Why do you support gun ownership?

[.Shane.]

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:

Yeah, I agree that on the left, as on the right, there are people who misrepresent and mask their real motives. Sometimes, its due to ignorance. Sometimes due to agenda.

 

[MrCynical]

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...

Well I've done a bit of hunting data.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

In general homicide rates in US cities increased after 1976 for a while, compared to a decrease for Washington DC. There's then a major spike around 1988-1992, corresponding to Washington DC's, followed by another drop.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Compare to Washington DC's homicide stats here. Washington DC shows a drop after 1976, while the general homicide rate for large US cities is rising. The spike at around 1988-1992 appears for both Washington, and US cities in general, as does the drop in homicide rate afterwards.

 

[.Shane.]

Compare to Washington DC's homicide stats here. Washington DC shows a drop after 1976, while the general homicide rate for large US cities is rising. The spike at around 1988-1992 appears for both Washington, and US cities in general, as does the drop in homicide rate afterwards.

Oh boy! Do we want to really start discussing the real reason for the dramatic drop in violent crime rates that the US has seen since the late 80s/early 90s?

It won't be pleasant!

PS it has nothing to do w/ guns, either pro or con.

 

[El_Machinae]

I for one, was raised in a small rural community in Arkansas where you could sleep at night wth your door open if you wanted. The main reason this could be accomplished is that a handfull of criminals who tried to rob peoples home had been shot in the attempt.

Right, okay. Safe small town. Now we need to compare it to another small town, where everyone wasn't armed to the teeth to see if there is actually a deterrence effect.

How come my insurance idea gets no love?

 

[El_Machinae]

Compare to Washington DC's homicide stats here. Washington DC shows a drop after 1976, while the general homicide rate for large US cities is rising. The spike at around 1988-1992 appears for both Washington, and US cities in general, as does the drop in homicide rate afterwards.

Here's an easy way to answer this question. How old were the baby-boomers in 1976? How old were their children in 1990?

Which cohort is most likely to commit a violent crime?

The answer is that the per capita level of older youths changed

(Shane Freakonomics made some pretty serious errors in that part of the book)

 

[.Shane.]

(Shane Freakonomics made some pretty serious errors in that part of the book)

Please elaborate!

By PM is need be!

 

[Bugfatty300]

Compare to Washington DC's homicide stats here. Washington DC shows a drop after 1976, while the general homicide rate for large US cities is rising. The spike at around 1988-1992 appears for both Washington, and US cities in general, as does the drop in homicide rate afterwards.

Note that the data shows the population of DC dropped by 130,000 between 1976 and 2000.

Usually decreasing population equals decreasing crime.

 

[El_Machinae]

Please elaborate!

By PM is need be!

I think he forgot to factor in some per capita elements - but I forget which. A quick Google will let you know. My suspicion is that per capita crime of that cohort did not go down.

 

[Tycoon101]

Note that the data shows the population of DC dropped by 130,000 between 1976 and 2000.

Usually decreasing population equals decreasing crime.

Did the population decrease because of murders?

Oh well, I still think that guns are good, despite what some of you have said.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

Do you allege that I cut and paste this into the report as well?

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).

If you have the time, then by all means take the totals listed in the report and use that vs the population totals to get a rate if you wish.

Sanabas, your tatic is always the same. Attack the messenger and thus attempt to render the message moot.

 

[MrCynical]

Oh boy! Do we want to really start discussing the real reason for the dramatic drop in violent crime rates that the US has seen since the late 80s/early 90s?

It won't be pleasant!

PS it has nothing to do w/ guns, either pro or con.

No we don't want to discuss this, since it's way off topic. As you quite correctly point out it isn't relevant to the gun control debate. I was just responding to Mobboss' comment that Washington has the strictest gun control laws. I'm just showing that they certainly didn't make the homicide rate any worse as he suggests the would, and may even have improved matters (though Washington's homicide rate is appalling both before and after gun regulation).

Note that the data shows the population of DC dropped by 130,000 between 1976 and 2000.

Usually decreasing population equals decreasing crime.

