,685 handgun crimes (not even deaths) a year in the UK. Thats about .000061 crimes per head of population. How does that compare with US?
-
Welp, I'm glad I was born early enough to shoot my pellet gun as a kid before the UK (and their territories) started advising us on gun laws.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't own any guns.
I own two swords though.
The only person I have heard who had to use a sword to defend his home made the intruder run in terror.
Didn't you ever see Indiana Jones? You start waving that sword around like Zorro and you are likely to get a bullet in the brain.
My uncle keeps a samurai sword in his garage, along with various types of ammo, some spare bayonets, and parts of various guns he has modified, etc. I asked him why he would leave such dangerous things in an insecure place, where an intruder might access them. His answer, "I want him to be armed when I come down stairs with my .357 and shotgun. It wouldn't be fair to kill an unarmed man."
-
I'm still trying to figure out why you guys are worried about us, and our guns.
-
Lazs. I've just returned home from the gun shop. I had to pretend that I was looking into the possibilities for an American friend so that I could ask questions about the available guns.
On display, there were what appeared to be handguns, but these were in fact CO2 powered target pistols, designed for shooting at paper targets etc. Range not much more than 10 yards. I asked what kind of weapon I could buy for myself, and was told I could have any kind of air pistol whose power did not exceed 12 ft. lb. which, I was told, equates to a muzzle velocity of around 600ft/sec in layman's terms. I think he said that all the air pistols fire a .22 calibre round. Behind the counter where the assistant was standing was an array of shotguns. I was in a bit of difficulty because the guy kept asking me what I wanted the gun for, but I managed to find out a few things.
Yes, I can purchase a shotgun. There were various types - some with side by side barrels, some with one barrel above the other. I didn't notice any pump action jobs. I asked what range these weapons would have, and was told that for game shooting for example (pheasants, partridges etc) the effective range was about 40 yards. You might get a result at 50 yards. At 60 yards it was unlikely. Of course, different types of shot were available. To own a weapon of this type, I must get a Police security clearance. No problem there as I have no criminal record. In addition, I must install an approved gun cabinet at the location where the weapon is to be kept, pretty much as GTO was saying. The weapon must be kept locked inside. I didn't ask the assistant if I could kill a man with a weapon like that - he already took me for a wacko - but I am led to believe that a weapon such as the shotguns I saw, loaded with the appropriate ammunition, would spoil someone's day. Unfortunately, we don't have the right to kill intruders as you do, so I might get into hot water with the Police were I to do that. Besides, a shotgun would mess up my interior decorations. I would prefer to use a Taser.
I'm off like a herd of turtles to order that gun cabinet, and to submit my security clearance application.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Welp, I'm glad I was born early enough to shoot my pellet gun as a kid before the UK (and their territories) started advising us on gun laws.
and tax laws...don't forget the tax laws.
-
Honestly I would take advice from Bermuda on tax laws despite the jabbing in the other thread. Most certainly not from the UK though.
I'd love to have a value based tax system, however anyone proposing such a thing would be run out of Washington instantly amid the screams being in the pockets of the financial elite.
Bradly was the closest we ever got to a real attempt to simplify our tax code, and the democrats voted him out in the primaries. Too bad, because he would have won in 2000 (and I'd have voted for him).
-
I had to pretend that I was looking into the possibilities for an American friend so that I could ask questions about the available guns.
That quote is hilarious.
-
beetle thank you for bothering to help me. The news is dismal.. forget the pellet guns. Forget learning anything about shotguns except type and ammo... anyone in the states can tell you more than the guy behind the counter. You have what amounts to laws that would not allow me to do anything with firearms that I enjoy or anything that I feel comfortable with.
you have no handguns... no pump shotguns even... no semi auto rifles or carbines.. you can't have a loaded gun in your own home that is instantly accesable to you... you can't travel in your own country with a firearm and you can't buy, store or reload ammo... worse... you can't threaten (what threat is it if it is illeagal) or kill an intruder with one. I assume you can kill him with your bare hands or a knife if he is sufficiently crazed? try to get some costs involved. All of this info for U.S gun related stuff is simple and easy to get right off of thousands of web sites.
If you could simply give us a list of tyoes of handguns, semi-auto rifles and carbines and the types of ammo and reloading equipment we are allowed to have we can tell you what they are without your being humiliated as some kind of..... gun guy.
i don't think there is anyone here except a casual skeet shooter (and maybe not even him) that would find your laws less than prohibitive.
lazs
-
bounder... those stats seem about right except..... a 15 year old gang member is far from a "child". Take out gang members or... even drop the age of "child" to 10 and you will more than halve the U.S. stats.. even at that.... the UK has what? 1/2 a child less per hundred thousand "children" killed in gun related incidnents than the U.S.?
lazs
-
steely.... I am saying that you regestered your guns with the govenment and they used that regestration to confiscate firearms. In the U.S. the pro regestration people claim that regestration is not a prelude to confiscation.
As for deaths in aus... We never heard of any before the 24. So now you have 24 killed. You also have crime going up 40% by your panicy and knee jerk confiscation. How many lives have been lost so far because of your short sightedness?
lazs
-
Lazs - far from finding the news dismal, I was rather encouraged - because it means that guns are not available to every Tom Dick and Harry, which is why you and I feel safe here in the first place. If semi-automatics and carbines were available here, then given some of the avacado-heads that live around here, I would not sleep at nights. Handguns were banned in 1997 because of some avacado that went on a killing spree in Scotland. By the way, can you not buy automatic weapons in the US?
My whole point is that while maybe 1% of American gun owners - guys like you, Ripsnort, GTO - enjoy target shooting, that leaves 99% who buy guns for self defence. With something in the order of 200 million guns in your country because of the erstwhile laissez faire gun policy, it is inevitable that many get into the wrong hands, and an unfortunate reality that some people who were once ordinary law abiding citizens lose their marbles and go on a killing spree. There was a time when the DC sniper was serving his country in the Gulf War. And look what happened. A once upright citizen (we would have thought back then) that becomes a criminal killer. And that happens a lot - marble loss followed by killing spree followed by suicide. OK the sniper didn't top himself but many do.
And that's the price that America pays for their right to bear arms. Sure, you can bear arms, but so can every other schmuck. Gun proponents would argue that their freedom to own guns is paramount, but I look at the murder stats and come away thinking that some prices are just too high to pay.
-
My whole point is that while maybe 1% of American gun owners - guys like you, Ripsnort, GTO - enjoy target shooting, that leaves 99% who buy guns for self defence.
You understand that in most of areas of the United States you can still hunt for food? I'm not suprised that you do not, most who live here have no clue what lies in between metropolitan areas other than interstates and parks.
-
So, Beetle, you're saying that the Brits have managed to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Is that right?
Then why has gun violence escalated in recent years?
Whose hands are the wrong hands?
Regards, Shuckins
-
beetle... I don't know where you get your stats on why Americans own guns... I don't think any have been taken. I use mine in a variety of ways and have used em to defend myself and property with good results... Something that is repeated over a million times a year by other law abiding ciizens in the U.S.
The U.S. is different than the uk. We value independace and choice. I don't expect you to understand it so simply accept it. We could not live under your laws and that includes firearms. That point was proven several hundred years ago and our respective countries have continued to take seperate paths. some from your country still find haven in the U.S. despite the dangers. I suppose the revers is also true (to a lesser degree).
We have a border in common with a 3rd world country... we have ghettors full of drug addicted and hopless and non english speakers... We have crime and we have to live with that but taking away the guns of the law abiding is not the solution.
We have riots. I don't see anything that suggests that we won't have more. I drive a car and I drive it on public roads full of unintentional but nenetheless determined killers... My chances are good that one of these people will kill or maim me in my lifetime. I wear a seatbelt. I don't like wering one particularly... they are badly done and uncomfortable but a small price to pay. I enjoy guns but it can be inconvienient to have one around sometimes... small price to pay.
I have ended conflict with a firearm. I was armed and the perp wasn't in a couple of the cases. That seems to be how the vast majority of these things go. If the perp is armed... I will still feel better being armed.
either way.... civilization will prove one of us right. either we here will give up our guns because the human animal will fundamentally change or.... yur country will come to grief because you have an unarmed society without the checks and balances that I believe free gun ownership endows.
lazs
-
Lazs -
We value independace and choice. I don't expect you to understand it so simply accept it.
I do understand it. You keep forgetting that I lived in the US for a few years myself, and worked there on two separate occasions separated by 15 years. I've probably been to more states than you have. When I came to leave in 1982, one of the things I looked forward to was escaping the violence, crime, and violent crime. Of course, we're not free of it here either, but it's not on the same scale as it is where you live, so I can understand your concerns and the perceived need for firearms. We have had riots here too, but not where I live. One of the things I looked forward to when I got home, Lazs, was driving down some narrow, winding country lanes! I missed that in the US.
By all means, keep your guns. I'm not trying to take them away from you and neither is your government. I still maintain that I feel no inclination to arm myself, even in a place like NYC - although I don't venture as far north as Harlem or Bronx. And I maintain that the reason for your country's high murder rate, particularly deaths caused by handguns, stems from the unabated proliferation of weapons of this kind. Many of the people who get killed in the numerous killing sprees that take place in your country are innocent bystanders, often children. You focus on the right to own guns, but what about the innocent victims' right to live? So many people have had their lives cut short, and the price they paid for your country's policy of arming everyone was far higher than the price you would have to pay if that policy were to be reversed.
Godwine - unfortunately, some hard core criminals have guns even in Britain. We have a particular problem in London with a Jamaican group known as The Yardies, and another group called the Triads who are Chinese. Both engage in territorial disputes over who controls supply of drugs. But like Lazs says, in a lot of cases it's criminals murdering other criminals. We don't have guns in every household as a matter of course, so when Mr. No. 12 has a row with Mrs. No. 12, the damage is limited to a broken pane of glass in the front door, and not a bullet flying through the window just as I'm walking past.
Fatty - Yes I am familiar with remote parts of the US, and wonderful they are too. Here's a pic of me hiking in Teton area, about 30 miles north of Jackson,WY. The lake in the background is Jenny Lake. I was unarmed but luckily I didn't run into any drug addicts, muggers, black bears, or people who couldn't speak English. The only people I did run into were three nice girls in their twenties. Of course they loved my accent and were dead impressed when I said they sounded like they were from North Carolina. Hehe, I'd seen their license plate when they drove past me earlier, and they didn't see me. ;)
-
Well, I did a search on "more guns less crime" and found, unsurprisingly, that there is a rather hot debate on the issue among experts. Turns out that most of these guys are ivory tower PhD economists trying to find an equation that will predict crime rates with and without CCW. Fortunately, I don't know much about multivariate regressions, so I couldn't say who's equations and data made the most sense. The arguments of both sides are rather persuasive to me, but I am always suspicious of the claims of True Believers on either side of any question.
The best answer I could find was: "it depends".
-
That's sort of my point Beetle. Most of rural US is not national parks where one may run into other weekend naturalists walking along the guided trails. It's no airports (perhaps a grass or small strip), no tourism commission, no bed and breakfasts, no park ranger. No police, sometimes a county sherrif or two. Maybe state police might pass through if an interstate or state highway runs closeby.
Wyoming is a decent place to start, I would suggest getting out of the Jackson Hole tourist areas though.
-
Fatty - would a shot from an AZ desert state highway do? I don't want to post it here because it's beginning to take the thread way off topic. We're talking about gun crime, and in the remote areas of which you speak, there would be hardly any, if any at all. Gun crime is mainly an urban issue. Besides, I should give Lazs a chance to reply before saying any more.
-
Lazs,i'm keeping it civil too,no offence intended :)
steely.... I am saying that you regestered your guns with the govenment and they used that regestration to confiscate firearms. In the U.S. the pro regestration people claim that regestration is not a prelude to confiscation.
As for deaths in aus... We never heard of any before the 24. So now you have 24 killed. You also have crime going up 40% by your panicy and knee jerk confiscation. How many lives have been lost so far because of your short sightedness?
We did indeed register our guns,they were not confiscated,we had an "amnesty"and a gun buy back program where you could feel free to hand in any full or semi auto weapons that were then deemed to be illegal,many people did this and were paid very good money by the government for crappy weapons they didn't want anyway,of course those who didn't want to hand those kind of guns in kept them.
There was no confiscation.
As for not hearing of any before the 24,you weren't listening mate,America can be very insular in that regard,i have been asked by your countrymen(while on holidays in europe)if we spoke english in Australia,this isn't an attack on the US,as i know from being in the DHBG that many Americans are well informed about the rest of the world,but i feel this isn't the case generally,after all if it wasn't on CNN,it didn't happen right? :)
As for the crime figures,show me the numbers,i wonder how this "40%"compares to the world average? :)
Just my thoughts,and thanks for answering,as i said,no offence :)
PS,i think it was sort of a "panicky and knee jerk reaction"as well,but the feeling in the whole country here after it happened was one of disbeleif,and that something should be done,of course an instant reaction is always called a knee jerk,it hasn't stopped anyone owning a gun that wants or needs to tho,they just cant kill bunnies on full auto anymore :)
EDIT:If you're saying that crime went up 40% because of the gun registration and buy back program,you are totally wrong,most of us weren't armed before that and the people that were gun owners then are still gun owners now,we just don't carry them around with us :)
-
The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Gun Control:
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around
the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand
is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before
he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
You're looking for simple solutions to complex issues.
* Does the man look poor or oppressed?
* Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
* Could we run away?
* What does my wife think?
* What about the kids?
* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his
hand?
* What does the law say about this situation?
* Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
* Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound
me?
* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me?
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few
days to try to come to a conclusion.
Conservative Answer: Shoot the son of a squeak! Then take your family to a
baseball game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem,
go to church and praise the Lord for one more day of freedom.
-
Andijg - you missed two points from your list of liberal questions:
- Could the knife wielding guy be Crocodile Dundee? (No mate, that's a knife) If so, no further action required. He's harmless. At worst he only wants to shag your wife. If it's not Croc Dundee, go to the next question, which should be
- What would Ned Flanders do in this situation?
Sorry, Lazs - just having a bit of fun while we wait for you to come home and rejoin the debate. :)
-
Well Beetle what makes me bring it up is comments like 1% target shooting and 99% home defense as a summation of gun ownership.
You can't talk about national bans then turn around and say you're only talking about urban crime. That is a large part of the problem, the desire of urban areas to make their gun laws national with no understanding whatsoever of what they are talking about.
-
Fatty - just keeping it brief while we wait for Lazs...
My main concern is not with guys like you, or guys with hunting rifles in rural communities. The main threat is from handguns - weapons of convenience. I realise that both in the US and here, killing sprees have involved other types of weapon, ie not necesarily handguns. But a pie chart would demonstrate that the vast majority of gun deaths in America come as a result of handguns fired in urban areas.
-
UK stats from guncontrol.ca.
Crimes with firearms are up 400% since the gun ban.
Violent crime is up 250%.
I have an article of a story where a pensioner, after being robbed and assualted 3 time defended himself with his side by side shotgun after struggling with a knife wielding crack head looking for drug money in Northern England. He owned one of the few guns you can in the UK, a side by side shotgun.
He shot the guy in complete self defense, mainly to protect his elderly wife, and was convicted of murder. The papers went on to call the young man who was shot a "loveable rogue". ...who happened to have over 30 convictions for everything from dealing to home invasions to violent assaults.
Sorry Beetle, your socialist legal, non gun owning, non self defense respecting system is anothing but a disaster.
My country is following suit in nice commonwealth tradition, but not before we fracture.
Canada has far more strict gun laws than the USA, yet on a per capita basis, you are just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime here as you are in the USA, and some of our Provinces are far worse than the most crime free states in the Union. At least in the USA you have the OPTION to carry a defensive system for your protection. You certainly don't here. There are home invasions, robberies, and shootings every day here in Calgary, a city of only 1 million. I'd rather be able to defend myself against armed threats than be powerless. Beet, your argument that "I feel no need to be armed " is swell, UNTIL it happens to you. Sure, odds are, it won't, but we're taking 1 in 10 in your lifetime in this country that you'll be a victim. 10% is pretty good from a financial planners point of view for a yearly return. Looking at it from the other end, that chance is high enough I would like to be able to deal with it in a way other than begging for my life.
edit : gun deaths in America come as a result of handguns fired in urban areas.
Not being racist, but remove all the 13-25 African American males from that chart, and then tell me what you've got? The data is all over the net, just search it up yourself.
The VAST majority of handgun "youth" shootings is crime related. The crooks will always arm themselves, no amount of laws imposed on those who obey the law will change that, and an outright ban on handguns will put even more on the street, just like what is happening in the UK.
edit2: As stated before, Canada has been registering and putting EXTREME restrictions on handguns since 1934. Well, there are thousands if not millions of handguns on the streets still, in fact, a pal of mine (see old thread here if you like) was recently killed in a hold up at a gunstore while fully co-operating with his hands up, and another pal in Edmonton, who happens to also be a Edmonton Police sargent who runs a gun store was shot in the leg and will never walk 50% ever again. All in a few months here. Don't tell me that gun laws work, when I have to live in the threat of violence EVERY day with no way to "legally" defend myself. We virtually have a "ban" on all handguns and assualt weapons, have had for a long time. It doesn't work.
-
Originally posted by bounder
Incidentally this survey was commissioned by the Countryside Alliance (sort of British Redneck Assoc) to prove that they should be allowed to kill burglars for sport.
It was reported by the BBC in more than one article. Someone could think you might be biased against the association.
BTW
Scotland yard and the FBI keep great stats. From everything I have seen on both sites the violent crime rates have been going up in Europe and dropping in the US.
-
Well, all I can say is that I live 45 minutes from Lazs and I have his address and I was planning on ripping off his Austin Healy until he posted pics of his guns and pronounced his willingness to use them, even against Rooks. Now I'll have to show up with a 12 pak, get Lazs drunk and steal his car when he passes out.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Didn't you ever see Indiana Jones? You start waving that sword around like Zorro and you are likely to get a bullet in the brain.
I don't keep them to use them. (The katana is within reach from my bed.)
If I absolutely had to, I sure as hell wouldn't stand in front of the guy and wave it around.
More like hide agaist the wall near a door and skewer the guy when he came through.
Never let hime know I was there if I could help it.
Still, I wouldn't give myself great odds, but better than being unarmed.
Only a sheer idiot whould stand out in the open with a sword and challenge a guy with a gun 20ft away.
-
I'd swear I just left a thread just like this one LOL.
-
Doh! No word from Lazs. :( Oh well...
Gman - You really need to read all that I said before you start passing judgement. Further up this thread, I saidIn fairness, I have to say that were I to be compelled to live in some run down toejam hole like the Cabrini Green housing estate in Chicago, or parts of Los Angeles like Compton or the Watts district, I might be happier with a gun.
And that's because, as you put it... Not being racist, but remove all the 13-25 African American males from that chart, and then tell me what you've got? The data is all over the net, just search it up yourself.
Yes I know there are pockets of hard core criminality, drug gangs, and the dealers killing eachother as they fight for territorial control. Does that mean I should be on the lookout if hiking through one of America's national parks? There's an area of London called Peckham. Hell hole. Estates like Broadwater Farm where, in 1985, a police office was hacked to death in the execution of his duty. Bad business. Clearly the police have got their work cut out in areas like that. And I agree that an armed response is needed. We have one of the few unarmed police forces in the world, and what that means is that there have been times when the police have had to abandon the pursuit of an armed gang. But that's a police problem. And it's not a situation that's going to be solved if I were to have a gun in my semi-rural home some 40 miles away from these problem areas. The odds of a gang like that coming all the way out here and knocking on my door are infinitesimally small. I'm more likely to get killed crossing the road, killed in a plane crash, car crash, or to die of old age waiting for you to convince me why I should have a gun. By the way, Peckham is largely black, and so yes we do have a pattern. Forget the fact that they all sound like Alec Guinness - I think Lazs was running out of steam when he said that. I have no business in Peckham. Just as I have no business being in Cabrini Green, south central Los Angeles, Harlem, Bronx, or the south side of Chicago. If there is a law and order problem in these areas, that's up to law enforcement to sort out. It's not going to be eased by some guy in North Platte, Nebraska going out and buying a gun and keeping it under his pillow at nights. Canada has far more strict gun laws than the USA, yet on a per capita basis, you are just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime here as you are in the USA, and some of our Provinces are far worse than the most crime free states in the Union.
I have before me a Home Office document. I attach it here .ZIPped up. It's a .PDF document - open with Adobe Acrobat. On Page 10, the homicide rate in Canada is given as 1.85 per 100,000 population. In the USA the figure is 6.26 per 100,000. So as far as murder is concerned, your statement is way off. Of course, the stats were for 1997-99. Has there been a four fold jump in crime in Canada in the time since?
