Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

[Gunny]

Just so there isn't ANY misunderstanding, I believe citizens have a DUTY, and RIGHT to arm themselves, its just one in a handful of ways we have to protect our rights.

Further, I also believe you give up that RIGHT once you commit a felony, and if caught with a firearm of ANYKIND will be transported right to jail, no more questions asked.

I do believe though, that gun's make cowards more likely to commit violent crimes, THAT is the dilemma we fine ourselves in today.

I don't believe in registering weapons of ANY kind, don't believe in taking psychological tests to see if I should even own a gun, another dilemma.

The whole gun CONTROL issue is one dilemma after another, but my feeling is, it doesn't have to be that way.

The feel good crowd, the group that hides under their bed when the wind blows the tree up againts the house, when a criminal escapes from prison, when anything, that intrudes into their tidy little world upsets them, their the ones, that make GUN CONTROL an issue. Their the ones, that tie up the 911 lines for silly little reasons, "my cats up the tree", "my negibor is playing his music too loud".

Use to be, people dealt with these things themselves, didn't shut the world out, got to know their neighbors, didn't RELEY on the Police to due damn near everything.

I'll keep my gun's, and I'll protect my family, and I'll deal with the everyday issues of life, WITHOUT the government's help.

Thank you.

I can agree in general, but not with everything. For one thing, there are people who should NEVER be allowed to own a weapon. They're as much a menace to themselves as they are any would-be attacker.

The same principle that applies to making cowards braver applies to smaller/weaker people being able to fend off otherwise physically superior individuals.

While I don't favor any kind of registration/government control concerning gun ownership, I DO favor legislation that provides a mandatory minimum simply for using a gun, or any deadly weapon for that matter, during the commission of a crime(s); and, I favor a person beign required to show proof that they have taken an approved course on the responsibilities of gun ownership, proper handling/maintenance, and safekeeping/storage.

 

[LOki]

I feel pretty good about my idea of "Western Nation" even if Russia and Belarus are not on this contemporary map.

If you want to be a pedant. I'll say first world or OECD then...

Since I don't think people are talking about lederhosen when they talk about western dress, I'd say yes.

I'd say no (shrug)

Pedantic perhaps, but not so confused that I'll assert kimonos to be western dress and South Korea to be a western Nation.

Are you that desperate to "score" the point.? What is the difference between the guns saving the women from getting killed or the guns helping them defend themselves?

Gun control advocates often insist that gun control--the deliberate disarmament of law abiding folks--will solve everthing bad about the violent interactions between people in the U.S.; then they claim that their opponents adopt the similar strategic formlula of asserting that if everyone had guns, then everything bad about violent interactions between people would go away. Proponents for the right to keep and bear arms think about guns differently--a difference that is significant, yet is completely ignored by the gun contol crowd for transparently obvious reasons.

The difference you ask for is the rejection of the premise that "guns save lives" on the same grounds the premise that "guns kill people" is rejected. Decent people use guns to defend themselves--people, NOT guns, defending themselves. The difference you ask for establishes that guns don't create anything, let alone "problems." The difference you ask for is a demand that you accept that guns don't "do" anything, that they are not "responsible" for anything--absolving people from responsibilty, by making guns the responsible parties for the things that people do is the actual issue.

Possibly true. Yet, as a society, the US has a higher murder rate per capita than the UK and the access to guns in the US is easier...

Correlation does not necessarily mean cauality; and England has had a lower murder rate than the U.S. for a long time, far back to when England's gun control laws were less stringent. The interesting bit of information--the bit that gun control advocates refuse to tell everybody--is that after England's gun control laws became more stringent, after the law abiding folks disarmed themselve at government gunpoint, the incidence of violent victimization increased. Victims all of whom had government enforced disarmament in common.

The lesson of England's gun control laws is that the violent do not need guns to commit their crimes, but their victims surely found guns useful when they were allowed to have them, that violent criminals found the prospect that their intended victims might be armed to be of some deterrent.

Really? Is that my agenda? What is my agenda?

Good questions. Questions you can answer for yourself.

I wouldn't disagree that that is a fair point or that there are other influences. My point is this: If you have guns, it doesn't necessarily mean it will stop you from getting killed.

My point is: If you don't have a gun, you have no opportunity at all to shoot back--and that lack of opportunity emboldens your antagonist, and necessarily does nothing to prevent you from getinng killed.

And if you have guns, it doesn't necessarily mean you have a politer society with regard to violence.

Every society that embraces suicide and human sacrifice as a noble acts supports your argument. The U.S. is not one of those societies--yet.

You see, the rest of us would say that the real point is violent crime, and the manner in which violent crime (gun related or otherwise) increases when regular, sensible, folks are disarmed.

Really? I'd love you to give me an indepth study backing up that assertion. That being the case I would expect the instances of murder to be higher in FIRST WORLD countries where guns are not so prevelent than in a country like the US that has a tonne of guns available to its citizenry...

Enjoy!

"The violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the United States."

"Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32 percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74 percent. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's."

