Why do you support gun ownership?

[Mise]

Its a UN study. Take that for what its worth.

It was a telephone poll. They didn't even use official police figues...

Really? You honestly think one has to be an authority to compare the definitions? Please.

Forgive me if I believe the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers over you...

 

[MobBoss]

Those exact words, no. Its an extension of your logic. Your argument is that since cars kill more people, we should quit bothering w/ guns. So, logically, you'd also be against researching a cure for, say, colon cancer, becuase, hey, its doesn't kill as many people as cars!

Brilliant!

Unfortunately you are wrong. Very wrong. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, such things as Heart disease and colon cancer kill even far more people in the USA than do cars. Over all age groups, guns rate about 15th in causes of death...WAY behind such things as heart disease, or motor vehicle accidents.

AND I find nothing wrong with my logic either....if your reason for banning guns simply because they kill too many people, in turn perhaps more attention should be paid to causes that kill magnitudes more when compared to guns.

 

[MobBoss]

It was a telephone poll. They didn't even use official police figues...

And we all know how wrong phone polls are, especially when thousands of people are involved...unless of course its to point out Bush's current approval rating...

Forgive me if I believe the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers over you...

Forgive me if I believe the thousands of people with no reason to lie about it over the Chief.

 

[.Shane.]

Unfortunately you are wrong. Very wrong. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, such things as Heart disease and colon cancer kill even far more people in the USA than do cars. Over all age groups, guns rate about 15th in causes of death...WAY behind such things as heart disease, or motor vehicle accidents.

Ugh... you nonetheless get my point. Ok, so its not colon cancer... How about, say, skin cancer? Does that kill more people than cars? No? Then don't research it. My point was simple: that the rough argument of #s of deaths w/ no context is a bad argument. Its meaningless.

if your reason for banning guns simply because they kill too many people, in turn perhaps more attention should be paid to causes that kill magnitudes more when compared to guns.

And... I've never said to ban all guns.

The car argument is a funny one and very easy to debunk. Give it the smallest amount of context and you see its not a valid number. In that... how much time is spent driving a car every day? I'd imagine its in the millions of hours. Now, how much time is spent firing guns everyday? No, I'm not gonna do the math. And, please don't fixate on the exactness of what I'm saying and, again, miss the bigger point. The thought is w/out context raws numbers are meaningless.

 

[Mise]

And we all know how wrong phone polls are, especially when thousands of people are involved...unless of course its to point out Bush's current approval rating...

When have I ever mentioned Bush's approval rating? In any thread? In my entire life? Ever?

Forgive me if I believe the thousands of people with no reason to lie about it over the Chief.

It's not a matter of lying and you know it. Your continued wilfull ignorance convinces me you're trolling.

 

[MobBoss]

Ok, found another study, NOT FROM THE UN, that also proves that the UK and Wales has a higher crime rate. Its a few years old (2001/2003) but still has pertinent data. Here it is: http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf

Please note the rate of crimes reported by the police themselves: 7% for the UK and Wales compared to 2% for the USA for the period 2000-2001.

Next a little factoid about Violent Crime:

Violent crime (Table 1.3)
10. For the period 1997 - 2001, the average rise
was 22% in the EU for violent crime with the
highest rises in France (50%), Spain (49%),
the Netherlands (35%), Portugal (29%) and
England & Wales (26%). Amongst the other
countries, there were high rises in Japan
(79%), Poland (27%) and Australia (22%).
There were falls in Estonia (18%), Russia
(18%), the U.S.A. (12%), the Czech Republic
(7%) and Cyprus (4%).
11. In 2000 - 2001, the average rise was 5% in
the EU with the highest rises in Northern
Ireland (22%), France (15%) and England &
Wales and the Netherlands (both 11%).
There was a 1% rise in the USA.

And this factoid about Victimization Rates:

Of the 17 countries examined in the report,
England & Wales had well above average
levels of both property and contact crime (i.e.
robbery, assault and sexual assault).

It is true that the USA has a higher homocide rate...but these figures from this study seem to validate the numbers from the UN study. Britain and Wales have a much higher violent crime problem than most other countries.

Is this enough for you Mise, or do I need to go find even more?

 

[IglooDame]

lol, about 4 pages back. my this thread moves fast!

Sorry, I missed it in the flyby too.

Anyway, here's my take on them, and hopefully I won't be too much of a brownshirt about it.

*outlaw all non-standard ammo. No one needs armor-piercing rounds or hollow-tips, etc...
- Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is already outlawed for civilians. What's wrong with hollow-tips? They make the bullets more effective, and if you're shooting at someone, you're already employing deadly force.

*ban body armor sales unless you have a license for a specific job type.
- I'm not opposed to this, except for being ideologically opposed to bans in general.

