Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on December 07, 2002, 07:28:20 AM
-
OK, Beetle, now that I have you in here, I'll answer you first. I'm sure Nashwan will be along shortly when he tips to the thread title.
The "official" stats show that our gun homicides and "knife" homicides are both higher than yours So undoubtedly our rate per 100,000 of each is higher than that respective rate in E/W/S.
A bit slanted of you to address only the gross number of homicides, isn't it? I mean you're totally ignoring the "correction" that almost every country has adopted to correlate the stats to population. The old "rate per 100,00 of population"? You aren't rally comparing apples to apples at all are you? Rather obvious attempt to twist the stats, I'd say, old boy.
I certainly would not deny that the US has a higher rate of homicide per 100,000 population than UK/Wales/Scotland. It's on the order of 3X higher here in the US, isn't it?
Did I say 3X? Why, that's almost the multiplier that applies to the difference in UK gun and "sharp instrument" homicides. "Sharp instruments" kill 3X as many of your citizens as guns do.
And while you're so caustically critical of the US homicide rate being 3X that of E/W/S, you just ignore the same huge disparity between your own gun and "sharp instrument" homicide rate?
My goodness. If I have a plank in my eye.... the other end of it must be in yours!
Let me know when you get blunt instrument rates per 100,000 for the US and for E/W/S. Then we can have an unslanted discussion on it. Perhaps it's time that we both register/license/ban/confiscate golf clubs?
Be careful cutting that roast beef..........
Oh, for the topic of your after dinner discussion may I propose: "Why the US has a higher homicide rate per 100,000 than England in any comparison of any "instrument used" category?
-
.
-
Nashwan,
First of all, I hope you're not confusing all of Lazs arguments with mine. The mail should get to the proper person, no?
Nashwan: If you can't come up with a sensible way of banning sharp objects, it's because no-one can.
[/b]
So, "sharp object" homicides are acceptable losses then?
Because sharp instruments, unlike say guns, cannot be registered/licensed/restricted/banned/confiscated?
So, no matter how many die from "sharp instruments" society just has to accept it because SOME people find knives absolutely necessary.
When was the first iron knife created roughly? How did folks get along before that?
Humans have been using sharp objects for the past million years or so.
Ah. So a patina of age confers the societal "immunity necklace" upon a murder weapon then?
As I said before, everybody here owns and uses sharp objects on a daily basis. Most do not own or use guns regulary.
Wait..... it's not age? It's just general ownership and use that confer the "immunity necklace"? Over here, according to gun ownership stats, the overwhelming majority of us own guns. So, guns would get the "immunity necklace" here?
Guns are also far more lethal than knives. In America, where guns are (almost) freely available, guns are used for several times as many murders as knives are, despite the fact there are many times as many knives in use.
And in E/W/S, where "sharp instruments" are freely available, sharp instruments are used for several times... 3X, in fact... as many murders as guns.
And in Canada, which has nearly as many guns per capita (if not more than) the US and an uncountable number of "sharp instruments" the homicide rates for guns or sharp instruments are lower than BOTH the US and E/W/S.
So, maybe it's not the inanimate objects, eh?
Many countries have banned or severly restricted guns, non have banned knives. That's because it isn't practical, and your joke suggestion remains just that, a joke.
Look a little closer. The two major countries E/W/S and Australia that have banned guns have seen no statistically significant drop in their gun homicide rate. They have, however, seen a rise in their "sharp instrument" homicide rates.
Now there's a joke for you. An extremely cruel joke, particularly on the taxpayers who funded that wasted effort.
At the same time, without bans/confiscation, firearms homicide rates have dropped very significantly in the US, along with our "sharp instrument" homicide rate.
Once again it would seem that blaming inanimate objects themselves are NOT the way to affect homicide rates.
Lose control of your anger with you fists and you are likely to hurt someone. Lose control of your anger with a gun and you are likely to kill them.
In the bad old days before Sam Colt, what happened when the big, mean bully started whaling away on the little milquetoast? "Beaten to death" is a phrase that entered our language because it was a useful, meaningful description.
So, you want to go back to the old days? Where big folks can beat the doodah out of little folks? Because there sure aren't enough cops anywhere to stop it.
Are you seriously saying you wouldn't be more concerned if you got in to an argument and the man pulled a gun on you, rather than simply put up his fists?
Sure. And if you stop and think about E/W/S, just as many guns are being pulled as were pulled before the ban. Same story in Australia; the rates haven't really changed.
So, again, my point is..... the bans don't work. Further, look at Pongo's thread. Look at all that money spent to register with little or nothing successfully accomplished. Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail".
So, isn't there a more effective way to use that money to combat crime? You and I both know there is. What Canada is doing, what E/W/S and Australia did is an incredible waste of resources. Yet you would propose we waste our money like you fine folks did?
If you want to defend yourself and your family, why do you need a gun, as according to your theory a knife or rock is just as effective a weapon?
No, that's not my theory. That's you misreading what I said.
What I said and what I still say is that it is not the inanimate objects. Man has been killing man since the dawn of time for essentially the same reasons that feature in homicide today, Greed, jealousy, etc.
Canada has far more guns than E/W/S and probably as many per capita as the US. Their firearms rate is the lowest of the three.
E/W/S and Australia took the ban/confiscate route; their homicide rates are essentially unchanged, before and after.
It's not the inanimate object; it's man himself.
-
Is this the BBS equivalent of those people who walk around the streets talking into their mobile phone headsets? Or is it more like the BBS version of those other people who walk around the streets talking like they have mobile phone headsets... but don't. I am perplexed.
-
Obviously.
You don't even have a signature block.
-
Another obvious point is that there are 2 million concealed carry permit holders and none of them have commited an unlawful homicide.. the states that have the highest incidence of concealed carry permit holders have the lowest crime rates and,,, I bet they have the lowest "sharp instrument" homicide rates. More guns less crime... Canada has more guns ans less crime than either of us. With their new laws tho... when the criminals realize that the government is trying to disarm the citizens.. that will go up I betcha.
lazs
-
Toad, I am growing concerned with your obvious need to look more sophisticated and suave and matronly- I mean, telling other countries how they're screwing up and how they should run their countries? What are you... British? ;)
-
I did a search on all threads - beet1e or beetle or beatle.
Rather obvious attempt to twist the stats, I'd say, old boy.
LOL! I have an excellent Mentor in the stats twisting department. :)
As Nashwan has been at pains to point out, we cannot live without sharp instruments, and neither can you.
The tally of homicides apportioned into the different methods that were employed, and a comparison between those proportions has no bearing on the overall homicide rate of another country. It's much simpler. Homicides are in direct proportion to the ease with which they can be committed, which includes the availability and effectiveness of the instrument to be used, whether that be a sharp knife or a gun. More guns = more shootings = more crime. If there were no guns, no-one would be shot. You have lots of gun crime because of the guns free for all which exists in the US. Pray tell me by what stretch of insanity was a gun permit granted to a man who later shot another man for taking a cold beer! Another one I heard was the case of a man who shot his neighbour for splashing his newly cleaned car while using a garden hose. I'm sure it happens hundreds of times a year. :rolleyes:
But I digress. We are talking about sharp objects, and as Nashwan pointed out, about a third of homicides here involve sharp objects. The figure Nashwan gave was 254. That compares with more than 2000 a year in the US, or a US/UK sharp object homicide ratio of 8-1. Factor in the per/100,000 population calculation, and the US sharp instrument homicide rate is clearly double that of the UK.
-
So out of a country of 265 million people you want to zero in on a man that shot someone over a beer. Oh.
You choose not to get it, I suppose, that people will kill regardless. Gun, meat cleaver, knife... it doesn't matter. That man was dead as soon as he grabbed that fellow's last cold one not because the crazy guy had a gun, but because he was... crazy.
Now if I apply your logic, you guys should outlaw squirrels, because Lord knows what one squirrel can do if allowed to roam free. I mean, how many of your citizens really need squirrels, anyway? It might even force some brutish octagenarian to brandish an outlawed and deadly BBgun to end such a reign of terror... and how would you feel to know you were personally responsible for the lawless behaviour (notice the cool British "u" in "behavior"?) of grandpa? Perish the thought.
-
What exactly do you mean by a 'permitted" gun owner? I consider that to bea concealed carry
carry a permit... so do state and local governments... neither of these guys had concealed carry permits. I would also say that a rate of double is not to bad considering that your people are behaving very badly for being stuck on a little tiny island with no chance (or very litte)of escape once they commit a homicide..
More guns equals less crime... here and in Canada which is much more representitive than some dinky little island with a bunch of nanny ruled wussies. There is a book with that title (more guns less crime) I suggested that you read it it... Have you?
knives could indeed be regulated and are quite frequently... look at airlines... people seem to be able to eat quite well without em on airlines... look at prisons no (legal) knives there to eat with but no starving prisoners... really.... what do you use a knife for? why couldn't you just have eateries hold your knives... heck... red meat isn't any good for you anyway and what with mad cow and all.... you would probly double the homicide savings by simply not allowing private ownership of knives in the uk....
I bet you can't carry a bowie knife strapped to your hip in london... Bet you allready have a lot of "sharp instrument" laws.. it just seems that yu are not "permitting" the right people.. What do you really need a knife for? why would you need anything but a very thin bladed knife with about a 3" serrated blade? You don't need all the "assult knives" you have in your kitchen right now unless you are some kinda perv who equates the length of his knife with that of his noodle..
lazs
-
More guns = more shootings = more crime.
Actually Beet1e you are very wrong..at least regarding the US.
I will find the link to be sure, but in the last 5 years or so, Americans gun ownership increased by at least 50 million guns, yet during the same period, ALL violent crime went down with the exception of rape ( up .68%). Murders, Shootings, Attempted Murder, etc. all dropped significantly
So it could be said that more guns equates to less murder/crime in the US
Crime including murder is further down in EVERY state that has a concealed carry law.
In fact , some countries have less restrictive gun laws than the US and some have far more restrictive laws. All told, there has never been a proven correlation between guns laws and murder rate that I have seen.
What was the murder and violent crime rate in the UK throughout it's pre-ban history? ( I'm asking, I don't know the figures)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
As Nashwan has been at pains to point out, we cannot live without sharp instruments, and neither can you.
[/b]
So, these are "acceptable losses" to you? Some deaths are acceptable, given the convenience sharp instruments offer to some of society?
The tally of homicides apportioned into the different methods that were employed, and a comparison between those proportions has no bearing on the overall homicide rate of another country.
Indeed. So why do you continue to focus on totals rather than rates?
Homicides are in direct proportion to the ease with which they can be committed, which includes the availability and effectiveness of the instrument to be used, whether that be a sharp knife or a gun. More guns = more shootings = more crime.
I see. Then please explain the Canadian Conundrum. They have more guns than you folks and ...... less crime and homicide. In fact, their gun ownership stats are much more akin to those in the US than they are to E/W/S.