America is very good at worrying about threats from outside, and then overlooking the threat from within. The airspace within 60 miles of the shoreline is scanned for unidentified aircraft. An aircraft must identify itself within this area. If it fails to do so, it can be shot down if it comes within 10 miles of the coast. But this was not much use on Sept. 11th, 2001. With regard to guns, some people are paranoid about threats from intruders, but completely overlook the threat within the home, and many hundreds of thousands of people die from smoking related illnesses, stroke resulting from high blood pressure and obesity etc. But there is a kind of it-can't-happen-to-me complacency in these matters, and a sense of paranoia about being attacked from outside.
I don't deny that there is a huge problem with armed criminals. But arming everyone is not the solution. Some people here need to develop some sense of proportion.
Oh, and I'm not a socialist.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I don't deny that there is a huge problem with armed criminals. But arming everyone is not the solution. Some people here need to develop some sense of proportion.
And disarming everyone is not the solution either. Some people here need to develop some common sense.
Look, it's been shown in every thread so far.
People agree that restrictions/buy backs/bans do not disarm the criminals. The criminals still get guns. In any country. So we apparently just accept "criminal gun crime" as something we can't do anything about and everyone goes "tsk, tsk" and ignores it.
Then they turn to the common citizen. Surely this b*stard MUST be stopped. Because, after all, he is the REAL threat. Since the majority of these sneaky bastiges ARE law-abiding, restrictions/buy backs/ bans do get them to reduce/turn in their guns. Perfect. Now we're all safer, right?
Uh... no. Both English and Australian stats show that AFTER passing buy back/ bans the gun homicide rate either GOES UP or STAYS THE SAME.
Now some will point to this and say, "See? It's a great success!"
Those without the blinders on will note that:
1. Professional criminals weren't impacted. Everyone agrees they still get and use guns.
2. Those crazy bastige private citizens that had their guns taken away....... must not have been the ones resonsible BECAUSE THE GUN HOMICIDE RATE EITHER WENT UP OR STAYED THE SAME.
A bit of common sense leads one to the conclusion that the buy back/ ban laws are simply "feelgood" measures that do not affect the gun homicide rate.
In fact, there are "pro-ban" documents out there that state that exact opinion. They say things like:
the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides
Hiya Spook!
-
Copyright © by David Brundle 1998,1999
(http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Gifs/US_Homicide.gif)
US Murder Rates (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html)
The US Dept. of Justice recently published a report concerning homicide trends in the US. Using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports it shows that the US murder rate has declined dramatically throughout the 1990s. The US homicide rate for 1997 dropped to 6.8/100,000 of the population, the equivalent figure for England and Wales continues to increase and now stands at 1.5/100,000 population. The US homicide rate is now at its lowest level since 1967 and recent reports indicate that the US and UK crime figures are converging. UK crime rates are increasing while the US crime rate drops, a trend indicated by the 3rd International Crime Survey and a Dept. of Justice report published in October of last year. The violent crime rate in England & Wales now exceeds that of the US.
Pat Mayhew in her evidence to the Dunblane enquiry[1] notes that the US homicide rate using handguns is over 150 times that of the UK. The Labour party[2] continued in a similar vein in its own submission to the enquiry. As is typical of many advocates of gun control a simple causal relationship is implied in both papers. However, in the period under study the overall US homicide rate remained approximately 8 times that of the UK. The continuing decline in the US crime rate means that the US homicide rate has now dropped to approximately 4 times that of the UK. Why then does a factor of 150 in the homicide rate using handguns not translate into a similar factor in the overall homicide rate?
In part at least the discrepancy can be explained by the "weapon substitution" theory, whereby an offender denied access to firearms would substitute another lethal weapon. The theory would suggest that the crime dictates the weapon rather than the weapon dictating the crime. Mayhew counters that most violent incidents are committed fairly spontaneously and that the presence of a lethal weapon produces a violent outcome. Such spontaneity is in fact myth, a myth generated more by wishful thinking than any basis in fact. Firstly consider domestic violence, many offenders do claim that a violent confrontation with a partner arose spontaneously and that their actions were not premeditated. Yet domestic violence is rarely an isolated outbreak of such violence but simply another episode in a long cycle of abuse. Secondly an armed robber does not discharge a firearm 'spontaneously' during a robbery. The robbery may not have been planned with the intent to discharge a weapon but by carrying a firearm criminals are clearly prepared to do so should the situation demand it.
The difference in the US and UK figures can also be explained by the manner in which they are compiled. The US figure is based upon the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI. The FBI is solely responsible for classifying crimes and no matter what the subsequent criminal case becomes it is not changed. On the other hand homicide in the UK reflects only those crimes resulting in a criminal conviction for murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The US figure represents a gross estimate of homicide whilst the British estimate reflects a more conservative figure. The difference in methodology would tend to suggest that the difference between the US and the UK is not as pronounced as some gun control advocates would have us believe.
Finally, gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.
Bibliography
1. Evidence Submitted on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary.
Home Office Research & Statistics Directorate.
2. Control of Guns: The Labour Party's Evidence
George Robertson, MP and Jack Straw, MP.
Talk amongst yourselves. ;)
-
Not to depress anyone or anything.......
Fun With Guns (http://www.rachellucas.com/funwithguns.htm)
Fun With Guns
03/19/02
(Or, the New York Times is For Idiots)
A guy who writes for the New York Times (Nicholas Kristof) is of the opinion that guns pose more of a threat to US citizens than foreign terrorism. He's oh-so-alarmed at reports of increased gun sales since Sept. 11. Blah, blah, blah. This really isn't the point, but it's what his article is about. What I'm here to do is to pass along some debunking of his numbers by Cathy Young of Newsmax.com (whom I am heavily paraphrasing and quoting in this rant hereafter).
Kristof said in a recent article: "It is pointless to try to deny the link between more handguns and increased murder and suicide."
Oh, really? Well then let us embark on a pointless endeavor.
First we shall address murder.
Japan, where handguns are practically unavailable, had only 29 gun deaths (both murders and suicides) in 1999, while the United States had 26,800 gun deaths in 2000. England, another country with a strict handgun ban, has a murder rate only one-sixth of ours (before you go thinking England is safe, bear in mind that they have higher rates of assault and burglary than we do).
That's very interesting. What's even more interesting is that our non-gun homicide rates exceed total homicide rates in many nations. In 1998, the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate in the United States was 6.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about two-thirds of these killings.
Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people - about four times the average annual homicide rate in Japan (0.5 per 100,000) and higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2) or Sweden (1.4). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.
This proves my oft-repeated refrain of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It should be obvious even to the most leftist-minded that the above figures illustrate the fact that America has a somewhat violent culture. We like to kill each other, apparently. And as proven above, if we don't have guns to do it, we're still gonna do it. It's just the way we are.
To further prove this point, let's talk about Switzerland, where guns are common and crime is rare. Switzerland boasts a heavily armed population and a thriving gun culture (shooting contests for children are a popular tradition). Yet its homicide rates are comparable to Great Britain's. I reiterate - it's not having guns around that makes people kill each other. It's our CULTURE. I am pretty sure that Switzerland doesn't have roving gangs of ethnic teenagers shooting each other several times daily.
In Israel, where almost every home has a weapon, the low murder rate is pretty much the same as in Europe, where guns are very rare.
Now let's talk about suicide. More than half the "gun deaths" in America are suicides. Did you know that? I can just hear the lefties out there saying, "Well then guns have a lot to do with people offing themselves." But you would be incorrect.
The 1996 suicide rates per 100,000 people:
United States: 11.8
Canada: 13.4
Japan: 17.9
France: 20.9
Finland: 25
Handguns are pretty much unavailable to the public in Japan. France, Finland, and Canada also have extremely stringent gun control laws, and most citizens do not have them in their homes.
A person more than twice as likely to commit suicide in Finland (where very few people have guns) than they are in America (where guns are freely available).
The facts speak for themselves. Americans like to kill each other, with or without guns. People like to kill themselves all over the world, with or without guns. Welcome to reality.
Just something too discuss as well. Especially the suicide rates.
-
Just thought I'd throw out some new material to argue over. :)
-
beetle... not sure what I am supposed to reply to. That you have seen more of America than I have?.. Not a chance in hell.
That murder and rioting are going up in england? I agree. I would take precautions (sorta like wearing a seatbelt) but go ahead... bury your head in the sand.
That you felt safe in the wilds of AZ? Az has some of the most enlightened (read laxed) gun laws in the country and therefore is one of the most crime free states... I would allways feel relatively safe there too... I like knowing that there is a good chance that 2 or 3 of the people I am eating breakfast with are probly armed. criminals, conversly, don't.
That a relative few are killed in accidental shootings? I don't argue that... I argue that in America... more lives are saved by handguns than are ever lost to them... you would apear (like your aussie bretheren) to be content to condem the people whose lives have been saved to death.
I like choice. I like having the advantage when someone is trying to perpetuate a crime on me. If he has a gun... well... At least I will have parity.. If he has a knife... end of situation. If I am unarmed.... Who knows? I can take care of myself... my dad or daughter might have a little more trouble tho.. as I age... I slow down.. Like I said... I want the advantage.
Please try to read what toad has written... it is all common knowledge and it apears that you have little or no real research on the subjecct.
lazs
-
And the winner of the "1984 orwellian newspeak award" for this (and damn near any other) thread is......
"We did indeed register our guns,they were not confiscated,we had an "amnesty"and a gun buy back program where you could feel free to hand in any full or semi auto weapons that were then deemed to be illegal,many people did this and were paid very good money by the government for crappy weapons they didn't want anyway,of course those who didn't want to hand those kind of guns in kept them.
There was no confiscation. "
kinda scares the crap outta ya huh?
lazs
airhead... I don't drink. OH... you have to weigh less than 200lbs and be shorter than 6'2" to even drive the Healey... Come over and I will show you.
lazs
-
The difference in the US and UK figures can also be explained by the manner in which they are compiled. The US figure is based upon the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI. The FBI is solely responsible for classifying crimes and no matter what the subsequent criminal case becomes it is not changed. On the other hand homicide in the UK reflects only those crimes resulting in a criminal conviction for murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The US figure represents a gross estimate of homicide whilst the British estimate reflects a more conservative figure. The difference in methodology would tend to suggest that the difference between the US and the UK is not as pronounced as some gun control advocates would have us believe.
That's incorrect.
The police recorded homocide statistics based on their initial classification of the event. ie, if they think it was murder, it is counted as murder, regardless of wether someone is brought to trial or not.
Murders that were first thought to be accidental or self defence are added in the year in which they are reclassified as murder.
If a someone is tried and aquitted for a murder, it remains as a murder statistic, unless there is evidence it was self defence or accidental. ie, if police charge someone with murder, and he is aquitted because of insufficent evidence, it remains in the murder statistics. If he is aquitted on the grounds of self defence, it is removed from the murder statistics.
-
Nashwan,
I've E-Mailed the guy that wrote that. He's got a detailed web page but I don't know his source for that information.
I hope he'll reply; if he does, I'll post it.
Right now, though, I haven't been able to find any information on the subject one way or the other. Rather than spend all morning looking, I figured I'd just ask him to give me a source.
Will let you know.
BTW, his homepage for that article is here:
The Great British Gun Ban Con (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Main.html)
-
Originally posted by steely07
Lazs,i'm keeping it civil too,no offence intended :)
We did indeed register our guns,they were not confiscated,we had an "amnesty"and a gun buy back program where you could feel free to hand in any full or semi auto weapons that were then deemed to be illegal,many people did this and were paid very good money by the government for crappy weapons they didn't want anyway,of course those who didn't want to hand those kind of guns in kept them.
There was no confiscation.
They weren't confiscated?I'm sorry,but if you are required to turn them in under some bs amnesty program or you will be in violation of the law,then yes they were.
-
Idiots who claim that gun control will curb violence are stupid, misguided, misinformed and generally just wasting others time at best.
First, unless the Constitution is going to be changed then we are going to have guns. Banning "assualt" weapons is pointless also...I can kill just as well with my 222, 308 and 7 mag as I could with a really "wicked looking, neo-militiry all black gun with a scope". People who buys these quasi-military weapons usually have small pee pee's and low self-esteem or are unbalanced anyway.
Second, banning guns will not stop violence. Look at Columbine. Those two idiots carried guns...yes, we saw much footage on TV and in the papers about all the guns they carried. The funny thing is that they also had pipe bombs. Granted the pipe bombs didn't go off (the kids were apparently spent too much time thinking about their wardrobe then about how to build a pipe bomb) but they were another weapon that the liberal media chose to ignore. Ban guns...fine. Then people who want to be violent will simply resort to other weapons...pipe bombs, arson, biological viruses, knifes, automobiles, chinnese stars and nunchucks, whatever. The violence will not stop. Look at Columbia...even the rebels without guns attack villages with machettes. Just cause they didn't have guns are they supposed to sit at home and not be violent? :confused: Our stupid liberal (and usually Democratic) politicians think so. Silly buggers.
My simple yet emphatic opinion is that people who want guns banned are liberal idiots who deserve electro-shock therapy through their nuts. Anyone who pursues banning guns is stupid (cause it's not going to happen) and their other ideas and pursuits should be questioned. If they are willing to pursue something so impractical as banning guns what other of their beliefs and pursuits is also wandering in the lala land bordering on fantasy land that will also waste everyone else time and money.
Damn...now I'm all mad. I'm going to have to go drink beer now.
[edit: I also believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. People who commit violent crimes should be punished violently. Too many liberal bleeding hearted politicians have moved us away from equal justice. A man can kill another man and ONLY RECEIVE A 40 YEAR PRISON TERM, ELIGIBLE FOR PORALE IN 15 YEARS ???
Don't ban guns...ban people, ther are the ones who are dangerous.]
-
Mr. Toad! How nice to hear from you :) I don’t know if I can reply to everything you said in the time I have available, as I’m sort of entertaining this weekend. But I’ll make a start. In view of time constraints, please forgive my use of a slightly broader brush than I normally use.
It seems I need to repeat what I said to Lazs, which was: By all means, keep your guns. I'm not trying to take them away from you and neither is your government.
(Look further up this thread to see where I said it) My reasons for posting in this thread are that I am curious to know WHY so many people need to keep guns. Gman made a very good point by saying Not being racist, but remove all the 13-25 African American males from that chart, and then tell me what you've got?
I believe he is alluding to the fact that the vast majority of handgun deaths are caused by young black males killing other young black males. Given the crime hotspots that I have mentioned myself, and more to the point the ethnic mix that can be found in those areas, and you can see that he’s not far off the mark on that point.
In your second post, Mr. Toad, you presented us with a chart showing homicide trends in the US versus England & Wales. I see that like me, you have found that government data is not generally available until it’s about two years old. I also note that your red line has been continued as a DOTTED red line between roughly 1997 and 2005. This is pure extrapolation, and shows the homicide rate per 100,000 declining from 6 to 1! Mr. Toad, you should have been a politician! If you could make that happen, I’d vote for you. But in the context of this discussion, I think that dotted red line is nothing more than misleading conjecture.
You began to mention suicides when you said that Now let's talk about suicide. More than half the "gun deaths" in America are suicides. Did you know that?
I’ll come back to this, but must remind you that the Home Office stats which I see you have yet to download are concerned with homicides. The suicides will not feature in those figures, but are a tragedy in their own right. If someone wants to kill themselves, they surely will. Furnishing them with guns just makes it more easy, as your statistics demonstrate. On the subject of suicide, you mention statistics for various countries but omit Sweden, suicide capital of the world. What needs to be remembered is that parts of Sweden and large parts of Finland lie above the Arctic Circle where is almost no daylight at all for weeks at a time during the winter months. For depressed people with seemingly insurmountable problems in their lives, the winter’s gloom is the final straw and pushes many over the edge. Please – no-one make light of this. Suicide is a tragedy.
Mr. Toad presents a plausible argument that Americans like killing eachother – it’s their culture – LOL! OK, laughter aside, why is that? Why is America such a violent society? I have many friends in America, but as far as I know, none is a gun owner.
Both Lazs and Mr. Toad claim that disarming ordinary citizens (such as Lazs himself) would not make a dent in crime. And I agree – because there was no point in their having a gun in the first place, and Lazs's gun ownership has no impact on the national crime figures, despite his self appointed status as community crime fighter. Mr. Toad cites the fact that our own ban on handguns has not worked, and that crime in the US is on the decline. I would just like to talk about New York City for a moment. I have an ex-girlfriend in NYC who I used to visit often – 3-4 times a year, and more when I was working for that American company based in Denver, 1996-97. Mr. Toad is right, and New York City is safer now than it has been since the 1960s. I was there in 1979 and felt intimidated. By 1995 when I next visited, things had changed dramatically. The place was much safer. Why do you think this was? Well, Mayor Giuliani was a cracking mayor – and received a knighthood from the Queen. I was damned impressed by Rudi, and his partner in reducing crime, Police Chief Bratton. Between them they understood the causes of crime. Bratton focussed on cracking down on Quality of Life crimes – guys urinating in the street in the nearest doorway. Bratton could see that perpetrators of seemingly minor crimes were the same people who went on to commit much more serious crimes later on. The thing that Giuliani did was to see that there were MANY more police on the streets, in the subways and all around the city. Zero tolerance. I spent most of the summer of 1995 in NYC, and I was amazed how often I ran into NYC’s finest – uniformed cops working in pairs. Many a time I emerged from a subway station to see the cops with a suspect in handcuffs. I later learned that Giuliani had boosted police numbers by about 33%. The subway was made safe again. I wish I had $1 for every time I saw a pair of cops on the platform or even inside the trains. I have already said that New York (Manhattan between uptown and South Battery) is arguably safer than London (where Lazs felt as threatened as he might have done at a Church bingo night). I said that in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66814) about two weeks ago.
But the really important thing here is to consider why New York City, former murder capital of the USA, now feels safer than London. And the answer, Mr. Toad, is because law enforcement has been given the necessary mandate to tackle crime, and not because Mrs. Gabriella Rozenburg keeps a loaded .38 revolver at her East 74th Street penthouse apartment.
Lazs - it's dinner time here. I'll have to reply later.
-
Toad, trust me, he's wrong.
The official British crime statistics have this to say:
"The police statistics for numbers of homicides include
murders, manslaughter and infanticides that come to the attention of the police. It is possible that
there could be other deaths, which are not believed to be suspicious and therefore subject of
police investigation, but which have been the result of homicides. Obviously, their number will not
find their way into these statistics. Deaths which are not initially believed to be suspicious but
which are later categorised as homicide are counted in the year in which they have been
recorded. Some deaths initially recorded as homicide can also sometimes be reclassified.
• There were 886 deaths initially recorded as homicide by the police in 2001/02"
and this
"Homicide - Comprises the recorded crimes of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. The
published figures do not separately identify between these categories since at the time an offence
is recorded by the police the circumstances surrounding the offence may not necessarily be
known. Whether an offence is murder or manslaughter may be decided once an offender has
been apprehended and appeared in court."
The full report is at http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics23.pdf
-
Beet1e,
I didn't write all that. Note the copyright. I offer it for discussion.
I'll keep it short, as I'm late for the evening meal.
You've still got this problem, no matter how you feel about our having guns:
The English buy back, according to the stats, accomplished NOTHING.
Our society has guns. Yours essentially does not.
Our crime rate went down, yours went up.
Therefore, it's certainly plausible to think that the buy back had no effect, and further, that guns in and of themselves may not be the key factor.
So, while you may feel "safer" living in a "gun free" society, the stats say this is merely perception, not fact. Because in fact you folks had less crime before the ban.
-
Guns don't cause crime, they just make it more likely that criminals will kill.
You're more likely to robbed in Britain, you're far more likely to be killed during a robbery in America.
-
OK, here's what we do- We give up our guns to the Government, the Gov. sells them and we use the money to pay reperations to decendants of slaves. Anyone who disagrees with this plan is a gun toting right wing racist.
-
you're far more likely to be killed during a robbery in America
Ya, if you are unarmed. Check out the stats of CCW carriers who are killed in robberies. It's 99% of the time the crook who gets popped.
Also, did you know that women CCW carriers are raped 0.1 % of the time when attacked by a rapist? Compare that to the 60% of the women who are unarmed who are sexually assualted when attacked.
How can anyone explain away those numbers? Being armed is far better off than being unarmed, in any country.
-
Being armed is far better off than being unarmed, in any country.
US policemen are all armed, and train regularly. Around 50 of them are murdered every year in the line of duty.
British policemen aren't armed. The last one to be murdered was several years ago.
-
Nonetheless, confiscating the guns in Britain did not lower your gun homicide rate.
That glaring fact contravenes your hypothesis, in my mind at least.
Looks like not being armed... everyone not being armed.. increased your chances of being killed however slight the increase was.
-
It would Toad, if you could positively link the slight increase to the new laws. There are many other factors (socio-economic and otherwise) that affect the statistics.
So in conclusion, so far no one has proven anything :D
-
Look at it this way and let's be very generous:
Aussies ban/confiscate guns. Gun homicides stablize/possible increase but certainly no decrease.
