Author Topic: Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is! (Read 3257 times)

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #165 on:** November 04, 2002, 01:48:16 PM »

Nashwan,

Touche! There WAS a time when the stats for both categories were combined.

By the way, if you look at the stats closely enough, you'll see that overall firearms homicides are down by 32.7 percent since 1992. Seems homicide statistics have been falling steadily since the 1960s. Renders some of these arguments moot.

Regards, Shuckins

lazs2 · « **Reply #166 on:** November 04, 2002, 02:23:02 PM »

"Another question: Am I benefiting from others' gun ownership today? In the US, I come and go and I don't give firearms a second thought. "

No... that was my point about Az. you don't have to. The U.S. has some very violent criminals in it. You are benifieting because no one knows if you are armed or not. Other peoples gun ownership is a deterent that helps you. You are safest in states with the most lax gun laws.

"You often speak of the British as if we do not live in the free world. Apart from the whole guns issue, which as a non-owner doesn't interest me that much, what freedoms do you think you have that we don't have? "

Just off the top of my head... you can't eat or drink in your own cars... You can't have dents in your own cars. Taxation is repression of freedom... people are jailed in your country for not paying taxes on the air waves.... Guys in other groups tell me that it is allmost impossible to have Hot Rods. And... even tho guns are not a big deal to you... they are to me. We thought enough of gun rights to make em the 2nd amendment.. right after that one on free speech.

"I'm not quite the anti-gun liberal you take me for, by the way. I fully appreciate the needs of law enforcement to be equipped to tackle the risks that they face daily in the line of duty. But I am anti-death. You point out that in many cases it's criminals killing other criminals, but what proportion of total handgun deaths is that? "

Anti-death? well... I am for the death penalty. I point out that it is mostly criminals killing other criminals or... criminals killing unarmed citizens.. My guess is about 80-90% Most of the gang bangers being killed by each other is simply a public service.

"Are you afraid of anything, Lazs? There's something I want to ask you to do, and I bet you dare not do it. It's nothing dangerous, and there is no risk. Just let me know if you think you're afraid of anything, if you're not, I'll ask you."

I am afraid of tedium. I am probly cautious and wary about a lot of things... maybe even fearful. Don't like snakes. As I age... different things scare me. Things that used to... don't anymore and vice versa.. No one is unafraid unless it is a birth defect. So ask away... I am not afraid of you asking me anything.
lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #167 on:** November 04, 2002, 03:15:34 PM »

Well Lazs, there are a few small errors...

There's no law against eating or drinking in your car if the car is stopped. But the driver is probably unwise to do that when the car is moving as he needs his hands and eyes for driving. They're trying to ban use of mobile phones in cars, and as far as I'm concerned, that day cannot come quickly enough. I never like eating in cars under any circumstances. I never heard of any law that outlaws dents in cars! Someone has been pulling your pisser, Lazs.

There is a strict code governing the state of London taxis - black cabs. The Metropolitan Police can order a black cab off the road if it is too dirty! But what the hey - London has the best taxi drivers in the world. I could catch a cab at Paddington, and simply tell the driver "IBM South Bank, please" - and he would take me to the door of my office- no help needed of any kind. In New York, I had to instruct the driver how to get to the visitors' entrance of the Empire State Building!

We have a TV licence - with a fine for not having one. It's just another way of raising revenue. It's no worse than the practice of many US cities for requiring a "City Sticker".

As you're not afraid, here's all you have to do. You have to hold your cat - hold the cat with its face next to yours, and have someone take a photo of you holding the cat. And then post that photo in this thread. Go on, Lazs. You can probably hit a tin can at 100 yards with your Magnum. And you're capable of posting photos. Can you bring yourself to do that one small thing?

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #168 on:** November 04, 2002, 05:07:27 PM »

Argg Cat people !! Now if EVER there was an arguement for firearms......

Homicide stats are pretty irrelevant to the arguement tho. We are concentrating on actual "proven" deaths. Not those undetermined, nor woundings.

It would be interesting to see gun related stats that cover all aspects of criminal firearm use. Including those by threat, ie; armed Robs, Aggravated Burgs etc.

