U.S.A. violent crimes drop 3% but....

[Nashwan]

The truth is that there is a percentage of people in entgland who would like to freely own firearms that can't... pistols, revolvers and center fire rifles kept in their home and used to protect them and their family.... and neighbors.

Why centre fire rifles? AFAIK, they are available to anyone with a licence.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm

as can be seen... your crime is higher than ours in every case and is trending higher in allmost all
lazs

You'll note that all the British figures finish in 1995.

Could be a coincidence, but here's the 2002/03 figures, showing the trend over the last decade:



The raw figures are:

Crime            1995         2003
Robbery      338,000    300,000

Wounding   912,000    704,000
(Assault)

Burglary    1,734,000   974,000

Car Theft    370,000     300,000

As you point out, though, crime is as high or higher in England and Wales, apart from murder, where your murder rate is several times ours. Odd that.

Could be down to the prevalence of guns during your crimes. What is it, 45% of your robberies involve guns, 4% of ours?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Excel1
Thorp's recomendations were always going to be for tougher gun laws because the premise for making the report is that we have a gun problem, which is bollocks, and the government knows it. Thats why the< Arms Amendment Act No2 >(the registration of all firearms) has not made it into law yet, because the goverment can't justify it on the piddling amount of gun crime in NZ.

I read about half of that police report posted by Vulcan. One thing that amazed me was that 73% of gun deaths are suicides.

I appreciate that the amount of gun crime in NZ is "piddling", but don't you appreciate the pre-emptive value of legislation? I've always been one to look at how things turn out in other countries to try to gauge how the same issues might pan out here. It's not an exact science, of course, which is why some of those American studies into British gun ownership rights fall down.

Perhaps Thorp's stance is that he doesn't want to wait for there to be a torrent of gun crime before doing something about it.

[lazs2]

nashwan... correct... our gun crime is higher.   It is just a shift tho and depends on what you want as a country...  we shift lower overall crime for more gun crime...

several factors play into it... The most important, to me, and... the root of this whole discussion and the difference between the U.S. and the uk is this...

We are willing to suffer the bad with the good... we feel, and statistics point out that we are better off with the guns than without em.   We have just as much and probly more suceptibility to crime as you do yet we have a lower crime rate because we have guns to defend against criminal tyranny... we would rather fight than hide under the bed or pay up and hope the criminal doesn't hurt us..

We prevent 1.5-3 million crimes a year with firearms.... places like DC and new york city and detroit and chicago that don't allow firearms are cesspools that most of us don't want for America.  The price we pay is more guns on the street... more available to the criminal..  we have mitigated this somewhat by tougher gun crimes penalties but need to make the penalties more like yours.

second, and less important is the fact that allmost half to over half of our tgun crime is committed by blacks with a tiny bit by other minorities.  that is the price we pay for a vibrant society.

lastly.. we report homicide differently... we report all gun crime not just those that can be solved.

This brings us full circle... a basic difference in national personalities... we detest our criminals and fight them with the best tools we can get... you seem to think that a lot of crime activity is fine so long as less people get hurt.  we would rather kill or be killed.  

We all wear those stupid and uncomfortable seat belts for hours a day even though the chance of them ever saving our lives is extremely small....  yet, To keep a single action 1911 45 on the nightstand is considered paranoid?    who thought that one up?

to me... the logical and fair solution is to stop all the possing and hand wringing and simply take the best of both worlds.... increase the penalties for gun crime while at the same time making it easier for any law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms.  

it really is that simple.

lazs

[lazs2]

nashwan... how do you get a licence for a center fire rifle?  here you gto fill out the paperwork that says you aren't a convicted fellon on parole or crazy or drug addicted and wait (depending on state) so many days and then pick up your rifle and however much ammo you want to buy....

I buy ammo mail order in 1,000 round lots... how bout you?   My rifles are in my home.   yours?    I only have to fill out paperwork on that rifle ever agin if I sell it.

I can have any kind of pistol in my house so long as it is not full auto (I have to get a licence for full auto).

I can shoot on any land I have permission to so long as it is outside city limits and the direction I am shooting is so many yards away from any building.   How does it work there?


lazs

[Nashwan]

lastly.. we report homicide differently... we report all gun crime not just those that can be solved.

So do we lazs.

For instance, from the 2001/02 figures:

"Of the 858 offences first recorded in 2001/02, 26 were no longer recorded as homicides by 8 October 2002. Court proceedings had resulted in findings of guilt in respect of 270 victims and
proceedings were pending for a further 358. The suspects responsible for the deaths of 29 victims had committed suicide or died. No suspects had been identified in connection with 168 victims including nine cases where the original suspects were acquitted."

So, of the 858 recorded murders, 270 had been solved, in 168 cases there wasn't even a suspect.

The murder total is 858 though, not 270.

The only real difference in the way murder cases are recorded between Britain and America is that we count all manslaughter, American statistics only count non-negligent manslaughter.