Brits ban/confiscate guns. Gun homicides stablize/possible increase but certainly no decrease.
So far the two industrialized countries that have tried this have had less than stellar results.
After all, one would expect rates to drop dramatically after all the guns were banned/confiscated/heavily restricted.
Didn't happen.
So say we try it in the US. If we have the same experience, it will be just as ineffective but incredibly more expensive due to the larger numbers involved.
So why bother?
Why not just put all that money into more/better law enforcement? THAT has been shown to have an effect at least.
And that's putting a really optimistic view on the whole deal.
-
Brits ban/confiscate guns. Gun homicides stablize/possible increase but certainly no decrease.
So far the two industrialized countries that have tried this have had less than stellar results.
After all, one would expect rates to drop dramatically after all the guns were banned/confiscated/heavily restricted
I don't know about the Australian situation, so I won't comment on it.
Hand guns were already rar in Britain, and heavily regulated. Each one was registered to a particular owner, who could only transfer it to another registered owner. Guns couldn't simply be sold on to a criminal.
In short, handguns from legal owners were not a crime issue in Britain, and the ban was silly. Banning them could not have had any statisticaly significant effect on crime.
The only real comparison between crime in Britain and the US is this: Britain has more crime. More burgularies, more muggings, more robberies, more car thefts, more assaults.
America has more murders, by far.
There are perfectly good reasons to explain why.
If you commit a crime in Britain, you are less likely to get caught. Conviction rates are far lower than in America.
If you do get caught, and convicted, you are likely to serve far less prison time in Britain.
In other words, criminals have an easier time in Britain.
American criminals have easier access to guns.
-
Two opinions then, Nashwan:
According to Brundle (quoted above)
They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.
You've had much tougher gun control than we have for nearly 80 years.. yet the rates have been and are converging. Comments?
And, from the other article quoted above:
...Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people...... higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.....
It should be obvious even to the most leftist-minded that the above figures illustrate the fact that America has a somewhat violent culture. We like to kill each other, apparently. And as proven above, if we don't have guns to do it, we're still gonna do it. It's just the way we are.
I certainly don't disagree that the US has a culture of violence. That's obviously true.
What I question is whether or not a ban/confiscation would change that. It hasn't changed the rates in Australia or Britain to any apreciable degree. Why, would we be any different? In fact, given our culture of violence, we might easily be worse.
Without gun homicides, according to that writer, we'd still be twice Britain's rate for all homicides.
Comments?
-
Read the whole post please lazs,the buyback program and buyback scheme only applied to full and semi auto weapons,you can still own as many rifles,shotguns as you like,providing you are properly licenced.
con·fis·cate Pronunciation Key (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
To seize by or as if by authority.
Amnesty
a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment
Just defining some words some of you misunderstand the meaning of :)
Just another point,i haven't made the mistake of commenting on a situation that i don't have the all the facts for(i've never been to the US),my comments only pertain to the Australian situation,i would ask that i am accorded the same courtesy,if you haven't lived here and had the experience,don't pretend to understand how things are in other countrys.
As for the "Orwellian Newspeak",i finally won something!!!! :)
-
US non-gun homicides 5033
1 per 55,744 people
England and Wales 886 homicides
1 per 59,000 people
In other words, take out the gun figures, and the US is very close to the UK's figures. (figures from the official British stats, and the FBI)
You've had much tougher gun control than we have for nearly 80 years.. yet the rates have been and are converging. Comments?
1919 was the year after the first world war, where Britain had lost a large percentage of it's young men (the most likely to commit crimes of any sort)
Secondly, why was US crime so high in 1919? Do you think there is some natural reason that the US murder rate should be many times Britain's?
Thirdly, Britain has spent the 20th century moving to a more "enlightened" view, that criminals should be rehabilitated, not locked up for very long, certainly not executed. America still punishes criminals. That's why all crime in Britain is now more common than in America.
-
Lazs -! Sorry to take so long getting back to you.
No I didn’t say I’d seen more of America than you. You’ve lived there all your life, after all. But I have been to numerous US states. May I ask how many you have been to yourself?
Rioting in Britain tends to occur when there is an issue of discontent. For example, there was rioting when the Thatcher government implemented the Community Charge – a new way to collect tax based on where you live. Very unpopular. Replaced by Council Tax. Those riots were in 1989. The other main riots I remember were the Croxteth and Toxteth riots of 1981. Those were two districts of Liverpool which were unemployment blackspots and also areas of high crime. I don’t expect you to understand the issues involved, because clearly your news media at the time did not. Besides, your country does not have any what I would call quality broadsheet newspapers, and America’s TV news programmes focus on local news in the beginning, before moving on to foreign issues. I can tell you that I was in Concord,CA at the time of those Liverpool riots, and to read about it in the available local rags like the Oakland Times made me think that the whole of Britain had come under siege. I was so worried that I called my brother to find out if everything was OK. And he said, from his home in Winchester ”Oh yes, everything’s OK. Life goes on much the same. The riots are confined to localised trouble spots. There’s nothing like that happening down here” That a relative few are killed in accidental shootings? I don't argue that... I argue that in America... more lives are saved by handguns than are ever lost to them... you would apear (like your aussie bretheren) to be content to condem the people whose lives have been saved to death.
I am interested to see how you substantiate this claim. If so many lives were saved by handguns, then please tell me the nature of the threat from which those lives were delivered. Criminals with guns, by any chance? I know that when dealing with stats, the bald figures don’t always tell the full story, and some quantification is needed. A bit like Aces High scores, really. LOL! Right, Lazs? ;) I like choice. I like having the advantage when someone is trying to perpetuate a crime on me.
Huh? Oh, you mean perpetrate! You like having an advantage. Trouble is in your society, the other guy is just as likely or even more likely to be armed himself. So the perceived advantage you have of being armed is cancelled out by the other guy being armed, with the added danger that one or both of you will be seriously injured or killed. So best you resolve your differences with the other guy by peaceful means. That's what we do here, without recourse to guns.
Ah, Mr. Toad. :) Well, we are agreed on what you said: Why not just put all that money into more/better law enforcement? THAT has been shown to have an effect at least.
And that's exactly what I was talking about in New York City.
The trouble is with John Doe going out to buy a gun is that it doesn't solve anything because John typically lives in a relatively crime free area. So, when there is any talk of John having to surrender his gun, he whines that it won't cut crime. Well of course it won't! And the simple reason is that there was no crime in his area to begin with. :rolleyes: When I was working in America (Denver, 1996-1997), I frequently noted how often the Americans would tackle a problem in the wrong way. I was an mainframe database consultant back then, and the company had cobbled together a customer care and billing system. It did not perform well, and some of the managers were baying for more processor power. But an expert in his field, my friend Steve M was able to point out time after time that a small amount of redesign work to SQL queries and/or changes to the data structure was all that was needed to make a transaction run in a few seconds rather than a couple of hours. The Americans always went in for the sledgehammer approach. And their attitude to guns seems little different. Crime hotspot in a particular troublesome area of Los Angeles? Perceived solution: Arm all Californians, from Crescent City to San Diego. Better solution: Understand the problems involved, and give law enforcement the resources they need to apply their expertise to contain the problem in the areas where it exists. The same US knee-jerk reaction occurred on Sept 12th, 2001. Al Qa'eda atrocity? Perceived solution: Go out and buy a gun. (and many did) And for what? Does Al Qa'eda have a policy of making house calls? Better Solution: Allow law enforcement agencies such as the CIA to work with its foreign counterparts (MI6, Mossad) to gather intelligence with a view to targeting the terrorist groups responsible.
If guns were freely available here, it wouldn't just be me that could go out and buy one. All the local knobheads would want theirs too. Then when one such knobhead gets dumped by his girl, who goes instead to his arch enemy, his self esteem is crushed to powder and he feels he has nothing to lose. He has a few beers at the local pub when in comes his old girlfriend, arm in arm with his worst enemy. It's more than he can take, and he goes home to fetch his new toy to bring back so he can shoot his enemy, shoot the girl, and save the last bullet for himself. We would have a US style killing spree, and I'd be worried about being caught in the crossfire. You think I'm talking bollocks? Well think again, because that's what happened at the Embarcadero Center in San Francisco in Feb-1982. I was there and within ¼ mile of the building where it happened. A guy had been dumped by his wife or girl, so he showed up with a gun to mete out some sort of justice. He was shot dead by Police. I guess that's one of those situations identified by Lazs as a case where handguns save lives. :rolleyes:
-
To paraphrase:
John Doe has never needed his gun and probably won't ever, so why should he object if it is taken from him.
(Also because a less frugal method was used once in a denver office than what an alternative would have cost if this mysterious 'Steve' is to be believed.)
To further paraphrase:
To each according to need...
-
Hiya Fatty, and thanks for reading so far into my latest post. :) We talked the other day about rural America (not in parks, no rangers about etc.) Well here's a small shot from AZ - a little off topic, but just something to amuse while we wait for the others to cobble together some more material. I came upon this spot on the way back from Tucson to Phoenix, having been to visit an old WB pal, =kjbl=. I had told him how I find desert to be fascinating, and beautiful in its own way, so he suggested an alternate route on the way back - I think this was on SR-79.
I felt perfectly safe here, but not for the reasons Lazs gave, which were relaxed gun laws. To be honest, I had no clue about AZ gun law, and the thought had not even entered my head. I distinctly remember not being asked by =kjbl= if I had a firearm for personal safety given that I was going to use this remote route.
-
Nashwan,
Non-gun homicide rates. Another example of why one should not take everything one reads on the 'net as true. Your US figures correspond with
Injury Mortality Reports, 1999+ (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html)
a great page that lets you really research US injury/death from all causes and sort by many factors.
So, you are correct and that article appears to be wrong.
The "best" comparison I could find is this, which says it uses FBI and Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1997 (rates per 100,000)
Country Year
United States 1999
Total Homicide 5.70
Firearm Homicide 3.72 (corresponds with the CDC 1999 rate 3.94)
Non-Gun Homicide 1.98 (CDC 2.20)
England/Wales 1997
Total Homicide 1.41
Firearm Homicide 0.11
Non-Gun Homicide 1.30
A digression now, if you will. Found this while looking at Newsmax, a source I'm a bit skeptical about. But it bears on what we discussed earlier.
Did England/Wales change it's method of reporting in 1998? Is it possible that the first guy quoted was right? ("right" prior to '98?)
Britain: From Bad to Worse (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml)
...More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism."...
...Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes...
...Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge. In January 2000, official street-crime rates in London were more than double the official rate from the year before. ..."
So were they "cooking the books" prior to 1998? Do you have access to the Report from the Inspector of the Constabulary?
Now then.....
1919 was the year after the first world war, where Britain had lost a large percentage of it's young men (the most likely to commit crimes of any sort)
Well, then, wouldn't one expect Britain's crime rate to decrease during the passage of this particular generation's active "crime committing" years?
As you say, theoretically, an entire generation of criminals was nearly wiped out, along with the rest of the "good" male population of that generation. So, the rates should have gone down but instead they increased, despite the early attempts at gun control in Britain I'd think.
Secondly, why was US crime so high in 1919? Do you think there is some natural reason that the US murder rate should be many times Britain's?
Well, the post-war era in the US was wild. The Volstead Act and Prohibition (ah.. Prohibition... you see where that stuff leads, eh? ;) ) merely added fuel to the fire of the "Roaring Twenties".
As to "natural reason", no I can't think of a "natural reason" but there is absolutely no shortage of information showing that the US has had a more violent internal society than England over the period 1776-2002. Nonetheless, trend lines show you guys doing well in catching up to us in overall violence.
Thirdly, Britain has spent the 20th century moving to a more "enlightened" view, that criminals should be rehabilitated, not locked up for very long, certainly not executed. America still punishes criminals. That's why all crime in Britain is now more common than in America.
And in closing for now, this bit for Beet1e, Spook and Nashwan, since it underlines this point of his:
Gun Homicides (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html)
Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):
"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."
"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."
Sources cited by the above excerpt:
An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).
So the idea that the majority of US gun homicide is by that rampaging next door neighbor is........ more "hollywood" than real.
For Spook and Beet1e, it once again highlights the futility of taking guns away from the law-abiding citizen. And, indeed, stats from both Australia and England seem to show this. Even the link supplied by Spook in the other thread points it out.
For Nashwan, it merely shows that not even the US is keeping them in jail long enough, so don't feel too badly about England's "enlightened" approach. Our "unenlightened" approach isn't doing much better.
Criminals. You let these guys out of jail and what do you know? They go back to their old jobs a lot of the time.
It bears repeating:
Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests
-
beetle... asside from how you "feel.... you haven't said anything. Just your normal wall-0-words and anecdotal stuff. FBI claims that firearms are used 1,000,000+ times per year to stop crime. We have a particularly nasty group of criminals in the U.S..... they are not content to rob or rape... if you will look at the stats... the criminal background of the murders in this country you will see that you would be ill advised to "submit".
"submit"... maybe that is what you feel is the right thing... as brits you submit to thugs all the time... your rate rises and rises... but... since everyone is unarmed.... no harm done eh mate? bull... I would get pissed at a strongarm robbery.. I would like to resist with a firearm.. That does not mean shoot... necesarrily. I don't want to live in a country that puts me at the mercy of the strongarm criminal... I didn't like being reminded that pickpockets were everywhere while in london.
AZ... I feel pretty safe there too.. I believe it is because of the lax gun laws.. still... I wouldn't want to wear a sign that said "hi I'm a brit who thinks that being armed is barbaric... please don't harm me" The reason you are safe is because no one knows if you are are aren't... it is possible/likely that you are... In Fla. this was proven... when the crooks couldn't rob the locals anymore because of relaxed gun laws they went after the people with... "hi I'm a tourist and unarmed" signs on em... What signs you say? well... the rental car signs on their bumpers.. and.... these tourists were not treated well at the hands of our breed of criminal... they mostly just died. The car rental places solved the problem by removing the bumper stickers... Now... no one knew who was or wasn't armed... end of problem.... just likeyou...
you enjoyed the protection that lax gun laws in Az provided for you without even knowing it. Walking in Central Park at nite... it would be assumed by criminals that you were not armed.
but... far from being some "self appointed protector of the community" (where did I say I was?) ... I simply prefer to defend myself from tyranny from within or without. If that benifiets my countrymen then so much the better. If there is some slight cost involved then I (and my countrymen) are willing to pay it. Besides.... it is simply our right as free and independent Americans at this point in time.
lazs
-
steely... maybe I don't understand registration and confiscation...
In your aus. you were told under pain of law to register all your firarms. At some point... you were told that certain types of previously legal firearms were now socially unacceptable and now illegal... but.. the government offered to "buy back" your now illegal firearms and set a time limit that you could be forced to sell your property in... and "amnesty" period..
If you declined to participate in this program and kept your personal property and were later caught with it....it would be ... what? what is the word?
next year some other type that you own may be deemed illegal but so long as you give it up voluntarrily it won't be... what is that word?
lazs
-
Washington Sniper, UK style (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,822192,00.html)
-
So were they "cooking the books" prior to 1998? Do you have access to the Report from the Inspector of the Constabulary?
The inspector of constabulary reports are here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/annual.htm
Can't find anything like Newsmax's quotes in them.
In fact, a google search of their quotation about murder rates turned up only the Newsmax article itself, yet a google search of a quote inside one of the inspectors reports, a pdf file, pointed straight back to that file.
In other words, if what Newsmax was quoting was true, Google would probably have found the original report.
The report I think they are reffering to can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/otr00.htm
It does point out the under reportng of crime that used to go on, for example if there was damage to a door lock, police would often record the offence as vandalism rather than attempted burgulary. Same for damage to windows etc.
However, I can't see anything of the sort relating to homicide, and their quote is most definately not in the report.
Incidentally, weren't the "rising" figures for violent crime in Britain used to show how banning guns increased violent crime? And now this report is admitting the truth, that the "rise" was purely down to improved recording by the police. The British Crime Survey, which is a more accurate guide to crime figures, shows violent crime falling in Britain throughout the late ninties.
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition."
I very much doubt it's ever been true, in recent times.
For one thing, there hasn't been a large jump in murder figures, that moving to an initial classification system (which is certainly what's in place now) from one based on trial outcomes, would have caused.
Secondly, murder cases usually take a long time in Britain, with the defence always trying to delay as long as possible. The results of a trial would often not show up in figures until two years later.
Thirdly, does this sound plausible to you:
Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.
A woman found beaten to death outside a bar, three suspects, no crime recorded? That's simply too far fetched.
And how would it count as a 3 person homicide in America? Homicide stats consist primarily of the number of victims, not the number of assailants.
Well, then, wouldn't one expect Britain's crime rate to decrease during the passage of this particular generation's active "crime committing" years?
Normally, yes. But those years were very hard in Britain, which was left paying back all it's own war debt's, plus Russia's.
Well, the post-war era in the US was wild. The Volstead Act and Prohibition (ah.. Prohibition... you see where that stuff leads, eh? ) merely added fuel to the fire of the "Roaring Twenties".
Exactly. There are perfectly valid reasons why America should have had a substantially higher murder rate than Britain then, which sort of makes the claim that the two countries are "converging" naturall. The question should be why they haven't converged yet.
Nonetheless, trend lines show you guys doing well in catching up to us in overall violence.
They show we've passed you in overall violence. Not suprising, when we have less police, lowever conviction rates, less prison time, more criminals on the streets.
The government brought in a mandatory 3 year sentence (1.5 years served, 50% remission) for domestic burgulars convicted for a third time. Judges fought for an opt out if they felt 3 years was too long, and got it. In the several years it's been in force, less than 10 repeat burgulars have got a 3 year sentence.
For Nashwan, it merely shows that not even the US is keeping them in jail long enough, so don't feel too badly about England's "enlightened" approach. Our "unenlightened" approach isn't doing much better.
It's a hell of a lot better than here, believe me.
Two days ago my car was broken in to, outside my house. I dashed outside, the thieves ran before I got there (frightened by the alarm). The police noted the crime, but said they were too busy to send anyone out to investigate it.
Yesterday, some hooligans placed a firework launch tube in the ground, and aimed it at my neighbours car. (which was in line with his house) The firework exploded on the wall, setting several car alarms off, and rattling the windows of every house in the street (It was a very big rocket). Again, the police were too busy to come out and investigate, even though a passerby had good descriptions of those involved.
As an example, New York has a slightly lower population than London, and a lower crime rate. It has 48,000 police officers and civilian support staff. London has 38,000, despite the fact the Met police have to carry out tasks that are carried out by the FBI, Secret Service etc in New York.
-
Geez Lazs, I know you’re almost out of steam, but let’s at least have some consistency. You talk about us Brits submitting to thugs all the time, and yet earlier you said you were in a rough area of London and added that you felt as threatened as you might at a Church bingo night.
Then you tell me that I enjoyed personal safety in AZ thanks to laws I don’t even know about. And if that’s true, to what do you think I attribute my sense of personal security when I’m out and about in England, like today? FBI claims that firearms are used 1,000,000+ times per year to stop crime.
How many occurrences were handled by law enforcement agencies, and how many were handled by self appointed gun toting guardians of the peace? And what was the nature of the crime they stopped? Criminals with guns?
I know all about that car rental sticker business. Those that were killed weren’t killed purely because they had a rental sticker – if that were the case, I’d be dead too. But I’m alive. No, they were killed because they got lost and wandered into a bad area that they didn’t know about. Same thing would have happened with or without a rental sticker. But you’re right. The stickers made it easier for the criminals to identify potential victims. I know better than to walk in Central Park at night. There have been two occasions that I remember inadvertently driving into bad neighbourhoods. Both times, I just made sure all the doors were locked, and then just turned around and drove away before anyone had even noticed me.
Anyway, some light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Toad says that killing people is part of American culture. LOL! And I don’t see anyone disagreeing. Given that this is the case, Can you now finally see why I think it’s ludicrous to have 200 million guns out on the streets? The problem is that while John Doe might be a law abiding citizen today, who knows what might become of him tomorrow? Maybe most gun owners will never lose their marbles, but there are many that do. And that’s when we see the all to frequent armed killing sprees taking place. It has been found (not my research) that those individuals who are socially inept are drawn to firearms. Being in a gun club and being able to shoot straight alleviates their feelings of inadequacy. That is certainly the way the papers profiled Michael Ryan, perpetrator of the Hungerford Disaster here in 1986, in which Ryan killed about 16 people before killing himself. So there we have it – easy steps to mass murder: - Socially inadequate person buys gun “for target practice” and joins gun club.
- Marble loss – triggered by some personal crisis or another.
- The desire to seek revenge on the world - = killing spree, often culminating in the perpetrator's own death either as suicide, or by police bullet.
- Americans dismissing it all by saying that killing eachother is part of their culture, the killer was a nutcase and it could have happened at any time, guns don’t kill – only people kill :rolleyes: – yap-yap-yap-1st amendment-yap-yap...