Nashwan · « **Reply #169 on:** November 04, 2002, 05:21:43 PM »

Quote

Just off the top of my head... you can't eat or drink in your own cars... You can't have dents in your own cars. Taxation is repression of freedom... people are jailed in your country for not paying taxes on the air waves.... Guys in other groups tell me that it is allmost impossible to have Hot Rods.

As Bett1e said, you can eat and drink in your car. You have to be in proper control of your vehicle whilst driving, that's all.

Incidentally, isn't it illegal in many American states to have an open container of alcohol in the car, even if it's someone else who is drinking it? The federal government is busy forcing all states to ban open alcohol containers.

As to dents, drive round London and you will see an alarming number of cars with dents. There is a law prohibiting dangerous bodywork, but that doesn't mean dents. It means large pieces of jagged metal sticking out that might catch on pedestrians.

The American government restricts freedoms in ways like it's gambling laws.

StSanta · « **Reply #170 on:** November 04, 2002, 05:45:15 PM »

Heh in some states it is illegal to have sex in certain positions

beet1e · « **Reply #171 on:** November 04, 2002, 06:14:28 PM »

Nashwan - glad you mentioned gambling, which is illegal in all states except Nevada and Atlantic City, New Jersey. Although there are some pisspot mini casinos which have sprung up in Colorado. But... If four of us were to sit down to a game of Poker and play for money anywhere else in the US, we'd be breaking the law. I remember a case in which some cops arrested some old folks at a retirement home because they were playing cards for money. The other thing in the US is that certain towns, like Park Ridge, IL (suburb of Chicago) are dry! You can't buy alcohol there.

Toad · « **Reply #172 on:** November 04, 2002, 08:06:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
OK, now I understand your posting technique. You include a hyperlink but also the text as well.

[/b]

Yeah, I always try to post a link for anything I quote. That way the truly interested can read the entire thing in context if they so desire. It's also a small way for me to show that I'm not trying to slant anything; rather I'm interested mostly in the discussion and exchange of views.

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad, I have no interest in distorting the facts, so I was somewhat surprised at your request for the Home Office link to my document.

[/b]

It isn't misrepresentation of data I worry about, it's a virus that makes me hesitate. If you've ever been "suckered" into d/l'ing one, I think you see my position. Easier just to check it out on an "official" site. No offense intended here. I'm just cautious after being burned.

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Some of those murders may not have involved guns, so no - availability of guns is not the SOLE factor governing the US homicide rate. But given the sheer numbers of people murdered by guns each year in the US, clearly the availability of guns plays a major part.

[/b]

Yes, I understand your view. My question, which hasn't been addressed so far I think, is that the English & Australian bans/ buy backs apparently haven't been successful in reducing the crime rate. So, given your view on guns , how would you explain that? After all, the guns are essentially no longer available, correct?

Bad day today. Will post a bit more tomorrow after I have a chance to review those stats.

BTW, do you routinely smoke tobacco, by any chance?

beet1e · « **Reply #173 on:** November 05, 2002, 05:43:33 AM »

Mr. Toad,

Nice to hear from you again, and sorry you once got burned by a virus. By the way, I have Norton Anti-Virus installed, and it automatically scans all email and files being downloaded – highly recommended.

How do I explain the rise in British crime since the gun buyback? To be absolutely honest, I vaguely recall the gun ban in 1997, but it had absolutely no impact on me or anyone I know because we never had guns in the first place. I don’t want you to think of the issue in terms of it happening in the US where, of course, it would be a much bigger issue. It was certainly not a case of thousands of every day British folk trotting down to the Police station to turn in guns. There were no queues (lines) outside any police stations, and I barely remember any TV coverage allotted to the issue at the time.

As I said, further up in response to Rude, my upbringing was very different from yours. I was brought up in a gun-free environment. There was never any talk about guns of any kind at any time. We did not go pistol shooting with our fathers. One of my distant relatives went game shooting with a shotgun, but that’s about it. A great-uncle had a farm, and he probably had a gun of sorts, but I don’t even know for sure – that’s how much of a non-issue it was. There were no conversations in public or in private, lamenting the fact that guns were not as freely available as in America. My knowledge of guns was limited to anything I saw on TV – Westerns mostly. Of course, in any TV programme as of the mid 1960s which featured crime, there was often a gun or two involved. The opening credits of The Avengers showed Diana Rigg shooting the cork from a champagne bottle held by Patrick Macnee some distance away.