When you're done enjoying that, enjoy this:

"In this study, the author examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect on total criminal violence."

Feel free to enjoy this bit of light reading:

"[T]he English murder rate rose slightly after 1981 (0.011 per 1,000 population in 1981, 0.013 in 1996), while the U.S. rate fell in the early 1980's, increased thereafter until 1991, and then fell again, reaching a 16-year low in 1996 (0.098 in 1981, 0.074 in 1996)"

You'll note the complete failure of gun control measures to curb violent crime in England--including murder.

Fair point too..

Thanks for that.

You can spin it any way you like, the fact remains that violent crimes are stopped by otherwise defenseless people more often than they are committed buy those who the anti-gun crowd would abet.

What are those percentages?

About 2 to 4 defensive gun uses to each crime committed with a gun.

Missed this little nugget. You're own link seems to contridict your assertion.

"Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates."

Nope. It's just comaparing the U.S. to Western European Nations. The U.S. is no more Western European than Brazil is, and alot less so than Russia and the Ukrain.

The point is, there isn't a lack of guns. There is a lack of guns among law-abiding citizens. The criminals, who by definition are livign outside the law anyway, most certainly don't see breaking one more law as any big deal.

Indeed. And to expand upon this some, I think it's worth noting that virtually NONE of the gun control measures that the gun control crowd propose accomlish the stated goal of making neighborhoods safer for law abiding folks. Those measure manage to accomplish the exact opposite, and they do so with such predicable and uniform consistency that one might validly assert that the explicit purpose of the gun control aggenda is to disarm decent folks for the benefit and safety of the violent sociopaths who wish to victimize them.

 

[Bern80]

nice post Loki. Don't be offended by me dumbing it down a little. The problem is simple; the left can't link.

 

[Dr Grump]

Gun control advocates often insist that gun control--the deliberate disarmament of law abiding folks--will solve everthing bad about the violent interactions between people in the U.S.; then they claim that their opponents adopt the similar strategic formlula of asserting that if everyone had guns, then everything bad about violent interactions between people would go away.

I see guns as a necessary evil of a bygone era. Today, too many guns have flooded the market in the US, therefore, the 2nd aside, trying to "disarm" US citizens is pointless. That horse has already bolted. To me, leaving guns behind is a step in the right direction to a more civilised society.

The difference you ask for is the rejection of the premise that "guns save lives" on the same grounds the premise that "guns kill people" is rejected. Decent people use guns to defend themselves--people, NOT guns, defending themselves. The difference you ask for establishes that guns don't create anything, let alone "problems." The difference you ask for is a demand that you accept that guns don't "do" anything, that they are not "responsible" for anything--absolving people from responsibilty, by making guns the responsible parties for the things that people do is the actual issue.

To a degree. Tell me something. Somebody is standing 100 metres from you. They are holding a rifle with a scope. You are 10 metres from your car. He says stop, or I'll shoot you. Let's say the perp is the same distance, but has a knife. You see the scenario I'm leading up to as to why I think less guns make more sense? I don't actually object too much to guns being around. I just think people should go through a rigorous licensing process.

.Correlation does not necessarily mean cauality; and England has had a lower murder rate than the U.S. for a long time, far back to when England's gun control laws were less stringent. The interesting bit of information--the bit that gun control advocates refuse to tell everybody--is that after England's gun control laws became more stringent, after the law abiding folks disarmed themselve at government gunpoint, the incidence of violent victimization increased. Victims all of whom had government enforced disarmament in common.

What you fail to realise is that England's gun laws have ALWAYS been a lot more stringent that the US's. Contrary to your assertion, I know a few anti-gunners who have acknowledged that increases have occurred, but what no pro-gunny has ever been able to prove is that increase is due to there being more stringent laws. Having lived in England during the late 1970s when there were huge political and social upheavals - and the gun laws were not in place - it was rare to find homicides that involved firearms. BTW, you can still own a firearm in England.

The lesson of England's gun control laws is that the violent do not need guns to commit their crimes, but their victims surely found guns useful when they were allowed to have them, that violent criminals found the prospect that their intended victims might be armed to be of some deterrent.

Do you have annual stats of how many times a gun was used for self-defense in England pre their existing laws? I doubt any true criminal would be deterred by the thought of somebody having a firearm. Firearm ownership was not that high in England in the first place (compared to the US).[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Dr Grump
And if you have guns, it doesn't necessarily mean you have a politer society with regard to violence. Every society that embraces suicide and human sacrifice as a noble acts supports your argument. The U.S. is not one of those societies--yet.

Which doesn't address my point.

Quote:
"The violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the United States."
"Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32 percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74 percent. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's."