This brings us full circle... a basic difference in national personalities... we detest our criminals and fight them with the best tools we can get... you seem to think that a lot of crime activity is fine so long as less people get hurt.

No, less people get killed

Most people will shrug off a burglary, or at least get over it in a few months. A murder not just ends the victim's life, it wrecks the lives of family and close friends.

we would rather kill or be killed.

I'd say that shows a very immature attitude.

I'd rather be burgled than killed. I'd rather be burgled than have any of my friends killed.

We all wear those stupid and uncomfortable seat belts for hours a day even though the chance of them ever saving our lives is extremely small.... yet, To keep a single action 1911 45 on the nightstand is considered paranoid?

It's not paranoid, it's uneccessary.

It stems from the flawed belief that guns protect you. It stems from the flawed, and rather silly, belief that being armed means you are safe

Tell that to the US police, who had 70 officers murdered on duty, despite all being armed, and most wearing body armour.

Tell that to the British police, who had 1 officer murdered (and that was rare), despite rarely being armed.

Being armed is only preferable to not being armed, but not at the price of arming criminals. You might be a bit safer if you're armed, you're a hell of a lot safer if the criminal isn't armed.

That's why we have less people murdered. We have far less people murdered in "home invasions" than you do, probably because our "home invaders" don't carry guns.

You're much safer tackling a burglar if neither of you are armed than if both of you are.

In the US last year, 1,200 people were murdered during robberies, burglaries and car jackings. And that's out of around 10,000 murders, with the other 5,000 not providing details of the circumstances of the offence.

In Britain in 2003, 48 people were murdered during all robberies, burglaries and car jackings.

[Nashwan]

to me... the logical and fair solution is to stop all the possing and hand wringing and simply take the best of both worlds.... increase the penalties for gun crime while at the same time making it easier for any law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms.

it really is that simple.

They're criminals lazs. They're not going to obey the laws.

If they did obey laws, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

I must say I find your trust in not just your fellow citizens, but also the criminals, to be touching, but a bit naive.

nashwan... how do you get a licence for a center fire rifle?

You apply for one, show the reason you want it (hunting, target practice, vermin control, etc), the police do checks on you, and your storage arangements, if all checks out, you get the licence.

You then buy the gun, fill out the paperwork, and it's added to your licence.

That way, the rifle is your responsibility. If you want to sell it, it has to be exported, sold to a gun dealer, or sold to another licence holder, and the transfer is registered.

here you gto fill out the paperwork that says you aren't a convicted fellon on parole or crazy or drug addicted and wait (depending on state) so many days and then pick up your rifle and however much ammo you want to buy....

And what's to stop Fred the bank robber, who hasn't been caught yet, buying a gun? What's to stop you selling your rifle to Tom the sniper, who has a record as long as your arm?

Make it easy for you to get guns, and you make it easy for them to get guns as well.

I buy ammo mail order in 1,000 round lots... how bout you? My rifles are in my home. yours? I only have to fill out paperwork on that rifle ever agin if I sell it.

I don't have a rifle. I've got quite a few things higher on my want list than a rifle as well, so I can't see myself buying one soon.

If there's no paperwork on the gun, what's to stop you selling it on to a convicted criminal? I know it's against the law, but as I said, criminals ignore laws, by definition. What's to stop you?

I can shoot on any land I have permission to so long as it is outside city limits and the direction I am shooting is so many yards away from any building. How does it work there?

Same here, although it has to be a certain distance from roads, not houses (afaik). You can, for instance, shoot from your window if you want to.

There are limits on shooting some animals (hunting seasons, protected species etc).

[beet1e]

Lazs, Nashwan has covered the gun stuff. But what's this about seat belts...

Originally posted by lazs2
We all wear those stupid and uncomfortable seat belts for hours a day even though the chance of them ever saving our lives is extremely small....  

I don't find seat belts uncomfortable at all. I always used one since I started driving in 1971, long before they became mandatory on 1st January, 1983. As for the "extremely small" chance of having one save your life, it depends which way you look at it. Yes, most of us have never been in a situation in which a seat belt would have saved our lives. But at the same time, belts cut our road death toll from around 5000 per annum to about 3000 - a drop of some 40%, so clearly they do make a difference to overall statistics.

I would say that the chances of a seatbelt playing a part in saving your life are at least as high as the loaded semi auto on your night stand saving your life.

[lazs2]

beetle.. I would agree... the chance of a seatbelt saving my life (or a lifejacket saving me from drowning) are about the same as as my 45 sitting on my nightstand saving my life or someone I care about but....

the fact that I and other Americans are willing to have guns and use em probly has saved the lives of many who would have died at the hands of criminals that felt no fear in breaking into homes like in your country.

Like I said... minus the black population our homicide rate is 2 per 100,000  that is not a big deal for all the benifiets of lower crime rates and the freedom to defend yourself.

nash says that all he has to do is apply for a certificate and "show reason" to own a firearm...  What is considered a good reason?    Why do you have to show a reason at all?   the government should have to show reason why I shouldn't have one.