Of course, criminals have long had guns. For petty criminals, the favoured weapon was the sawn off shotgun. I assume the only reason to shorten the barrel was to make the gun more convenient to handle as an offensive weapon, as shortening the barrel is illegal. Hell, I even remember an episode of Dixon of Dock Green in which a cinema manager was wounded and blinded by a thief with a sawn off shotgun, and that would have been c1960.

So as to the results of the gun buyback, if that’s what we did, there was little to buy back! Certainly not a case of tens of thousands of ordinary people turning in weapons. There has simply never been the kind of weapons proliferation that you have had in the USA. No-one British would ever start a guns thread on the BBS – because guns are simply a non-issue. I think that when you talk about our rise in crime and the 1997 guns ban in the same sentence, you’re alluding to an imaginary situation in which many ordinary people have become defenceless and now fall victim to armed housebreakers and the like, and that is simply not the case. Why is my unarmed home not targeted by armed robbers? Probably because they are unarmed themselves, besides which there are thousands more unarmed houses in the village more opulent than mine.

I spoke to the ex-girlie in New York last night (we have moved on but remain friends). She’s in a position where she knows hundreds or even thousands of people in New York. I was always amazed how we would bump into people all over the city that she knew, and I used to joke that I wanted a list of all the people she did not know on a Starbucks napkin! So last night I asked her if she had ever considered getting a gun for her upper west side apartment. The answer was an emphatic No, and puzzlement at why I should ask such a thing. I asked her if anyone she knew owned a gun, and reeled off a dozen or so names of people we both know, but none has a gun. The New York guy who introduced me to flightsimdom has a brother who's a police officer in VA and has a gun as part of his job, and that’s about it. I also exchanged emails with another Warbirds friend who lives in another large American city and who is very much against guns. I would like to quote what he said right here in this thread, and I’m just in the process of asking his permission to do that, even though I wont be revealing his identity.

As for smoking, at one time I was a light smoker – nothing before 6pm or whenever I got home from work. But when I developed a full understanding of the health problems it causes and the premature deaths that result, I stopped completely. And that was 21 years ago.

lazs2 · « **Reply #174 on:** November 05, 2002, 08:50:10 AM »

beetle... anyone who has seen my cats knows that they do not like to be picked up. The holding time required to get them close to my face and focuws and take a picture would cause me bodily harm... Unless that is what you are after?

In any case... in the U.S. (which is what we are talking about after all) the states with the most civilized (lax) gun control are also the safest..

Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms... It can be changed but it hasn't been.

Far more people are saved than killed by firearms in the U.S.

guns are a deterent for tyranny from within and without. I consider your high rates of unoppossed crime... tyranny.

guns are fun.... win win win win win. Never met a gun I didn't like except maybe that jap nambu thing.
lazs

Toad · « **Reply #175 on:** November 05, 2002, 08:52:47 AM »

OK, I looked at the Home Office Document. It showed:

Homicides

England & Wales(3) '95=745 '96=679 '97=748 '98=750 '99=765

Scotland '95=137 '96=135 '97=95 '98=100 '99=128

So let's see.... Your Firearms Act of 1997 got rid of most (large caliber) of your legally registered handguns and then they got the rest in the '98 Firearms Amendment Act, correct? It also rounded up the newly "illegal" long guns.

So, why then do we see Homicides rise in '98 and '99? In England Wales & Scotland? (it'll be interesting to see the 2000 and 2001 numbers)

A quick peek at Australian Homicides:

Australia, homicide incidents and victim, 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998

These are July to June figures but they'll serve.

'89=306 '90=323 '91=313 '92=331 '93=323 '94=327 '95=303 '96=298 '97=297

As the Austaralian Institute of Criminology said

Quote

Rates of victimisation from 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998 have remained quite stable

This despite the '96 Port Arthur buy-back/ban.

You (and by extension, Spook) got your wish here. The unwashed legal firearms owners got their guns taken away. Yet.... Homicides increased in England, Wales and Scotland and remained "quite stable" in Australia.

Once again, neither you or Spook seem to address this phenomena.

Despite your "new" gun laws and bans/buy-backs whatever.....

....the number of homicides either went up or remained "quite stable".

Does this suggest anything to you?