*ban all types of guns besides pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns.
- This I don't get - what is the functional difference between a .30-06 hunting rifle and a semiautomatic AR-15?

*require trigger locks or some other similar safety measure for all guns.
- For the most part, they already come with trigger locks.

*require locking gun cabinets for anyone who owns guns
- Sure, but (like trigger locks) they may or may not get used.

*private and flea-market sales of guns should have the same legal requirements re: background checks as regular gun stores.
- I'm not opposed to this, except ideologically (which you can take to mean, I understand that I'll very likely get outvoted and won't shed any tears about it).

*gun safety classes for all owners of guns.
- I'm not opposed to this either, except ideologically again.

 

[.Shane.]

Igloodude,

Thx for the thoughtful reply! The brownshirts comment is more about the public discourse at large, not this one.

Yeah, I realize that to varying degrees some of these things are done and I think that's great. I also know that from state to state the laws can vary wildly. The problem is when you attempt to, say, unify the laws at the federal level or introduce new legislation aimed at making guns safer or reducing firearm deaths, the NRA jumps all over you as if you're Satan, etc... when you're just pro-safety.

The US has a definite gun culture that's going nowhere. Most of us understand that. I just wish there was more reasonable discourse that acknowledged the basic right to bare arms but w/ a willingness to make the practice safer all the time.

Again, nice reply.

 

[Mise]

Please note the rate of crimes reported by the police themselves: 7% for the UK and Wales compared to 2% for the USA for the period 2000-2001.

1. This does nothing to address the difference in methods of police reporting of violent crimes.

2. I already knew this... and offered an explanation, which is well known and well accepted. You ignored it, and called it an "excuse".

EDIT: I don't deny that the UK has higher than average violent crime rate, even adjusting for urbanisation, ghettoisation and poverty. The problem, however, is socioeconomic, and nothing to do with the lack of guns amongst the law abiding populace.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The fact that I'm 30 times more likely to get shot in the USA than in the UK speaks for itself, IMO.

I read something about Scotland having a much higher rate of stabbings than the United States. If someone wants to kill you, they're find a way. I feel safer knowing that I have a 30-.06 in the house. They can hide behind a car and I can still get'em (a round from one of these can punch through an engine block). Check out the pictures of Bonnie and Clyde's car after they got ambushed, the round fired were 30-.06's.

Why don't people understand that taking in the poor riff raff (putting it mildly) from the rest of the planet and cramming them into one nation isn't going to be without violence.

The last murder in my area (in a 100 mile radius), was in my town of birth, and that was with a knife.

 

[MrCynical]

Please note the rate of crimes reported by the police themselves: 7% for the UK and Wales compared to 2% for the USA for the period 2000-2001.

MobBoss, those are annual percentage changes, not crime rate percentages. It's interesting that the UK has had a higher rise in crime in that year than the US, but it's not relevant to the gun control debate for the simple reason that gun control laws hadn't changed that year. Strangely you've made no mention of by far the strongest evidence in the report in your argument for gun control; violent crime in the UK more than doubled from 1997-1998, and that does coincide with the tightening of gun regulations, after the Dunblane massacre. I'd be interested to see more detail on this.

That said, I'd find the fact the US has more than 3 times the homicide rate of the UK rather more concerning. The homicide rate in Washington DC is about 15 times that of London, and more that twice that of any other capital in the report.

EDIT: Reading the small print they revised the rules for how violent crime was recorded in the UK in that year. They specifically state the 98/99 and later figures are not directly comparable with the earlier ones. Shame about that. It would be interesting to see some comparable numbers for that year.

 

[JohnRM]

The fact that I'm 30 times more likely to get shot in the USA than in the UK speaks for itself, IMO.

Actually, you are about 27 times more likely to be shot dead with a firearm. However, when we are talking about a difference of less than 0.03 persons per 1000 individuals, this statistic loses all significance, doesn't it?

 

[MobBoss]

1. This does nothing to address the difference in methods of police reporting of violent crimes.

2. I already knew this... and offered an explanation, which is well known and well accepted. You ignored it, and called it an "excuse".

EDIT: I don't deny that the UK has higher than average violent crime rate, even adjusting for urbanisation, ghettoisation and poverty.

This study that I linked says this about the differences:

2. In making any comparisons it is necessary to
be aware that such data will be the outcome
of different legal and administrative systems
and may also be derived from different
statistical data collection processes. Such
differences are described in this bulletin and
in the European Sourcebook of Crime and
Criminal Justice Statistics3 and in an article
discussing the usefulness of comparative
data4.

To me, this indicates that this study is aware of such differences and takes such into account. The fact that this study largely conforms with the data from the UN study linked earlier as well seems to indicate some measure of validity to the violent crime rate mentioned.