Beyond that, your own Home Office and the Australian Governmental statisticians clearly state that after the bans, firearms homicide rates remain "very stable". So, the bans have had no effect.
the US sharp instrument homicide rate is clearly double that of the UK.
Haven't seen anyone argue contrary to that. The question is, since the E/W/S sharp instrument homicide rate is 3X that of it's firearms homicide rate, why are you more concerned with US problems than your own?
That plank in my eye has it's other end in your eye it seems.
Where's your plan for reducing sharp instrument homicide in the UK? To paraphrase: More sharp instruments = more sharp instrument homicides = more crime. If there were no sharp instruments, no-one would be cut. Does that sound silly to you? It does to me, too.
-
Another obvious point is that there are 2 million concealed carry permit holders and none of them have commited an unlawful homicide
Wrong. Try Jamie Cokes, for one. He had CCW permit, and went out looking for a man who had shot him previously. He didn't find him, but did shoot and kill another man.
William Manies, serving 26 years for going back and murdering the boss who had fired him. He was also under investigation for threatening to shoot another driver in a road rage incident a few weeks before he comitted the murder.
Clay Wallace, who shot and killed his friend after an argument over a new sewage system escalated into a fist fight.
There are many more. Don't believe everything you read on gun lobby sites.
So, "sharp object" homicides are acceptable losses then?
Of course they aren't acceptable.
Because sharp instruments, unlike say guns, cannot be registered/licensed/restricted/banned/confiscated?
So, no matter how many die from "sharp instruments" society just has to accept it because SOME people find knives absolutely necessary
Some? Everybody does. Tell you what, I won't use a gun for the next year if you agree not to use a knife for the next year. Deal?
Ah. So a patina of age confers the societal "immunity necklace" upon a murder weapon then?
No, it just shows how necessary knives are. Man invented the knife long before he became modern man.
Wait..... it's not age? It's just general ownership and use that confer the "immunity necklace"? Over here, according to gun ownership stats, the overwhelming majority of us own guns. So, guns would get the "immunity necklace" here?
No, it's necessity. Knives are necessary, guns are not, for the vast majority of people.
I'd estimate about 8,000 murders a year would be prevented in the US if guns are banned. I know you won't accept that, but tell me how many murders you think is an acceptable price for your right to own a gun? If it was 8,000, would you think that fair enough? 4,000? What if it went up to 12,000, or 20,000?
What if it was only 1, but that one was your wife or child? Below the belt, I know, but it' still a valid question.
If you don't believe guns result in any extra murders, ask yourself why America has less robberies but more people killed during robberies, less violent assaults but more people killed during violent assaults, less burglaries but more people killed during burglaries etc.
Look a little closer. The two major countries E/W/S and Australia that have banned guns have seen no statistically significant drop in their gun homicide rate.
Britain didn't have a statistically significant gun homicide rate anyway. It's the same argument as banning skiing in Jamica doesn't save lives, so banning skiing in Switzerland won't save lives.
Same with banning swimming in the Sahara, or banning driving on the moon.
Who says Australia's hasn't?
Seems homicides by guns in Australia went up from 27% in 89 to 35% in 95, and down to 21% the year after (when gun control increased) to 19% now. Sounds like a drop to me.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/type.html
In raw numbers, killings with guns went from 87 in 1989 to 111 in 95 to 64 in 98/99. Incidentally, 64 is a lower number than for any year in the preceeding decade.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/28/ch2.pdf
They have, however, seen a rise in their "sharp instrument" homicide rates.
No, both England anWales and Australia have seen a drop in the sharp instrument category since the mid 90s, which produced highs in both countries.
At the same time, without bans/confiscation, firearms homicide rates have dropped very significantly in the US, along with our "sharp instrument" homicide rate
Along with the entire crime rate. The US has increased the number of police, brought in tougher sentencing, and increased the likelihood of criminals getting caught. That has reduced the number of people committing crimes, for obvious reasons.
Britain has gone the opposite route, reducing effective police numbers, letting more criminals walk free on technicalities, hamstringing the police with "racial awarness" etc.
In the bad old days before Sam Colt, what happened when the big, mean bully started whaling away on the little milquetoast? "Beaten to death" is a phrase that entered our language because it was a useful, meaningful description.
So, you want to go back to the old days? Where big folks can beat the doodah out of little folks? Because there sure aren't enough cops anywhere to stop it.
They can anyway. What happens if both have guns? Chances are, the criminal will have less scruple about using it, will go in to the encounter better prepared (after he knows he's going to attack you. you don't set out to attack him).
US policemen aren't protected by their guns, having a murder rate many times that of British policemen.
Sure. And if you stop and think about E/W/S, just as many guns are being pulled as were pulled before the ban.
Not in any real sense. English law defines a firearms crime as any one where the offender claims to have a firearm. Famously, one "armed robber" used a banana in his jacket pocket. Not much chance of him panicking and firing the banana, was there?
By far the most common type of "firearm" used in a robbery in the UK is a replica pistol, either blank firing or airsoft.
Further, look at Pongo's thread. Look at all that money spent to register with little or nothing successfully accomplished.
What Pongo's thread shows is that the people responsible for that policy and it's implementation are very stupid indeed. It has nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the policy.
Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail".
Firearm homicide rate is lower?
Number of firearms homicides in England and Wales in 2000 was 62, out of a population of just over 50,000,000.
In Canada the number was 171, out of a population of just over 30,000,000. That's about 4 - 5 times the UK rate.
What I said and what I still say is that it is not the inanimate objects. Man has been killing man since the dawn of time for essentially the same reasons that feature in homicide today, Greed, jealousy, etc.
Agreed. A saint with a gun is safe, a thug without a gun is not safe. But a thug with a gun is more dangerous than a thug without a gun. Surely you can agree with that?
Guns are a very efficient way of killing people, far more so than bare hands, knives, clubs etc.
Canada has far more guns than E/W/S and probably as many per capita as the US. Their firearms rate is the lowest of the three.
No, it's far higher than the UK's.
-
Thank God we are all allowed to live in the country of our choice, where the level of governmental nannying fits our particular perspectives best. Also thank God we live in a country where the means fight such nannying isn't willingly given away.
-
Nashwan, I looked at the Australia homocide statistics a few weeks ago. And although I did notice a drop in homocides by firearm, I also noticed a proportional increase in homocides by "Other" methods, methods that do no include sharp objects, hands or feet.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thank God we are all allowed to live in the country of our choice, where the level of governmental nannying fits our particular perspectives best. Also thank God we live in a country where the means fight such nannying isn't willingly given away.
You will notice that, for the most part, the western countries with more socialism have a higher level of general education, better health, and less crime. I'll take the "nannying".
Because, the US has less socialism doesn't neccessarily mean that the average american exercises a higher level of personal responsibility. If someone there diddlys up the social safety net doesn catch them, litigation does.
-
And you can have the nannying. We could have it, too, but we choose not to. The difference is, the nannys don't appear happy to have it for themselves. They feel compelled to convince others to nanny.
Who cares if the lack of socialism doesn't incur higher personal responsibility? Litigation is an acceptable replacement for me.
Socialized medicine better? LOL.
Socialized country's education better? Maybe, maybe not.
It seems to me, and understand, I am only a citizen of this country, the problems we have here WRT government involvement usually revolve around people wanting more handouts and a release from personal accountability. Don't get me started on how unemployed parents demand pre and post school daycare for their kids...
Keep your socialist's utopia, I won't hold it against you. If you are really concerned for America, become a citizen and vote. If not... what is it the British say? Oh... bugger off.
-
Don't get me wrong, it's up to you guys if you want more socialism. I'm pointing out that there sure seems to be a whole lot of benefits. Besides, you're the one that brought it up and insulted or form of democracy by calling it "Nannying".
-
What I am "insulting" is the apparent need to crusade for changes in American domestic policy by noncitizens, and the apparent condescending attitudes towards those American beliefs.
-
Who says Australia's hasn't?
Here's the numbers from the Australian Institute of Criminology... the source you quote. Except, of course, that we're comparing homicide rate per 100,000... to get to apples to apples.
Australia: Homicide rate per 100,000 from the AIC
1989-90 / 1.9
1990-91 / 2.0
1991-92 / 1.9
1992-93 / 2.0
1993-94 / 1.9
1994-95 / 1.9
1995-96 / 2.0
1996-97 / 1.7
1997-98 / 1.7
1998-99 / 1.8
1999-00 / 1.8
And this note from the chart:
Note also the substancial increase in homicide victimisation in Tasmania for the year 1995/96. This is due to the Port Arthur incident where 35 persons were killed.
So, '95-96 had an unusual, abnormal spike due to Port Arthur. A spike "pre-ban" if you will that artificially raised the trend rate.
Now look at "post-ban" years; give '96-'97 a pass, since the laws were not fully implemented then.
Clearly, the homicide rate per 100,000 has NOT been affected by the gun ban.
A point you and Beetle simply choose to ignore. THE BAN HAD NO NOTICEABLE EFFECT on homicide rate per 100,000, the "apples to apples" comparison that even the HOME OFFICE itself uses.
I believe a year by year examination of the E/W/+S homicide rates per 100,000 both pre and post-ban will show the same trend.
Care to post them?
-
Seems homicides by guns in Australia went up from 27% in 89 to 35% in 95, and down to 21% the year after (when gun control increased) to 19% now. Sounds like a drop to me.
I love that scew on homicide rates..... homicide rates by guns??? LOL. Tell the true tale..... TOTAL HOMICIDES
Why not state the actual homicide rates? I bet you find that regardless of gun laws, homicide rates stay about the same or even increase when gun bans are enacted.
Americans have added 50 million more guns to our country in the last 5 years, yet ALL violent crime, including murder has fallen drastically over that last 15 years. I can argue that more guns equates to lower murder and violent crime rates.
If you are going to talk about gun bans reducing homicides by guns and not state it's overall effect on ALL HOMICIDES, then you are not stateing much at all.
Is there a study that's proven that gun laws have reduced homicides?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Of course they aren't acceptable.
Well, you and Beetle seem to continually suggest that bans/confiscations are the solution when objects are used in homicide. So, where's the concern over knives, which are a much larger problem than firearms in the UK?
Some? Everybody does. Tell you what, I won't use a gun for the next year if you agree not to use a knife for the next year. Deal?
Nah, I'm going to use both. I enjoy both and there's no reason not to use both. Inanimate objects never caused any homicide all by themselves.
Man invented the knife long before he became modern man.
Could man have invented firearms before he became modern man? You're putting this kind of stuff up as "evidence"?
No, it's necessity. Knives are necessary, guns are not, for the vast majority of people.
No, not a necessity. As laz pointed out, prisoners and airline travelers get along quite well without them. It could be done. More to the point, guns are not a necessity TO YOU so you feel free to propose bans. But banning something YOU feel is important is unacceptable because it falls into the necessity category. At least that's how I see your argument.