Oh, man, not Lott. Christ...of all the people to drag out, you had to bring up the one guy who does pro gunnies NO good when it come to proving their case. I have had this argument on other boards. And it is a long and tedious argument, the upshot being that in the in the long run even the pro-gunnies starting admitting Lott's data and how he reported it, is flawed. Just for an instance, he fails to state that different places use different ways of reporting violent crime. For example, in some countries shoving somebody is reported as a violent crime, while in others it is not. But more importantly, with Lott especially, he is totally dishonest in HOW he reports. For example, let's say England has 10 homicides per 100,000 people one year and 15 per 100,000 the next. That is a 50% increase. Let's say the US has 40 homicides per 100,000 one year and 20 the next. That is a decrease of 50%, but the US STILL has more homicides per capita. He never mentions that type of stat, which is totally dishonest.

.Quote:"[T]he English murder rate rose slightly after 1981 (0.011 per 1,000 population in 1981, 0.013 in 1996), while the U.S. rate fell in the early 1980's, increased thereafter until 1991, and then fell again, reaching a 16-year low in 1996 (0.098 in 1981, 0.074 in 1996)"

You'll note the complete failure of gun control measures to curb violent crime in England--including murder.

At least this link is slightly more honest in that it uses per capita, and it shows even with a drop the US is STILL four and a half times more violent that the UK. Is that due to the US having more guns?

You can spin it any way you like, the fact remains that violent crimes are stopped by otherwise defenseless people more often than they are committed buy those who the anti-gun crowd would abet..

I'm sure there are a lot of crimes stopped due to that reason. My argument is having firearms doesn't stop violent crime, nor does not having them. I guess it comes down to what type of society you want to live in. I like one where guns are less prevelent.

.What are those percentages? About 2 to 4 defensive gun uses to each crime committed with a gun..

Link?

Nope. It's just comaparing the U.S. to Western European Nations. The U.S. is no more Western European than Brazil is, and alot less so than Russia and the Ukrain.

And you would rather the US be compared to those countries than other first world countries? I guess so, because it makes the US look good. Comparing the US to other first-world nations doesn't look as good does it?

.The point is, there isn't a lack of guns. There is a lack of guns among law-abiding citizens. The criminals, who by definition are livign outside the law anyway, most certainly don't see breaking one more law as any big deal..

Ah, but it makes them easier to catch if there are less firearms around. Less firearms, less numbers to trace, easier to catch. And they may not care about breaking one more law, but if the punishment is hard enough we'll see how much they care.

Indeed. And to expand upon this some, I think it's worth noting that virtually NONE of the gun control measures that the gun control crowd propose accomlish the stated goal of making neighborhoods safer for law abiding folks.

In order to prove that you'd have to do a study involving both the criminals and law-abiding citizens.

 

[Gunny]

I see guns as a necessary evil of a bygone era. Today, too many guns have flooded the market in the US, therefore, the 2nd aside, trying to "disarm" US citizens is pointless. That horse has already bolted. To me, leaving guns behind is a step in the right direction to a more civilised society.



To a degree. Tell me something. Somebody is standing 100 metres from you. They are holding a rifle with a scope. You are 10 metres from your car. He says stop, or I'll shoot you. Let's say the perp is the same distance, but has a knife. You see the scenario I'm leading up to as to why I think less guns make more sense? I don't actually object too much to guns being around. I just think people should go through a rigorous licensing process.



What you fail to realise is that England's gun laws have ALWAYS been a lot more stringent that the US's. Contrary to your assertion, I know a few anti-gunners who have acknowledged that increases have occurred, but what no pro-gunny has ever been able to prove is that increase is due to there being more stringent laws. Having lived in England during the late 1970s when there were huge political and social upheavals - and the gun laws were not in place - it was rare to find homicides that involved firearms. BTW, you can still own a firearm in England.



Do you have annual stats of how many times a gun was used for self-defense in England pre their existing laws? I doubt any true criminal would be deterred by the thought of somebody having a firearm. Firearm ownership was not that high in England in the first place (compared to the US).

Which doesn't address my point.



Oh, man, not Lott. Christ...of all the people to drag out, you had to bring up the one guy who does pro gunnies NO good when it come to proving their case. I have had this argument on other boards. And it is a long and tedious argument, the upshot being that in the in the long run even the pro-gunnies starting admitting Lott's data and how he reported it, is flawed. Just for an instance, he fails to state that different places use different ways of reporting violent crime. For example, in some countries shoving somebody is reported as a violent crime, while in others it is not. But more importantly, with Lott especially, he is totally dishonest in HOW he reports. For example, let's say England has 10 homicides per 100,000 people one year and 15 per 100,000 the next. That is a 50% increase. Let's say the US has 40 homicides per 100,000 one year and 20 the next. That is a decrease of 50%, but the US STILL has more homicides per capita. He never mentions that type of stat, which is totally dishonest.



At least this link is slightly more honest in that it uses per capita, and it shows even with a drop the US is STILL four and a half times more violent that the UK. Is that due to the US having more guns?



I'm sure there are a lot of crimes stopped due to that reason. My argument is having firearms doesn't stop violent crime, nor does not having them. I guess it comes down to what type of society you want to live in. I like one where guns are less prevelent.



Link?



And you would rather the US be compared to those countries than other first world countries? I guess so, because it makes the US look good. Comparing the US to other first-world nations doesn't look as good does it?