The population kept dropping while the homicide rate shot up in the late 80s, early 90s though. It's certainly arguable whether the homicide rate had a significant drop immediately after gun regulations in 1976, but I don't think it can be argued that they made the situation worse.

 

[sanabas]

Do you allege that I cut and paste this into the report as well?

Did I mention that bit at all?

If you have the time, then by all means take the totals listed in the report and use that vs the population totals to get a rate if you wish.

That would be useful if the same standards were used for reporting. When it is valid, due to consistency of standards (i.e. homicide) the report has conveniently done it for us.

Regardless, the fact that you, I, or anyone else can use the raw numbers to come up with a per capita rate doesn't change the fact that you once again misrepresented a statistic to try and support your argument.

Sanabas, your tatic is always the same. Attack the messenger and thus attempt to render the message moot.

When have I ever attacked the messenger? When I reply to your posts, I attack your arguments, I attack your frequent misrepresentation of stats, and I attack your disingenuous argument tactics. I do not attack you. Please give me an example of a reply in which I've attacked you rather than your message.

 

[MobBoss]

Did I mention that bit at all?

Of course you didnt. It would ruin your argument against me.

Regardless, the fact that you, I, or anyone else can use the raw numbers to come up with a per capita rate doesn't change the fact that you once again misrepresented a statistic to try and support your argument.

Sorry, I didnt misrepresent anything. That is just your typical mantra however....ignore the data..he is just misrepresenting the data. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

 

[Colonel]

Shouldn't the very fact that the Constitution doesn't actually allow for your regular citizen to have\carry a firearm be the end of this arguement?

Or at the very least can we atleast ban the overly crazy weapons.

 

[sanabas]

Of course you didnt. It would ruin your argument against me.

When you c&p, there doesn't appear to be a problem. When you summarise stuff yourself, you often misrepresent things. A successful c&p doesn't imply anything either way about your ability to interpret and summarise things, so why would I mention it?

Sorry, I didnt misrepresent anything. That is just your typical mantra however....ignore the data..he is just misrepresenting the data. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

Funny, you are ignoring what I said, and ignoring any evidence or question, in favour of simply making a generalisation about my posts. Once again, I do not make personal attacks, and would like to see an example of one by me in a reply to you.

Once again, you said:

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.

whereas the report actually said the number of crimes in 2001 vs 2000 was 7% higher in England and Wales, 2% higher in the US. That's misrepresenting the data.

 

[McManus]

You know what? For once the forums have done the impossible: changed my opinion. After reading this thread, I have to say that I am forced to review my opinions on gun-control and can no longer say straight away that gun ownership is bad... Think of it as a 1-dimensional graph, -10 is no gun ownership and 10 is free gun ownership, I'd say my opinion, after this thread, has gone from -10 to maybe a -2, or even a -1... (If say, the regular of NRA had 3-7 views.)

Wow.

I still think that some of the arguments used are idiotic and tactics used just plain childish, but some of them have been very well formed and debated. Kudos Igloodude, you are a fine poster

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Shouldn't the very fact that the Constitution doesn't actually allow for your regular citizen to have\carry a firearm be the end of this arguement?

Or at the very least can we atleast ban the overly crazy weapons.

Second Amendment..?

 

[Atlas14]

1. I hunt, and therefore I utilize guns to slightly enhance my hunting efforts.
2. I believe I should have the right to defend myself with a superior weapon
if my house should happen to be broken into by an armed robber or someone of the sort

3. I see nothing wrong with guns, only the people who unfortunately abuse them or misuse them due to stupidity or malicious intentions.
4. In case of an invasion, an armed populace is much better able to defend itself with guns than rely on kitchen knives and other worthless makeshift weapons.
5. If you have a problem with people owning guns a) don't use them b) help educate people about how to operate guns safely c) grow some testicles because everyone knows people that misuse guns would find a way to kill people using some other method. At least guns are easily traceable and are loud, so they can give away positions. Imagine gangster people using solely knives, you'd never know someone was being stabbed to death until you saw it with your own eyes.

 

[JohnRM]

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

I will drink to that.

 

[JohnRM]

The fact is that if anybody attempts to illegalize guns, in America, you will find an army of millions overnight, ready to take down the government.