What's your position on liquor? 17,000+ alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in the US...... do we "need" liquor? Shouldn't we go ahead and "save" those lives? One man's necessity is another's convenience and vice versa.
Tell you what...... you give up guns and use knives for a year and feel good about yourself. I'll use both and feel good about myself. Oh.. I bet that's "not acceptable". ;)
but tell me how many murders you think is an acceptable price for your right to own a gun?
How many is acceptable for your use of a knife?
I don't worry about getting struck by lightning when I go out. I don't worry about getting hit by a drunk driver, nor do I worry about me or mine getting murdered. I realize these things happen, but I surely don't worry about them.
America IS a different society than Britain. Both are different from Canada. The one conclusion you CAN draw from all three societies is that it isn't the inanimate objects.
Britain didn't have a statistically significant gun homicide rate anyway... It's the same with banning swimming in the Sahara, or banning driving on the moon.
Then why bother with a ban? That's wasting resources isn't it? You didn't get any result.... except a "feelgood" move for politicians. Seems kinda stupid, doesn't it?
Along with the entire crime rate. The US has increased the number of police, brought in tougher sentencing, and increased the likelihood of criminals getting caught. That has reduced the number of people committing crimes, for obvious reasons.
Britain has gone the opposite route, reducing effective police numbers, letting more criminals walk free on technicalities, hamstringing the police with "racial awarness" etc.
You left out the "ban" in E/W/S. That was an expensive, resource gobbling approach.
Now, looking honestly at the statistics, which approach has been more effective? The US or the UK?
What happens if both have guns? Chances are, the criminal will have less scruple about using it, will go in to the encounter better prepared (after he knows he's going to attack you. you don't set out to attack him).
So the solution is to remove any chance of the victim being able to defend himself at all?
US policemen aren't protected by their guns, having a murder rate many times that of British policemen.
And what are those rates? Do they correlate with the overall rates per 100,000? Or are you just comparing "gross score" again?
English law defines a firearms crime as any one where the offender claims to have a firearm. Famously, one "armed robber" used a banana in his jacket pocket. Not much chance of him panicking and firing the banana, was there?
We're comparing firearm homicide rates. How many people were killed with a banana posing as a gun in E/W/S?
What Pongo's thread shows is that the people responsible for that policy and it's implementation are very stupid indeed. It has nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the policy.
Possibly. It may simply show that it is an unworkable idea in the Canadian (and by extension) US situation where firearms are far more numerous and far more a part of everyday life than they are/were in E/W/S.
Firearm homicide rate is lower?
Number of firearms homicides in England and Wales in 2000 was 62, out of a population of just over 50,000,000.
In Canada the number was 171, out of a population of just over 30,000,000. That's about 4 - 5 times the UK rate.
Well, shall we compare apples to apples..... rate to rate as it were, instead of gross totals?
Last stats by your Home Office in Beetle's old link show 1999 England/Wales at 1.45 and Canada at 1.85 with Scotland at 2.10. Tell me, why do they separate Scotland from the E/W rates?
Certainly doesn't look like much difference to me... certainly not "4-5 time the UK rate". Not skewing the stats are ya? What's the E/W/+SCOTLAND rate? I'm sure you have better access to the population stats to figure that one. Same laws essentially, aren't they?
Agreed. A saint with a gun is safe, a thug without a gun is not safe. But a thug with a gun is more dangerous than a thug without a gun. Surely you can agree with that?
Sure we can agree. Now let's see your solution to keeping the guns out of the hands of the thugs? Because the bans haven't. Is there anyone here that would disagree that the criminals in any country can still get a firearm despite the new laws? Surely you can agree with that?
The ban solution primarily removes guns from the hands of the citizens that are not the threat. Surely you can agree with that?
No, it's far higher than the UK's.
Homicide offences, number and rate, provinces and territories (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal12b.htm)
rate per 100,000 population
Canada
1997/1.95
1998/1.84
1999/1.76
2000/1.77
2001/1.78
Ok, let's see the rates for those years for ENGLAND + WALES + SCOTLAND.
A bit more apples to apples?
BTW, if you can, can you supply a link to E/W/S homicide rates by year and by weapon-type? The sort our FBI and CDC provide? I can't seem to locate it on your Home Office site. Thx.
-
I think The UK should ban all alcohol. Clearly Alcohol related crimes kill more people than guns ever have in the UK.
Drunken drivers ever bother you guys?
Alcohol induced "Footbal" riots anyone??
Bar fights, domestic abuse, can I get a witness???
Unlike knives, clearly you can live without alcohol, right?
Lets begin the push for a ban on alcohol!
Lets run the numbers and see how many people we will save.
-
From the Home Office:
International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2000 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf)
Homicides per 100,000 population
Average per year 1998-2000
England & Wales 1.50
Northern Ireland 3.10
Scotland 2.19
Canada 1.79
USA 5.87
Now, are Scotland and Northern Ireland under the same firearms laws as England and Wales? I admit I'm not fully versed in your jurisdictions.
If so, can one of you folks determine the actual overall homicide rate per 100,000 for all four entities? So we can compare apples to apples?
Again, look at Canada. From all reports as many guns floating around per capita as the US. How can it be just the guns?
Canadians have WAY more than the four UK entities. Rates probably the same when adusted. Possibly less.
Canadian have about the same as the US but a far lower rate per 100,000.
-
Alcohol is implicated in 33,000 deaths every year and one in six people attending accident and emergency units has alcohol-associated injuries.
from BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1846589.stm)
Ban alcohol!
How come you guys love to demonize inanimate objects (guns) instead of people.
Well at least be consistant and ban alcohol. The numbers do not lie.
Alcohol is much more a threat to your lives than guns have ever been.
-
Oh good heavens, time for prohibition in England!
SOB
-
Campaign Against Drunk Driving (http://www.cadd.org.uk/facts.htm)
Drink drive fatalities were 990 in 1986, compared with 540 for 1997
How does that compare with total homicides in E/W/S/NI in 1997?
How does that compare with total firearms homicides in E/W/S/NI in 1997?
Where's your REAL problem?
-
Kieran, I feel that I have the authority to dictate to Aericans AND British on how to lives there lives.
As Canada apparently has per capita number of guns close to the US and the per captia number of homocides close to the UK.
Clear we are a truely wiser and more enlightened people. :D
;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
As Canada apparently has per capita number of guns close to the US and the per captia number of homocides close to the UK.
From what I'm reading, this is an essentially true statement. I can't exactly "nail down" the number of guns in either country though. But it does seem to be close enough for fair comparison.
Because of this, I have been puzzling over the difference in homicide rates. Clearly (for those who will just look at the facts) it is not simply the number of guns.
There must be a rather large difference in people's individual attitudes/values and/or societal mores.
I'm not sure you can legislate that stuff.
to you Canucks.
Although I may not entirely agree with your final assessment there. ;)
-
I could give up knives that were thicker than 0.060" thick and longer than 3" with no problem whatsoever... so could 99% of other citizens... When was the last time you needed a knife that was outside of those measurments? If you absolutely had to have one for a business or something you could get a permit and regester it and store it at the police station when not in use.
nash.... I do not believe I have heard of the case of william mannies... I cannot find it in any search. the other cases you speak of did not result in a conviction so far as I know... one case of a concealed carry holder beeing allmost beat to death in a traffic accident before he finaly used deadly force... still.... if you find even 1 or 2 cases of unlawful homicide out of 2 million concealed carry permit holders having the permits for upwards to a decade or more.... an allmost saintlike record by anyones standard.... better even than british police and occupational forces by far. There is no way that you can show that concealed carry permit holders are a danger to society... You can show that they have prevented thousands of potentially disasterous assaults...
Thrawn... you may be a more enlightened and reasonable people but.... I believe that if you remove the black on black homicides from the American number you will get stats very much like Canada and britan... better than Ireland and Scotland in fact. I do not propose to have the answer to the gang related black on black crime as it is socio economic most likely and out of my scope but....
to lump it in to our homicides and call it a "gun" problem is simply ignoring that which is hitting you right in the face.... To disarm the people that are law abiding and enjoying a deterent effect from firearms is stupid and cruel. The Koreans that had stores right in the middle of the LA riots that defended their stores with firearms... did not get looted... The lesson was seen on the news and was not lost on those watching it... gun sales went through the roof.
I think that britan is doing it's 'subjects' a disservice by putting them at the mercy of a brutal criminal class that victimizes them constantly... I think that they are creating the problem and that the "home office" is so concerned about the U.S. because they are desperate.... they know they blew it and they are justifying... I think it is disgusting and I think that beetle pointing out in his sig is absolutely priceless. Anyone who knows anything about guns in America is looking at the brits like they live on a different planet after reading that tripe.
lazs
-
toad... just as if you remove the 13-17 year old 'ganstas' from the "children" homicide stats... remove the black homicides from the per capita rate in the U.S. and yu will understand the difference in the various countries with firearms.
lazs
-
Did I win?
eskimo
-
Nah, Beetle still has the lead in sigs.
-
BOOOOOOOOOO! The contest is fixed! Everyone knows pizza is much better than anything in limey old Britain, including Beetle.
SOB
-
Well thank goodness Nashwan is here. :):) He dealt with all the posts that were directed at me, which is great - means I can have the night off, which I intend to do. We're running very late today - lunch at 4pm, dinner's going to be after 10pm! But that's OK. It is Europe. :D The Spanish (and S Americans) don't even bother going out till about midnight...
Tonight's dinner is roast beef. I have asked Tomato if we could minimise the risks by not using knives, but tender though the joint will be, I think it would be a bit messy to use a fork only, and I could utilise a sharp instrument to apply horseradish evenly over the beef as well as cutting it.
As for alcohol, yes a killer if abused to excess. It weakens one's judgement, including the judgement that must be used to know when one has had enough. But... We have a nice Chilean Errazuriz (the Cabernet Sauvignon, not the Syrah - IMO the CS is better) and we're all set for a lovely evening. :)
Still waiting to hear from Mr. Toad about why the US and Dubya are so keen to make sure that Iraq has no WMD, when nuclear warheads and nerve gases are inanimate entities and therefore can never be held responsible for homicide. Mr. Toad, I wish that you and Mrs. Toad could be here to join us - maybe another time. :) Do give Mrs. Toad our best.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Still waiting to hear from Mr. Toad about why the US and Dubya are so keen to make sure that Iraq has no WMD, when nuclear warheads and nerve gases are inanimate entities and therefore can never be held responsible for homicide. Mr. Toad, I wish that you and Mrs. Toad could be here to join us - maybe another time. :) Do give Mrs. Toad our best.
Use yer noodle. It probably has something to do with the fact that he's shown a propensity to use such things, and in a negative way against other human beings.
In much the same way, it is illegal for convicted felons to posess a firearm here in the U.S.
SOB
-
Enjoy the flesh of that innocent animal, Beetle and Tomato. Please don't argue, though, and use those sharp instruments against one another. Perhaps you should undergo a training course in sharp object use and one in anger management before you're allowed to sit down at table? Just a "nanny" thought......