Criminals have no problem getting guns anywhere in the world.... I don't worry about that in the least.   It can't be stopped but you can arm yourself.  

you say I trust criminals?  how so?   I simply know that they act in cowardly ways and in their own self interest.  they don't go into houses where people live because of the threat of running into a gun and they by and large do not go armed to crime because of the added charges.

here, guns are a net plus so far as crime.   They are probly a net plus so far as homicides go.    

You thgink it is fine to watch helplessly as you are being robbed.... Americans find this unthinkable.... we shall never agree about it.... it is a quality of life issue I suppose.

lazs

[Excel1]

Originally posted by beet1e
I read about half of that police report posted by Vulcan. One thing that amazed me was that 73% of gun deaths are suicides.

I appreciate that the amount of gun crime in NZ is "piddling", but don't you appreciate the pre-emptive value of legislation? I've always been one to look at how things turn out in other countries to try to gauge how the same issues might pan out here. It's not an exact science, of course, which is why some of those American studies into British gun ownership rights fall down.

Perhaps Thorp's stance is that he doesn't want to wait for there to be a torrent of gun crime before doing something about it.

Beetle, the fact that 73% of gun deaths are suicides just highlights how low gun deaths due to crime are. While I accept that figure looks bad as far as suiciding with guns is concerned, but you don't get the true picture from the summary of the report.

This is from the full version of the report:

Means of Suicide
While suicides make up a large proportion of the total deaths
from firearms, firearm suicides are not the most prevalent
method of suicide. Firearm suicides currently account for
approximately 18 percent of the total suicides each year.

Means of Suicide, 1980–1993
Means Percentage
of total
Hanging/suffocation 30.5
Gases and vapours 23.0
Firearms (incl explosives) 18.3
Poisoning (solid/liquid substance) 14.1
Jumping from high place 4.3
Drowning 4.2
Other (incl late effects) 3.4
............................. ............................. ....

Suicides by fireams make up less than one fith of the total suicides per year.

Beetle Thorp's report was written seven years ago and in that time we have not had a torrent of crime and there's little chance that we ever will. A small country with a small population is relativly easy to police, and if there was any inkling by the government of the day that crime was going to escalate in a big way they wouldn't mess around fabricating a report to try and justify tougher gun laws.They would just act. So to answer your question on pre emtive legislation, I can only say that to be "pre emtive", the legislation for tougher gun regulations as Thorp recomends would have to be based on valid evidence of an impending problem. But there is none, not in Thorp's report or real life.

Excel

[Excel1]

Originally posted by lazs2

Like I said... minus the black population our homicide rate is 2 per 100,000  that is not a big deal for all the benifiets of lower crime rates and the freedom to defend yourself.

lazs

Why do you subtract Blacks fron US crime statistics ?

Dont they count as Americans ?

It just seems illogical to me.

Excel

[beet1e]

Thanks, Excel. One day I'd like to "do" the southern hemisphere properly - OZ, NZ etc.

Originally posted by Excel1
Why do you subtract Blacks fron US crime statistics ?

Dont they count as Americans ?

Gun crime NIMBYism. Besides, Nashwan produced some official figures which cast some doubt on Lazs's assertions.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Why centre fire rifles? AFAIK, they are available to anyone with a licence.
 

IF you can convince the local Police Supervisor or whichever low level officer he designates that YOU have a "reason" to "need" one.

If he thinks shooting tin cans with a .22 rifle isn't a "good reason" you're out of luck.

BTW, are these policemen that make these decisions for you elected or appointed or just promoted from patrolman or what?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Vulcan

Toad, I think you just don't get it, NZ has survived happily on its gun laws for about 20 years now without changing them much.

Have a read here: http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/

What a coincidence! I don't think YOU get it.

I read that link. Seven years ago your "betters" laid out the plan for ever more restrictions, including MSSA. The blueprint is right there in your link. They make it crystal clear what they intend to do. So far, their HungerDunFordBlane moment hasn't arrived.... yet. But the plan is in place, on the shelf. Once again, more is never enough and the antis are not satisfied.

Recommendations
Part 4.3 The arguments against further controls - the "firearms debate"

1 That the new Firearms Act specifically provide that self-defence is not a legitimate purpose for the acquisition of firearms.

Part 6.1.1 Restricting the availability of high-risk firearms

Restricted Weapons

2 That all restricted weapons be permanently disabled.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a ton of "recommendations".

Not implemented yet but ready and waiting for the moment. The worst part is all of those new restrictions won't be enough. The antis will just draw up another "to do" list for you once they get those.

Again, you guys are just another frog in the slowly warming pot. It'll boil eventually.. but you'll be unconscious before then.

If there were a guarantee that there would be an end to "more" from the antis, there would be a possibility of change. But there can be no guarantee because it is clear, worldwide, that the antis will never be satisfied.