Ah, but it makes them easier to catch if there are less firearms around. Less firearms, less numbers to trace, easier to catch. And they may not care about breaking one more law, but if the punishment is hard enough we'll see how much they care.





In order to prove that you'd have to do a study involving both the criminals and law-abiding citizens.[/QUOTE]

No you wouldn't. It's simple math. Criminals by definition do not respect nor abide the law. Law abiding citizens do. Where legal gun ownership is outlawed/severely restricted, the law-abiding citizens, by definition, abide the law. The criminals still have their guns, the law-abiding citizens don't.

The criminals KNOW the law-abiding citizens don't have guns. Makes their lives much simpler. They don't have to worry about John Q putting a couple of rounds in them when they endeavor to take from him what he has earned and they want to steal.

Criminals more than likely are bigger advocates of gun control that you are for that very reason.

And no study is needed to come to that logical conclusion.

 

[LOki]

I see guns as a necessary evil of a bygone era.

This now being an era where criminals don't victimize others and governments don't oppress?

Today, too many guns have flooded the market in the US, therefore, the 2nd aside, trying to "disarm" US citizens is pointless.

Do you have statistics to demonstrate "too many guns"?

To me, leaving guns behind is a step in the right direction to a more civilised society.

To me, being more civilized is a better, more effective, and more honest step in the right direction to a more civilized society.

It is becoming more and more clear to me that you care less about this "civilization" of yours, than you care about getting rid of guns.

To a degree. Tell me something. Somebody is standing 100 metres from you. They are holding a rifle with a scope. You are 10 metres from your car. He says stop, or I'll shoot you. Let's say the perp is the same distance, but has a knife. You see the scenario I'm leading up to as to why I think less guns make more sense?

No. I have no idea what you're getting at, except perhaps that if I am disarmed, I'm pretty much at the mercy of those who are armed--which seems contradictory to your point.

I don't actually object too much to guns being around. I just think people should go through a rigorous licensing process.

For what? knives?

What you fail to realise is that England's gun laws have ALWAYS been a lot more stringent that the US's. Contrary to your assertion, I know a few anti-gunners who have acknowledged that increases have occurred, but what no pro-gunny has ever been able to prove is that increase is due to there being more stringent laws.

If you say so--but if you really do say so, then be intellectually honest enough to admit that no gun grabber has ever proven that guns are the cause of violence.

Having lived in England during the late 1970s when there were huge political and social upheavals - and the gun laws were not in place - it was rare to find homicides that involved firearms. BTW, you can still own a firearm in England.

Having lived in rural communities throughout my life--where there are few bicycles--there are few crimes that involve bicycles. You'll just never convince me that getting rid of bicycles will get rid of crimes.

BTW--you can still own a bicycle in the rural U.S.

Do you have annual stats of how many times a gun was used for self-defense in England pre their existing laws? I doubt any true criminal would be deterred by the thought of somebody having a firearm. Firearm ownership was not that high in England in the first place (compared to the US).

I have no statisics on England, but if they exist, I can find them--so can you. I do know of USDoJ studies of "true criminals" indicating that "true criminals" are well deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed. "True criminals" seek safe targets.

Every society that embraces suicide and human sacrifice as a noble acts supports your argument. The U.S. is not one of those societies--yet.

Which doesn't address my point.

If your point is more guns makes a less civilized socitety, then I think it does to the extent that the genuine pool of armed societies you can draw your evidence from are societies that embrace suicide and human sacrifice as a noble acts.

Oh, man, not Lott. Christ...of all the people to drag out, you had to bring up the one guy who does pro gunnies NO good when it come to proving their case. I have had this argument on other boards. And it is a long and tedious argument, the upshot being that in the in the long run even the pro-gunnies starting admitting Lott's data and how he reported it, is flawed.

It will be a much longer argument with me, because I understand statisics, and I also understand the the patently disingenuous means by which the gun-grabbers manipulate their data.

Just for an instance, he fails to state that different places use different ways of reporting violent crime. For example, in some countries shoving somebody is reported as a violent crime, while in others it is not. But more importantly, with Lott especially, he is totally dishonest in HOW he reports.

I'm afraid he is not "totally dishonest" about this--he does state that a frustrating variable for anyone doing these studies is the differences in reporting.

"Totally dishonest" is that anti-gun retard--the one so often cited by the gun-grabbers, whose name is escaping me right now--that insists a gun is used ONLY if it kills someone.

EDIT: That retard is Dr. Arthur Kellerman.

For example, let's say England has 10 homicides per 100,000 people one year and 15 per 100,000 the next. That is a 50% increase. Let's say the US has 40 homicides per 100,000 one year and 20 the next. That is a decrease of 50%, but the US STILL has more homicides per capita. He never mentions that type of stat, which is totally dishonest.

This is called normalizing the data, and is not dishonest unless you are using the data to indicate less homocides rather than increase/decrease in homocides.

"Totally dishonest" is the application of your per capita conclusion to a rate comparison.