Anyway, Beetle, you must have missed this in Pongo's thread:
Toad: LOL, I edited that post immediately just for you. Right after I posted it I thought "I better add 'in a homicide situation' for Beetle. Otherwise he'll make some silly association between Jack the Ripper killing a hooker with a sharp instrument and a nation attacking another nation in an attempt to make them look like the same thing."
Tell me, if Hussein uses his chemical scuds against another sovereign nation, would it count in the "homicides per 100,000" stats for Iraq?
So, you're not seriously trying to equate war between nations with individual homicides within a single society?
As I said, how will you then compute Iraq's "homicides/100,000"?
And if you're letting Nashwan carry the load, I guess I now know who your "stat mentor" is.
Just look at those Aussie homicide/100,000 pre- and post-ban. Apparently Nashwan didn't. ;)
Dine with gusto.
Toodle-pip.
(Nanny says be extra, extra careful with those sharp instruments now..... or we'll have to collect them!)
-
So, where's the concern over knives, which are a much larger problem than firearms in the UK?
There is a lot of concern, which is why they have banned the carrying of knives. Not even the politicians are stupid enough to think they can ban knives, however.
Nah, I'm going to use both. I enjoy both and there's no reason not to use both. Inanimate objects never caused any homicide all by themselves.
They're used for a lot of homicides, though.
Much easier to kill with inanimate objects than bare hands. That's why armies tend to give soldiers guns, not just tell them to go and kick and strangle the enemy.
Could man have invented firearms before he became modern man? You're putting this kind of stuff up as "evidence"?
No, I'm putting this up as showing how neccessary knives are. Ancient man didn't put much effort in to building, or making furniture, or clothes, or anything else. They did apply themselves to using knives, then learning how to make better ones.
No, not a necessity. As laz pointed out, prisoners and airline travelers get along quite well without them.
With food already prepared to be eaten without them. Try carving your turkey or a joint of beef with a 2 inch plastic knife. Try cutting a loaf of bread with a knife less than 6 inches long.
More to the point, guns are not a necessity TO YOU so you feel free to propose bans.
They aren't a neccesity to the vast majority of the world's population. You might like one, and you might use one, but you could live perfectly well without one. Trust me, 90%+ of the world's population does.
What's your position on liquor? 17,000+ alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in the US...... do we "need" liquor?
Yes, quite probably. It helps reduce the risk of many diseases, and greatly helps relieve stress for a lot of people. Used in moderation, it's very effective.
According to the US transport department, of those accidents, about 3000 of the killed weren't themselves drunk. That means the rest were victims of accidents of their own making.
3000 dead from alcohol, 8000 from firearms. I'd say firearms are used less than alcohol.
Tell you what...... you give up guns and use knives for a year and feel good about yourself. I'll use both and feel good about myself. Oh.. I bet that's "not acceptable".
You do what you want. I thought you wouldn't be able to go a year without using a knife.
I don't have a problem with you having guns. Believe it or not, I haven't started, or joined, a campaign against firearms ownership. I haven't written to politicians demanding they be banned, or the media. All I am doing is discussing wehter lives would be saved if they were.
How many is acceptable for your use of a knife?
Any number. Knives can't be banned for any practical purpose. If they could, I'm sure some countries would have by now.
Then why bother with a ban? That's wasting resources isn't it? You didn't get any result.... except a "feelgood" move for politicians. Seems kinda stupid, doesn't it?
It was stupid. Britain had perfectly good firearms laws before. The one thing you can rely on politicians for is to do something stupid to get votes.
Now, looking honestly at the statistics, which approach has been more effective? The US or the UK?
The US has put serious effort in to tackling crime. Britain has had some empty gestures, coupled with an effective reduction in real policing.
Like I said, you can't compare a gun ban in a country that didn't have a gun problem with gun control in a country that does.
So the solution is to remove any chance of the victim being able to defend himself at all?
No, the solution is to remove the weapons from everybody, so that if you are attacked, it isn't by guns. It's by fists, or at worst knives, both of which give you far more chance of escaping.
And what are those rates? Do they correlate with the overall rates per 100,000? Or are you just comparing "gross score" again?
I don't compare gross score, because it's meaningless.
US policemen are murdered at a rate of about 50 per year. You can't simply multiply Britains figures for a single year, because most years no British policemen are murdered.
Instead, assume there are 10 times as many US policemen as police in England and Wales. As the population is almost 6 times higher, that seems a good rough approximation.
Therefore, take 10 years of England and Wales figures, and compare them to 1 year's US figures.
In the last 10 years in the UK, the figure is 8. That makes US policemen 6 - 7 times as likely to be murdered, per head.
We're comparing firearm homicide rates. How many people were killed with a banana posing as a gun in E/W/S?
No, I was responding to your claim that "just as many guns were pulled".
Possibly. It may simply show that it is an unworkable idea in the Canadian (and by extension) US situation where firearms are far more numerous and far more a part of everyday life than they are/were in E/W/S.
It would be a fairly simple procedure to register new gun sales, and to make sure the owners didn't transfer the guns without the registration being transfered. Like already happens with cars.
Last stats by your Home Office in Beetle's old link show 1999 England/Wales at 1.45 and Canada at 1.85 with Scotland at 2.10. Tell me, why do they separate Scotland from the E/W rates?
Because Scotland has a different legal system, seperate courts, etc. The police in Scotland are responsible to a seperate authority.
Certainly doesn't look like much difference to me... certainly not "4-5 time the UK rate". Not skewing the stats are ya?
What you said was "Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail"." I took that to mean their firearm homicide rate.
However, total homicide rate:
Canada 1.78 per 100,000
England and Wales, 733 in 2000, 52,042,000 people. 1.40 per 100,000 people.
However, 25 of those were re classified victims of previous years, murdered by dr Harold Shipman. Without those, the figure drops to 1.36 (the Sept 11th victims are not counted in the US figures)
Scotland had 98 murders in 2000, for an England and Wales and Scotland total of 831. Population of Scotland just over 5,000,000, for a total rate of 1.45.
Sure we can agree. Now let's see your solution to keeping the guns out of the hands of the thugs? Because the bans haven't.
British gun control did. The number of crimes comitted with real firearms is tiny. Obviously some criminals will still get guns, but very few. They also tend to be a more proffesional class of criminal. They might use them in an armed robbery on a major bank, but you don't get many crack-heads holding up convienience stores or street robberies.
In other words, the desperate with nothing to lose don't get guns.
If a typical British junkie got a gun, he'd sell it. He can get some money, then hold up the shop with a banana in his bag. He doesn't have to worry about a shoot-out with the police, or with the shop owner. If things go bad, he just runs.
Australia: Homicide rate per 100,000 from the AIC
1989-90 / 1.9
1990-91 / 2.0
1991-92 / 1.9
1992-93 / 2.0
1993-94 / 1.9
1994-95 / 1.9
1995-96 / 2.0
1996-97 / 1.7
1997-98 / 1.7
1998-99 / 1.8
1999-00 / 1.8
And this note from the chart:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also the substancial increase in homicide victimisation in Tasmania for the year 1995/96. This is due to the Port Arthur incident where 35 persons were killed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, '95-96 had an unusual, abnormal spike due to Port Arthur. A spike "pre-ban" if you will that artificially raised the trend rate.
Now look at "post-ban" years; give '96-'97 a pass, since the laws were not fully implemented then.
Clearly, the homicide rate per 100,000 has NOT been affected by the gun ban.
Really? 1.9,2.0,1.9,2.0,1.9,1.9,2.0,gun control 1.7,1.7,1.8,1.8
The four years since have each been lower than any year before the gun control.
Take out the Port Arthur killings and 95/96 was 86 killings, the same as 89, the same 1.9/2.0 trend.
A point you and Beetle simply choose to ignore. THE BAN HAD NO NOTICEABLE EFFECT on homicide rate per 100,000, the "apples to apples" comparison that even the HOME OFFICE itself uses.
No, it's quite clearly 0.2 per 100,000 people lower. In Australia, with a population of 19,500,000, that's about 40 murders per year prevented.
Now, are Scotland and Northern Ireland under the same firearms laws as England and Wales? I admit I'm not fully versed in your jurisdictions.
If so, can one of you folks determine the actual overall homicide rate per 100,000 for all four entities? So we can compare apples to apples?
Northern Ireland has far more legaly held guns than the rest of the UK, with lots of people having them for protection. I've already given you the England and Wales and Scotland figures, but Northern Ireland has a tiny population, about 1.5 million out of the total UK figure of around 60 million, so it won't change the figures much.
Again, look at Canada. From all reports as many guns floating around per capita as the US. How can it be just the guns?
From what I've heard, handguns needed licences in Canada, and handgun ownership was fairly low. In fact, much like the laws in Britain prior to the late ninties ban.
-
I could give up knives that were thicker than 0.060" thick and longer than 3" with no problem whatsoever... so could 99% of other citizens... When was the last time you needed a knife that was outside of those measurments?
When I cut bread for toast this morning.
I've also got a pineapple in the fridge I intend to slice later.
nash.... I do not believe I have heard of the case of william mannies
Single N. http://www.appalachianfocus.org/_civil4/00000171.htm
the other cases you speak of did not result in a conviction so far as I know
Jamie Cokes - 5 to 20 years - http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021108cburbs1108p9.asp
Clay Wallace - http://www.arktimes.com/010406coverstorya.html
(which also mentions another CCW holder conicted of manslaughter)
still.... if you find even 1 or 2 cases of unlawful homicide out of 2 million concealed carry permit holders having the permits for upwards to a decade or more.... an allmost saintlike record by anyones standard
I only spent a couple of minutes looking. Just searching for Clay Wallace brought up another one.
However, the problem isn't with CCW holders, who are usually responsible people. The problem is, if there aren't strict laws on registration of guns, it's too easy for criminals to get them. If someone with no record can go and buy a gun and sell it on for a $100 markup to someone who has a record, how can you keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
In Britain, if you bought a gun, you had to have secure storage for it, and you couldn't sell it unless you transferred it to another firearm licence holder. Guns couldn't simply "go missing" ie get sold or transferred to criminals.
I believe that if you remove the black on black homicides from the American number you will get stats very much like Canada and britan.
And if you removed London and Manchester from the British figures, you would get much better rates too. Crime is comitted overwhelmingly by urban poor people. Britain has them too, although they aren't so concentrated amongst any one ethnic group.
-
Just look at those Aussie homicide/100,000 pre- and post-ban. Apparently Nashwan didn't.
Where I come from, 1.7 and 1.8 are lower than 1.9 and 2.0 ;)
-
Where I come from .2 isn't statistically significant given the extreme measures used to achieve that tiny drop.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Not even the politicians are stupid enough to think they can ban knives, however.
[/b]
Well, they were stupid enough to think they could ban guns. Your knives will come in time. :)
They did apply themselves to using knives, then learning how to make better ones.