And don't bother to give me stats about the likelihood of another mass killing spree. The DC sniper's rifle has only just stopped smoking, and any gun death of this kind is one too many.
Let’s just wait and see. Let’s wait for the next mass killing spree. And when it happens, I’m going to examine the facts and see how close to the mark I was in this thread. There will come a time when another formerly responsible citizen goes berserk with a gun and kills about 10 people. Maybe it will be here – maybe in the US. (My guess is the US, within the next 6 months) And that's a tragedy. Maybe I'm not the one burying my head in the sand?
One last thing Lazs. You keep avoiding one of my questions, so I will pose the question again. No I didn’t say I’d seen more of America than you. You’ve lived there all your life, after all. But I have been to numerous US states. May I ask how many you have been to yourself?
Wall-o-words it may be, Lazs, but it sure keeps you coming back for more. :D
-
Still looking round for clues. Found this:
"In April 1998, a new set of crime recording rules was adopted. As the October 12, 1999 Home Office Statistical Bulletin noted, "under the new counting rules, the statistics wherever possible measure one crime per victim; this will greatly improve the comparability between notifiable offence figures and victim surveys". Now, if 15 flats were hit by a burglar, 15 crimes would be recorded."
But that's not from an "official" site. It's merely a site restating the idea. Any idea on where to look for the October 12, 1999 Home Office Statistical Bulletin?
In any event, if they recording rules changed in '99, has there been enough data posted (2000, 2001) to determine a trend?
On the "plausible" question, no it doesn't. However, I try not to clip quotes too much in order to give a true sense of what the author is saying. Even if some of it may "not look good". I wondered about that part when I read it and that's why I left it in. Best for all to be "upfront" about the quotes.
The "lost criminal generation". OK, a whole generation-class of criminals didn't make it back from France. England introduces gun controls. These things should mitigate crime, particularly violent crime. Yet the rates still went up due to "hard times"? That doesn't sound real plausible to me.
On "convergence" I think the point is we've been coming down from our "natural high" without severe gun controls. You folks, on the other hand, seem to be climbing up to meet us despite severe gun controls. Therefore, I'm thinking the gun controls aren't that big a player. I think there are other, more significant factors at work here.
Beet1e:
No, I said America has a more violent culture. Not the same thing.
The problem is that while John Doe might be a law abiding citizen today, who knows what might become of him tomorrow?
Repeated in case you missed it.
data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."
"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles.
Something in excess of 75% of the murders are by career criminals with prior felonies. The second part intimates that you can add about 12% to that due to the perps being juveniles. 87% perpetrated by known criminals.
Clearly, your "Joe Average" scenario is not as likely as you would like to paint it.
and any gun death of this kind is one too many
So, you're willing to deny the entire population of the UK or the US the ability to use "banned" firearms in ways that have absolutely no relationship to crime whatsoever on the off chance that you might be able to prevent a such a crime from happening?
And yet you tacitly admit that it can still happen in the UK.
Maybe it will be here – maybe in the US
Gives me the impression that you don't believe UK laws are the solution, either.
And indeed, it appears that is the case.
Would you please post the homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland for each year since the ban?
Thanks.
-
Mr. Toad. What you actually said was this:
It should be obvious even to the most leftist-minded that the above figures illustrate the fact that America has a somewhat violent culture. We like to kill each other, apparently.
And then, on the subject of killing sprees: And yet you tacitly admit that it can still happen in the UK.
Not can, it already has - twice. Hungerford and Dunblane. So, you're willing to deny the entire population of the UK or the US the ability to use "banned" firearms in ways that have absolutely no relationship to crime whatsoever on the off chance that you might be able to prevent a such a crime from happening?
I have already said in this thread that I'm not trying to take your guns away, and neither is your govenment. But some governments have - I've been reading Curval's posts from Bermuda. I can't claim to know the fine details of UK gun law because guns have never been an issue here and I have no interest in them. As for UK policy, I have said more than once that I am not a socialist. Indeed, my opinion of the present government, for which I voted neither in 1997 nor 2001, is that it sucks. We pay more tax and get less service. There aren't enough police, those that we have are over burdened writing reports, and there aren't the resources needed to tackle some serious crimes. On top of that, UK prisons are bursting at the seams. Cons get light sentences here compared to there. We are way too soft on criminals here.
But one of the freedoms that I enjoy as a European is being able to up sticks and relocate to any of the other 14 European member states. And it often feels tempting! Would you please post the homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland for each year since the ban?
Certainly, Mr. Toad. In fact the document is already attached to an earlier post on page 3 of this thread. The latest data I was able to find went up to 1999. I don't know if any later data is available.
Mr. Toad, please advise me why, using data from said document, the US murder rate for 1999 is about four times as high as that of the UK? Handguns are used in many murders, and if not being used by what were once orderly citizens, then just exactly WHO are these somewhat enigmatic gun slingers?
-
First a quick reminder. You apparently have some need to turn this into a "personal" debate.
Here's the second time I pointed this out to you:
You are not quoting me; you are quoting Rachel Lucas from a piece she wrote called Fun with guns.
As I pointed out, I offered that piece for discussion. Review the thread.
Thanks.
-
Now then.
It's not a question of whether "you" are trying to take "our" guns away. You're a non-player in that arena in any event. You're certainly entitled to your opinion there, but that's all it is. Like mine.
It's a question of whether bans/buy backs work at all. And apparently you do support bans/buy backs? Or do I have that incorrectly?
And, if you don't mind, could you supply a link to that Home Office Document? Or even the title and date on it? I'd rather get it from the HO site. I'm not in the habit of d/l'ing and opening files from any BBS in which I participate in discussions in which some folks become heated. I'm sure you understand. :) It would be nice if we could find 2000 data as well; I doubt 2001 is available.
Who's doing it? Well, according to the study quoted, something in excess of 75% of the murders are by career criminals with prior felonies. The second part intimates that you can add about 12% to that due to the perps being juveniles. 87% perpetrated by known criminals.
What's the percentage in Jolly Old?
You can go to 14 countries? And we have to settle for only 50 States, from Alaska to Florida, California to Maine? Geez... you lucky guy!
Firearm Related Deaths in the United States and 35 other High and Middle Income Countries (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf)
You might take a peek at this. Some pretty bright folks have this to say on page 220 (the page it was in the Journal; it's about 6 pages long):
Research findings are mixed, however, about the relationship between firearms ownership and overall homicide rates....
Firearms mortality rates may also be influenced by underlying causes of homicide and suicide that operate indepently of firearm-realted factors just described. Social factors that influence homicide rates include income inequality, low funding for social programmes, divorce, proportion of households with working women, ethnic-linguistic heterogeneity and social accpetance of violence.
Or, as the Australian government source put it:
the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides
or, "the gun ban/ buy back was clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides."
Thus, conversely, availabilty of guns isn't the sole cause of the US homicide rate. Or would you dispute that?
-
Mr. Toad, you are wrong about me on at least one count, possibly two. You're saying that I need to turn this into a personal argument, and nothing could be further from the truth. Because once we start doing that, we no longer listen to eachother. This debate is not about winners and losers. It's not about who can present the most compelling statistics. The only losers are those whose lives will be cut short by a gun, and the only winners are those who might avoid it by some change to the status quo.
OK, now I understand your posting technique. You include a hyperlink but also the text as well. So sorry to have to get you to point this out more than once, but hey - I've said things here two or three times here and still await a response.
Mr. Toad, I have no interest in distorting the facts, so I was somewhat surprised at your request for the Home Office link to my document. Yep, you really should have been a politician. ;) The .PDF document can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf You can go to 14 countries? And we have to settle for only 50 States, from Alaska to Florida, California to Maine? Geez... you lucky guy!
50 states... and ONE federal government, and ONE Dubya and ONE IRS - which maintains tax jurisdiction over you wherever you go, anywhere in the world! But let's not digress... Thus, conversely, availabilty of guns isn't the sole cause of the US homicide rate. Or would you dispute that?
Well, Mr. Toad - you're the one who seems most capable of coming up with official statistics. Can you supply details from an authoritative source which subdivide homicides in the USA by the cause of death? I am interested to know the proportion of murders carried out by guns. I suspect it's the majority, but await your expertly compiled data on this. Some of those murders may not have involved guns, so no - availability of guns is not the SOLE factor governing the US homicide rate. But given the sheer numbers of people murdered by guns each year in the US, clearly the availability of guns plays a major part. It seems clear enough to me. For a gun to be used in a homicide, it has to be available. Duh! :rolleyes:
-
Mr. Toad,
Just as I strongly suspected, homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. Kind of bears out what I've been saying all along, doesn't it? - Source - Bureau of Justice.
- URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
-
These are the appalling stats you get if you go to the URL I gave above, and click on that chart.
The number of handgun homicides alone each year in the US between 1995-1999 is more than ten times the TOTAL number of homicides in England and Wales for those years by ANY method, not just handguns. In 1995, US handgun homicides exceeded total homicides in England and Wales by a factor of 16! And that was after New York City, former US murder capital, had been made safe(r) by the deployment of 33% more police officers. Should an allowance be made for the fact that your population is about four times ours? I'm beginning to think not. As Fatty has stated, and as Lazs is fond of pointing out, the population in the US is much more spread out, and so it should be easier to find somewhere quiet to live. We are very crowded here, as Lazs has observed.
-
beetle... I have seen just about every state except alaska and hawaii. I have not spent a great deal of time in some of them but have rode through em. In at least 20 I have spent a good deal of time. so what?
you have shown me no reason whatsoever for the law abiding in the U.S. to give up their rights. You have spent time in the U.S. and you have benifieted from others owning firearms even tho you appear to be unaware of the fact. Their are neighborhoods where you will not survive if you wander into. they will even go so far as to block your escape. If it makes you feel better you can lock your doors tho and cinch up your seatbelt.
I have seen nothing you have said that makes any sense so far as firearms in the U.S. is concerned. 8-10K homicides... mostly criminal on criminal or criminal on some poor unarmed sap... seem a pitance in light of all the murders, rapes and assaults that have been prevented. Nothing at all compared to losing freedom (yeah.. i know you guys don't have such a thing and are content.. like my cat).
as for me personaly... Yeah.. I felt safe enough in london pubs. I am careful and I am still young and strong and big enough that I do not present a great target to the cowardly criminal. I know that they will chose someone a little weaker.. That won't last forever tho. What I meant by you people rolling over for criminals is... Look at your crime.. people are simply grabbing their ankles for the criminals.. something that Americans are not comfortable with. And...I simply don't trust a government that doesn't trust it's people with firearms.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And...I simply don't trust a government that doesn't trust it's people with firearms.
lazs
lazs,
Many of the pro-gun guys have said that the main reason they own guns is to protect themselves from the US government should they get "out of hand".
Seems like many Americans who own guns don't put as much faith in YOUR government as you do.
-
curval... that is not inconsistent with what I have said. I want to be able to defend myself from tyranny from within and without. I trust my government a lot more when me and fellow ciizens are armed. Historicly this is deterence. When the government takes away firearms from it's citizens it has gone badly for said citizens in the past eh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When the government takes away firearms from it's citizens it has gone badly for said citizens in the past eh?
lazs
Not in my country's case.
I cannot comment on the Aussie case, or the Canadian case as I have never lived in the former, and have been away from the latter for a few years. I can, however, categorically state that the statistics that have been brought forward to prove one side or the other in these cases are essentially "full of do-do", on both sides and should be taken "with a pinch of salt".
Any half-baked statistician can make the figures say what they want them to say.
-
Lazs - thanks for answering my question. I see you are quite well travelled in the US. It was curiosity more than anything else. Something I would like to comment on:
you have shown me no reason whatsoever for the law abiding in the U.S. to give up their rights. You have spent time in the U.S. and you have benifieted from others owning firearms even tho you appear to be unaware of the fact. Their are neighborhoods where you will not survive if you wander into. they will even go so far as to block your escape. If it makes you feel better you can lock your doors tho and cinch up your seatbelt.
Another question: Am I benefiting from others' gun ownership today? In the US, I come and go and I don't give firearms a second thought. Same thing here in England, so are you saying there's some mysterious force at work here too? Because my sense of personal security is about the same in both countries, without a gun in either. Yes I don't disagree that there are some very risky areas, but I would not intentionally go there with or without a gun. Not with skin the colour of mine.
Just one last question, Lazs, and then the pizza map beckons. :) You often speak of the British as if we do not live in the free world. Apart from the whole guns issue, which as a non-owner doesn't interest me that much, what freedoms do you think you have that we don't have? I still believe that it has been a catastrophe for America to put so many guns into the hands of some demonstrably unscrupulous people. The figures in the tables above bear witness to my beliefs.
I'm not quite the anti-gun liberal you take me for, by the way. I fully appreciate the needs of law enforcement to be equipped to tackle the risks that they face daily in the line of duty. But I am anti-death. You point out that in many cases it's criminals killing other criminals, but what proportion of total handgun deaths is that?
Hey, you should have told me you were a cat person. I love cats!
Are you afraid of anything, Lazs? There's something I want to ask you to do, and I bet you dare not do it. It's nothing dangerous, and there is no risk. Just let me know if you think you're afraid of anything, if you're not, I'll ask you.
-
By the way Lasz, don't forget to mention that the homicide statistics cited about the U.S. involving firearms include ALL homicides, even those committed by the police during the performance of their duties, as well as law-abiding citizens who shoot would-be murderers and rapists. In my opinion, those should be separate from those committed by criminals, because they are NOT the same.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Shuckins - you're kidding, right? I thought those killings came under the heading of guns saving lives - LOL!
-
Andijg - you missed two points from your list of liberal questions:
Could the knife wielding guy be Crocodile Dundee? (No mate, that's a knife) If so, no further action required. He's harmless. At worst he only wants to shag your wife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats ironic is the real Crocodile Dundee was killed in a shoot out with the cops he tried to ambush.
-
By the way Lasz, don't forget to mention that the homicide statistics cited about the U.S. involving firearms include ALL homicides, even those committed by the police during the performance of their duties, as well as law-abiding citizens who shoot would-be murderers and rapists. In my opinion, those should be separate from those committed by criminals, because they are NOT the same.
Homicide statistics show unjustifiable homicide.
The figure for 2001 in the US was 13,752, excluding the 11th Sept figures.
It wouldn't make much of a difference if justifiable figures were included, however. The FBI gives the figures as 370 people jsutifiably killed by law enforcement, 215 by private citizens.
US figures are here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm
-
Nashwan,
Touche! There WAS a time when the stats for both categories were combined.
By the way, if you look at the stats closely enough, you'll see that overall firearms homicides are down by 32.7 percent since 1992. Seems homicide statistics have been falling steadily since the 1960s. Renders some of these arguments moot.
Regards, Shuckins
-
"Another question: Am I benefiting from others' gun ownership today? In the US, I come and go and I don't give firearms a second thought. "
No... that was my point about Az. you don't have to. The U.S. has some very violent criminals in it. You are benifieting because no one knows if you are armed or not. Other peoples gun ownership is a deterent that helps you. You are safest in states with the most lax gun laws.
"You often speak of the British as if we do not live in the free world. Apart from the whole guns issue, which as a non-owner doesn't interest me that much, what freedoms do you think you have that we don't have? "
Just off the top of my head... you can't eat or drink in your own cars... You can't have dents in your own cars. Taxation is repression of freedom... people are jailed in your country for not paying taxes on the air waves.... Guys in other groups tell me that it is allmost impossible to have Hot Rods. And... even tho guns are not a big deal to you... they are to me. We thought enough of gun rights to make em the 2nd amendment.. right after that one on free speech.
"I'm not quite the anti-gun liberal you take me for, by the way. I fully appreciate the needs of law enforcement to be equipped to tackle the risks that they face daily in the line of duty. But I am anti-death. You point out that in many cases it's criminals killing other criminals, but what proportion of total handgun deaths is that? "
Anti-death? well... I am for the death penalty. I point out that it is mostly criminals killing other criminals or... criminals killing unarmed citizens.. My guess is about 80-90% Most of the gang bangers being killed by each other is simply a public service.
"Are you afraid of anything, Lazs? There's something I want to ask you to do, and I bet you dare not do it. It's nothing dangerous, and there is no risk. Just let me know if you think you're afraid of anything, if you're not, I'll ask you."
I am afraid of tedium. I am probly cautious and wary about a lot of things... maybe even fearful. Don't like snakes. As I age... different things scare me. Things that used to... don't anymore and vice versa.. No one is unafraid unless it is a birth defect. So ask away... I am not afraid of you asking me anything.
lazs
-
Well Lazs, there are a few small errors...
There's no law against eating or drinking in your car if the car is stopped. But the driver is probably unwise to do that when the car is moving as he needs his hands and eyes for driving. They're trying to ban use of mobile phones in cars, and as far as I'm concerned, that day cannot come quickly enough. I never like eating in cars under any circumstances. I never heard of any law that outlaws dents in cars! Someone has been pulling your pisser, Lazs. ;) There is a strict code governing the state of London taxis - black cabs. The Metropolitan Police can order a black cab off the road if it is too dirty! But what the hey - London has the best taxi drivers in the world. I could catch a cab at Paddington, and simply tell the driver "IBM South Bank, please" - and he would take me to the door of my office- no help needed of any kind. In New York, I had to instruct the driver how to get to the visitors' entrance of the Empire State Building!
We have a TV licence - with a fine for not having one. It's just another way of raising revenue. It's no worse than the practice of many US cities for requiring a "City Sticker".
As you're not afraid, here's all you have to do. You have to hold your cat - hold the cat with its face next to yours, and have someone take a photo of you holding the cat. And then post that photo in this thread. Go on, Lazs. You can probably hit a tin can at 100 yards with your Magnum. And you're capable of posting photos. Can you bring yourself to do that one small thing?
-
Argg Cat people !! Now if EVER there was an arguement for firearms...... :p
Homicide stats are pretty irrelevant to the arguement tho. We are concentrating on actual "proven" deaths. Not those undetermined, nor woundings.
It would be interesting to see gun related stats that cover all aspects of criminal firearm use. Including those by threat, ie; armed Robs, Aggravated Burgs etc.
-
Just off the top of my head... you can't eat or drink in your own cars... You can't have dents in your own cars. Taxation is repression of freedom... people are jailed in your country for not paying taxes on the air waves.... Guys in other groups tell me that it is allmost impossible to have Hot Rods.
As Bett1e said, you can eat and drink in your car. You have to be in proper control of your vehicle whilst driving, that's all.
Incidentally, isn't it illegal in many American states to have an open container of alcohol in the car, even if it's someone else who is drinking it? The federal government is busy forcing all states to ban open alcohol containers.
As to dents, drive round London and you will see an alarming number of cars with dents. There is a law prohibiting dangerous bodywork, but that doesn't mean dents. It means large pieces of jagged metal sticking out that might catch on pedestrians.
The American government restricts freedoms in ways like it's gambling laws.
-
Heh in some states it is illegal to have sex in certain positions :D
-
Nashwan - glad you mentioned gambling, which is illegal in all states except Nevada and Atlantic City, New Jersey. Although there are some pisspot mini casinos which have sprung up in Colorado. But... If four of us were to sit down to a game of Poker and play for money anywhere else in the US, we'd be breaking the law. I remember a case in which some cops arrested some old folks at a retirement home because they were playing cards for money. The other thing in the US is that certain towns, like Park Ridge, IL (suburb of Chicago) are dry! You can't buy alcohol there.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, now I understand your posting technique. You include a hyperlink but also the text as well.
[/b]
Yeah, I always try to post a link for anything I quote. That way the truly interested can read the entire thing in context if they so desire. It's also a small way for me to show that I'm not trying to slant anything; rather I'm interested mostly in the discussion and exchange of views.
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad, I have no interest in distorting the facts, so I was somewhat surprised at your request for the Home Office link to my document.
[/b]
It isn't misrepresentation of data I worry about, it's a virus that makes me hesitate. If you've ever been "suckered" into d/l'ing one, I think you see my position. Easier just to check it out on an "official" site. No offense intended here. I'm just cautious after being burned.
Originally posted by beet1e
Some of those murders may not have involved guns, so no - availability of guns is not the SOLE factor governing the US homicide rate. But given the sheer numbers of people murdered by guns each year in the US, clearly the availability of guns plays a major part.
[/b]
Yes, I understand your view. My question, which hasn't been addressed so far I think, is that the English & Australian bans/ buy backs apparently haven't been successful in reducing the crime rate. So, given your view on guns , how would you explain that? After all, the guns are essentially no longer available, correct?
Bad day today. Will post a bit more tomorrow after I have a chance to review those stats.
BTW, do you routinely smoke tobacco, by any chance?
-
Mr. Toad,
Nice to hear from you again, and sorry you once got burned by a virus. By the way, I have Norton Anti-Virus installed, and it automatically scans all email and files being downloaded – highly recommended.