Toad · « **Reply #176 on:** November 05, 2002, 08:56:19 AM »

BTW, Beet1e, that long post really didn't address the question did it?

While you may not have been around guns, estimates of gun owner's in Britain (prior to the bans) were in the 4-5% range by your Home Office I believe. I think, while much smaller than the US numbers, that would still be quite a few folks?

New York has nothing to do with it.

beet1e · « **Reply #177 on:** November 05, 2002, 11:09:18 AM »

Mr. Toad,

Thank you for reading my post, long though it may have seemed.

Quote

Despite your "new" gun laws and bans/buy-backs whatever.....

....the number of homicides either went up or remained "quite stable".

Does this suggest anything to you?

Yes, it does indeed. Given that after the gun ban, the number of homicides remained quite stable, it is clear that guns made bugger all difference, which is because, as I said in my lengthy post above, we live in a relatively gun-free environment which is why I and many others like me see no reason to possess guns. There will always be a residual amount of crime/homicide, even without guns, and the UK homicide stats shown above are for all homicides, and not just the gun related ones. The gun bans of various countries have been enacted as pre-emptive measures to stop a bad situation from becoming much worse. It is common knowledge here that anything that happens in America has a nasty habit of happening here a few years later. It is better to prevent something that waiting for it to happen and then acting. - Rather like installing anti-virus software on a PC rather than waiting to get zapped by a computer virus, and then reacting, and at the same time getting paranoid about a harmless .PDF file.

To find out what would happen if there was a US-style mass proliferation of guns in the absence of a gun ban, we only have to look to America itself, where we see the following tally of homicides, with the UK tally in parentheses:

1995 - 21611 (745)
1996 - 19649 (679)
1997 - 18210 (748)
1998 - 16911 (750)
1999 - 15530 (765)

You can do the arithmetic yourself, but the shocking reality is that the US homicide rate is almost twenty-five times that of England and Wales. Still maintain that more guns = safer environment?

Oh, and let me pre-empt you from pointing out that those USA murder stats are for all homicides, not just gun homicides, by adding these two points:[list=1]

Most US homicides are committed by either handgun, or another type of gun. The handgun is the most common method.
The UK homicide stats above tally all types of homicide, not just gun homicide, so it only seems fair to compare like with like.

Quote

BTW, Beet1e, that long post really didn't address the question did it?

Maybe not, but this one sure did.

Quote

New York has nothing to do with it.

It most certainly does. New York City is your most populous city and was once America's murder capital, if not murder capital of the world. Please advise me if there is any other city in the world outside America which has or had a murder rate higher than that of New York in the 1970s/1980s, excluding any that are involved in military conflict. New York City is much safer these days, and is a showcase of correctly deployed resources of law and order.

Now I have a two part question for you: Of all the handguns that were purchased in response to the Al Qa'eda atrocities of Sept. 11th, 2001, how many have been used to eliminate an al qa'eda member, and how many al qa'eda members is that?

Lazs. A few days ago you said

Quote

it is common knowledge that schools are filled with helpless, unarmed people who can not fight back.... look how good that works out.

I take it you were using this as a justification for having more guns. But how many children were killed in tragedies such as this? And yet when I pointed out the tens of thousands of people who have been killed as a result of your country’s laissez faire proliferation of guns, you dismiss this death toll (more than 200,000 in the last 20 years by handguns alone, total probably closer to half a million) by saying that it seems

Quote

a pittance in light of all the murders, rapes and assaults that have been prevented. Nothing at all compared to losing freedom

Forgive me for saying, but this seems like a another inconsistent stance from an equally inconsistent person.

By the way, if you had loved your cats properly, they would love to be held. Mine was called Rocky, and he used to sleep on my pillow curled around my head – daft bugger. Maybe the real reason you can’t post that photo is because you’re afraid of tarnishing your macho image?

Thrawn · « **Reply #178 on:** November 05, 2002, 11:35:45 AM »

Toad, there is another way to look at the Austrailian stats. Although the law abiding citizens turned in their guns they are being no more victimized then before. I guess that might say something about have a gun being a deterrant to criminals, at least in Australia.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #179 on:** November 05, 2002, 11:37:21 AM »

The one thing that's always true....

The guy with the gun always wins!
-SW