Yes, as a step on the technological ladder necessary before they could make furniture and clothing. I think it's reasonable to expect that if they could have leaped from stone knives to CAD/CAM laser cutting, they would have. But a lot of other things had to be invented first.
With food already prepared to be eaten without them.
Not to worry! Nanny will slice your bread and meat for you. In carefully supervised kitchens. :D Most bread comes pre-sliced in the US already. These objections of yours are merely old tradition and easily overcome. Nanny will handle it all. Trust Nanny.
90%+ of the world's population does.
As they could without knives. Let machines slice and package your food. You merely prefer to do it yourself. It's certainly not necessary.
Yes, quite probably. It helps reduce the risk of many diseases, and greatly helps relieve stress for a lot of people. Used in moderation, it's very effective.
You realize that the same thing could be said about firearms use. Many folks find target shooting extremely relaxing due to the focus required to do well. You just choose to ignore things that are important to other folks and not to yourself.
According to the US transport department, of those accidents, about 3000 of the killed weren't themselves drunk.
The 17,000+ number comes from the MADD website. Even subtracting 3000 that "weren't themselves drunk" that leaves 14,000+... more than the 11,000+ firearms.
I thought you wouldn't be able to go a year without using a knife.
Oh, I could. It would be as pointless as going a year without shooting. :D Those cavemen you cite went an untold number of years without knives.
Any number. Knives can't be banned for any practical purpose. If they could, I'm sure some countries would have by now.
So any number of deaths are acceptable? Rather a cold viewpoint. Thousands can die as long as you can slice bread? Bread can be easily sliced by machine. Pretty selfish, seems like. :D
Your argument is "Simply can't do anything about it"? :D Does this sound the least bit familiar to you?
Knives can be banned.. just as guns were.
It was stupid. Britain had perfectly good firearms laws before. The one thing you can rely on politicians for is to do something stupid to get votes.
Ah, we agree. So does the US. They just aren't enforced, just as Britain's weren't enforced. Because it's easier to blame a hammer than the man swinging it. After all, you just melt down the gun or hammer and that's that... but a man....... you have to maintain him in prison. There$ probably the real rea$on.
Like I said, you can't compare a gun ban in a country that didn't have a gun problem with gun control in a country that does.
Like you and beetle are continually trying to do? The US isn't the UK and never will be.
No, the solution is to remove the weapons from everybody, so that if you are attacked, it isn't by guns. It's by fists, or at worst knives, both of which give you far more chance of escaping.
Well, one would think so.. but there's that pesky stat that more folks are killed with sharp instruments in the UK than by guns. Seems there's LESS of a chance of getting away.
I don't compare gross score, because it's meaningless.
And then you go on to assume some figures, compute a gross score and somehow extrapolate a multiplier?
How about a standardized rate per 100,000 population maybe?
No, I was responding to your claim that "just as many guns were pulled".
You're correct. I should have said that "just as many people have been killed in homicides" because the rates are essentially unchanged. At least that's the way MOST folks are going to view a .2/100,000 variance.
It would be a fairly simple procedure to register new gun sales, and to make sure the owners didn't transfer the guns without the registration being transfered. Like already happens with cars.
And it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The homicide rate would be "very stable" to use your Home Office's description of minor variances in the rate/100,000.
Because Scotland has a different legal system, seperate courts, etc. The police in Scotland are responsible to a seperate authority.
I understand that. Are the firearms laws the same? Or essentially the same?
And, same questions for Northern Ireland, if you can tell me.
Seems like you guys get to cut the "bad stats" out of your average and make them stand alone. Think they'll let us do that for our "bad" areas? ;)
What you said was "Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail"." I took that to mean their firearm homicide rate.
Sorry again. Typing too fast. Should have said "homicide rate/100,000. After all, it's not how folks die it's how many, isn't it? Isn't the goal to reduce the total somehow, someway?
However, total homicide rate:
Lets use these, shall we? They're from your own Home Office, after all.
Homicides per 100,000 population
Average per year 1998-2000
England & Wales 1.50
Northern Ireland 3.10
Scotland 2.19
Canada 1.79
USA 5.87
Looks like to me that Canada has the four of yas in the UK or so close it doesn't matter. And they've got LOADS of guns.
Could you explain that for me?
No, it's quite clearly 0.2 per 100,000 people lower. In Australia, with a population of 19,500,000, that's about 40 murders per year prevented.
Which, the AIC, like the Home Office, describes as "relatively stable". Guess they can't see much difference either.
-
Originally posted by Toad
There must be a rather large difference in people's individual attitudes/values and/or societal mores.
I'm not sure you can legislate that stuff.
to you Canucks.
Although I may not entirely agree with your final assessment there. ;)
Canada was first settled by Crown Corporations and Federal Instituions ie. Hudson Bay Company of Gentlemen Adventures, Canadian National Railway, and the North-West Mounted Police, then the people came.
In the US it was the people first. Hence...
"Peace, Security and Good Government."
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Although I feel both our countries are having more difficulites attaining our ideals.
Complete guess work here...but any way. The vast majority of our firearms are rifles and shotguns. And there is next to no pistols in our urban environments. Generally speaking we don't use guns for self-defence, especially in our urban environments. They are mostly used for fun, ie. target shooting, or hunting. As such they usually kept safely locked up in safes and burglers that rob your home while away can't simple take it out of you side table.
A huge chunck of the firearms in criminals possetion in Canada come from the US.
-
Thanks, Thrawn
I've been cogitating more along the lines of "why do a tiny percentage of Yanks seem to think pulling the trigger on another human being is a rational means of conflict resolution and a near totality of Canadians obviously DO NOT."
It's not the availability of firearms that makes that an easy decision for Yanks. That's almost non-germane to what I've been thinking about. It's a cop-out for those who don't want to think; for those who just want to blame anything but a human for "evil".
Rather, it's the idea that committing homicide is any sort of solution at all. Where the fork does an idea like that come from in an "advanced" society? $1000 is worth another man's life? Where'd these clowns get that idea?
How do Yanks make that leap of faith so easily when obviously the Canadians view it much differently, as anathema almost.
What kind of mind thinks killing someone over "the last beer" has any validity anywhere? No doubt, the guy was drunk himself but that really isn't it either. Have the Bud Light commercials actually captured minds and souls? Is it media? Hollywood?
I'm beginning to doubt that most Canadians could even HAVE that thought; "kill for a beer"? They'd laugh out loud at the idea, drunk or not. Probably laugh louder if drunk. It would simply be beyond their scope; unthinkable so to speak.
Yanks can and DO have those thoughts, obviously. Not all of us, not a majority of us. In fact, a very tiny percentage of us actually.
Yet those thoughts seem to occur in only to an infinitesimally small percentage of Canadians.
Why is that and what do we do about it? How do we fix that Yank mindset in the tiny group that "doesn't get it"? That's what I've been doing my deep thinking on.
This BS about tenths of a point in stats and the silly idea that it ISN'T a man with a free will of his own that causes murder is a mere diverson; a break from the true "heavy lifting" about this situation.
And it IS a serious situtation.
If we don't get it under control somehow, my sons or grandsons will never know the pleasure of hunting behind a fine Labrador.
Because the thoughtless reactionaries that have never been afield will reproduce faster and eventually pass laws that lay blame on inanimate objects.
And the homicide rates will remain "relatively stable" afterwards.
-
I've been cogitating more along the lines of "why do a tiny percentage of Yanks seem to think pulling the trigger on another human being is a rational means of conflict resolution and a near totally of Canadians obviously DO NOT."
I think because overall, America is like a big city compared to a small town ( Canada)
Murder is much more common in big cities, and America has MANY large cities and a huge population compared to Canada.
-
Well then why do folks in a big city think murder is a rational solution and folks in less populated areas don't?
And what do we do about it?
You can't just say "big city" and shrug it off like it was merely a "sharp instrument" homicide or something. ;)
-
Well, they were stupid enough to think they could ban guns. Your knives will come in time.
Yes we'll go down the long road of totalitarian regiemes that have banned knives like, um, eh...
Many folks find target shooting extremely relaxing due to the focus required to do well. You just choose to ignore things that are important to other folks and not to yourself.
Been target shooting today? If so, you're probably one of less than 1% of the world's population that has. Used a knife today? 95% or more of the world' population has.
Seems it's not just me, but nearly everyone else in the world that uses knives everyday, but doesn't own a gun.
The 17,000+ number comes from the MADD website. Even subtracting 3000 that "weren't themselves drunk" that leaves 14,000+... more than the 11,000+ firearms.
I don't think I made myself clear. 3000 were not drunk, and were killed by drunken drivers. The rest were self inflicted wounds.
Knives can be banned.. just as guns were.
I can name a number of countries that have done the latter. Can you find one that has done the former?
Well, one would think so.. but there's that pesky stat that more folks are killed with sharp instruments in the UK than by guns. Seems there's LESS of a chance of getting away.
Now you're comparing gross numbers, not rates.
How many knives in the UK? How many guns? Murder rate higher for crimes involving guns than involving knives?
As beet1e pointed out, give away free guns, get the UK murder rate as high as the US rate, and deaths from knives will shrink as proportion. More people will get killed, but we will achieve a sensible balance between gun murders and knife murders, like the US one.
Ah, we agree. So does the US. They just aren't enforced, just as Britain's weren't enforced
Britain's gun laws were enforced, and worked very well.
What US gun laws? The ones that make it illegal for criminals to own guns? Isn't that a bit pointless? They are criminals, breaking the law is what they do.
And it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The homicide rate would be "very stable" to use your Home Office's description of minor variances in the rate/100,000.
On what do you base that claim? The effect of a gun ban in Britain, which already had strict firearms laws? The effect of a gun buyback in Australia, which had stricter laws than the US?
A 0.2 per 100,000 drop in America would be 600 murders per year averted. America, which has more of a gun problem than Australia had, should see a much larger drop again.
Looks like to me that Canada has the four of yas in the UK or so close it doesn't matter. And they've got LOADS of guns.
Canada has lots of hunting rifles. They aren't used for crimes anywhere near as much as handguns are.
Australia had lots of hunting rifles, not a lot of handguns. Total handgun murders in Australia in 95 were 12. Total handguns in Australia was in the 100 - 200,000 range, or thereabouts.
Australia Canada and the UK all had gun control. Futher tightening of those controls isn't going to have as dramatic an effect as introducing controls in America.
The figures for the US are 8441 murdered with a handgun, 638 with a rifle, 643 with a shotgun, 35 with "other" guns.
Why would you expect Australia and Canada, with lots of rifles, few handguns, to have a particulary high murder rate?
-
Toad I think your agrument could be made or broken on statistics for Attempted Murder in the various countries we've been looking at.
If the statistics for attempted murder are poportional to the higher number of per-capita homocides in the US, then you might be right about the will to murder being the cause.