How do I explain the rise in British crime since the gun buyback? To be absolutely honest, I vaguely recall the gun ban in 1997, but it had absolutely no impact on me or anyone I know because we never had guns in the first place. I don’t want you to think of the issue in terms of it happening in the US where, of course, it would be a much bigger issue. It was certainly not a case of thousands of every day British folk trotting down to the Police station to turn in guns. There were no queues (lines) outside any police stations, and I barely remember any TV coverage allotted to the issue at the time.
As I said, further up in response to Rude, my upbringing was very different from yours. I was brought up in a gun-free environment. There was never any talk about guns of any kind at any time. We did not go pistol shooting with our fathers. One of my distant relatives went game shooting with a shotgun, but that’s about it. A great-uncle had a farm, and he probably had a gun of sorts, but I don’t even know for sure – that’s how much of a non-issue it was. There were no conversations in public or in private, lamenting the fact that guns were not as freely available as in America. My knowledge of guns was limited to anything I saw on TV – Westerns mostly. Of course, in any TV programme as of the mid 1960s which featured crime, there was often a gun or two involved. The opening credits of The Avengers (http://www.cultv.co.uk/avengers.htm) showed Diana Rigg shooting the cork from a champagne bottle held by Patrick Macnee some distance away.
Of course, criminals have long had guns. For petty criminals, the favoured weapon was the sawn off shotgun. I assume the only reason to shorten the barrel was to make the gun more convenient to handle as an offensive weapon, as shortening the barrel is illegal. Hell, I even remember an episode of Dixon of Dock Green (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dixonofdock/dixonofdock.htm) in which a cinema manager was wounded and blinded by a thief with a sawn off shotgun, and that would have been c1960.
So as to the results of the gun buyback, if that’s what we did, there was little to buy back! Certainly not a case of tens of thousands of ordinary people turning in weapons. There has simply never been the kind of weapons proliferation that you have had in the USA. No-one British would ever start a guns thread on the BBS – because guns are simply a non-issue. I think that when you talk about our rise in crime and the 1997 guns ban in the same sentence, you’re alluding to an imaginary situation in which many ordinary people have become defenceless and now fall victim to armed housebreakers and the like, and that is simply not the case. Why is my unarmed home not targeted by armed robbers? Probably because they are unarmed themselves, besides which there are thousands more unarmed houses in the village more opulent than mine.
I spoke to the ex-girlie in New York last night (we have moved on but remain friends). She’s in a position where she knows hundreds or even thousands of people in New York. I was always amazed how we would bump into people all over the city that she knew, and I used to joke that I wanted a list of all the people she did not know on a Starbucks napkin! So last night I asked her if she had ever considered getting a gun for her upper west side apartment. The answer was an emphatic No, and puzzlement at why I should ask such a thing. I asked her if anyone she knew owned a gun, and reeled off a dozen or so names of people we both know, but none has a gun. The New York guy who introduced me to flightsimdom has a brother who's a police officer in VA and has a gun as part of his job, and that’s about it. I also exchanged emails with another Warbirds friend who lives in another large American city and who is very much against guns. I would like to quote what he said right here in this thread, and I’m just in the process of asking his permission to do that, even though I wont be revealing his identity.
As for smoking, at one time I was a light smoker – nothing before 6pm or whenever I got home from work. But when I developed a full understanding of the health problems it causes and the premature deaths that result, I stopped completely. And that was 21 years ago.
-
beetle... anyone who has seen my cats knows that they do not like to be picked up. The holding time required to get them close to my face and focuws and take a picture would cause me bodily harm... Unless that is what you are after?
In any case... in the U.S. (which is what we are talking about after all) the states with the most civilized (lax) gun control are also the safest..
Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms... It can be changed but it hasn't been.
Far more people are saved than killed by firearms in the U.S.
guns are a deterent for tyranny from within and without. I consider your high rates of unoppossed crime... tyranny.
guns are fun.... win win win win win. Never met a gun I didn't like except maybe that jap nambu thing.
lazs
-
OK, I looked at the Home Office Document. It showed:
Homicides
England & Wales(3) '95=745 '96=679 '97=748 '98=750 '99=765
Scotland '95=137 '96=135 '97=95 '98=100 '99=128
So let's see.... Your Firearms Act of 1997 got rid of most (large caliber) of your legally registered handguns and then they got the rest in the '98 Firearms Amendment Act, correct? It also rounded up the newly "illegal" long guns.
So, why then do we see Homicides rise in '98 and '99? In England Wales & Scotland? (it'll be interesting to see the 2000 and 2001 numbers)
A quick peek at Australian Homicides:
Australia, homicide incidents and victim, 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998 (http://www.aic.gov.au/media/990211.html)
These are July to June figures but they'll serve.
'89=306 '90=323 '91=313 '92=331 '93=323 '94=327 '95=303 '96=298 '97=297
As the Austaralian Institute of Criminology said Rates of victimisation from 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998 have remained quite stable
This despite the '96 Port Arthur buy-back/ban.
You (and by extension, Spook) got your wish here. The unwashed legal firearms owners got their guns taken away. Yet.... Homicides increased in England, Wales and Scotland and remained "quite stable" in Australia.
Once again, neither you or Spook seem to address this phenomena.
Despite your "new" gun laws and bans/buy-backs whatever.....
....the number of homicides either went up or remained "quite stable".
Does this suggest anything to you?
-
BTW, Beet1e, that long post really didn't address the question did it?
While you may not have been around guns, estimates of gun owner's in Britain (prior to the bans) were in the 4-5% range by your Home Office I believe. I think, while much smaller than the US numbers, that would still be quite a few folks?
New York has nothing to do with it.
-
Mr. Toad,
Thank you for reading my post, long though it may have seemed. Despite your "new" gun laws and bans/buy-backs whatever.....
....the number of homicides either went up or remained "quite stable".
Does this suggest anything to you?
Yes, it does indeed. Given that after the gun ban, the number of homicides remained quite stable, it is clear that guns made bugger all difference, which is because, as I said in my lengthy post above, we live in a relatively gun-free environment which is why I and many others like me see no reason to possess guns. There will always be a residual amount of crime/homicide, even without guns, and the UK homicide stats shown above are for all homicides, and not just the gun related ones. The gun bans of various countries have been enacted as pre-emptive measures to stop a bad situation from becoming much worse. It is common knowledge here that anything that happens in America has a nasty habit of happening here a few years later. It is better to prevent something that waiting for it to happen and then acting. - Rather like installing anti-virus software on a PC rather than waiting to get zapped by a computer virus, and then reacting, and at the same time getting paranoid about a harmless .PDF file. :rolleyes:
To find out what would happen if there was a US-style mass proliferation of guns in the absence of a gun ban, we only have to look to America itself, where we see the following tally of homicides, with the UK tally in parentheses: - 1995 - 21611 (745)
- 1996 - 19649 (679)
- 1997 - 18210 (748)
- 1998 - 16911 (750)
- 1999 - 15530 (765)
You can do the arithmetic yourself, but the shocking reality is that the US homicide rate is almost twenty-five times that of England and Wales. Still maintain that more guns = safer environment? :( :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:
Oh, and let me pre-empt you from pointing out that those USA murder stats are for all homicides, not just gun homicides, by adding these two points:[list=1]- Most US homicides are committed by either handgun, or another type of gun. The handgun is the most common method.
- The UK homicide stats above tally all types of homicide, not just gun homicide, so it only seems fair to compare like with like.
BTW, Beet1e, that long post really didn't address the question did it?
Maybe not, but this one sure did. New York has nothing to do with it.
It most certainly does. New York City is your most populous city and was once America's murder capital, if not murder capital of the world. Please advise me if there is any other city in the world outside America which has or had a murder rate higher than that of New York in the 1970s/1980s, excluding any that are involved in military conflict. New York City is much safer these days, and is a showcase of correctly deployed resources of law and order.
Now I have a two part question for you: Of all the handguns that were purchased in response to the Al Qa'eda atrocities of Sept. 11th, 2001, how many have been used to eliminate an al qa'eda member, and how many al qa'eda members is that?
Lazs. A few days ago you said it is common knowledge that schools are filled with helpless, unarmed people who can not fight back.... look how good that works out.
I take it you were using this as a justification for having more guns. But how many children were killed in tragedies such as this? And yet when I pointed out the tens of thousands of people who have been killed as a result of your country’s laissez faire proliferation of guns, you dismiss this death toll (more than 200,000 in the last 20 years by handguns alone, total probably closer to half a million) by saying that it seems a pittance in light of all the murders, rapes and assaults that have been prevented. Nothing at all compared to losing freedom
Forgive me for saying, but this seems like a another inconsistent stance from an equally inconsistent person.
By the way, if you had loved your cats properly, they would love to be held. Mine was called Rocky, and he used to sleep on my pillow curled around my head – daft bugger. Maybe the real reason you can’t post that photo is because you’re afraid of tarnishing your macho image?
-
Toad, there is another way to look at the Austrailian stats. Although the law abiding citizens turned in their guns they are being no more victimized then before. I guess that might say something about have a gun being a deterrant to criminals, at least in Australia.
-
The one thing that's always true....
The guy with the gun always wins!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The one thing that's always true....
The guy with the gun always wins!
-SW
What if someone sneaks up on him with a bat? ;)
-
Not if you drop a 500lb bomb on him.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The one thing that's always true....
The guy with the gun always wins!
-SW
-
So let's see.... Your Firearms Act of 1997 got rid of most (large caliber) of your legally registered handguns and then they got the rest in the '98 Firearms Amendment Act, correct? It also rounded up the newly "illegal" long guns.
So, why then do we see Homicides rise in '98 and '99? In England Wales & Scotland?
Guns were not easily available in the UK before, they aren't now. Changing the law that affected a tiny minority of people had no effect on overall crime rates, or on murder in particular.
LEgal handguns in Britain were registered, owned only by people with clean records, had to be kept in secure safes, with the firing pin or other part of the mechanism stored in a seperate location.
The handgun ban in Britain had no effect on crime one way or the other. That's why it was stupid, a cheap publicity stunt by politicians.
There is a big difference between futher gun control in Britain, which had very few firearm crimes, and the US, which has a huge number.
It's rather like banning skiing and climbing to reduce the accident rate. It would have zero effect in the Netherlands, a large effect in Switzerland.
Anyone who tried to extrapolate what would happen in Switzerland based on the Dutch figures would be misguided, to say the least.
-
Sorry, the reason murders went up in the UK:
Fewer policemen, more lenient sentencing, less chance of getting a conviction. The 90s saw the police under constant attack over the quality of evidence in cases from the 70s and 80s, and lots of people being cleared on appeal.
Britain is practically a criminal's paradise, certainly when compared to America.
If the death sentence in America is partly responsible for the fall in the murder rate, combined with the tougher sentencing for other criminals (3 strikes and you're out, etc), then weaker sentencing in Britain is bound to have the opposite effect.
-
beetle... you seem to be saying that the murders in the U.S. would simply stop murdering people if they had a slighty more difficult time in obtaining firearms. Or.. that the number would be reduced by the amount of homicides now being comited with firearms (since firearms would now be illegal and they wouldn't want to break the law whilst commiting murder).
I am saying that all you would do is disarm those who are least likely to commit a murder (the law abiding). I am also saying that without the deterent Of countless firearms in circulation amongst the law abiding we would see a huge increase in rape and robbery and other crimes...... criminals going unopposed like in yur country. I truly believe (and the facts bear me out) that in our country the more lax the gun laws the less crime we have. I also believe that guns prevent more murders than they cause.
What do you feel is the best? Just don't resist? The strong deserve your goods?
I also feel that our government is much more receptive to an armed America but....
I understand the cultural difference... after all... we didn't agree with you guys on government or we wouldn't be here... any independence has been bred out of you guys centuries ago... just like the Japanesse. If any terrorist or serial killing is "copied" in britan it won't be because of the U.S. .. the Uk had the worst serial killer on record (shipman?) and he was a doctor who never owned a gun.
as for my cat(s). I told you the truth. As for my "macho" image... well.... many on these boards have met me... you have not. I doubt that they would agree with you on how I carry myself. I do like the things that men like tho if that is what you meant.
lazs
-
Nashwan: There is a big difference between futher gun control in Britain, which had very few firearm crimes, and the US, which has a huge number.
It's rather like banning skiing and climbing to reduce the accident rate. It would have zero effect in the Netherlands, a large effect in Switzerland.
You are either lying here or ignorant of US conditions. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, assume ignorance and enlighten you.
Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, and Race, 2001 (excluding 9/11) (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-6.xls):
White - 5174 (33.4%)
Black - 5521 (35.6%)
Other - 273
Unknown - 4520 (29.2%)
Assume the "unknown" split among white and black equally - even though IMO more unsolved crime is likely to involve blacks than whites.
Note that hispanics comprise almost 12% of the population but in US govt. statistics are counted as "whites" if criminals but often as "hispanics" if victims - which worsens white stats considerably - but let's pretend that everyone is white here - no hispanics.
So Whites (+hispanics) that comprise 88% of the population totaled ~48% of murderers in 2001 while blacks who comprised 12% of the population totaled ~52% of murderers!
So the rate among whites is really at least 2.5 times lower than the total one for US. I believe that number would be quite in line with those of UK and other european countries!
Whites in USA mostly live separately from blacks - geographically, culturally, etc. So we really have two distinct countries interspersed on US territory - mostly white 1st-world country with non-remarkable statistics despite widespread gun ownership and 3rd-world african country wity typical 3-rd world african violence statistics...
It makes as much sense to limit gun-ownership rights of law-abiding whites because of crimes commited by blacks as it is to screw up Netherlands because of climbing deaths in Switzerland!
Not that I propose to limit gun-ownership of law-abiding blacks either - just want to show you there is not much difference between people in UK and similar people comprising majority of US population despite huge disparity in gun-ownership.
miko
-
Lazs -
I truly believe (and the facts bear me out) that in our country the more lax the gun laws the less crime we have. I also believe that guns prevent more murders than they cause.
That's total bollocks. What do you know about FACTS? The opposite is true! If you would look on page 10 of the Home Office document (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf) you will see a list of 32 countries. The homicide rate is given for each. The USA has the third highest homicide rate in the entire list!!! The USA also has a higher proportion of privately owned guns than any other country on the planet! Geez, Lazs - what more proof do you want! The only countries higher on the list than yours are South Africa (which has seen enormous political problems since the ending of apartheid and a total breakdown of law and order) and Russia.
I've finally figured you out Lazs. I'm ashamed it took me so long, but just as in that last argument we had about AH scores, you are simply blind to statistical data that does not favour your cause or your point of view. Got a problem with the stats? Solve it the Lazs way - pretend the stats are wrong or don't exist! Why not take the easy way as you did with me - and say that the Home Office sucks! LOL :D
The thing is, Lazs, you contradict yourself! You openly admit that you feel as safe in a rough area of London without a gun as you would in a Church hall on bingo night - and yet London has relatively few guns - fewer than where you come from - but then you say that you feel the need for a gun within the confines of your own home in an area which, by your logic, is supposedly safer! Go on Lazs, show us whether you're a man or a mouse. Get that cat picture done. You said that you might suffer grievous bodily harm if you tried to hold your cats - is that because they think you're a mouse? ROFL!
Mr. Toad - I might not have been quite clear on the New York issue. You dismissed my account of crime in New York by saying New York has nothing to do with it.
and I have posted further up why you are wrong on this point. I should add that because New York is your most populous city (18 million, and a higher number of blacks than any other city in the world) that the sort of reduction in crime that New York has seen in recent years is bound to play a significant part in the downward trend of the American crime rate as a whole, given that the population of New York is about 8% of the total population nationwide.
-
Miko, no need to repeat what borders on racism in 2 threads, I've replied in the other one.
Toad, I've tracked down the rules for recording crimes in the UK, and the changes that were made.
Current rules at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/countrules.html
"GENERAL RULE: ONE CRIME FOR EACH PERSON MURDERED
Four bodies are discovered murdered at the same address. Four crimes (class 1).
* Victims injured should be counted in addition to those murdered .
A places a bomb in a public house and warns the police. The bomb explodes
before full evacuation, killing 10 people and wounding a further 15, with the
remaining 4 people escaping unhurt.
Ten crimes of murder (class 1), plus 15 crimes
of wounding (class 5).
* Principal Crime: see also general rules section F & end page of chapter.
A robs a bank and deliberately shoots dead a cashier. One crime of murder (class 1).
A rapes B and causes her death by strangulation. One crime of murder (class 1)."
From the main UK stats I linked to earlier:
"Although Home Office counting rules have brought greater consistency to the recording of crimes in
the 43 police forces of England and Wales, variation still remains. The existence of differences in
recording was illustrated in two recent reports, On the Record (HMIC, 2000) and the Review of
Police Forces Crime Recording Practices (Burrows et al, 2000), and recognised in the Review of
Crime Statistics (Simmons, 2000). As a result of these findings the Association of Chief Police
Officers (ACPO), with the Home Office, developed a new National Crime Recording Standard
(NCRS) which has been adopted across all police forces from 1 April 2002. Copies of the standard
are available on the Home Office web site (at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/countrules.html)."
All these reports I've already linked to:
On The Record
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/otr00.htm
Review of
Police Forces Crime Recording Practices
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors204.pdf
Review of
Crime Statistics
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimprev/review.pdf
None of them have anything approaching the "quote" on that site. Reading through them, it is absolutely clear that crimes were recorded according to the police report at the time, with some being dropped later if complaints were withdrawn. It's 100% clear that crimes were not recorded based on trial outcomes, or even based on wether someone was charged.
The last report goes in to details about why some reports were not recorded as crimes:
"1. In the majority of cases it appeared that the police believed there was not sufficient
evidence that a notifiable offence had occurred. This included incidents where the
parties involved were no longer at the scene, neither the victim nor the offender
disclosed offences, where the offences revealed were not notifiable or genuine errors
had been made by the callers. For example:
A gang of youths causing trouble but no sign of the youths on police arrival.
A neighbour reported a domestic argument, neither the man or woman
involved reported offences and there were no visible injuries to either party.
A caller alleged his girlfriend was wrecking his house. The furniture broken
belonged to the alleged offender and therefore ‘no crime occurred’.
‘Indecent exposure’ turned out to be a local vagrant with torn trousers who had
fallen asleep on the pavement"
"2. No complaint was made, or the police found no complainant. Typical examples
here were:
A caller alleged assault – he had a bleeding nose – and on arrival at the scene
he refused to provide details to the police, and sent them away.
A report of assault was not crimed because the officer reported ‘no allegation
was made.’
3. ‘Advice was given’ to the alleged offender or the offence/offender was otherwise
dealt with.
Male customer reported assaulting security guard. When police arrived no
offences were alleged. Police advised both parties.
A woman reported that her ex-boyfriend was harassing her, the officer passed
the incident to the family safety unit.
Reports of a violent domestic incident, the offender was arrested for breach of
the peace.
4. The allegation was subsequently withdrawn by the person who made it.
A woman reported that her ex-boyfriend had made threats to kill her, but
denied the offences when the police arrived"
It gives examples where mistakes were clearly made:
"In a number of cases the police had clearly made an error in not recording a crime,
or the officer dealt with the matter by recording it in his/her pocket book only. In one
quarter of all the queries submitted to one force as to why incidents were not crimed,
the reply was simply the matter was an “oversight”. In one case, an officer
responded to a query about an assault allegation saying that he would pursue the
matter and “record a detected crime when an arrest had been made”!"
The exclamation mark is in the report. That indicates it wasn't common practice in any way to file reports based on charges, court cases, or anything other than the evidence of wether a crime had been commited. A body with injuries is fairly clear evidence.
I also doubt very much that any murders or suspicious deaths would come under the "oversight" category. It's fairly easy to forget broken window, or ignore a row between two neighbours, but not to "forget" to record a bloodstained body.
Incidentally, every suden or suspicious death has to go before a coroners court, with the policemen involved called to give evidence, so they have to be recorded.
-
It had the highest murder rate with gun control.
It still has gun control the same very strict laws as before.
Crime went down because of changes in the mayors office and in law enforcement.
It had nothing to do with gun laws either way.
Beet1e
You are no more objective then Laz, this is something that for you, nothing presented will change your views.
You might as well stop now.
People like Laz and I will not change our view either, and it is pretty tiresome going around in circles with someone who has no real reason to care. You are not a U.S. citizen, you have no right to come here and influence our laws. You have the right to talk about it tell your pasty and white in the face (oh never mind you are a brit) but I, and I am sure allot of others are tired of the debate as well.
If you do not understand gun owners in the U.S., after all this debate you never will.
-
Beet1e wrote:
That's total bollocks. What do you know about FACTS? The opposite is true! If you would look on page 10 of the Home Office document you will see a list of 32 countries. The homicide rate is given for each. The USA has the third highest homicide rate in the entire list!!! The USA also has a higher proportion of privately owned guns than any other country on the planet! Geez, Lazs - what more proof do you want! The only countries higher on the list than yours are South Africa (which has seen enormous political problems since the ending of apartheid and a total breakdown of law and order) and Russia.