You see? I understand statisics.

At least this link is slightly more honest in that it uses per capita, and it shows even with a drop the US is STILL four and a half times more violent that the UK. Is that due to the US having more guns?

No.

I'm sure there are a lot of crimes stopped due to that reason. My argument is having firearms doesn't stop violent crime, nor does not having them. I guess it comes down to what type of society you want to live in. I like one where guns are less prevelent.

I like one where violent crime is less prevalent, but since I'm not in one of those, I'll still have my guns; thank you.

About 2 to 4 defensive gun uses to each crime committed with a gun.

Link?

Pro-tip--the link is right there in the post.

And you would rather the US be compared to those countries than other first world countries? I guess so, because it makes the US look good. Comparing the US to other first-world nations doesn't look as good does it?

All I want you to do is choose first world nations, western nations or whatever, and stick to it until the end--rather than switching between the terminology as each becomes feeble in supporting a particular point you're making.

Ah, but it makes them easier to catch if there are less firearms around. Less firearms, less numbers to trace, easier to catch. And they may not care about breaking one more law, but if the punishment is hard enough we'll see how much they care.

You ignore the fact that most crimes are not commited with guns--how does "tracing numbers" address those crimes? How does less firearms make it easier to solve those crimes? How does less firearms stop those crimes?

In order to prove that you'd have to do a study involving both the criminals and law-abiding citizens.

How so? Like a study that might demonstrate criminals run away from law-abiding citizens who have guns?

 

[Dr Grump]

This now being an era where criminals don't victimize others and governments don't oppress?

Criminals do victimise others. I'm not denying that. As for oppressive govt - in what way? And how would having guns stop the govt?

Do you have statistics to demonstrate "too many guns"?

I'd say 190 million+ guns would be in the too hard basket when it comes to trying to get rid of them...

It is becoming more and more clear to me that you care less about this "civilization" of yours, than you care about getting rid of guns.

Really? What makes you say that?

No. I have no idea what you're getting at, except perhaps that if I am disarmed, I'm pretty much at the mercy of those who are armed--which seems contradictory to your point.

My point is, it is easier to get away from somebody with a knife who is standing 100 metres away, than somebody with a gun. My point is also I find the knife argument is a read herring. Guns are much more dangerous than knives (unless you know of fully automatic, or even semi-automatic knife throwing machines, in which case I stand corrected )

For what? knives?

No. Guns.

If you say so--but if you really do say so, then be intellectually honest enough to admit that no gun grabber has ever proven that guns are the cause of violence.

I'd agree with that.

Having lived in rural communities throughout my life--where there are few bicycles--there are few crimes that involve bicycles. You'll just never convince me that getting rid of bicycles will get rid of crimes.

I agree it. Of course the bicycle was invented to kill things, unlike guns, which were primarly invented as ornaments to hang on the wall...

I have no statisics on England, but if they exist, I can find them--so can you. I do know of USDoJ studies of "true criminals" indicating that "true criminals" are well deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed. "True criminals" seek safe targets.

Yet, comparitively, with other first-world nations the US violent crime is higher than others...go figure..

If your point is more guns makes a less civilized socitety, then I think it does to the extent that the genuine pool of armed societies you can draw your evidence from are societies that embrace suicide and human sacrifice as a noble acts.

Name them.....

It will be a much longer argument with me, because I understand statisics, and I also understand the the patently disingenuous means by which the gun-grabbers manipulate their data.

Of course pro-gunnies dno't manipulate anything, right?

I'm afraid he is not "totally dishonest" about this--he does state that a frustrating variable for anyone doing these studies is the differences in reporting.

And yet he says England and Australia are twice as violent as the US without backing it up with hard stats. Only percentages (from where he doesn't say he got the info from) of increases.

This is called normalizing the data, and is not dishonest unless you are using the data to indicate less homocides rather than increase/decrease in homocides.

So if I take data, say that England has a worse homicide rate than the US because their violent crime rate has increased, but has still NOT reached that of the US, that is being honest? Okkaaayyy...

"Totally dishonest" is the application of your per capita conclusion to a rate comparison.

How is it dishonest? Either way, the US rate is STILL higher, so how can it be dishonest. I'm not too au fait with statistics, but I do know that if one country has more homicides per capita than another, their rate is higher. No fudging. Just facts.

I like one where violent crime is less prevalent, but since I'm not in one of those, I'll still have my guns; thank you.

Fair enough.

Pro-tip--the link is right there in the post.

My bad. I cut and pasted your post which got rid of the link aspect and all I saw were words. Pro-tip - you have talked several times about homocides - are we limiting this debate to the deaths of gay people?

All I want you to do is choose first world nations, western nations or whatever, and stick to it until the end--rather than switching between the terminology as each becomes feeble in supporting a particular point you're making.

Nothing feeble at all. I posted a dictionary definition of Western World which included Europe. To me Western, First-World, Developed countries - all mean the same to me, but to make things easier for you I'll say first-world, and if you still want to fudge/muddy the waters, so be it. You know exactly what I mean, and you know when being compared to other first-world countries it doesn't look good for the US re violence, so therefore it is within your interests to be compared to more violent societies.