The problem, however, is socioeconomic, and nothing to do with the lack of guns amongst the law abiding populace

Opinion? And exactly how/why does England/Wales socioeconomic situation differ from the rest of the world so much that it has a much higher rate of violent crime?

 

[MobBoss]

That said, I'd find the fact the US has more than 3 times the homicide rate of the UK rather more concerning. The homicide rate in Washington DC is about 15 times that of London, and more that twice that of any other capital in the report.

It is worth mentioning that Washington DC also has the harshest gun control laws currently in the United States.

Actually, you are about 27 times more likely to be shot dead with a firearm. However, when we are talking about a difference of less than 0.03 persons per 1000 individuals, this statistic loses all significance, doesn't it?

Excellent point John. Nice Job.

 

[IglooDame]

Igloodude,

Thx for the thoughtful reply! The brownshirts comment is more about the public discourse at large, not this one.

Yeah, I realize that to varying degrees some of these things are done and I think that's great. I also know that from state to state the laws can vary wildly. The problem is when you attempt to, say, unify the laws at the federal level or introduce new legislation aimed at making guns safer or reducing firearm deaths, the NRA jumps all over you as if you're Satan, etc... when you're just pro-safety.

The US has a definite gun culture that's going nowhere. Most of us understand that. I just wish there was more reasonable discourse that acknowledged the basic right to bare arms but w/ a willingness to make the practice safer all the time.

Again, nice reply.

Thanks.

One thing that I've found is tough for the "middle of the road" folks to understand is that frequently restrictive gun legislation appears to be "reasonable, common-sense restrictions" but either through malice or ignorance is actually EXTREMELY restrictive. A relatively recent example is Ted Kennedy proposing restrictions on "armor-piercing rifle ammunition". By some accounts the bill as written would have resulted in all centerfire rifle ammunition being banned. At other times, restriction proponents have stated that the legislation is the first step toward eventual bans. I'd recommend the following sites to get a better view of why the NRA and all us 'gun-nuts' appears so strongly opposed to giving a single inch on anything:

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

http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm

In fact, if you want to really have your positions intellectually challenged, I recommend reading through guncite.com in general. The positions there are well-articulated, well-researched and well-documented, and they do a fairly good job (at least part of the time) of representing the other side's arguments as well.

 

[sanabas]

Ok, found another study, NOT FROM THE UN, that also proves that the UK and Wales has a higher crime rate.
...
Please note the rate of crimes reported by the police themselves: 7% for the UK and Wales compared to 2% for the USA for the period 2000-2001.

Can you please either read & understand your sources, and/or stop misrepresenting what they say? A 7% increase over a year vs a 2% increase over a year says nothing whatsoever about what the total amount of crime is, or what the per capita rate of crime is.

So why post something saying it does? Are you once again misunderstanding your sources, or are you being deliberately disingenuous, or are you simply lying about what you link to in order to try and convince people you're right?

 

[MrCynical]

It is worth mentioning that Washington DC also has the harshest gun control laws currently in the United States.

It is also worth mentioning that it still had a huge homicide rate before 1976 when those gun control laws were brought in. Homicides were actually significantly lower for 12 years following the introduction of those laws. They then spiked to vastly higher levels than before, but I don't see that can be blamed on the gun control laws which were firmly in place by then.

 

[Mise]

To me, this indicates that this study is aware of such differences and takes such into account. The fact that this study largely conforms with the data from the UN study linked earlier as well seems to indicate some measure of validity to the violent crime rate mentioned.

Not really, to both of those statements. It acknowledges it, but does not take it into account, as there is simply no way of doing so.

Opinion? And exactly how/why does England/Wales socioeconomic situation differ from the rest of the world so much that it has a much higher rate of violent crime?

It has been a topic of much media attention in the past decade. There is a great deal of information available on this subject - British newspapers would be a good place to start if you are really interested. And yes, it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, including the police force, which is why nobody wants to loosen our gun laws.

 

[IglooDame]

It is also worth mentioning that it still had a huge homicide rate before 1976 when those gun control laws were brought in. Homicides were actually significantly lower for 12 years following the introduction of those laws. They then spiked to vastly higher levels than before, but I don't see that can be blamed on the gun control laws which were firmly in place by then.

And how do the changes in homicide rates correlate to cities in the US that did not ban all gun purchases in '76?

I don't know, myself, and I've too much of a headache at the moment to hunt down the data...

 

[Mise]

Actually, you are about 27 times more likely to be shot dead with a firearm. However, when we are talking about a difference of less than 0.03 persons per 1000 individuals, this statistic loses all significance, doesn't it?

In that case, any statistics involving crime rates are irrelevant.