That's an erroneous correlation, not even close to evidence of a causal link between gun ownership and homicide.
I believe that this is a very common mistake made with statistics e.g
Country A has more homicide than Country B
Country B eats less marshmallows than Country A
Marshmallows causes homicide.
or even
State A has more Dolphins than State B
State B has more Mexican Restaurants than State A
Mexican Food kills Dolphins
I'm sure you can think of more amusing examples...
Beet1e, I believe what you're saying is probably right, but that was not a credible argument IMEHO
-
Are you trying to tell us that Americans also have personal issue Marshmellows?
Is this true? Can someone verify the source of this information?
Lemme tell ya about the Buy Back Marshmellow scheme and why it works for us........
-
Bounder - you would have a good point. If we just said
- USA has more guns than any other country
- The death rate amongst young black males in the USA is higher than it is in Europe
- Guns kill more black males in the USA than they do in Europe
then I might say to you "That's an erroneous correlation, not even close to evidence of a causal link between gun ownership and homicide.", and pass the marshmallows. But the difference is that we do have homicide statistics which support what I have said earlier. You might want to look over previous posts, and not just the last one.
GTO - I never said it had anything to do with changes in gun control law. Hell, we know that American gun control laws don't work anyway. You said Crime went down because of changes in the mayors office and in law enforcement.
- and I agree with you entirely. The point is that crime went down because of that, and not because of the proliferation of privately owned guns. You said that "nothing presented will change your views". If you mean that you will never convince me that 1+1 does not = 2, then I agree with you again, though some of the arithmetic needed on the stats is rather more involved than that, so I can see why you're struggling.
-
What if someone sneaks up on him with a bat? ;)
He'd better pray to his God he knocks him da shreck out!
Not if you drop a 500lb bomb on him.
From what? A bomber? That bomber will get shot down by a fighter! With missles or guns, either way it's a high speed projectile!
So there, the guy with the gun always wins... unless you knock him da shreck out.
-SW
-
Beet1e,
Rather like installing anti-virus software on a PC rather than waiting to get zapped by a computer virus, and then reacting, and at the same time getting paranoid about a harmless .PDF file.
Thank you for your supercilious assessement of what happened to me. I'm sure you're well versed in exactly how it happened, how it was all my fault and how I have been traumatized ever since. Obviously, you know everything about me. Except, of course, that I did have an anti-virus program running then. But I appreciate your considerate response nonetheless.
Yes, it does indeed. Given that after the gun ban, the number of homicides remained quite stable, it is clear that guns made bugger all difference, which is because.... we live in a relatively gun-free environment
Well, we agree in part. It is clear that guns made bugger all difference, as you say.
We of course differ in the explanation of why that would be so. You take as faith that it's because you essentially had no guns to begin with.
You certainly had fewer guns than the US population. One estimate that I saw said England & Wales had about 5% gun ownership prior to the ban. Figuring England ~ 50 million and Wales ~ 3 million, that's still a significant number of guns, don't you think? Shall we say 2.5 million or so?
In 1995, some of these approximately 2.5 million killed 745 by your stats. Deaths per gun? .000298
OTOH, in the US in 1995 gun estimates are ~200,000,000; nearly one gun for every person. Those guns killed 21,611 by your stats. Deaths per gun? .000108.
Goodness me! The shocking reality is that the UK "kill rate" per gun was TWICE that of the US!!! Obviously, far fewer of our guns are misused. No wonder you needed the ban!
Aren't statistics fun? Juggle those numbers!
You simply ignore the fact that there has actually been an inverse relationship going on and choose your own conclusion from the many possible situations. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.
To whit:
Look again at those homicide numbers you posted. Note that from '95 to '99 US homicide figures steadily and significantly declined. WITHOUT any bans or buy backs.
Now look at the UK figures. Note that from '95 to '99 they are in decline UNTIL the gun ban goes into effect ('97?) and then they increase.
Ours go down without a gun ban. Yours go up after a gun ban. Post-ban, you were in an even more "gun free" environment. But that didn't help at all; in fact, it seems it hurt.
Yet ours continue to come down.
So do more guns = safer environment? I don't know; your homicide rate went up when you had less guns. So do less guns = more dangerous environment?
which is why I and many others like me see no reason to possess guns.
As you so readily admit, you know next to nothing about guns. You haven't ever used them in their lawful fashion nor do you have relatives that have done so. They are simply not part of your culture. It's not suprising that you feel they have no legitimate purpose.
Here, otoh, they are an integral part of the culture. Contrary to the idea you seem to put forward, of the 220 milliion guns now estimated in the US, a very large percentage of those are used lawfully in pursuits that have long been part of our way of life.
In the last 5 years, Kansas has sold about 95,000 resident hunting licenses a year. Our male population between the ages of 17 and 64 is about 730,000. (No license required under 17 and over 64) Something like 13% of the males in that age group are likely hunters. (Sure, there's some females). "Opening Day" here is a huge social event that generates as many "family reunions" and gatherings of old friends as Thanksgiving or Christmas.
And that doesn't begin to address the huge number of folks that are involved in target shooting that never hunt at all. Rifle, pistol and shotgun; all have many, many target shooting opportunities, competitions and games available.
You may find this all easy to dismiss as it's simply not something you're familiar with. Perhaps that view may well go clear back to the times when all game in England belonged to the King and the penalties for poaching were extreme. That was one of the things our Founders made certain we wouldn't be "subject" to. Here, game belongs to the public. Even deer on a farmer's land are not "his"; they belong to the state, held in public trust.
Nonetheless, we've got lots of guns and lots of legal ways to use them that have long been part of our culture and were never limited to any "upper class".
You say your "gun free" environment accounts for the homicide rate. If that's true, why was it necessary to ban them? After all, you admit guns have "bugger all" to do with it due to the overall low number of guns? So what was gained?
Again, here in the US, we've got more but then we've got fewer deaths per gun than you do (did? hard to figure numbers now since your number of homicides went up after the ban and the number of guns went down) and you say guns have bugger all to do with it anyway. What have we to gain? If our experience is the same as England and Australia, things will get worse.
Why? Because it goes back to the same thing numerous people have pointed out throughout the thread. It isn't the law-abiding civilians that are the problem; and they're the only ones that are going to abide by a ban.
Everyone so far has admitted the criminals will always get their guns; even Spook.
Some continue to ignore the previously posted fact that ~87% of homicides are done by known, previously arrested felons.
Yet everyone admits criminals always have access to guns.
It most certainly does. New York City is your most populous city and was once America's murder capital, if not murder capital of the world..... New York City is much safer these days, and is a showcase of correctly deployed resources of law and order.
True. Now compare it to DC, which has even more restrictive gun laws than NYC. DC still has an incredibly high rate of homicide.
So what's the difference here? It's not the availablity of guns. Anyone who wants a gun in DC or NYC has no trouble procuring one. There have been no mandatory buy backs in either place.
Yet NYC has made major improvements and DC got worse. Again, we agree that it's simply because the criminal elements in NYC cannot operate as freely as they do in DC. Gun laws have nothing to do with it; DC's gun laws were/are the toughest in the nation.
NYC is better than London now, is it not? And, without doubt, there are far more guns in NYC than London. Once again, availability of guns is a non-player. The basic necessity is crime control, reflected again in the data that ~87% of homicides are traced to previously convicted felons.
Now I have a two part question for you: Of all the handguns that were purchased in response to the Al Qa'eda atrocities of Sept. 11th, 2001, how many have been used to eliminate an al qa'eda member, and how many al qa'eda members is that?
How many were purchase in response to the Al Qa'eda atrocities?Do you have a number for that?
How many were purchased for handgun hunting?
How many were purchased for target shooting/competitive league shoots?
How many were purchased for "plinking" tin cans on a Saturday afternoon?
How many were purchased by police officers?
How many were purchased by liquor store owners?
As far as I know, though, no Al's have been shot in the US.
But what does that have to do with the purchase of handguns?
Cya tomorrow.
-
This pollyanna viewpoint that one can legislate the change of a persons heart, causing them to behave in a correct and moral way is a blatant example of folks just kidding themselves.
If you think that by taking away rights from those who obey the laws is a just means to an end, where does this method stop and by who's great wisdom is it metered out?
-
beetle... It is you who don't understand numbers. In the U.S..... the states that have the most lax gun laws also have the least crime. A state that had high crime rates that then goes to more lax guns (more guns in the hands of citizens) enjoys a DROP in crime. States that enact more restrictive gun laws show an increase in crime. Do yourself a favor and read John Lotts "more guns less crime" It is well researched and so far... undispuded so far as facts. I will buy it for you if you are willing to read it.
I am not arguing that there are more violent criminals in the U.S. than in other countries. Freedom sometimes allows criminals to operate more freely too I suppose. I am willing to pay the price but.... I like to have an advantage or at least parity with the criminal. I see no advantage in having them armed and me not. or... I see no advantage to them unarmed and my grandmother unarmed also.
In London... Well... I can take care of myself. I was with a friend who can take care of himself. I, of course, would have felt safer with my little Walther but.... I stayed in the crowds. If I lived in london I would want to oppose force with equal or greater force.. As I grow older and more frail... It becomes more important.
lazs
-
Mr. Toad,
I trust you had a good night’s sleep, and awake refreshed to continue our debate. :) Seems like we’re the only two contenders left...
I should apologise for that virus remark, even if apology is a sign of weakness in some cultures. Given the circumstances of our discussion, the analogy did seem rather apt, and was just lying there, begging to be used! :D I know how frustrating it can be to get a computer virus. I had to spend a whole afternoon ridding my brother’s PC of the Klez-H virus a few months ago because his daughters had not kept the definitions up to date. :mad: Sorry you got zapped. Just get Norton, but keep the virus definitions up to date!
Ah yes, I thought you might latch on to the part where I said that guns made bugger all difference. I wondered whether to couch it in slightly different terms, but I thought you might like that one – not just a hook, but a hook with a 12oz fillet steak on the end of it. :) One estimate that I saw said England & Wales had about 5% gun ownership prior to the ban. Figuring England ~ 50 million and Wales ~ 3 million, that's still a significant number of guns, don't you think? Shall we say 2.5 million or so?
I’d be interested to see the official source of that data. So no, we shall not say 2½ million guns till we can substantiate it. I can put my hand on my heart and say that I’ve NEVER run into anyone in this country who owns a gun of any kind, except shotguns for hunting purposes, and very few of those. 5% seems way to high. If I had been called upon to give a finger in the air figure, I might have said 50,000 guns, not 2½ million. I will look into this...
But I loved your manipulation of the stats – deaths per gun – LOL! Priceless. :D I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it once more: Mr. Toad, you should have been a politician. Your talents are wasted in any other field! Clearly the problem in Britain is not that we have too many guns; we don’t have enough deaths! hehe, I need to remind you that the homicide tally for the years 1995-99 as shown above is for all homicides, not just gun homicides. That, plus my belief that gun ownership was much less than 5% even before the ban skews the figures completely. But in any case, I think you would agree that your example was very tongue in cheek, otherwise I could solve the gun problem myself: Make a law that says all citizens must purchase 50 guns. Criminals are exempt because they can get as many guns as they like anyway. And wheyhey! Deaths per gun fall by ~98%! Mr. Toad for US President! :) You simply ignore the fact that there has actually been an inverse relationship going on and choose your own conclusion from the many possible situations. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.
Contrary to the idea you seem to put forward, of the 220 milliion guns now estimated in the US, a very large percentage of those are used lawfully in pursuits that have long been part of our way of life.
A man can only commit a finite number of murders in a day, and unless he’s Clint Eastwood, he’s unlikely to be killing people with more than one gun at a time. LOL! 220 million guns? That’s almost one for every man, woman child, baby, terminally ill cancer patient, infirm retiree, prisoner, anti-gun liberal, and one legged vegetarian lesbian! You can play with stats all you like, but the fact remains that you have one of the highest homicide rates in the industrialised, civilised world. Your deaths per gun stat is a nonsense barely meriting a reply. But consider this. You have 220 million guns. Let’s focus on handguns because both here and there, there are hunting rifles and shotguns used for sporting/game shooting purposes. Let’s suppose we got rid of ALL handguns in the USA - except one. That one remaining handgun is to be left with a avacadohead – a well balanced person with a chip on both shoulders. And one day he decides to go on a killing spree. What is it, eight rounds that an automatic holds? So he kills seven people, and then kills himself. Shock horror! That’s a death per gun rate of 8! Never mind that the weapon is confiscated by (unarmed) police so that no further handgun homicides are possible for that year and that the annual handgun homicide tally is a mere 8, we have an appalling situation of EIGHT deaths from one gun! But fear not! Mr. Toad has the answer! Churn out 220 million guns and hand them out like McDonalds game cards, and the problem is solved! People can go about their daily business of killing people as usual, and there will be many thousands of handgun deaths in the US as a result. But Oh! That doesn’t matter, because at least the deaths per gun figure has been reduced from 8 to .000108. :rolleyes: Mr. Toad, you might be able to gull most of your potential electorate with your over contrived arguments, but you won’t fool me. Were your argument to be anything other than patently absurd, I might have been mildly offended that you had even tried.
But why don’t we try this idea for improving road safety: Let’s remove all Interstate and US Highway speed limits, double the speed limits on state roads and raise the speed limit on urban streets to 60mph. That way, people will be able to get where they’re going much faster. Sure, there will be more accidents and road deaths, but the death rate expressed as a proportion of total car miles travelled within a given space of time will go down. Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense! :eek::rolleyes:
But at least your manipulation of the stats has shown that the arbitrary value of “deaths per gun”, besides being utterly meaningless in terms of total gun homicides, actually increases as the number of guns decreases. And that’s because, as I’ve said all along, that the vast majority of privately owned guns in America are not needed and are never used at all. I never needed a gun when I lived in California, but many people believe they do.
I would rather see a society that had a smaller total of gun homicides, than an outrageously high number in the thousands, even if the deaths per gun statistic is higher. And THAT is the issue on which your educated voters will want to focus, Mr. Toad.
This latest wall-0-words needs to be split. Part two will be in the next post.
-
The homicide rate in England & Wales has remained fairly static. Any fluctuations are too small to be taken into account. The “best” and worst tally for the years 1995-1999 differ by only 86. For the last three years in which stats are available, 1997-1999, that fluctuation is a mere 17 – too small to be interpreted as an overall trend. Hey, I could fit that many into my living room, and I live in a small house. I honestly don’t know how many of these were gun homicides, but I suspect they were a minority. Your Bureau of Justice gives a breakdown of that in the charts I displayed above, but the Home Office document does not. The American handgun death toll has declined, but the rate of decline is levelling off. In the years 1997-1999 the rate of decline was less than 1000 per year, and in some categories of homicide there were small increases, but these were blips, and just like the British blips are so small that they need to be discounted.
You say your "gun free" environment accounts for the homicide rate. If that's true, why was it necessary to ban them? After all, you admit guns have "bugger all" to do with it due to the overall low number of guns? So what was gained?
As previously stated, the gun ban was a pre-emptive measure. The government was faced with a dilemma. For the second time in our recent history, a man had gone berserk with a gun and committed mass murder. Now I know that a few dozen or even several hundred gun deaths means nothing in American society – Lazs has even dismissed many thousands of deaths as “a pittance” in the overall crime picture. But here in Britain, we are unaccustomed to such atrocities, and clearly the government was obligated to act. If I may just come back to the topic of computer viruses just for one moment, I’ve never had a virus infect my PC, so why do I bother paying for anti virus software? And the answer is that there have been attempts to send me viruses, none of which has succeeded, thanks to my pre-emptive action. However, no attempt has ever been made to break into any of my homes, here or in the US. So do I gain anything by insuring my house contents? Yes. I sleep better when I’m away from home.
Mr. Toad, I am slightly time constrained today, but I would like to respond to a couple of other points. I mentioned New York City as a showcase of correctly deployed law enforcement, and you responded by saying True. Now compare it to DC, which has even more restrictive gun laws than NYC. DC still has an incredibly high rate of homicide.
So what's the difference here? It's not the availability of guns. Anyone who wants a gun in DC or NYC has no trouble procuring one. There have been no mandatory buy backs in either place.
And the difference, Mr. Toad, is that the office of City Mayor has a pivotal bearing on the fortunes of large cities like New York and Washington. Rudi Giuliani was an outstanding Mayor. We were so impressed with him that the Queen gave him a knighthood. In the face of the Twin Towers tragedy, followed soon afterwards by a plane crash in Queens, Giuliani performed admirably. He understood what New York needed, and took great steps to see that it was delivered.
Now compare that with Washington. Who did we see holding Mayoral office in the 1990s? A crackhead and alcoholic! That’s right, folks. Marion Barry, the mayor of America’s capital city was caught smoking crack cocaine in a hotel room 1990, and subsequently convicted on a misdemeanour drug charge – LOL! And that’s not the funny part. The really funny part is that he got re-elected in 1994! LOL! And that makes me ask two things: What were the other people like who ran for Mayoral Office to get beaten by a crackhead – I mean how bad can they have been? And secondly, what were the other people like that worked in City Hall?
Sorry, Mr. Toad, you lost that one. Admittedly, Washington has a deplorable crime rate. But when you have a city of that magnitude, run by crackheads/alcoholics, what do you expect? And what do you make of an electorate that goes and re-elects a guy like that?
The last point concerns my two part question about the increase in gun ownership in the US following Sept 11th 2001. I asked you a two part question, but all you have done is to respond by asking a further seven questions. This sidestepping of my question(s) has not been lost on me. [By the way, did you know that in Britain (and possibly the US(?)) when a suspect refuses to answer police questions by responding “No comment”, the Court is entitled to make its own inferences in the absence of plausible replies.] It was reported here that gun purchases surged in the US after Sept 11th 2001 in response to the tragic events of that day. If I may for one moment bestow upon myself the privileges enjoyed by a UK Court when questions have not elicited satisfactory answers, I will draw my own inferences: America panicked. I know, it was a horrible day and people couldn’t think straight. But off go John and Jane, hand in hand, down to the local gun store. Yeah right, like that’s going to solve anything :rolleyes: But oh, you did give half an answer to part two of my two part question: As far as I know, though, no Al's have been shot in the US.
Oh, well there’s a big surprise. What, no-one from al qa’eda bothered to call on John and Jane? Funny that...
OK, Mr. Toad. There are already more than 2000 bricks in this latest wall-0-words, and I have to go out soon. But before I go, I will just leave you with the email that I received from an old Warbirds friend who lives in a large American city.
Bye for now. Same time tomorrow?
You guessed right. I'm not a gun owner. I'm not a big
fan of the NRA (National Rifle Association), either.
But I'm sure you'll find a majority of Warbirders over
here would fit in the "pro-gun" category. Goes with
the "fighter pilot mentality" and the "pro-military,
patriotic" mindset.
It's all rooted in our past history, really. Our
Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear
arms, but when it was written, you HAD to have a gun:
for food, for hunting, to protect yourself against
"frontier elements". Also, if you check the wording of
that, the Constitution establishes the right to a
well-armed *militia*. We have a military now to do
that, whereas when it was written, we didn't. Also,
the idea is if the people are armed, then the
government can simply declare some form of
unrepresentative government and control the (unarmed)
people. Also, if we'd had no guns, we wouldn't have
been able to overthrow British rule, either.
These days, our food comes to us on trucks, and there
is no frontier left. And, if there ever WAS a coup
that involved the entire military, with the weapons
they have, I doubt there's much any of us could do,
anyway, guns or no. So, to me, the whole "guns rights"
thing is roadkill. A good idea for the 18th century,
but hopelessly antiquated today.
Then, there's the issue of how many guns are "out
there" now; the idea being you can't close Pandora's
box now, because if you take away all the guns from
law-abiding citizens, then only criminals and cops
would have guns...and the general population would be
all but powerless to stop crime (the police being
already overworked and in some cases, outgunned by
criminals sporting AK-47s, Mac10s and other "gats").
There might be something to that, but we gotta start
*somewhere*.
There's no easy answer to the gun problem, but it does
seem to be an American-indigenous problem. People
still long for that "wild west" kind of lifestyle,
with showdowns at high noon (pause for dramatic
tobacco spit to one side). I recall a filmmaker (a
rather talented satire filmmaker whose forte is
"holding the mirror up" for idiots to see themselves
in) last week talking about his new film, "Bowling for
Columbine" talking about how many gun-related deaths
we have vs. the rest of the "civilized" nations. It's
mind-boggling. I'm going to go see his movie and check
out some of the points he makes.
Interesting, really. I'm "anti-gun" but VERY pro-death
penalty. I truly feel that there are some people who
have done things so heinous as not to be worthy to
breathe the same air as the rest of us. And I don't
like the idea of paying for their stay in prison,
waiting for the day that the laws "soften up" enough
to allow him a loophole to win his freedom.