If they are lower, then it might indicate that there are more murders effected, because guns are more leathal. So more attempted homocides are completed.
-
You've already got significant restrictions on knives. Or so you've intimated. They'll come for the rest as time goes by. The PETA-types and true Vegan types most likely don't subscribe to your blase attitude about any number of sharp instrument deaths being acceptable so you can slice bread. Cod knows your island has even more of those than we do.
You've been "nanny-ized". :)
Nope. No target shooting today. Today it's the middle of deer season. Went deer hunting with the #1 son.
I see you totally avoid the issue of shooting being a method of relaxation for some. Is that because you prefer alcohol and so, therefore, should everyone else? BTW, what's your thought on HO's in AH? :D
"The need for conformity is strong in this one".
Have you given any thought to the idea the the incredibly vast majority of gun owners in the world never kill or injure another person with their firearms? That it is a small minority that is responsible? That the majority shouldn't be punished for the transgressions of the few?
House of Commons - Homicide Statistics '97
...In 1997 around 8% of homicides involved firearms and almost one third a sharp weapon.
So how would those percentages look if expressed in rates/100,000. Those aren't "assumed" percentages with some wag extrapolated. Those are your governments numbers.
Or conversely, you could say that as the number of available guns goes down, sharp instrument homicides go up as a percentage of total homicides. Your own UK stats show that I believe and I think I saw it on the AIC site as well.
To differentiate between the tool used.. saying that somehow it is better for a person to be murdered with a knife rather than a gun is ludicrous, IMO. And, despite bans/confiscations, homicide rates/100,000 in both the UK and Australia have remained "very stable. So... dying by knife is "better" than dying by gun? Come on now.
They are criminals, breaking the law is what they do.
Glad to see you agree. Which just highlights why the bans haven't changed either UK or Australian homicide rates/100,000 in any meaningfull fashion.
Canada has lots of hunting rifles. They aren't used for crimes anywhere near as much as handguns are.
Oh, now hunting rifles are OK? It's just handguns now? Before it was all guns with you and Beetle. Isthis a sea change?
We can keep our rifles and shotguns without restriction? Oh, wait... rifles and shotguns are also severly restricted in the UK and particularly in Australia. But you said they're not the problem?
Let me know when you make up your mind with respect to what WE should do about guns.
Then I'll tell you what you guys should do about sharp instruments and alcohol, ok? Fair is fair, after all.
-
I haven't even looked for "attempted" homicide stats. Do they even exist?
Seems they're going to be more subjective than a dead body, too.
Victim: "He tried to kill me!!!"
Officer: "With a handful of cotton candy?"
Who decides?
Still, it'd be worth looking at.
Part of it also though, is.....
The incredibly overwhelming majority in ANY society would recoil from the idea of killing someone over who got the last beer.
Basically, we're dealing with literally crazy, insane people that do those things.
Does the US have more insane people?
Like I said, it isn't a simplistic topic and there are no simplisitic "feelgood" solutions.
-
I really don't think this thread has anything to do with a Longest Signature Block Competition, you guys are just here to argue about stuff, sheesh, false advertising!
:)
eskimo
-
Sorry, Eskimo. My apologies, you are right.
It was just a "beetle bait". Looks like he's hooked.
-
It was just a "beetle bait". Looks like he's hooked.
lol Toad, I need more support on my Alcohol thread. Beet1e will be back soon enough :)
-
Oh, I give. Teach me to be more British. Must I eat scones? Gasp in awe at a photo of the Queen? Laugh uproariously at men dressed in drag and speaking in falcetto? ;)
-
First of all,
You use me as a reference sourse at your own peril.
lazs, I'm not prepared to debate your point regarding black people in the US at this point in time. But I am looking into it.
Toad, do you agree with my premis regarding Attempted Murder, if Attempted Murder can be proved beyond a reasonal doubt? If not, what criteria would you find acceptable. If the your issue with the agrument doesn't lie there, then where exactly?
-
Wow! Cracking posts, Nashwan. I see I can take the rest of the weekend off. :D
Mr. Toad is wrong. I was not hooked by the title of this thread. I did a routine check of all threads to see where my name had been mentioned. I search on beet1e or beetle or beatle. But Nashwan has clearly got the lid on this one. :)
One thing I didn't realise - If someone with no record can go and buy a gun and sell it on for a $100 markup to someone who has a record, how can you keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Does this mean that in the US you can buy a gun without even needing a permit, or without having to register? That would explain a lot. :rolleyes:
-
Seeing how the AIC has been used as a resource...I like what Adam Graycar the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology said before new handgun laws were announced:
ABC news report 25/10/02 (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s711226.htm)
ADAM GRAYCAR: It's on the one hand those that comply with the law and not those by and large who commit criminal offences, but on the other hand we know that, and its intuitive that the fewer firearms in the community, the less the risk.
PETA DONALD: But Dr Graycar agrees, most hand guns involved in crimes are unregistered.
ADAM GRAYCAR: One study done by the Australian Institute of Criminology looked at homicides that involved weapons that were registered and users that were licensed and found that the overwhelming number of criminal activities that were committed with firearms involved people who were not licensed to use the firearms ant the weapons were not registered.
So by and large, those who comply with the law don't commit the criminal offences but occasionally there are exceptions, and every exception is a monumental tragedy for our community.
Even better was what the Prime Minister said when announcing the new hand gun laws (although watered down - only banning about 250-300 types of hand guns) on Thursday:
PM and Coag (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2002/interview2022.htm)
The Premiers and Chief Ministers endorsed that approach and we have reached a very happy understanding but importantly it’s an extremely good outcome for Australia and this is particularly important for people who are worried about crime and worried about the danger to their children and to themselves. And I’ve frequently said and I’ll say it again today there are many things I admire about America but one thing I do not admire about the United States is their gun culture and I will do everything I humanly can to make sure that culture never seeps into Australia and spreads into the streets of Australia. I think the ready availability of handguns is a curse in our kind of society and the more that we can all do to take them out the better.
There will be some people unhappy with it, that's always the case, but I think by and large a reasonable sporting shooter will say, well, in an ideal world we might have wished it hadn't happened but we don't live in an ideal world, we have lunatics in the community, criminals, who want to use guns and the Governments have done the right thing by the public but they've also given us an opportunity to continue our sport under proper conditions and restrictions. And I think that is the sensible outcome and it's an outcome that Australians will welcome.
Surprisingly good leadership from a Liberal PM.
Oh, and Beetle wins by a country mile...
Tronsky
-
You can go into User cp / edit options / thread view options and turn off signatures so you dont have to be bothered with reading them.
-
To be honest, I don't find men in drag to be the least bit funny.
-
Looks like Graycar and the PM agree that it's the person that's the problem. Apparently however, they just don't want to deal with people. Too difficult, I guess and probably too expensive. Go after the inanimate objects that you can melt down instead of maintain in prison.
Then they can sit around patting their own backs and review just how much homicide they prevented.
Australia: Homicide rate per 100,000 from the AIC
1989-90 / 1.9
1990-91 / 2.0
1991-92 / 1.9
1992-93 / 2.0
1993-94 / 1.9
1994-95 / 1.9
1995-96 / 2.0
1996-97 / 1.7
1997-98 / 1.7
1998-99 / 1.8
1999-00 / 1.8
Uh..... well....... OK...wait a minute.... They can pat their own backs and tell everyone it's better to die by the knife than by the gun. There! Good Show! Jobs done, move along folks.
Beetle, if you want to declare "victory" and run away, that's fine. I recognize a white flag when I see one. :D You can't get around the fact that the Aussie and UK bans have done nothing to lower the homicide rates/100,000. And fewer people dying is the true goal, right?
-
Kinda saw it the same way, Toad. Beetle seems to have the power to decide what is relevant and what isn't, and decide a winner (for all of us). I still don't think he's grasping the gist of your argument, though.
-
Beetle, if you want to declare "victory" and run away, that's fine. I recognize a white flag when I see one. You can't get around the fact that the Aussie and UK bans have done nothing to lower the homicide rates/100,000. And fewer people dying is the true goal, right?
Exactly. And I'd like to see the studies that show gun bans lead to fewer homicides in any country.
Beet1e, where are the links to the studies that tell me gun bans have lowered the homicide rates?
If you concede that gun bans do not lower homocide rates, then you must agree that the guns are not the problem, people are.
And why not ban alcohol? It causes more death than guns ever have. And unlike knives, you guys could live without the drink, yes?
-
Mr. Toad - :confused: What do you want from me? You started a thread with a misleading title, and have been bantering back and forth with Nashwan. I could not have done a better job than Nashwan in responding to your diatribe. We've already talked about all this in about 6 different threads. There's nothing left to be said. Maybe you're still trying to debate this in a thread you can "win"? But what's this about wiining/losing? That's not the issue at all. But since you mention it, I should nominate Tronski as adjudicator. -
Oh, and Beetle wins by a country mile...
Now that's what I like to see. :D:D
BTW, I have just had lunch, and used two knives - one to spread butter on my bread, and the other to cut meat etc.
White flag? Oh all right then. This one has got SOME white in it - ROFL!
-
Tronski is commenting on your signature, I believe, not the quality of your arguments. :)
As Nuke pointed out, you guys have absolutely no proof that the Aussie and UK bans have hand any effect on homicide rates/100,000. In fact, unbiased examination of each governments own stats result in the governments themselves delcaring homicide rates/100,000 either "very stable" (UK) or "relatively stable" (Aus). In short, no significant movement.
In fact, Nashwan, who has done such a fine job agreed that the UK ban was pointless.
"It was stupid" was his comment.
I can't be any more elequent than that.
-
Thrawn:
Your premis being that the greater percentage of "successfully" completed attempted murders would be directly attributable to the ready availibility of firearms?
Well Canada shows 2.3/100,000 attempted murders and 1.8/100,000 homicides in 2001. So 4.1/100K attempts with 1.8 being "successful"? 44%
Then the US with 3.1/100k aggravated assaults and 5.6/100k murders in 2001. 8.7/100k attempts, ~64% being "successful".
This comparison between countries with a supposedly equal number of overall firearms but with the US having a significantly larger percentage of handguns in the mix, right?
The theory being proved then is that more handguns = more homicides? Is this what you're driving at?
Could be interesting. Is this what you care to pursue?
It may show some other things as well. :) I doubt there'll be any "certainties" that result.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Looks like Graycar and the PM agree that it's the person that's the problem. Apparently however, they just don't want to deal with people. Too difficult, I guess and probably too expensive. Go after the inanimate objects that you can melt down instead of maintain in prison.
Then they can sit around patting their own backs and review just how much homicide they prevented.
Australia: Homicide rate per 100,000 from the AIC
1989-90 / 1.9
1990-91 / 2.0
1991-92 / 1.9
1992-93 / 2.0
1993-94 / 1.9
1994-95 / 1.9
1995-96 / 2.0
1996-97 / 1.7
1997-98 / 1.7
1998-99 / 1.8
1999-00 / 1.8
Uh..... well....... OK...wait a minute.... They can pat their own backs and tell everyone it's better to die by the knife than by the gun. There! Good Show! Jobs done, move along folks.
