More Gun control???

[lazs2]

beetle... you asked if people would want unrestricted gun ownership... something that does not exist anywhere in the world.  you offered no other choices so.... basicly.. you offered an extreme or nothing.  

nash.. my poll was much simpler and infinetley more fair and meanigful.  it offered realistic choices.... more, less or the same for gun control...

Also... 1/3 of gun homicides are by whites.  your "1/3" by others iclaim to be ewqually divided between whites and minorities is silly since most unsolved murders are in predominently minority neighborhoods and are related to drug and gang crime.

as for hundguns... most of the crimes that are stopped with firearms are prevented with handguns... no matter how you look at it.... handguns are a net asset in the U.S.    

The way that britan reports crime has been chjanged but it is still not as strict as the way the U.S. does.   england has a very poor rate of conviction when compared to the U.S.    I believe they only report homiciides that are solved .

Norway allows silenced carbines and so called assault weapons.   Are you saying that if we allowed these things and norways restrictions on handguns we would have less homicides?   That seems to contradict current democratic gun control ideas in the U.S. that demonize silencers and semi automatic firearms.

If we got rid of handguns then there would be no more concealled carry and crime would go up in those states.  

Criminals in the U.S. are not going around shooting citizens with handguns.  They are killing each other over drugs and criminals are being stopped by law abiding citizens who are using handguns and longarms to prevent crime.

lazs

[Nashwan]

I believe they only report homiciides that are solved .

No, the homicide figures in Britain count 1 homicide for every person the police suspect was the victim of murder or manslaughter.

They even count manslaughter by negligence, which the US figures exclude.

Criminals in the U.S. are not going around shooting citizens with handguns.

Frequently they are. They are being shot during roberies, or during arguments, in pretty large numbers.

In 2002, the last year the figures are available, something over 1200 people were murdered during robberies, burgularies or other thefts.

Over 4,000 were killed during arguments.

They are killing each other over drugs

Again according to the FBI, about 660 were murdered in connection with narcotics, around 900 in gang violence.

and criminals are being stopped by law abiding citizens who are using handguns and longarms to prevent crime.

And people are getting killed by criminals when they attempt to stop them. Gunfights are inherently dangerous.

It's not like Hollywood where the good guys win, you know. Chances are, a criminal has the initative, is less likely to worry about shooting first, and is usually younger and fitter than the armed citizen they may encounter.

[lazs2]

killed during arguements?   My guess is that about 90% of those arguements were drug or gang or crime related.  The reamining ten per cent or so is most likely spousal abuse cases where the woman is defending herself.

1200 murdered during robberies?   about 80% of those were the robbers themselves... without armed citizens that is likely to be reversed.  A burglar killed is considered a "homicide during a robbery".   In armed confrontations the burglar is about 5 times more likely to lose than the homeowner.

say what you like about our supervillans who are able to win the gunfight but the stats show that, depending on if you are  a man or a woman or your race, you are from 1.4 to 4 times more likely to survive a violent encounter with a criminal if you are armed than if you are not.


soo... of the around 8,000 deaths by firearms in a year there are only about 2500 that are caused by whites and of those probly 60% or more are justified which leaves around a thousand of which mostr would have simply been murdered in other ways if there were no guns at all (just like in other countries)  

those few murders are a pitance compared to the potential harm caused by loseing the 2-3 million dettered by handgun crimes that occuir every year in the U.S.

People who advocate strong gun control are either dishonest about their motive or ignorant or.... both.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... you asked if people would want unrestricted gun ownership...

Not quite. My original question was

"Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?"

[Nashwan]

killed during arguements? My guess is that about 90% of those arguements were drug or gang or crime related.

No, they have seperate categories for drug and gang related murders.

660 nracotics related murders, 990 gang related murders.

1200 murdered during robberies? about 80% of those were the robbers themselves... without armed citizens that is likely to be reversed. A burglar killed is considered a "homicide during a robbery".

No, those are counted as justifiable homicide, and not included in the figures.