-
I will no longer waste time with you.
You are the one who only sees what he want's to see. Why don't you take Laz up on his offer for the book?
I doubt you will, you already know it all.
I am done with you on the other hand.
Insulting me cause I do not agree with you is pretty immature.
If you mean that you will never convince me that 1+1 does not = 2, then I agree with you again, though some of the arithmetic needed on the stats is rather more involved than that, so I can see why you're struggling.
If you can't make your point without insulting people your not worth talking to.
It is funny you still do not see how this works. The is like religion, both sides believe so much, that changing their views is going to be almost impossible. I am sure no mater how many facts you are shown you will still go on believing how you want to.
-
GTO - you're right.
Sorry, that was a bit below the belt. I didn't mean to be insulting, just mild banter. Sorry it sounded like it did and upset you. I was equally indelicate with Mr. Toad about the computer virus he had. I get very fired up on boards like this, and sometimes have a bit of a mean streak.
I can tell that you, and Lazs - and Mr. Toad, are sincere in your beliefs, just as I'm sincere about mine. Yes, I will read the book that Lazs suggested. I welcome any new material. I have a little more to add, but will let Mr. Toad take his turn.
-
Mr. Toad,
I'm sorry to be taking another turn on the soapbox before you have replied, but I have at last found a Government document that gives a breakdown of homicides in England & Wales involving firearms, and those not involving firearms.
The URL is http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf
I've had a quick browse, and see that of the 748 homicides in England & Wales for 1997, only about 8% of these homicides involved firearms. That is to say, only 59 people were shot by any kind of gun compared with the US total of 12337 for the same period. The report goes on to mention that homicides involving firearms have declined in recent years. There's also a significant amount of data on the United States in that document.
The 59 gun related homicides in England and Wales in 1997 compares with a total of 12337 in the US for the same period, ie more than 209 times the England & Wales total!
Hehe, that makes a right buggery-suet of some of your stats. :D
Your "deaths per gun" figure of 0.000108, in its current form, needs to be revised to 0.00000864! But then again, we don't yet know for sure the total number of guns in Britain, and that method of reckoning is bollocks anyway. Still looking...
Oh yes, and you might want to revisit the effect of the new gun laws in Australia.
http://www.iansa.org/documents/research/2000/aussie_guns.htm
The above report indicates that a "Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws". Within the report, it is stated that "There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
I'm going to retire for the evening now. I have a feeling I shall sleep well. :D
I leave you with a reproduction of Page 18 of the newly discovered Home Office report.
Toodle-pip, as they say in Whitehall. ;)
-
Short stuff first:
Nahswan, don't these lines from the Home Office report linked in Sir Beet1e's post make it sound like there was a reporting change of the type we originally discussed?
...However, because the statistics relate to the
crime as originally discovered, rather than the offence for which a person may be finally brought to court or convicted, they are subject to revision. Nor do the initial recorded statistics contain a great deal of detail concerning the offence (or of course the unknown offender).
2. One victim, one crime?
‘Counting rules’ have been adopted to standardise the crime statistics recorded across forces. The old counting rules have been in place since 1980 and state that only the most
The Home Office counting rules were revised in 1998, partly in an attempt to measure one crime per victim in more cases (and more closely equate BCS results with recorded
crime). Clearly this will increase recorded crime levels, and the net effect has provisionally been estimated by police forces to be an increase of around 20% in recorded crime from next year4. However, the main impact will be on the fraud, theft, and criminal
damage categories. For homicide, the new rules should make little difference, apart from a switch to recording on a financial year basis. The latest recorded crime statistics for the year to March 1998, released in October 1998, were the last under the old counting rules.
-
Sir Beet1e,
Yes, as you say, you are indeed indelicate and insulting. I'd have to agree with you there. See, we seem to be agreeing more often!
Actually, I'm thinking it was you that took the offered bait.
After seeing you try to float this stinkbait by
but the shocking reality is that the US homicide rate is almost twenty-five times that of England and Wales
when you know all too well that /100,000 population is the UN and International Standard used for comparison. You've used this standard for homicide comparison in this thread, in fact. So, you knew when you wrote that bit that you were twisting the stats like a pretzel maker.
I decided to see how'd you'd react to an equally incorrect use of stats. I wasn't disappointed. You chomped right down on "deaths per gun". :)
Now, I'd like a bit of justification for this statement of yours, if you will.
And that’s because, as I’ve said all along, that the vast majority of privately owned guns in America are not needed and are never used at all.
Please, do tell. How did you determine that th "vast majority" are not needed and never used at all? Given your vast experience with firearms and deep involvement in the "gun culture" of the US during your extensive visit,[/sarcasm] I'm sure you have data to support this irrefutable quote?
I'd suggest to you that many folks that have guns have significantly more than one. Particularly those that hunt and or shoot competitively or just for relaxation. For example, a Trap shotgun is totally unlike a Skeet shotgun in stock dimensions and barrel length. A person that likes clay bird shooting is quite likely to have specific shotguns for each game. That's an example that merely scratches the tip of an iceberg. Like a golfer, a shooter is likely to have many similar but different tools in his bag to play his game.
So, where's the support for that sweeping generalization?
As previously stated, the gun ban was a pre-emptive measure
Well, yes, of course. Even one life is too much to sacrifice, right? The pleasure of hunting and shooting are meaningless measured against that, right?
So, tell me, how are the efforts to ban smoking and the direct deaths and indirect "second hand smoke" deaths going over there? After all, smoking is a pastime that is simply antiquated today, don't you think?
And after that, you can go to work on all the things in life that are pleasurable to others that you find no longer necessary in these modern times. Motorcycles spring to mind; hopelessly antiquated as modern, safe transportation, it's time to round them up, crush them down and melt them into reusable coat hangers, don't you agree?
[Before you jump to conclusions, I've never smoked and I don't own a motorcycle. But I respect the rights of other folks to find their legal pleasures where they will.]
I could go on, but I think you see the point. There are numerous inanimate items that cause death in any society. Many of those things are far more efficient killers than guns. Yet apparently you're willing to tolerate that loss of life as lamentable but necessary?
How many folks are done in by alcohol in the UK each year? Either by disease or Driving While Intoxicated? Any move to ban all alcohol over there?
You see no need for guns and are therfore totally blinded and intolerant.
Those of us who use guns lawfully are most likely never going to agree with you and those like you for this simple reason. We know guns can be used lawfully in ways that enhance our lives and our enjoyment of life. We also know that the intolerant will never be satisfied with anything less than banning and confiscation. If ever one doubted it, they need only to read your posts.
I can see areas of gun licensing and registration in the US that might be improved. However, I also know we sportsmen face many such people as yourself. Totally biased, your ilk will never be satisfied. Therefore, we're left with no choice but to oppose at every turn, for there can be no rational solution when we're dealing with totally irrational people. And so the struggle continues.
Fortunately, we do have the 2nd Amendment. It's as hopelessly antiquated today as the 1st Amendment. I'm thankful every day for men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. And a large majority of our State Constitutions have an Amendement in their Bills of Rights that pretty much mirror the Federal Constitution's Second. You are aware that the States themselves can limit gun rights within the individual State? You knew that right? So voters do have choices beyond revision of the Federal Constitution. So far, few States have seen any need.
Now to your contention that it is solely the Mayor that determines the crime rate of a city. Do you really want to claim that as your own? You're saying that if Giuliani was Mayor of DC he could "work his majic" and "hey, Presto!" DC would become a safe city? Do a little research on the DC crime rates throughout the decades from the 60's on. Some pretty fine men were Mayor during those times.
Once again you choose to ignore the obvious: Both DC and NYC indisputably have plenty of guns to go around. So it isn't availability of guns that makes the difference. Suprise, Suprise! Guns are once again not really a determining factor. Boy, that's a repeated theme, isn't it?
DC is much "softer on crime" than NYC. Much as London is "softer on crime than" than NYC. Yet the very folks that allow this "soft on crime" attitude to prevail in their cities....... argue the loudest for gun controls. NYC proves "soft on crime" isn't the answer though.. while it is held up as the example. Gotta laugh there, eh?
Oh, and that electorate in DC that has failed to impress you with their discerning wisdom in choice of candidates? Check and see how that area voted for President in 2000. Check and see how the House and Senate races went in 2000 and 2002. Same discerning folks that voted for that Mayor, you know. That electorate generally votes for pro-gun control candidates. And the Mayor you so deeply admire. Now there's something to ponder. :D
By any chance does your "old Warbirds friend" live in an Eastern or West Coast large American city?
Does he hunt or participate in any shooting sports? I'm willing to wager he doesn't. So, once again, it's simply a biased viewpoint.
A bit like someone who doesn't own a motorcycle saying "Let 'em drive Volvos. Motorcycles are just too dangerous."
-
Anyone have any stats on guns used for recreation (hunting, ranges etc.) vs guns that are not?
Ie., for every 100,000 guns, how many of those were bought and are used for recreation? (prolly pretty hard to dig up a reliable stat for this... but ya never know).
-
Originally posted by beet1e
only about 8% of these homicides involved firearms. That is to say, only 59 people were shot by any kind of gun compared with the US total of 12337 for the same period. The report goes on to mention that homicides involving firearms have declined in recent years.
Yes, indeed. Quite so! It was declining in the years prior to the ban. The "recent years" in this paper that includes stats up to '97. Let's wait and see how '98-'01 show out? After all.. prior to '97.. the recent years in this report.. there WAS NO BAN! ;)
I remember that you said
Now I know that a few dozen or even several hundred gun deaths means nothing in American society – Lazs has even dismissed many thousands of deaths as “a pittance” in the overall crime picture. But here in Britain, we are unaccustomed to such atrocities, and clearly the government was obligated to act.
So, if you're government is obligated to act when roughly 60 peoples lives are snuffed out with firearms, what will it do when 200+ humans are "cut" down before their time?
B. Homicide involving firearms
While the most common method of killing in 1997 was with a sharp instrument (just under a third of offences),
And homicide offenses totaled 650 in 1997. Now Sir Beet1e I know a concerned caring human like you (so unlike that dastardly Laz) is deeply moved by tragedy like this.
So what are you doing to ban sharp instruments? Cod knows sharp instruments are hopelessly antiquated in these modern times.
Australians:
Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force.
So, the reported decrease occurred while the laws were being put into effect. Good-o! Now let's see what happens in '99-'00 before we break out the champagne. Why?
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."...1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997
Can it be possible that criminals (because I doubt the law-abiders ever figured much into the stats) are switching to edged weapons? After all, Scotland has experience a huge increase in edged-weapon homicides after the ban. 30% decrease in firearms is a good thing... if it can be shown that it's due to the ban... but it's clear that other means of homicide were substitued resulting in a 9% decrease overall.
Don't misunderstand. Any decrease is good; I think it's a bit premature to decide the ban was the sole reason. After all, we achieved nearly the same results in the "all homicides" area without any of Australia's severe restrictions on law-abiding citizens
US Data: WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1981-1998 (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate9.html)
Firearms Homicides
1997 13,252
1998 11,798
A decline of 1454 or ~ 11% in Firearms Homicides and
All Homicides
1997 19,491
1998 17,893
A decline of 1598 or ~ 8%
So, without banning or buying back any guns we essentially equaled Australia's percentage reduction in total homicides. Once again, it looks like guns are not the key factor. Or are you going to make the case that it is far better to be chopped to death with an axe than shot with a pistol?
As I said, "good-o" to Australia. They did a gnat's whisker (statistically) better than we did. Of course, we did it without spending tons of money, banning guns or denying the average joe the simple, unrestricted pleasures of sport shooting.
I'm going to retire for the evening now. I have a feeling I shall sleep well. :D
Toodle-pip. :D
-
So, tell me, how are the efforts to ban smoking and the direct deaths and indirect "second hand smoke" deaths going over there? After all, smoking is a pastime that is simply antiquated today, don't you think?
And after that, you can go to work on all the things in life that are pleasurable to others that you find no longer necessary in these modern times. Motorcycles spring to mind; hopelessly antiquated as modern, safe transportation, it's time to round them up, crush them down and melt them into reusable coat hangers, don't you agree?
DEATH TO TOAD!
-
Relax, Easymo.
This is America. I don't want a Nanny government any more than you do.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Just give the rest of a fair chance not to breathe it when you do.
Cycles? Hey, it's your choice. Drive what you like. Like what you drive. Don't worry about what the other guy drives. It's life!
;)
-
Nahswan, don't these lines from the Home Office report linked in Sir Beet1e's post make it sound like there was a reporting change of the type we originally discussed?
There certainly was a recording change. It didn't have much, if any, effect on homicide figures.
What that site you linked to said was homicides are only recorded if someone is convicted, which is clearly untrue, under the old rules or the new.
-
Good morning, Mr. Toad. I have just finished reading your posts, and most enjoyable reading they were too. A trifle unwise of me to drink coffee at the same time, however, but I exercised good self control. :D
I didn’t mean to offend you with any of my material, but please try to see it from my position. I’ve got my arse up against the wall in this thread. I’ve got you and Lazs and GTO all bearing down on me, but in some situations I function best when everyone’s against me! So please don’t be offended. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate thus far and I hope you have too. We're both a couple of mass debaters, but which one of us will prove to be the master baiter? LOL
I’ve quoted all the stats that needed to be quoted. I’d like to keep this post rather more brief than previous ones but I would like to answer some of your points.
Mr. Toad, my beef about firearms has never been about sporting rifles, shotguns for hunting purposes, and target shooting with pistols. We have gun clubs here where one can do all that, and even old Sir Beet1e can go and buy a shotgun. (Thanks for the knighthood, by the way) My main beef has always been about handguns, the favoured instrument of homicide in the US. I know there are many thousands of law abiding US citizens who own them, and many thousands who do not. My presence in this thread came as a result of the direct invitation in the thread title – time for the anti-gun lobby to put their money where there mouth is. There then followed some captions designed to poke fun at those people who do not believe in guns the way you do. You have been at pains to point out why you should have a gun or guns, and others advance all kinds of hypotheses about what would happen if they found an intruder in their home – talk of “skewering the bastard”, and all kinds of machismo crap. Some gun owners claim to be better citizens in view of their gun ownership. Indeed, raww of AGW - instigator of the captions posted by ripsnort, is one of them. You guys are entitled to your point(s) of view, and I and millions like me are entitled to ours. Some people are clearly irked that I can participate in a gun debate or other debate that involves the US, and that’s their hard cheddar. Carrying a gun might give you an advantage on the outside, but it wont do you much good in here, where we are all equal.
I do think it’s likely that many people buy and own a handgun because the law allows it, and for no other reason. To find out how many of the guns in circulation are fired on a regular basis, we would have to consider the number of guns and reconcile this against sales of ammunition and membership at firing ranges. But 220,000,000 guns? I’d best get myself into the shooting range business!
I’m not proposing to ban motorcycles! They too result in many deaths. But motorcycles, like many inanimate objects to be found in our society, have a legitimate purpose other than killing people. But guns have only one purpose – to kill. Yes I know – waaah-waaah-waah target practice waaah-waaah...
As a freelance consultant, I used to visit the offices of many different corporate clients. Since about 1990, virtually all office buildings have become smoke free and many do not even have a designated smoking area – hence all the studmuffin ends around the entrance doors. :( Social drinking is enjoyed by many, myself included. I had two glasses of red wine last night as I prepared that last post. :)
hehe, I rose to your death/guns bait, but seems like I got you with the Washington DC crackhead business. You didn’t think I knew about that, did you? Be very careful. I know your country rather well – better than you know mine. I never said that it was the City Mayor that solely determines crime in a city. Don’t misquote me. I said he/she plays a pivotal role. In the case of New York, it was also Police Chief Bratton who deployed his officers on the streets, and Giuliani created the conditions in which he could do it. I’ve said more than once in this thread that New York is much safer than it was before. And I’ve also said, more than once, that this is due to the deployment of many more police (not more privately owned guns), and a crackdown on quality of life crimes which led to a reduction of overall crime. Seems like the only crackdown they had in DC was into Marion Barry’s lungs. That’s all I have to say about New York and DC. :D
Enough of stats. I’ve seen all I need to see. Gun homicides are 200 times higher in the US than they are here. Or if you prefer it on a per 100,000 basis, 50 times higher than here. Twist ‘em, massage ‘em, use different coloured inks – the facts remain the same.
My WB friend lives in a large city on the west coast. A person doesn’t need to hunt or participate in shooting sports to hold an unbiased opinion about guns, just as one does not have to be a smoker to appreciate the health hazards of smoking.
Funny that you should mention motorcycles and Volvos in the same sentence. My father would not allow me to have a motorcycle when I became of age – too dangerous. Hehe, Dad owned a Volvo at the time!
Should we ban motorcycles? Well maybe we should. Indeed, coat hangers would seem a most worthy substitute. In the state of Delaware, they have already initiated a motorcycle ban, but without provision for recycling – hoho, excuse that pun. I leave you with this photo, taken outside the Delaware apartment of a friend of mine. :D
-
Motorcycles only kill the rider if hes stupid enough to kill himself. Wanna know what to ban, ban those dam SUVs and way to big 4x4 truck HUMV things. People who drive those things are a step away from killing others. I see it almost every other day on the road. They drive with little or no respect for the safety of others around them because they are in a tank.
-
Nashwan,
Got a reply from the fellow that put up the website and the quote I pasted on crime recording methods.
The correspondent who claimed the police compiled murder statistics is wrong from a number of points. Homicide statistics are collated by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate and not the police. They collate the statistics on the basis of convictions and only those cases where a conviction is obtained for one of three crimes: murder, manslaughter or infanticide. The source of this information was originally the Home Office and a Japanese study that attempted to take nationally produced statistics and process them to a uniform standard - I have a reference to the originals somewhere but as you can appreciate my home has been turned upside down lately and it may take some time to find it again. The Home Office RSD have their own website and you can download a lot of their reports in PDF format. URL is somewhere in my links section.
To suggest that the police are responsible shows considerable ignorance of the subject. The British Police are fragmented into a number of forces that act more or less independently. To compile statistics in the manner suggested would allow even more bias to creep in; i.e. different forces would approach the collection and collation differently. This is one of the reasons for the Home Office RSD; the independent collation and collection of crime statistics.
If you are to simply compare crime stats from one country to another it is fraught with difficulties. In addition to the above example in the UK there is an offence of causing death through dangerous driving. In other countries this would be classed as homicide but not in the UK. Some countries (e.g. Switzerland) quote statistics as a comination of homicide and attempted homicide.
The effect that this can have is shown quite starkly if you compare England & Wales with Scotland. Scotland has its own judicial system quite separate and distinct from the rest of the UK and as a result compiles its statistics differently. If you compare the raw figures the Scottish homicide rate is approximately twice that of the UK, however, the only real difference is that the way in which the figures are put together.
In the US, the FBI collates crime statistics in the form of Uniform Crime Reports or UCR. They are compiled in the manner suggested by your correspondent, hence my comments about comparing homicide between the UK and the US.
I hope you find this information useful. I did try the form you suggested but it was down when I tried.
Regards,
Dave Brundle
Comments?
-
Senna,
Sorry, old chum.
As you know, gun suicides go into the gun homicide column and overall homicide as well.
So, you motorcycle chaps will just have to give up your 'cycles. Simply too dangerous. Even if only to yourself. And I'm sure we can dig up some stats showing motorcycles have killed innocent bystanders. And motorcycle deaths all count towards the vehicular total slaughter. We must get this vehicle death toll down; one life is too much to give simply for the freedom of wind in your hair and bugs in your teeth.
The nanny government has spoken; submit to nanny. There's a good lad.
-
My Dear Sir Beet1e,
Don't want you to think I've forgotten you. Just another busy day though. Nashwan and Senna are easy posts; yours will take a bit of time I suspect.
Making a "Beet1e Beverage Free Zone" around the computer desk today took a bit of time but was well worth it. Even my son reading over my shoulder didn't manage to reach the screen with nose-coffee while reading your post. So, so far so good.
Then there was quite a bit of clay target shooting today as the pheasant season opens Saturday. Still some discussion on which gun to take as the main "pheasant iron". The Field Grade Over/Under or the Semi-Auto? Which one truly fits best and points most naturally? The O/U won out, but the research was time consuming. It's much more a work of art and a thing of beauty, too... so a good choice.
Then we will be on the road tomorrow afternoon. I will try to squeeze in a reply but I can't truly promise anything. My apologies in advance if I don't get it done because there's some truly interesting spoor to follow in your post.
BTW, do real adults over there actually say "toodle-pip?"
Adios, my friend.
-
geeze beetle... ur getting yur butt kicked... Try to stay with us.. Guns are multi purpose.. you can kill with em or use em for deterence... you can admire them for their mechanical and artistic beauty... you can enjoy shooting them for hunting, defense, target shooting or just plain plinkng at cans or whatever to relieve tension from a boring or stressful week. You can simply handle them and admire them for their beauty and historical significance.