You ignore the fact that most crimes are not commited with guns--how does "tracing numbers" address those crimes? How does less firearms make it easier to solve those crimes? How does less firearms stop those crimes?

A hell of lot in the US are, especially homicides. Police use tracing methods to find the owners of guns that have been used in the commission of felonies. More guns, harder to do, less guns, easier. Simple really.

How so? Like a study that might demonstrate criminals run away from law-abiding citizens who have guns?

No, to prove your point.

 

[LOki]

Criminals do victimise others. I'm not denying that. As for oppressive govt - in what way? And how would having guns stop the govt?

Reference the American Revolution.

I'd say 190 million+ guns would be in the too hard basket when it comes to trying to get rid of them...

Yeah, but if I have only one, and it's registered, then it's not so hard to disarm me--is it?

So explain to me in detail, once you've disarmed me, where your disarmament plan places decent civilized folks and violent sociopaths in your "capacity to excercise criminal violence" ponzi scheme.

Really? What makes you say that?

You seem place gun disarmament ahead of being civilized.

I'm willing to argue that a socity that is disarmed cannot claim to be actually civilized--they are better described as subdued.

My point is, it is easier to get away from somebody with a knife who is standing 100 metres away, than somebody with a gun. My point is also I find the knife argument is a read herring. Guns are much more dangerous than knives (unless you know of fully automatic, or even semi-automatic knife throwing machines, in which case I stand corrected )

It is because guns are more dangerous than knives that they are a more effective self defense tool than knives, and why I reccommend to everyone that they should pull out a gun when threatened by a knife weilding thug. I suppose my point is that should your assailant threaten you with a gun, you should also have a gun and shoot him with it. It's the ciilized thing to do--Ghandi said so.

No. Guns.

If guns, why not every weapon? Is it more civilized to murder with a knife or baseball bat?

I'd agree with that.

Well I'm glad. If you agree with me, then why do you attack the guns that the violent and peaceful have in common rather than the violent and their crimes?

The apparent answer is that you are far more concerned about getting rid of guns (used by violent sociopaths and civilized folks alike) rather than getting rid of the violent sociopaths--so much so, that you'd disallow civilized folks guns to defend themselves with, from those violent sociopaths you are so much less concerned about. Yes?

I agree it. Of course the bicycle was invented to kill things, unlike guns, which were primarly invented as ornaments to hang on the wall...

Don't bang your head like an imbecile. There of course will be no gun violence if there are no guns, just as if there were no bicycles, there would be no bicycle violence.

Yet, does the fact that bicycles were not primarily invented to kill things make them more acceptable murder weapons for you? It seems that for you, as long as the weapon is not a gun, it is. No license, no registration, no required safety class, no background check, no cooling off period, and certainly no culpability assigned to that weapon that is not a gun. Yes?

Yet, comparitively, with other first-world nations the US violent crime is higher than others...go figure..

And yet comparitively the violent crime rate in the US is falling as gun laws become less restrictive for civilized folks, while in some of your very same first-world nations, where gun laws are becoming more restricitive, violent crime rates are rising, as the civilized are being disarmed--go figure.

Name them.....

Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, Columbia for instance, but not Switzerland--even when the Swiss get their ammo illegally, and are armed with actual assault weapons (rather than the fanciful definition provided by gun grabbers) they do not run around killing one and other.

Take Mexico, South Africa, and the Phillipines for more examples, but not Norway.

This not to say that the Swiss and Norwegians are not above a little human sacifice--being socialists and all--but they clearly don't play the human sacrifice game on the scale, or with the same intensity that the Liberians, for instance, do. Those Norwegians and Swiss are pretty well armed, but are not made into the mass murderers that the gun controllers would like you to believe would neccssarily arrive if guns were more easliy owned.

Of course pro-gunnies dno't manipulate anything, right?

I didn't say that, but I will say this: The gun grabbers uniformly mislead, and manipulate for the purposes of misleading, because they have to. Kellerman, Belisilles, Ehrlich, and Sarah Brady on down.

And yet he says England and Australia are twice as violent as the US without backing it up with hard stats. Only percentages (from where he doesn't say he got the info from) of increases.

He says, with hard statitsics, that the rate of violent crime has risen in England and Australia since they made gun ownership more restrictive, and that rising rate in England and Australia is now twice the rate of violent crime in the US--not that there is twice as much violent crime as the US.

And he does cite his sources as it turns out.

So if I take data, say that England has a worse homicide rate than the US because their violent crime rate has increased, but has still NOT reached that of the US, that is being honest? Okkaaayyy...

Look, the instances of violent crime in England will most certainly be less than the US; primarily because there are way more people in the US--but if each 100,000 in each counrty is compared, and the rate of violent crime (violent crime per 100,000) in England is twice that of the US, it is not dishonest to point at that and say that if the US population was that of England's, the US would have less incidence of violent crime based on this statisic.