From the UCR handbook:

1a.-8 Justifiable homicide. A police officer answers a bank holdup alarm and suprises the robber coming out of the bank. After firing at the officer, the robber is shot and killed. The officer is charged in a court of record as a matter of routine in such cases. (One offence of murder, unfounded, and one offence of robbery, cleared by exceptional means)

1a.-9 Justifiable homicide. When a gunman entered a store and attempted to rob the propietor, the felon was shot and killed by the storekeeper. (One offence of murder, unfounded, and one offence of robbery, cleared by exceptional means)


No actual offences will be counted or recorded for justifiable homicides.

That's straight from the UCR handbook on how to report crimes to the FBI for the records.

In armed confrontations the burglar is about 5 times more likely to lose than the homeowner.

Can I have a source for that?

The US department of justice keep records on the number of justifiable homicides by police, and the FBI keep records on the number of police officers murdered on duty.

On average, the score is 5 to 1, ie the police shoot dead 5 criminals for every policeman murdered (excluding 9/11).

Over half the police officers murdered were wearing body armour.

If the police, who are well trained, frequently in body armour, and usually have the initiative when confronting criminals, only manage 5 to 1, I can't see it likely that citizens, who have much less training, almost never have body armour, and who rarely have the initiative, will do as well.

I think somebody has given you the police figures, rather than homeowner figures.

soo... of the around 8,000 deaths by firearms

It's not 8,000, it's over 10,000.

The FBI records that of the 14,054 murders where they had full information, 9,369 were committed with firearms.

However, there were another 2,200 or so murders where the FBI didn't have full information on weapons, circumstances etc. Note these are not "unkown causes" of death, these are cases where the local police simply didn't give extended information on race, weapons, circumstances etc.

Considering the figure is well over half of murders where the FBI have information are with firearms, I should think the same proportion would apply to the cases where the FBI do not have full information.

That means around 10,500 murders with firearms.

there are only about 2500 that are caused by whites

No, the FBI report around 5,500 murders by whites. On top of that, as I said, around 1/3 of murders the FBI don't know the suspect's race, but that doesn't mean the local police don't. The 5,500 figure is where the race is known, you have to add a proportion of 5,000 or so unknowns to that.

Contrary to your belief that all unkown murder suspects are black, it's rural forces that are less likely to give full info to the FBI, not the big inner city police forces, and in rural areas the offenders are more likely to be white.

Approx half the murders in the US are carried out by whites.

and of those probly 60% or more are justified

No, justifieds aren't counted at all.

would have simply been murdered in other ways if there were no guns at all (just like in other countries)

But they aren't murdered at anything like the same rate in other developed countries.

People who advocate strong gun control are either dishonest about their motive or ignorant or.... both.

Or are using the correct statistics rather than one's they've made up?

[demaw1]

Nashwan
 
  cant reply tonight have to get up early, will by saturday.

 btw.....he he he you noticed only person who has.  not bad.

[lazs2]

ok nash.. I will ask you the same... where do you get the stats you use?   your totals do not equal what you say are the number of homicides with firearms in the U.S..

!/3 of the total homicides by whites does not equal 5500 as you say later... and.. if 1/3 of the known homicides are by whites then why would half of the unknown be by whites?   wouldn't it be at most, 1/3 also?  

The figures for men and women defending themselves with firearms are ones collected by jophn lott from FBI and police data and show that you are much more likely to survive an attack if you are armed.

police are not supermen and they frequently go up against armed criminals such as holdup men and gang members.  They also can't go into a situation like a routine traffic stop with drawn guns and all the caution they would like.

contrast this with the homeowner on his own ground, gun at the ready, confronting a criminal who is very seldom armed with a firearm due to increased penalties for their use in a crime.   He has a much better chance at prevailing than a cop at a traffic stop..

gangf related is not just the gang members that are over 17 that can be proven to be in a gang related crime at the time.   What are all these (over 2/3 of the homicides or say 9000 minority ones)  What are they killing each other over?   "arguements"?    I would need to see "arguements " defined a little better.   For instance.. A very common homicide is a woman shooting an abusive husband who beats her.   I see no figures for this so assume it is under "arguement".