Do people abuse them? well... yeah but they abouse power tools too. They abuse automobiles and motorcycles and alcohol and laws don't stop the abuse.
The deaths (and I don't count suicide) from firearms are a pitance compared to the deaths caused by other means. A lot of the deaths by firearms are by people who are (gasp) trying to kill someone. The firearms are incidental... They would commit the murder in any case.
Accidents? firearms accidents are a pittance. certainly compared to say swimming (do we need to swim?).. or hiking (which kills the poor rescue workers too) or rock climbing or any of a number of things. Motorcylcles? who needs em? they cost more than ccars and are useless today... Ban em and save lives?
I would put to you that the real paranoids are the gun ban crowd.. they are being shielded by the deterance value of the gun but with very little danger to themselves.
It is unwise to ban or outlaw things that you have no interest in and sets a bad precedence. I'm sure that you would not find a ban on hiking to "save lives" to be worthwhile... oh wait...yer british... you like any ban. so long as the government says it's ok.
lazs
-
Lazs - we've covered all this earlier in the thread. Do try to keep up!
-
We certainly have covered all these things but you still don't get it. U still claim that guns have only one purpose and that they are too dangerous to be allowed to exist except under prohibitively repressive restrictions.
I could understand you not getting it if you had spent your entire life on that crowded little island where even the streets are claustrophobic but... you have seen our country. You understand how long it would take police to respond to our country homes and how.... a person who enjoyed the historic, fun sp[ort of plinking or target shooting could do so (and do every day) simply by driving or in some cases, right out their back porch.
Your quote from the "home office" is telling... why should they care? Obviously they have no idea what they are talking about yet they still feel a duty to meddle in another countries bussines. One can only conclude that they bothered to lie at all because they had an agenda. I believe that agenda has to do with making sure that their subjects never enjoy the freedom that the U.S. has.
Perhaps our murder rate could be reduced if we had all the same laws and education and history and immigration and controls and economy as yours.. I don't know. I do know that If that were the case then it is too high a price to pay. Our gun laws work for our political and economic climate as do yours. I have never gone onto a british site and told entered a debate on further restrictions of firearms in limey land.
lazs
-
Alas, Sir Beet1e, there's too much work today to sit down and do a lengthy reply. Plus, I'm off to the Glorious 9th today, the archaic festival that opens the upland bird season in Kansas. Last year over 110,000 folks particpated. Not bad for an ancient festival.
I do promise to reply in detail when I return. There's just so much of interest in your latest open-minded diatribes.
For instance, in your new thread you say:
America has something in the order of 200 times the number of gun-related homicides that we have in the UK. Even allowing for our smaller population, it's still 50 times the British rate.
Perhaps so; I didn't check your numbers. Nonetheless, the last figures I recall for Homicide Rate per 100,000 (which is the statistic used for a true comparison) show the US ~6.8, England/Scotland ~1.5 and Scotland ~ 1.7.
So, while our guns deaths far exceed yours (no question) it is also obvious to the most casual observer that with an "end result" ~5 times difference in the overall homicide rate, you English, Welsh and Scots have put out an impressive, incredible effort to close the gap using other weapons. Particularly those "sharp instruments", eh?
I know, with your concern over the loss of even ONE life that you're working hard to get those nasty things banned. After all, firearms account for less than a tenth your homicides while "sharp instruments" are nearly one-third. Surely you're focusing on that as the true threat? Ban those "sharp instruments post haste!
What was that last increase (2000?) in Scottish homicide? Something like 20%? And almost all with edged weapons? Good show, lads! Ban the Butter Knife!
Not to mention the differences in charting the stats. I'll have to check out this latest rumor:
in the UK there is an offence of causing death through dangerous driving. In other countries this would be classed as homicide but not in the UK
.
Perhaps you folks are doing your very best to make yourselves look better? Nah, politicians in the Home Office wouldn't do that, would they?
All for now... off to load the guns, dogs and ammo. Enjoy your new thread until I return.
Adios, My Friend.
-
The correspondent who claimed the police compiled murder statistics is wrong from a number of points. Homicide statistics are collated by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate and not the police. They collate the statistics on the basis of convictions and only those cases where a conviction is obtained for one of three crimes: murder, manslaughter or infanticide.
I can't be bothered searching throught the previous posts for the exact wording, but it's pretty obvious the police record the events, the Home Office adds the figures up and publishes them.
His claim that statistics are based only on convictions flies in the face of everything the Home Office reports say.
However, I've found this report which makes it clear he's wrong:
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-00.htm
"4.1 Homicide includes the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. (Terms used in the chapter are explained in Appendix 2, paragraphs 16-20). At the time of writing, court proceedings were stillp ending in 44 per cent of the offences initially recorded as homicide in 1999/00. The outcome may result in some offences being reclassified when final data is available, for example where it is concluded that death was accidental. More complete figures from recent years are a better guide to the outcome of cases initially recorded as homicide."
"4.3 Table 4.2 shows how deaths initially recorded as homicides are eventually recorded. Of the 761 offences first recorded during 1999/00, 33 were no longer recorded as homicides by 11 September 2000 when recording closed down for the purpose of the analysis in this chapter. Court proceedings had resulted in findings of guilt in respect of 199 victims and proceedings were pending for a further 338. The suspects responsible for the deaths of 34 victims had committed suicide or died. No suspects had been identified in relation to 116 victims (including 18 cases where all suspects were acquitted)."
"4.4 Taking as a guide the more complete figures for the past six years (1993-1998/99), around 14 per cent of deaths initially recorded as homicides in 1999/00 may be reclassified. For the rest, about two thirds will result in conviction, and there will be no suspect for around 10 per cent. For 8 per cent, court proceedings will not be initiated, for example because the suspect died or committed suicide, or will be conclded without conviction or acquittal."
Appendix 2:
"18. Where an offence is initially recorded by the police as homicide, it remains so classified unless the police or the courts decide later that no offence of homicide took place."
Not that a particular person did or did not commit the act, but the act itself did not happen. ie self defence, accident etc.
Look at this chart:
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t4-2.htm
Note that the figures used to compare with the US are the "initially recorded" ones, not those reclassified when new info becomes available.
Note also the figures for 1993, chosen bbecause it's the last year for which no court proceedings are pending.
675 homicides were initially recorded.
109 are currently no longer recorded as homicide. (ever seen the British figure given as 566 homicides in 1994? Neither have I)
566 still regarded as homicide.
According to Brundle (and Newsmax), that must mean 566 convictions, right?
In fact, there were 461 convictions for murder, manslaughter and infanticide, and 1 person was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
4 people died awaiting trial, 30 killed themselves, 9 suspects had their cases thrown out of court, 23 suspects were aquitted, and in the other 38 cases they haven't got any suspects, or not enough evidence to bring charges.
The 2001 figures can be found at http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm53/5312/crimestats.pdf
They show 846 homicides in the UK in 2000/2001
Before you point to the huge increase, it was largely down to the deaths of 58 Chinese immigrants who suffocated in the back of a lorry as they were being smuggled through customs at Dover. The US figures for 2001 exclude the murders of approx 3000 people on September 11th.
By Oct 11th, 28 of those Homicides had been reclassified and removed from the figures, reducing the total to 818. 131 cases had resulted in guilty verdicts, cases were pending for another 498.
Now if Brundle was right, the official figures for England and Wales would be 131 homicides for 2000/2001. Ever seen it claimed England and Wales had 131 homicides in 2000/2001?
In other words, he's wrong on 2 counts.
1. The final homicide figures are not based on convictions, or even court proceedings, but on initial reccordings and reclassification as futher evidence comes to light.
2. The final figures are rarely if ever used for comparisons anyway, because they take too long to come out. For a more recent year, only about 5% of cases have been reclassified. If the figures were really compiled as he claims, 199 homicides would have been recorded in England and Wales in 1999/2000, because by the end of 2000, that's how many cases had resulted in convictions.
To suggest that the police are responsible shows considerable ignorance of the subject. The British Police are fragmented into a number of forces that act more or less independently. To compile statistics in the manner suggested would allow even more bias to creep in; i.e. different forces would approach the collection and collation differently. This is one of the reasons for the Home Office RSD; the independent collation and collection of crime statistics.
I thought we'd already established that that used to happen, with lots of crimes going unrecorded. That's why there are so many guidelines for exactly what circumstances crimes have to be recorded, and how they should be classified.
Certainly crime figures are "collated" and "collected" centrally, but the recording is done by the individual police forces.
Mind you, I'm only basing this on the reports from the Home Office, HM Inspector of Constabulary etc, whereas he has a Japanese report ;)
In addition to the above example in the UK there is an offence of causing death through dangerous driving. In other countries this would be classed as homicide but not in the UK.
I thought at first he was simply wrong, now it seems he's been deliberately misleading.
The FBI figures for the US specifically state "non-negligent homicide". ie, deaths caused by negligence are not included. Looking at the FBI breakdown of homicides, cars are not listed.
Homicide by negligence would pretty much cover causing death by dangerous driving, so it's excluded from the US figures too.
Just to illustrate the point, about 10% of all fatal accidents in the UK are recorded as death by dangerous driving.
The US has around 30,000 people killed a year in traffic accidents. If the same 10% figure is used, that would be 3000 people listed as killed by cars. In fact, the FBI show just over 1,200 people killed by "other weapons" and unkown weapons.
There's one point he has missed out: UK figures include "involuntary manslaughter", which is similar (not the same) as "negligent manslaghter", which the US figures exclude.
-
Lazs -
Your quote from the "home office" is telling... why should they care? Obviously they have no idea what they are talking about yet they still feel a duty to meddle in another countries bussines. One can only conclude that they bothered to lie at all because they had an agenda.
LOL Lazs! I know you refuse to believe the AH scoreboard when it doesn't suit you, but now what's this: The Home Office guys are liars?!!
Mr. Toad - Wow! The Glorious Ninth... We have a day like that - 12th August, which we know as the Glorious Twelfth. Kansas, you say? That's one of the nine states to which I have never been.
Looks like Nashwan has taken care of a few of your points, so you're going to have your work cut out when you get back. I'm sort of entertaining this weekend - again, so take care, have fun, hopefully you'll take a few pics that you can post here.
All the best -
Sir Beet1e.
PS - Toodle-Pip! ;)
-
beat1e, you won't be saying "toodle pip" when one of your killer Engligh squirrels, knowing you are unarmed, grabs ahold of your testicles. Then you will be begging for the right to protect yourself..."tootle pip" indeed....
-
LOL airhead! Our squirrels are very timid. I can never get near one. However, I was once in Sacramento,CA - not far from where Lazs lives, where NOTHING is allowed to be timid - and was feeding nuts to the squirrels on the lawns opposite City Hall. Those guys were so tame! One of them climbed up my body, hung from my shirt and looked me in the eye. I held up a peanut which it took, then ran down my body and over to the nearest tree!
I seem to have got a lot of people going with this Toodle-Pip thing - LOL! :D
-
You actually tried to hand feed one of our squirrles??? I can't wait till you visit.... I will ask you to pick up one of my cats. You sound like you will be a lot of fun to be around. Ever pet one of our badgers?
I say that your home office has no idea what goes on im my country and to even bother getting into it (with quotes such as you make) is obviously the work of an entity with an agenda. Here in the U.S we take it as faith that our government and press allways have an agenda.. To think otherwise seems..... naive.
airhead wanted to be more like the british but finding out that "toodle pip" did not save his testicle he now goes armed in the park in order to hopefully save the remaining one. The squirlls know he is armed and give him a wide berth.
lazs
-
(http://www.beerlovercam.com/images/redneck/Warning.jpg)
-
Hi Lazs!
Yes, those squirrels opposite Sacramento City Hall. Tamest things I ever knew. Here in Britain we used to have red squirrels, but they got killed off by the grey ones. I don't know if any red squirrels still exist. I couldn't get over how that one squirrel hung from my shirt, and when he could not reach the nut in my hand, he looked me right in the eye as if to say "well, are you going to give it to me or not?"
The only badger I've ever seen is a dead badger. Plenty live around here, but I never see them till they've been hit by a car and killed. Where I live is largely surrounded by farms - semi-rural. I say that your home office has no idea what goes on im my country and to even bother getting into it (with quotes such as you make) is obviously the work of an entity with an agenda. Here in the U.S we take it as faith that our government and press allways have an agenda.. To think otherwise seems..... naive.
Erm... I do believe our respective govts. talk to eachother? T Blair has a red phone hotline to Dubya. If you'd said the same thing of newspapers I would agree with you, but earlier you said you don't watch TV news or read the papers much. And I don't blame you because I think you can get better news analysis in the US by surfing the web. Having lived in both countries, I can tell you that newspapers often don't understand the living culture of another country, and make a right buggery-suet of the reporting. BUT... that works both ways, and reports about Britain in US "newspapers" were often total bollocks. The USA Today is the only paper you guys have that's worth paying for.
I leave you with a picture of a marmott!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
New York City is your most populous city and was once America's murder capital, if not murder capital of the world. Please advise me if there is any other city in the world outside America which has or had a murder rate higher than that of New York in the 1970s/1980s, excluding any that are involved in military conflict.
LOL the mind boggles at some of the things people come out with. I know this is an ANCIENT thread but came across it while browsing on Google!
*New York, USA = 2,245 murders (1990 - Pop. 7.3million)*
Sao Paulo, Brazil = 11,924 murders (1999 - Pop. 17.3million)
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil = 6,810 murders (1989 - Pop. 9.6million)
Medellin, Colombia = 6,804 murders (1992 - Pop. 2.2million)
Johannesburg, South Africa = 5,677 murders (1994 - Pop. 6.0million)
Bogota, Colombia = 4,352 murders (1993 - Pop. 5.3million)
Durban, South Africa = 2,969 murders (1994 - Pop. 2.7million)
Cali, Colombia = 2,763 murders (1993 - Pop. 1.7million)
Recife, Brazil = 2,752 murders (2001 - Pop. 3.3million)
Cape Town, South Africa = 2,541 murders (2002 - Pop. 3.0million)
I sure hope this guy has changed some of his views since. The amount of people who believe New York or America was the murder capital of the world beggars belief. Actually it may have been (or certain parts) in the late 70's/early 80's, but certainly not the late 80's/early 90's in the midst of the crack cocaine explosion.
Drug-related violence and addiction tore apart the big Colombian cities and Rio during this period, despite recieving a small fraction of the coverage that US cities garner (in fact Colombian cities are almost completely ignored in this respect. The media preferring to concentrate on the drug cartel and terrorist violence, rather than the street-level urban homicides which make up by far the biggest proportion of murders in the country).
-
Originally posted by Toad
Would you please post the homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland for each year since the ban?
It doubled from 1998 to 2002 - that's the gun homicide rate (England + Wales). I really don't see what banning guns does to take them out of the hands of criminals.
-
Why reply to a post started in 2002?
-
The number (not rate, the population is increasing) of firearms homicides in England and Wales:
1993 - 71
1994 - 63
1995 - 66
1996 - 47
1997 - 58
1997/98 - 52
1998/99 - 46
1999/00 - 61
2000/01 - 72
2001/02 - 97
2002/03 - 77
2003/04 - 73
2004/05 - 60
That's only a doubling if you take the lowest figure and compare it with the highest. Overall, allowing for yearly flucutations (because there is such a small number, the flucuations are quite large) the number is the same, the rate is down (because of population growth)
-
Originally posted by texace
But see...if that happened in school...we all know that the parents of this screwed up child wouldn't be blamed. Games like GTA or Counter-Strike would be...cause we all know it's not the poor little child's fault...
Duh! Guns don't kill people, kids who play video games do.
ack-ack
-
so nashwan... at the very best... your law only took firearms away from law abiding citizens and created new laws against them for....
no reason at all.
The increase in both crime and homicides is real... the only difference is... you have made the good people helpless and the government more powerfull.
not the kind of outcome I would wish for our country
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dummy
The amount of people who believe New York or America was the murder capital of the world beggars belief. Actually it may have been (or certain parts) in the late 70's/early 80's [/u]but certainly not the late 80's/early 90's in the midst of the crack cocaine explosion.
Originally posted by beet1e
Please advise me if there is any other city in the world outside America which has or had a murder rate higher than that of New York in the 1970s/1980s...
So you actually agree with him then?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
So you actually agree with him then?
I don't. I didn't look up the numbers but I doubt that all of the murders from 1970 to 1989 in New York City combined even come close to this: http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/014/287.htm
-
Fair enough Lukster, I wouldn't know the answer. I just thought it funny that he was attacking an argument he apparently agrees with. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
feel threatened when many of you live in smart middle class neighbourhoods.
If you live in a mostly white middle class area, chances are much greater you'll live near a serial killer... FYI.
Did nobody see what happened after rained in New Orleans?.. even in the safe middle class areas? The total breakdown of the Govt at every level, no more hired guns from the Govt to help you because the so called 'officials' proved to be totally incompetent.
How about the 92 summer games (shoot, loot, run) in Los Angeles? hundreds of thousands left to defend themselves as we sat at a bus depot waiting for some City leader to make a decision... gee, more incompetence from those responsible for protecting 'you'... which is why I choose to protect myself.
It's really a simple matter, for some folks like me, of wanting to live & protect my family without needing anyones help. I have chosen guns because they will work when the phones & 'officials' don't.
People get 'fat dumb & happy' because 99% of the time everything is fine.. but even in the USA, we are all 1 natural / civil disaster away from being left totally hung out to dry.
It's not about dooms day or some religious nuttiness, its about being prepared and not relying on the Govt to save my families life.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Santa,
What makes you think I attend church? I've never posted my personal religious feelings on this board, I've only posted that the religious types are the first to be blasted in posts.
As far as my religious beliefs, you can email me and I'll give them to you...I don't feel comfortable posting them on this BBS, too much venom.
Now you know how a librul feels:D
-
Originally posted by tapakeg
Why reply to a post started in 2002?
I haven't seen anything in the rules that stops me from doing so.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
So you actually agree with him then?
Are you looking for an argument?? Gee there's some petty people on here. Agreeing with what? I have no idea what you're referring to. The guy was asking for cities that have or have had higher murder rates than New York. I gave him the information with the peak murder statistics for all those cities (Including NY), no more, no less.
-
amen marine
just had UPS drop off 120lbs of ammo
-
Originally posted by Dummy
Are you looking for an argument??
Not really.
It amused me that you jumped on what beet1e suggested about New York being the murder capital of the world in the '70s/'80s when in the same post you implied that he might be right.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
amen marine
just had UPS drop off 120lbs of ammo
I wanted to add, in 6 years as a cop responding to 1000's of calls for service minus any disaster / riot, I can count on 1 hand the number of times I got somewhere in time to keep something horrific from happening.
As a matter of fact, we were near totally useless in preventing violent felonies... we just responded to them.
Most of the time, the police simply will not make it in time and it's up to you to be the 1st line of defence, not just for yourself, but your loved ones. You don't need a gun, a smart plan could be your best defence.. but plans fail and things go wrong leaving only you, the criminal and your loved ones until the police arrive.
I personally choose to be my own 1st line of defence, if a burglar is already in my house... the police have already failed to protect me once. It's not my style to wait for them to fail again when my loved ones could be in danger. A cop 4 miles away driving to my house does my wife in the same room no good.
It's a fantastic thing that as Americans, we can choose do that... if you choose to let the govt hired guns protect you & yours, thats your option & opinion, just be happy you have a choice.
-
"New York City is your most populous city and was once America's murder capital"
Thats because its the most populous city, and not the per-capita rate. You cant compare it to a city of 500,000 people when NY has 7 million. Most countries biggest cities are also their "murder capital", like up here in Toronto, it has the "most crime", because its the largest city, but that doesn't mean there are not more dangerous places or neighborhoods to live in, compared to its population (4.5 million).
I come from a small town (5000) and I know of a few places you can go hang out and be in a lot more danger than the average joe in Toronto.
-
I remember back in '96' when the Patriots were playing the Packers in the superbowl(superdome), there was an article in the local paper about New Orleans. They described the neighborhoods around the city and how rough they were, they averaged something like 1.2 murders a day(over 400 for the year I believe)
-
beetle consistent still today, can't resist a thread with the word "gun" or "firearm" in it.
-
Originally posted by Dummy
Then clearly you either have trouble with your reading comprehension skills or you're trying to be a smartass.Let me simplify it for you. He didn't think there was a city which "has" or "had" a higher murder rate than NY in the 70's or 80's. In fact he got the worst year wrong for New York as that was 1990.
So when you posted:
Actually it may have been (or certain parts) in the late 70's/early 80's
Were you agreeing with Beet1e or not? Also, doesn't the 1990 figure you cite above further contradict the above-quoted statement?
If you're original post was incorrect or didn't say what you meant it to say then just say that.
P.S Welcome back. ;)
-
Dummy, see Rule #13.