How is it dishonest? Either way, the US rate is STILL higher, so how can it be dishonest. I'm not too au fait with statistics, but I do know that if one country has more homicides per capita than another, their rate is higher. No fudging. Just facts.

The US rate for violent crime in the US is not higher, the amount of violent crime in the US is. No fudging, just facts.

In the way you were switching between western and 1st world to meet your momentary argumentative needs, you are now switching between homicide, violent crime, violent crime rate, and per capita homicide.

Fair enough.

Thank you for that.

My bad. I cut and pasted your post which got rid of the link aspect and all I saw were words. Pro-tip - you have talked several times about homocides - are we limiting this debate to the deaths of gay people?

LOLsome!

Pro-tip for LOki: Check your spelling extra carefully when you're posting from the compressed keyboard on your laptop.

Nothing feeble at all. I posted a dictionary definition of Western World which included Europe. To me Western, First-World, Developed countries - all mean the same to me, but to make things easier for you I'll say first-world, and if you still want to fudge/muddy the waters, so be it. You know exactly what I mean, and you know when being compared to other first-world countries it doesn't look good for the US re violence, so therefore it is within your interests to be compared to more violent societies.

I just wanted you to pick one, let it be sensible, and stick to it is all. If by 1st-world nation you mean England (for instance), and only England-like countries, regardless of their economic, political, and geographic dis-similarities, so much so that the only counrties that fit your 1st-world bill are England and nobody, just say England, OK?

Otherwise I feel it's fair to use geography, and colonial history, and economics, and political structures, and even a dictionary, to decide whether I'm talking about Western nations, or 1st-World nations, or both; and wether or not a fair comparison to my Western, 1st-World nation is being applied.

You ignore the fact that most crimes are not commited with guns--how does "tracing numbers" address those crimes? How does less firearms make it easier to solve those crimes? How does less firearms stop those crimes?

A hell of lot in the US are, especially homicides. Police use tracing methods to find the owners of guns that have been used in the commission of felonies. More guns, harder to do, less guns, easier. Simple really.

First, tracing serial numbers leads neccessarily to purchasers/owners--not criminals. Cops tracing a gun to it's owner, who also happens to be the criminal, works best in the movies and on TV, and never establishes the gun owner to be the criminal. You must put the logical horse in front of the logical cart.

Secondly, 9 bajillion serial numers does not make it any more difficult to trace one serial number. The only way greater difficulty could actually be introduced, is if each gun could have multiple serial numbers to trace--sorry about your luck.

Thirdly, you evaded my question with this nonsense of yours--answer the question.

No, to prove your point.

Then you'll just have to describe the type of study that would satisfy you.

 

[Ninja]

Forrest Grump owned again!

 

[Bern80]

Hey this is getting good. I don't have the quoting savy of you two to do this point by point....but,

I don't think either of you can win this argument by focusing on statistics of violence. Guns are just a tool used in violence. They are used more than other impliments (knives, bats, bicycles) because as a means to kill something guns are the most effective tool there is. That's why they were made. Short of being blown up instantly, there are few ways to make something dead quicker. If there was no shuch thing as a gun, we would be talking about knives instead or whatever the next most effective means of killing something is.

I believe people's opinion's on guns and how they should be controlled is directly related to their exposure to them. My guess Gump is that you are not a hunter and most likely not a gun owner. Hunting even targeting shooting are not acts of violence (though PETA would construe the former that way). If you have not been exposed to either of these, think of what that means in terms of how your opinions on guns were shaped (i.e. stories on the evening news, war stories, or possibly even gun violence in you neighborhood). All of these are negative exposures hence your view of these tools is negative.

It is not possible to argue logically the no guns makes for a more civilized society. Being civilized requires haveing a civilized mind as well. If someone wants to kill me I will not make him want to kill me less by taking away his gun.

 

[Dr Grump]

Forrest Grump owned again!

Thanks Slowboy...

 

[Dr Grump]

Loki

I spent the best part of 45 minutes replying to your last post, then I posted it and my computer went belly up and I'll be stuffed if I'm gonna rewrite the whole thing again. Bottom line is, we both agree that guns don't cause violence. I think our argument is more philosophical as to the role of guns in society. I prefer them at arms length, you don't.

As for stats. Here's a table for you. Unfortunately it doesn't have yearly comparisons, but it is interesting nonetheless...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't think either of you can win this argument by focusing on statistics of violence. Guns are just a tool used in violence. They are used more than other impliments (knives, bats, bicycles) because as a means to kill something guns are the most effective tool there is. That's why they were made. Short of being blown up instantly, there are few ways to make something dead quicker. If there was no shuch thing as a gun, we would be talking about knives instead or whatever the next most effective means of killing something is.

I believe people's opinion's on guns and how they should be controlled is directly related to their exposure to them. My guess Gump is that you are not a hunter and most likely not a gun owner. Hunting even targeting shooting are not acts of violence (though PETA would construe the former that way). If you have not been exposed to either of these, think of what that means in terms of how your opinions on guns were shaped (i.e. stories on the evening news, war stories, or possibly even gun violence in you neighborhood). All of these are negative exposures hence your view of these tools is negative.