Drive by shootings kill more innocent people than the intended gangmembers... this is still gang related but not reported as such.

either way... with the FBI addmitting that 1.5 to 3 million crimes prevented with firearms in the U.S. then killing a few thousand a year, most of who need killing, is a pitance.   How many of that 3 million are saved?

lazs

[lazs2]

And... nash, have you read any of John Lotts work?  There is no better researched works available.   Even those who opposse him admit that much.  

That is one of the reasons that I say those oppossed to guns are dishonest or ignorant or both.

dishonest because the raw data... FBI and lotts collection of state federal and county data all point to guns saving lives and preventing crime.  If the person argues knowing the facts then he is dishonest... If not... ignorant.  

If he simply is friegtened of guns so ignores the data in the false hope that taking guns away from his fellow citizens will make it less likely that he will ever see one or be a victim of a crime then he is both ignorant and dishonest.

I believe most anti gun people are dishonest about their motives.   They care not about the economics of the issue (save more or less than they kill) but have a personal fear of firearms that they are unwilling to openly admit so hide behind "for our own good" laws.

oh... and beetle... "all but unrestricted" is pretty extreme and would be viewed that way by most people... you offered your fellow subjects and socialists very little choice... nothing lesser than a 180.

I think everyone can see that my poll was infinetly more fair and representitive.

lazs

[Nashwan]

And... nash, have you read any of John Lotts work? There is no better researched works available. Even those who opposse him admit that much.

The last I heard, Lott had resorted to claiming he'd lost all his original data in a computer crash, when he was challenged over it's validity. He also can't provide any backup evidence that one of his key surveys was carried out, ie no records of the results, who wa surveyed, no bills to any survey organisations, no people who carried out the survey for him, etc.

See for example:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html

dishonest because the raw data... FBI and lotts collection of state federal and county data all point to guns saving lives and preventing crime. If the person argues knowing the facts then he is dishonest... If not... ignorant.

Lazs, you have less crime in MAerica than Britain. You have a much much higher murder rate.

You have less muggings, but far more people are killed during muggings.

These are facts.

I believe most anti gun people are dishonest about their motives. They care not about the economics of the issue (save more or less than they kill) but have a personal fear of firearms that they are unwilling to openly admit so hide behind "for our own good" laws.

I like guns. When I was a child, my father ran a gun club, and we spent many hours restoring an antique rifle (Martini Henry action, from what I remember.) I've owned airguns since I was a young child, and would probably have got a handgun liicence by now if the government hadn't totally banned them following Dunblane.

I like guns. I'm interested in guns. About the only things I ever know in Brady's "what is it" posts are guns.

I know too many people in the area that I live that I wouldn't trust with a gun.

If I lived in a country with lax gun laws, I would get handgun, both because I like them and for protection, because I might meet a criminal armed with one.

But I'm happier living in country where criminals find it hard to get guns, and I recognise if it's easy for me to get a gun, it's easy for criminals as well.

ok nash.. I will ask you the same... where do you get the stats you use? your totals do not equal what you say are the number of homicides with firearms in the U.S..

From the FBI report "Crime in the United States"
http://www.fbi.gov./ucr/ucr.htm#cius

!/3 of the total homicides by whites does not equal 5500 as you say later... and.. if 1/3 of the known homicides are by whites then why would half of the unknown be by whites? wouldn't it be at most, 1/3 also?

No, the FBI gives the following figures for 2002 (2003 not available yet)

Murders:  16,204
http://www.fbi.gov./ucr/02cius.htm Section II Crime Index pdf

Race: White 5356 Black 5579 Unknown
4604
Table 2.6 - Offenders by Age, Sex and Race, 2002

There are approx the same number of white murders as black. IF you take the "unkown figure, and divide it into the same proportion, you will get about 2150 extra whites, 2350 extra blacks.