Beetle, if you want to declare "victory" and run away, that's fine. I recognize a white flag when I see one. :D You can't get around the fact that the Aussie and UK bans have done nothing to lower the homicide rates/100,000. And fewer people dying is the true goal, right?
Actaully carrying knives or without reason are illegal too....
from the ABC link:
Last year 32 Australians were killed by hand guns, up from 12 in 1995
I think the idea is to try to control it BEFORE the homicide rate per 100,000 blows out. Also with these new laws come new penalties. So the human factor is also being addressed.
Then they can sit around patting their own backs and review just how much homicide they prevented.
Well isn't that the point?
Premier Beattie: everyone acted here today in the national interest. Yes, there were various models consulted, but when we sat down we wanted to act in the national interest. And these issues are difficult. I mean, I know in parts of Queensland there'll be some people who may have some criticism, but I appeal to all those people regardless of where they are to think about the national interest because the people who lose today are the criminals, the people who have illegal handguns. We're talking about concealed handguns and frankly, I agree with the Prime Minister. I think that is simply unacceptable in a civilised society to have people with concealed handguns who are not involved in some law enforcement agency.
Tronski is commenting on your signature, I believe, not the quality of your arguments.
Quite so, Beetles sig. is well...excessive?
Tronsky
-
but I appeal to all those people regardless of where they are to think about the national interest because the people who lose today are the criminals, the people who have illegal handguns
LOL, what a statement!!! The people that lose today are the people who have illegal handguns????? HAHHAHAHHA
They have them illegally aready MORON, how do they now "lose"???
Too funny!
-
Tronski,
I think the idea is to try to control it BEFORE the homicide rate per 100,000 blows out. Also with these new laws come new penalties. So the human factor is also being addressed.
Whatever was addressed, it had no effect on the homicide rate per 100,000.
Essentially, the same number of people are being murdered. Therefore, if firearms homicides dropped, the "slack" was merely taken up elsewhere in other weapon categories.
They didn't prevent any homicides; the numbers are "relatively stable". So why are they spraining their arms patting themselves on the back?
So, what did they accomplish again? Besides spending tons of money and denying normal, law-abiding folks the use/convenient use of firearms for legitimate purposes?
I think that is simply unacceptable in a civilised society to have people with concealed handguns who are not involved in some law enforcement agency.
According to recent FBI stats in 2001 176 citizens used firearms in "justifiable homicides". In the same year, Law Enforcement used firearms in 368 instances. So Private Citizens have cause to use their firearms in justifiable homicide ~50% as much as the police. I guess I don't agree with Beattie; or maybe neither Australia or the US has a "civilised" society.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
LOL, what a statement!!! The people that lose today are the people who have illegal handguns????? HAHHAHAHHA
They have them illegally aready MORON, how do they now "lose"???
Too funny!
errrr because these weapons are now illegal, possession alone gets you to see the inside of Long Bay Jail.
Tronsky
-
errrr because these weapons are now illegal, possession alone gets you to see the inside of Long Bay Jail.
Thats not what he said. He said the people that lose today are the criminals, the ones with illegal guns.
Are you saying he meant that people with the legal guns are instantly labeled as criminals due to the law being enacted that day?
-
Essentially, the same number of people are being murdered. Therefore, if firearms homicides dropped, the "slack" was merely taken up elsewhere in other weapon categories.
They didn't prevent any homicides; the numbers are "relatively stable". So why are they spraining their arms patting themselves on the back?
IF something was stable and not increasing , could that not be seen as working?
Also what is the breakdown of the AIC stats? The causes, types of homicides, social groupings etc. etc.
So, what did they accomplish again? Besides spending tons of money and denying normal, law-abiding folks the use/convenient use of firearms for legitimate purposes?
If you have a legitmate reason, you still can have a firearm.
According to recent FBI stats in 2001 176 citizens used firearms in "justifiable homicides". In the same year, Law Enforcement used firearms in 368 instances. So Private Citizens have cause to use their firearms in justifiable homicide ~50% as much as the police.
I guess we will still have to rely on the police to do our justifiable killing.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Thats not what he said. He said the people that lose today are the criminals, the ones with illegal guns.
Are you saying he meant that people with the legal guns are instantly labeled as criminals due to the law being enacted that day?
If you are possession of a banned firearms, you may hand it in to the police amnesty, or govt. buyback. If after the 30th june (or so) you don't have a legitimate reason for having these firearms...then yes you are committing a criminal act.
Beattie said: because the people who lose today are the criminals, the people who have illegal handguns
what he mean't was if you have a legimate reason for having a banned weapon, you've lost nothing.
Tronsky
-
what he mean't was if you have a legimate reason for having a banned weapon, you've lost nothing.
what have you lost if you are a criminal and have a gun anyway?
-
Ok... first off... you are not gonna buy a gun with your name on it and then sell it to a criminal for 100 dollar profit... the paperwork costs that these days. And... you will get a record and then be unable to purchase a firearm but..
To summarize.... No one can prove that the ease of which firearms can kill (over other methods) contributes to a higher homicide rate... America has pretty much the same rate, higher than some, less than others if you remove the over 40% black on black killings in America.
firearms on the other hand prevent up to 3,000,000 crimes a year in the U.S. so they perform a very useful function besides the less tangible and less provable one of deterance agaisnst crime and tyranny.
so let's say that you may prevent a percent or two of homicides in the U.S. if you could make fierarms dissapear... the percent or two would be those ones that were "spur of the moment" "convient and easy" ones... I don't think more than t a percent or two of potential murders would say "oh... i don't have a gun.. I guess I didn't really want to kill that guy over the last beer if I have to use this baseball bat or crowbar or.... knife".
soo... u prevent a few murders and... at the same time about 3,000,000 crimes are not stopped anually by firearms.. plus... like in england... not only are they not stopped but... withourt the deterance...you get this crap.. (which get's us back to the topic)
"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.
People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.
The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "
the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms each year... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something
-
Originally posted by NUKE
what have you lost if you are a criminal and have a gun anyway?
What have you lost if you are a criminal and have a large bag of heroin?
Nothing both ways, till your caught with it, and then you don't get to use your blockbuster card for ten years.
Tronsky
-
yep trotsky... banning things for everyone in order to keep them out of the hands of a few criminal is pointless.... better that you allow citizens to be armed and increase the penalties for commiting crimes with firearms... you then have the best of both worlds... The prevention of crime that firearms cause in the U.S. combine with the fact that the law abiding will be better armed than the crooks. If you simply ban the means for the law abiding to protect themselves you end up with this....
"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.
People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.
The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "
the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms each year... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
What have you lost if you are a criminal and have a large bag of heroin?
Nothing both ways, till your caught with it, and then you don't get to use your blockbuster card for ten years.
Tronsky
So heroin was legal there, then banned?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So heroin was legal there, then banned?
hmmm....who were you calling a moron again? :rolleyes:
Tronsky
-
Mr. Toad!
Tronski is commenting on your signature, I believe, not the quality of your arguments.
Oh, well that makes sense. Because I haven't been arguing in this thread. I haven't needed to. Nashwan has got all bases covered. And as he said further up, a gun ban in Britain is not going to have much of an effect on UK figures because we had no gun problem before, relatively speaking - around 50 firearms related homicides annually. The figures are too low for any percentage change to be noted without being distorted by year on year fluctuations. I believe Nashwan cited the example of banning skiing in Jamaica- wouldn't have any effect at all! My belief is that the gun ban was enacted by this Government (for which I did not vote) as a means of being seen to have done something in the wake of the 1995 Dunblane Massacre. There are just too few guns out here for a change in the law to make a difference, or as I said in an earlier thread, bugger all difference! It's like introducing a law requiring that seatbelts be worn in cars travelling in Sark, one of the 6 Channel Islands. No lives would be saved because cars are not allowed on Sark!
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
IF something was stable and not increasing , could that not be seen as working?
Also what is the breakdown of the AIC stats? The causes, types of homicides, social groupings etc. etc.
Well, if there's no change..... and there isn't...... before and after the ban I'd say common sense would see it as having had no effect.
Particularly since homicide rates were dropping significantly, on the order of 20% over the same 5 year period in the US without any bans. THAT'S working... not having something "relatively stable".
Breakdowns are all available at the AIC sight. Well, a lot of different breakdowns. Check it out and see if they have what you want.
If you have a legitmate reason, you still can have a firearm.
IF your reason agrees with Nanny's reason. In any event, the convenience level of just going hunting has dropped incredibly. All that for no perceptible gain.
I guess we will still have to rely on the police to do our justifiable killing.
So, private citizens saving themselves 176 times is insignificant?
I view it as having about 1/2 again as many legitimate Law Enforcement actions. It's proof once again that the cops can't be everywhere when needed.
But you go ahead and dial 911. ;) To each his own.
-
Beetle.
Ah. So England's and Australia's bans were pointless wastes of resources? "like introducing a law requiring that seatbelts be worn in cars travelling in Sark"?
Glad you agree.
However, from this you extrapolate that they will work for the US?
My smile for the day.
At least they've solved the alcohol-related vehicle slaughter on Sark, eh? Perhaps the rest of the UK will follow that wise example. :D
Surely you can use the same argument for that that you use for the US and guns. :p
-
The Labour Government (for which I did not vote) specialises in wasting resources - the Millennium Dome, the M4 Bus Lane to name but two. I was only vaguely aware of a gun ban when we started talking about it in these threads. It made "bugger all difference" as far as I was concerned. :D:p
As to everything else you've said to me in the last 2 days, it's all been covered in earlier threads.
-
Toad, I seem to remember it was the anti gun control crowd who brought up the "bans" in Britain and Australia as evidence that a "ban" would have no effect in America.
Fact is, the ban had no effect whatsoever in the UK, which had some of the tightest firearms laws in the world anyway. In Australia, which had fairly tight rules on the types of firearms most used in crimes, the rate has reduced by about 30 murders per year.
Neither country is a good example for America, because neither country had the sort of free-for-all on handguns that the US has.
Lazs, what is to stop you filing the serial number off one of your handguns and selling it to your neighbour?
Do the police know how many guns you have bought? If so, have you always had to register each gun?
Are you allowed to sell your gun to a friend? Do you have to register the transfer, and make background checks to see if he has a record?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Neither country is a good example for America, because neither country had the sort of free-for-all on handguns that the US has.
So now you're down to trying something in the US that has never worked anywhere else? While agreeing that the US is a totally different situation and it would be an untested hypothesis?
Another incredibly expensive experiment based on a hypothesis with no support whatsover?
Doesn't make much sense when you consider that in 5 out of the last 6 years our homicide rate has dropped dramatically. Something like 20% until you hit the ~2% increase in the latest stats.