It is not possible to argue logically the no guns makes for a more civilized society. Being civilized requires haveing a civilized mind as well. If someone wants to kill me I will not make him want to kill me less by taking away his gun.

I don't own a gun, but I have hunted and gone target shooting.

I see guns as a privilege, not a right.

Your first paragraph is on the money...perhaps with the exception on the last paragraph..

 

[LOki]

Loki

I spent the best part of 45 minutes replying to your last post, then I posted it and my computer went belly up and I'll be stuffed if I'm gonna rewrite the whole thing again.

I have felt your pain. My solution is to C/P into a text document, and edit from there--tossing in a random "save" now and again, to keep the gizmo honest.

Bottom line is, we both agree that guns don't cause violence.

Then I don't know why we can't agree that getting rid of guns is not going to get rid of the violence.

I think our argument is more philosophical as to the role of guns in society. I prefer them at arms length, you don't.

I can live with that--but you, and your governmental proxies, are not keeping (my) guns at (your) arm's length.

As for stats. Here's a table for you. Unfortunately it doesn't have yearly comparisons, but it is interesting nonetheless...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Yep. It's interesting.

 

[LOki]

I don't own a gun, but I have hunted and gone target shooting.

Own a gun--it's cool.

I see guns as a privilege, not a right.

Privileges, like jury trial and free press?

Your first paragraph is on the money...perhaps with the exception on the last paragraph..

I think I can get behind the sentiment of both Bern80's 1st and last paragraphs.

 

[Bern80]

I don't own a gun, but I have hunted and gone target shooting.

I stand corrected, though it does make your position a hair more confusing

I see guns as a privilege, not a right.

The 2nd ammendment doesn't see it that way

Your first paragraph is on the money...perhaps with the exception on the last paragraph..

The one about taking the person's guin away or the exposure one?

 

[Dr Grump]

I have felt your pain. My solution is to C/P into a text document, and edit from there--tossing in a random "save" now and again, to keep the gizmo honest.

Then I don't know why we can't agree that getting rid of guns is not going to get rid of the violence.

I can live with that--but you, and your governmental proxies, are not keeping (my) guns at (your) arm's length.

Yep. It's interesting.

Getting rid of guns makes for a more civilised society IMO. Where I'm from, I rarely think about guns, in fact I only think about them when on messageboards. Having a society awash with firearms does nothing for my peace of mind.

I did cut and paste my post to a text doc, but didn't save it (duh!)

 

[Dr Grump]

Own a gun--it's cool.

Privileges, like jury trial and free press?

I think I can get behind the sentiment of both Bern80's 1st and last paragraphs.

Naw, I see no need for a gun.
Privileges like driver's licences..

I meant Bern's last sentence in his first paragraph..my bad

 

[Dr Grump]

I stand corrected, though it does make your position a hair more confusing

The 2nd ammendment doesn't see it that way

The one about taking the person's guin away or the exposure one?

Why does it make it more confusing? I have no problem with people having certain kinds of firearms as long as they (the person) has a licence.

I know re the second. We don't have the second where I'm from...

I meant your last sentence in the first paragraph..

 

[Bern80]

Getting rid of guns makes for a more civilised society IMO.

Sorry Grump, but that just plain isn't true. Your objective as I see it is to make a safer society by reducing gun violence. You seem to feel the best way to do that is to just get rid of guns. This accomplishes nothing. You will not have made society more civilized. Guns or inanimate objects. guns or lack of them can't "make" anything. They have to be acted on by humans who make choices w/o a gun they will find some other means to exercise their choice. You are assuming that someone who wants to kill someone will simply go "oh nevermind then" if he doesn't have a gun. Secondly geting rid of all guns fails to look at all the people that actually own them, your mindset seems to focus only people who shoot other people. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding and there isn't any lesser civility to them then people who don't own guns. Your above statement however implies that they are less civilized some how. Your position is to punish everyone for the purpose of weeding out the bad apples for no other reason than that you believe it is the easiest way to deal with them.

Main Entry: civilized
Function: adjective
: characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint>

that is the definition I found on the Merriam-Webster website. The two important definers as they pertain to this discussion are 'refinement' and 'restraint' I don't belve guns or lack of would act as a modifier to either.

Where I'm from, I rarely think about guns, in fact I only think about them when on messageboards. Having a society awash with firearms does nothing for my peace of mind.

Practically speaking 'awash' would mean a lot of guns in an area. I happen to live in such an area. As an educated guess in knowing my neighbors, there are probably no fewer than 100 firearms within a square mile of where I live. The people who own them are primarily hunters and I have absolutely nothing to fear from any of them. This is due to my exposure to a ceratin type of people that own guns. Just as your opinions are based on your exposure. The sum of which is that for your argument to work there should be some reason for me to be afraid of all these people around me that own guns. There isn't one.