The figures for men and women defending themselves with firearms are ones collected by jophn lott from FBI and police data and show that you are much more likely to survive an attack if you are armed.

How do you define an attack?

If someone is trying to kill you, of course you stand more chance of survival if you're armed.

In the vast majority of crimes, someone is not trying to kill you.

In the vast majority of crimes, someone is trying to steal from you. If you then get into a gunfight over your wallet, you stand more chance of dying than if you didn't get into a gunfight over your wallet.

The fact that a criminal is more likely to encounter an armed citizen means a criminal is more likely to shoot first in America.

If someone steals my wallet in the UK and runs, he knows if he can run faster than me, which he almost certainly can, then he's safe. He's got no reason to kill me.

In the US, he has to worry whether I will shoot him as he runs.

If someone is trying to kill you, you are safer with a gun. If someone is trying to rob you, you probably aren't.

The last time I got into an argument like this, I looked at the Nashville police site to try to find an example to illustrate my case. One happened a day or so before.

2 armed criminals went into a shop to try to rob the owner. He saw them coming, and ran into the back of the shop, shouting for help. The robbers flled. The shop owner grabbed a gun and chased after them, caught them in the street, and they shot him dead.

It was the second time he'd done a imilar thing, the first time, years earlier, he'd got probabtion (iirc) for shooting dead a fleeing robber.

If someone comes to rob me, I think I'm safer if I don't have a gun, I know I'm safer if he doesn't have a gun.

police are not supermen and they frequently go up against armed criminals such as holdup men and gang members. They also can't go into a situation like a routine traffic stop with drawn guns and all the caution they would like.

I know they can't, but the police are seldom the victims of the crime. They usually know at least something is happening.

Can a citizen go into a mugging with gun drawn? Do you draw a gun on everyone you think looks a bit funny?

Truth is, the criminal initiates the crime. Until that point, he's the only one who knows what's about to happen. The criminal outside the shop door knows that within seconds he's going to be point a gun at the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is merely waiting for his next customer, with no idea what's happening next.

contrast this with the homeowner on his own ground, gun at the ready, confronting a criminal who is very seldom armed with a firearm due to increased penalties for their use in a crime. He has a much better chance at prevailing than a cop at a traffic stop..

There are certainly circumstances where the homeowner has the advantage, but you forgot to add that the homeowner is often sleepy, confused, worried the noise might actually be one of his children, etc.

He also doesn't have body armour, and probably a lot less training than the police officer.

gangf related is not just the gang members that are over 17 that can be proven to be in a gang related crime at the time.

It says nothing about over 17. And it's not proven, the determination for the UCR is what the police officer thinks. the officer has to judge what the crime is, or wether there's a crime, based on his knowledge of the events.

That means if a 15 year old wearing a bandana is killed in a drive by, it goes down as gang related.

What are they killing each other over? "arguements"? I would need to see "arguements " defined a little better. For instance.. A very common homicide is a woman shooting an abusive husband who beats her. I see no figures for this so assume it is under "arguement".

If she shoots him whilst being attacked, it's self defence. If she executes him in revenge for an attack, it's probably argument or revenge.

Unfourtunately they don't break down relationships by weapon type, but they do breakdown total murders by relationship.

Of the known totals, 133 were husbands killed by wives, 601 were wives killed by husbands, 154 boyfriends killed by girlfriends, 444 girlfriends killed by boyfriends.

A very common homicide is a woman shooting an abusive husband who beats her.

If we assume the man was at fault in every one of those killings, it's a total of  less than 300 cases out of 16,000 murders in the US.

Drive by shootings kill more innocent people than the intended gangmembers... this is still gang related but not reported as such.

How do you know it's not reported as gang related? But I'll let it go, as it just proves the point how innocent people get hurt when gang members have easy access to guns.

hen killing a few thousand a year, most of who need killing,

It's 16,000 a year, excluding justifiable homicides.

You might be able to con yourself that everyone who is getting shot deserves it, but it's not really true.