I think we'd better keep using our resources in was that work for us, instead of wasting them like you folks did on ways that didn't even work for you.
Please excuse me if I prefer to continue what we're doing before trying something that hasn't worked anywhere else.
As I've said before, I would be interested in exploring measures to weed out the criminal element from US firearms ownership.
The problem here is that the "anti" forces have made it clear that they will not rest until banning/confiscation is accomplished. You need only to research the recorded statements of the folks that run Handgun Control to verify this.
As a result, there are few gun owners here that don't see any move in that direction as the "camel's nose in the tent". I don't see how any law protecting gun owner's rights will change that perception, either. After all, people argue over something as clear as the 2nd.
-
nash... it is difficult if not impossible to file of the numbers in such a way that they would not be recoverable.. it is also a huge waste of time.. we have plenty of firearms floating around... Our criminals are not super slueths ...Most guns used by criminals are stolen weapons in any case.. Yes... you have to go through the whole background and regestration fiasco even if you sell your gun to your mother. It must be done by a licenced dealer to be legal. you must go through a licenced dealer for any firearm purchase.
But.... I don't get the point... what is it you want us to do? What EXACTLY do you believe that we... in this country... should do about our right to keep and bear arms? What laws would you enact in the U.S. and why do you feel that they would be effective? How do you propose to make up for the allmost 3,000,000 crimes that are prevented by firearms each year? Are you prepared to just let the U.S. citizen be victimized by criminals and if so.... why? what good would it do? do you have any proof whatsoever that banning firearms would save lives? What about the several hundred lives that are saved by citizens who defend themselves with firearms each year? Are you prepared to sacrafice these people for a policy that has no decernible effect on the amount of homicides that would occur?
I get the feeling that most of you gun control nuts are not really speaking to us on the board... you are speaking to your girlfriends or wives...
most of all... no gun ban ever did a thing... not even reduced gun homicides or gun crime..... by itself. There was allways a penalty involved... I mean... the guns didn't just go away... they are still out there ... the government didn't just put everyone on their honor to longer own firearms.. What it did was, in every case, make it prohibitively expensive for the criminal to use a firearm in his crimes.... it was the penalty not the ban. You would get exactly the same results if you simply increased the penalty for gun crime without reducing the availability. No matter how available... if the penalty is high enough you will see huge reductions in gun crime including homicide. It would also be a tool for reducing gang related crime. You would at least get the worst of em off the street for a much longer period of time.
lazs
-
Toad, Britain has had gun control for 70 years or more. It's worked, in that very few people are killed with guns, and Britain has one of the lowest murder rates in the world (despite having one of the highest crime rates in the world)
Most guns used by criminals are stolen weapons in any case
Doesn't that prove the point, that criminals get their guns via legitimate owners, wether by onward sales or stealing doesn't really matter. If the law abiding citizen didn't sell his gun, or leave it lying around, the criminals would find it much harder to get guns.
Yes... you have to go through the whole background and regestration fiasco even if you sell your gun to your mother.
What if you don't? What if you simply report the gun lost or stolen, or simply don't report the change in ownership at all?
Do the police check that you still have the guns you bought?
From a couple of quick net searches, it doesn't seem very difficult to remove the serial from a gun. Seems thre are quite a few people out there buying guns, removing serials, then selling them to local criminals.
What EXACTLY do you believe that we... in this country... should do about our right to keep and bear arms?
Do whatever you like. I've never even been to America, what you do with your guns doesn't affect me in any way.
What laws would you enact in the U.S. and why do you feel that they would be effective?
I wouldn't enact any laws. That's a politicians job, and I've never wanted to be one of those.
What I think you could do to make a differenc to firearms crime is register handguns, and licence the owners. Lose a handgun, lose your licence to buy any more. Sort of like the old British system, where anyone who wanted a gun licence, who wasn't a: insane, or b: a convicted criminal, could get a licence, and buy as many guns as he wanted. He had to have a safe place to store them, like a proper gun safe.
If he lost a gun, he would be deemed too irresponsible own them, and would lose his licence. Given that a child can find a lost gun, that sounds fair enough to me.
If he wanted to sell it, he had to transfer ownership to another licenced owner, and the gun would still be tracked.
It ensured guns couldn't get sold to unlicenced users. They were rarely stolen, because of the proper gun safes that were a prerequisite for owning a gun.
Are you prepared to just let the U.S. citizen be victimized by criminals and if so.... why?
They are already victimised by criminals. Certainly some crimes are stopped by guns, but many more are comitted with guns, and many people are killed with guns.
Who's more victimized, the woman walking down the street who has her bag snatched by a man who runs past her, the woman who has a gun pushed in her face and is forced to hand over her bag, or the woman who is shot by a mugger?
Street robberies are common in Britain, but in most cases they consist of bag snatching.
Robberies with firearms are common in the US.
In the UK in 2000. 34 people were murdered during a robbery or other theft. In the US, which has around 6 times the population, the figure was 1,200
There was allways a penalty involved... I mean... the guns didn't just go away... they are still out there
No, they aren't. What happened in Britain and Australia was guns were bought back, and destroyed. There are simply less guns out there.
it was the penalty not the ban. You would get exactly the same results if you simply increased the penalty for gun crime without reducing the availability.
No, criminals break the law. That's what they do. If the severity of the punishment was the determining factor, the US, with the death penalty, would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world.
Do you think the guy who shot his friend over the beer was thinking about the consequences? Do you think a crack head, desperate for a fix, is thinking about the prison time he might get? If criminals thought about consequences, they wouldn't be criminals anymore.
America's longer prison sentences work not because of the deterrent effect, buit because the prisoners are behind bars where they can't commit crimes against society.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Toad, Britain has had gun control for 70 years or more. It's worked, in that very few people are killed with guns,
The US has had gun controls for a long time as well. Certainly back in to the '20's or '30's when fully automatic weapons were restricted. After Kennedy, we got a lot more gun control. It's been successful as well. Look at the drop in our homicide rate in the past 6 years.
What I think you could do to make a differenc to firearms crime is register handguns, and licence the owners.... Sort of like the old British system, where anyone who wanted a gun licence, who wasn't a: insane, or b: a convicted criminal, could get a licence, and buy as many guns as he wanted.
That right there is essentially the system we have now.
He had to have a safe place to store them, like a proper gun safe.
If he lost a gun, he would be deemed too irresponsible own them, and would lose his licence....
If he wanted to sell it, he had to transfer ownership to another licenced owner, and the gun would still be tracked.
These would be new additional provisions for us.
And here's why they would be vehemently opposed by most gun owners in the US.
You folks did all this and you did it when guns were not particularly a problem anyway.
Then you had a media gun incident or two and these provisions were no longer enough.
You went right on from relatively common sense restrictions to banning & confiscation. That's where all those licenses and registrations really came into play, isn't it?
The bottom line is this: No matter what US gun owners agreed to do to help out, it would never, ever be enough.
We'd end up right where your law-abiding gun owners did...... without most of our guns and with an incredibly complex and inconvenient system of owning and using the ones nanny decided to let us keep.
As I said, I think all of us realize the "camel's nose" aspect of the anti's.
And that's why the line in the sand will always be drawn and why it will always be such a vehemently argued problem.
There is simply no pleasing the anti's until they get their bans and confiscation.
The UK example should show this beyond doubt. As you said, you didn't really even have a gun problem and the ban was stupid. Yet it was implemented anyway.
Anti's win. Game, Set, Match.
Not here. :D
-
And as he said further up, a gun ban in Britain is not going to have much of an effect on UK figures because we had no gun problem before, relatively speaking
+
Neither country (England, Australia) is a good example for America
+
America's longer prison sentences work not because of the deterrent effect, buit because the prisoners are behind bars where they can't commit crimes against society.
=
Clarity
-
nash.. toad said most of it but... I don't believe that if you lose a gun through no fault of your own you should be deemed "irresponsible" that is like saying that if you lock your car in your driveway and a kid steals it you lose your right to drive because you are irresponsible... more kids are killed by cars than guns.
So... you have no idea what we should do here but... it sounds like you think an outrighrt ban is a good idea? 3,000,000 crimes a year are stopped by firearms... many that would be fatal... You claim that 1200 people are shot a year due to criminals with guns... I would point out that the "robbery" and assault is gang related in most cases not a citizen being assaulted byu a criminal... ... They are also mostly convienience store robberies too.. Bet most of them are gang related... bet yuou would get most of them off the street with tougher gun crime laws and penalties. A woman is FOUR times more likey to not be harmed if she resists with a gun than if she doesn't resist. You seem to favor punishing the law abiding (lose your firearm and be punished) where I favor punishing the criminal (use a gun in a crime and rot in jail).. I think my idea is more effective.... certainly it is the more effective if you wish to (as we do) continue to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights.
you say that criminals will continue as ever if the penalties are increased and the availabiltiy remains the samd... that is proven to be false.. wherever penalties go up for gun crime it goes dwon... wherever gun availability goes up violent crime goes down. Are you saying that if there was a death penalty for commiting a crime with a gun that the rate wouldn't go down? how bout life in prison? how bout adding 10 years mandatory? chopping off a hand? No... crime goes down when the penalty goes up espedcially crime that sees no profit... yu make no more money in crime using a gun or not using one...
Nope... well meaning ideas nash but the math is against you... More guns does indeed mean less crime here. I say that more severe penalties means less gun crime too. do you disagree?
lazs
-
Toad,
After about 15 seconds of google I found the Canadian stats for attempted mure.
Took about 30 mins for me to track down the British stats.
But unfortunately it looks like the US puts it's stats for attempted murder in the set for aggravated assult.
Too bad.
-
thrawn... how would anyone know if and aggravated assault was an attempted murder or not? I have seen on helluva lot of "agravated assaults" and "assault with a deadly weapon and even got an assult with intent to do grave bodily harm of my own... I would defy anyone to fighure out intent in any of those cases that I witnessed.
I think any stats like that would be pointess and inaccurate.
lazs
-
Just reverting back to the TITLE of this thread, I think Mr. Toad is the current clear favourite! :D
-
Mine is updated weekly, Lazs gets the honor this week. :)
-
talk on. it isn't going to change a thing.
We have our guns and we'll keep our guns. Period.
the rest is jaw-excercise, or in this case finger excercise.
the next poll should be on "Abuse of language", I E needlesly lengthy replies...
-
Signature blocks and avatars are for conformist rutabagas!
-
You can go into User cp / edit options / thread view options and turn off signatures so you dont have to be bothered with reading them.
I owe ya a beer! thanks!
-
I believe Mr. Powell's remarks have had enough exposure for now.
I shall save them in case memories fade.
I now return to my regularly scheduled sig block, born in the overwhelming angst of one of Ram's personal crisis over the plenitude of F4U-1C's.
:D
-
Cripes, I never thought I would miss the days when we debated gun law, compared to what we debate now.
Makes me wonder if I will miss international law arguements when the aliens attack.
-
I don't get it.