[TalonX]

Originally posted by beet1e
BS. Why do you think there are more than 10,000 gun homicides a year in the US in some years, but fewer than 20 in a country such as Japan?

You're welcome to your 2nd Amendment. I asked on this board who would like to see their country have the sort of guns free for all as can be had in the USA. Guys from 16 different countries said they would not.

You are not an American, are you?

I think this strikes at the core differences.....    as Ben Franklin said.....you want security and are willing to give up freedom.

I am not.

[lazs2]

Hmm... last I heard Lott had refuted every charge save one on his reams of data.

your figures don't add up.   you claim anywhere from 12000 to 16000 homicides a year in the U.S.  Then you give a figure of 9,369 identifiable homicides by firearms and then...

you give the figures of 1200 during robberies, 4000 during arguements, 660 drug related and 900 gang related for a total of 6769  you also claim that over 5000 are commited by minorities.

you are all over the map.  which of your figures are we to believe?

I read about 8-9 thousand a year depending on year with 1/3 committed by whites that is not that many per capita... about like canada.

I am sorry that you can't trust your neighbors with guns... sounds pretty silly to me.  They drive and use tools tho right?   you have to interact with em right?

I trust my neigbors with guns at least as much as I trust em to drive or do drugs.

lazs

[demaw1]

Nash wan.....keeping a promise.



    Ok where to start:
 
     Lindgren is as leftist as any professor of higher learning,until you get to the likes of angila davis. It is common knowledge amoung most gun owners that Lott has been able to refute everything Lingren said....Once more I was lucky enough to here a debate on a radio program between them.It was sweet,ah for my side that is.

   I am assuming you are an American,therefore have an interest in const/ b.o. rights. The first admendment, first line says freedom of religion. then of course press and speach etc. The 2nd admendment amoung other things ,the right of the people, to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed upon.

 This is the 2nd admendment that says this ,not the 4 or 8 or 188 etc.So it was important to the founding fathers of America to include this.Seems you all can pass laws at least until we get fedup with it to hinder ownership of guns.

   Congress shall pass no law...what part of this dont you understand?. And are you personally willing to accept the results of you all trying?

   If this continues ,than I guess Ill have to answer your post to me in more detail.

   thanks

[lazs2]

Ok... looked it up... the "article" that puts one very tiny bit of info.. a survey really.. into question on Lotts entire thousands of points of data is the same one discussed in an earlier thread here that pretty much came to the wise conclusion that if in all the many thousands of points of data that are heavily footnoted in Lotts work.... the only thing that can be faulted is a survey that has little or no bearing on his work.... if all the anti gun, fruitcakes with all their money can't do any better than that..... the case for arming America is extremely strong.  

So far.... no other actual data has been refuted by the entire pantywaist  anti gun crowd.

I don't believe you like firearms at all... It would appear that you don't even like people by your statement that you don't trust even neighbors with guns.  Plus...................

you didn't look at the FBI data very well...   TOTAL murders in the U.S in 2002 were  14,054  "total murder victims from table 2.13

of that..... 66.7 were committed with all types of firearms (table 2.9) for a total of..... 9,374  (just as I said)

not 16,000 nor 12000..... 9,374

of that... about  3000 of the firearms murderers were white  3100 black and the rest minority and unknown.  This from table 2.8 keeping in mind that the table shows a total of all homicides so must be reduced to 66.7% as per table 2.9

now.... table 2.8 shows that about 13% of all whites murdered are by blacks and 1% other and 1% unknown

it also shows that only about 6% of blacks were murdered by whites.   Certainly... Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact..

table 2.13 also shows "circumstances"  the "arguements" that you speak of is 3527 total homicides  of which only 2330 (66.7% from table 2.9)  not 4000 people shooting each other over the cat crapping on the neighbors lawn..

in any case... the biggest portion of the homicides are committed during felonies.   A good reason to be armed.

The fact remains that for a total of maybe 2500 whites killing people with firearms it seems ludicrous to throw out the millions of times that crimes were prevented because of firearms especially since there is no data that would suggest that even a portion of the deaths would not have occured if firearms did not exist even (the criminals would use other means).

you yourself admit that england has extremely high crime rates since their disarming of their subjects.

lazs

[cpxxx]

I was convinced some time ago by Lazs and others arguments that gun control does not in fact work. As in it only controls the guns of law abiding citizens.   Fair enough.  Guns are not the problem. But nevertheless the United States has a gun crime problem which is disproportionate to comparable western countries.  If guns are not the problem then what is?
Interestingly the only part of Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' that I actually saw was the part where he was comparing Detroit with it's Canadian neighbour across the river.  The Canadian city was virtually crime free and  the only murder a local cop could remember was perpretrated by someone over from Detroit.  Moore pointed out that Canadians owned almost as many guns as Americans,  and there were as many minorities there as in America.  Yet  people left their front doors unlocked as Moore showed by scaring one or two people  by opening their front door.
I know it may seem odd to use  Michael Moore to support  less gun control  but there you are. His conclusion was that it was the fault of the sensationalist media reporting in the States which scared people into thinking that they needed guns for protection compared to the rather more dull and worthy news items on Canadian TV.
 

it also shows that only about 6% of blacks were murdered by whites. Certainly... Whites have more to fear from blacks with guns than vice versa... more than twice as much in fact..

That comment from Lazs is illuminating. Leaving aside the Black/White issue which has connotations of racism. I think it's as much to do with issues of class for the sake of a better word. I would venture to  suggest that poor whites are in fact as likely as poor  blacks to be involved in gun crime. I doubt if middle class blacks shoot many people.

So the issue is not so much about guns but  the  relatively large  underclass of underprivileged, uneducated people, often from minorities who exist around the edges of society in the United States.  

Guns don't kill people, bad housing, poor education and poverty kills people.  Maybe the NRA could seek to help improve society as a whole.  Even here in Ireland with strong gun control we a small gun crime problem.  The same type of people are involved. The underclass, the badly educated and ignorant.  It has to be the same everywhere.

Guns are a red herring in my opinion. Shouldn't the debate be about what kind of society exists in the United States such that law abiding citizens feel they need personal weapons for protection?

[demaw1]

Cpxxx....comparing apples to oranges


   The problem is multi demensional.Remember,there are always exceptions to the rule.
   The problem is;
  1.The society has changed from a ten commandment ,personal responsabilty, and common sense society,  to a narcissistic, feel good [feelings]  I am a victim society. And DRUGS.

 2  I do not think there are any comparable western countries. Maybe in a way the balkins.

  3 I dont know the name of the city in Canada so I could be wrong. Never the less its minorites are not comparable to detroit.I know there has been a lot of tension between Quebec and British Columbia and thier societies are similiar.Their are many,many cities in America virtually crime free.
 
Canada may or may not have as many guns as America,I have thought they were much stricter. Maybe some one can help on that. Moore is wrong on everything including this about the media.

 Lazs comment had connotations of racism, how so ? If there is a truth, in Ireland ,and you say it, is the person who says it, labaled as a [anything]?

 No, according to the fbi ,poor whites are not as likely to be involved in gun crimes as poor blacks. Yet, well off  whites, are more likely to be serial killers.

 No, you forget ,many of the so called uneducated, under privileged people in the US, are better off than most of the outside worlds middleclass.Existing around the edges of society is a European thing ,not American.

 Bad housing, poor education,and poverty kills people?  Wow what an elitist point of view,yep you are from across the pond.
If that is true,explain to me the fact that the great majority of the uneducated and poor people in America cause no problems? The uneducated and poor helped build America. I grew up in an area that was lower middle class,we were poor, and guess what, since we didnt have everybody, and their uncle telling us, we didnt know we were poor.

 Law abiding citizens have always had the need for weapons to protect themselves. Those that didnt have them some where along the line ended up in a Russia,Germany,France[at time of revolution]  Sudan, well you get the point.

 Yes , What I said in 1st paragraph is the problem.