Mise said:
Or, maybe you in the UK are so used to being dependent on the police for your personal safety that criminals are more prone to knock you about when the police aren't readily at hand.
Why do you support gun ownership?
- Thread starter Red Stranger
- Start date
Or, maybe you in the UK are so used to being dependent on the police for your personal safety that criminals are more prone to knock you about when the police aren't readily at hand.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mise said:
Do I hear excuses? If you dont like that story, then by all means go google up some more...plenty out there.
I have also read that the actual numbers from Wales and UK could be even higher, as local police are unable to prosecute/investigate a lot of violent crime as they are undermanned and/or unwilling to do so.
Mise said:
As harsh as it may sound, a large portion of violent crimes in the U.S. are -- not suprisingly -- drug related. Several years ago I was doing some research and received statistics from the New Orleans Police Department which revealed 40% of the murders in the city were, in fact, related to the narcotics trade. Looking at the raw totals is deceiving. It's not as if you are just going to be walking along the street and get blown away for no reason whatsoever.
Well, that might happen but the odds are far more remote than those who traffic in narcotics, join gangs, or (unfortunately through no fault of their own) live in poor urban areas.
Brian_B said:
I was going to post similar thinking, but then it occurred to me that presumably the percentages of violent crime happening amongst criminals is likely similar in the UK, so he's still 30 times more likely to be shot in the US as opposed to the UK (assuming he's not a drug lord in the UK but a law-abiding person in the US).
Though, when you factor those sorts of modifiers in (not in a gang, not selling drugs, not considering suicide, etc) then you get a better chance of drowning in a pool than being shot in either country, so the relative differences become next to meaningless.
Mise said:
Isn't the definition of 'criminal assault' different in the UK than it is in the USA? If I recall, to be a UK assualt required a lower burden of damage/contact.
Edit: to comment on the posts above me. Most of the firearm attacks in Alberta seem to be be between drug dealing scum
Let's assume that firearms are made illegal. Are you planning on going door to door collecting all of the weapons, or do you just make it illegal to purchase any more firearms. It sounds all good to say they should not be there but how do you propose to do it.
Mise
isle of lucy
In Japan, Italy and Austria, guns are illegal, and they have LOWER violent crime rates than the USA. Japanese gun control is known to be amongst the most stringent in the world, and according to your own source is one of the safest places to live.MobBoss said:
There are reasons for the UK having historically high crime rates, and it is due largely to the level of urbanisation, and increase in ghettoisation in many parts of the UK's largest cities. Put simply, we're slowly becoming more like America...
IglooDude said:I was going to post similar thinking, but then it occurred to me that presumably the percentages of violent crime happening amongst criminals is likely similar in the UK, so he's still 30 times more likely to be shot in the US as opposed to the UK (assuming he's not a drug lord in the UK but a law-abiding person in the US).
Though, when you factor those sorts of modifiers in (not in a gang, not selling drugs, not considering suicide, etc) then you get a better chance of drowning in a pool than being shot in either country, so the relative differences become next to meaningless.
True enough.
The rate of violent crime is not what matters. Its the murder rate.
Funny argument. You're not going to be able to prove either argument with statistics. Its impossible. The US is a gun culture, its that simple. For better or for worse. Reasonable Americans will continue to try to enact legislation that allows gun ownership but tries to increase safe usage and decrease firearm deaths w/out removing the right to bear arms (which would require an amendment, anyway).
Other than that, comparing crime rates between Japan, the US, England, Hungary, whatever, is somewhat pointless as there are too many cultural and social differences.
Funny argument. You're not going to be able to prove either argument with statistics. Its impossible. The US is a gun culture, its that simple. For better or for worse. Reasonable Americans will continue to try to enact legislation that allows gun ownership but tries to increase safe usage and decrease firearm deaths w/out removing the right to bear arms (which would require an amendment, anyway).
Other than that, comparing crime rates between Japan, the US, England, Hungary, whatever, is somewhat pointless as there are too many cultural and social differences.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mise said:
Ever been to Japan? I have. Submission and honorable conduct is a culteral thing there, so having a low crime rate is just an extension of their culture.
And btw, you are incorrect. Guns are not illegal in Italy and Austria.
I found this online about Austria: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Laws/austria
Mise
isle of lucy
@MobBoss: That's as illegal as it is in the UK... And most European countries have, in the past decade or so, further restricted the sale of guns.
Just to throw the States into the mix, you have to understand that the Federal Constitution does not BAR citizens from owning guns, so therefore State Constitutions also have a say on gun ownership.
Regardless of being in a specific militia or not, I have the unfettered right to keep and bear arms under my Missouri Constitution, as spelled out in Article 1, Section 23. Notice the specific "every citizen to keep and bear arms" with no mention of militia.
The concealed weapons part has been taken care of via State statute which does now allow for the carrying of concealed weapons.
Regardless of being in a specific militia or not, I have the unfettered right to keep and bear arms under my Missouri Constitution, as spelled out in Article 1, Section 23. Notice the specific "every citizen to keep and bear arms" with no mention of militia.
The concealed weapons part has been taken care of via State statute which does now allow for the carrying of concealed weapons.
MobBoss said:
Which makes Austria more gun-friendly than Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, Boston, Maryland, New Jersey, or most of California, by the way.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mise said:
So, possession of firearms is not illegal in Austria or Italy....and I beg to differ. Gun laws in Britain are far more restrictive...here see for yourself: http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0513/guns/laws.html
So, Britain and Wales, with about the most restrictive gun laws, has the higher rate of violent crime. Interesting.
Mise
isle of lucy
Oops, I was wrong -- the uk bans handguns as of Dunblane.
More interesting is that you ignore the cultural reasons for the UK's historically high violent crime rate, whilst simultaneously using Japan's culture as an excuse for their low violent crime rate. You also ignore the fact that different countries report "violent" crimes differently.
And the lowest rate of gun crime.MobBoss said:
More interesting is that you ignore the cultural reasons for the UK's historically high violent crime rate, whilst simultaneously using Japan's culture as an excuse for their low violent crime rate. You also ignore the fact that different countries report "violent" crimes differently.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mise said:
You miss the point entirely. Guns possession has an impact upon violent crime. You may have lower gun deaths, but your rate of violent crime is through the roof. This is what happens when people cannot defend their own homes against criminals. There are simply just not enough police to keep you safe from violent criminals.
Mise
isle of lucy
"Through the roof?"MobBoss said:
I'm convinced that you're trolling now.
On the offchance that you're not, can you account for the difference in police reporting of "violent" crimes? I.e. what constitutes a violent crime in the UK may not be considered "violent" in the US or other countries. I know for a fact that the definitions changed in 2001/2.
Wait - what?
People think that guns actually deter crime? I can't imagine that - to prove it (to me) you'd need to show that places with guns have a smaller rate of burgularies or muggings (or attempts).
I don't think they really deter crime, but they do make it more likely that a criminal will be hurt while committing a crime. OTOH, many more non-criminals get hurt by having guns around (I'd assume that can't be argued ... that gun accidents go up with legality)
People think that guns actually deter crime? I can't imagine that - to prove it (to me) you'd need to show that places with guns have a smaller rate of burgularies or muggings (or attempts).
I don't think they really deter crime, but they do make it more likely that a criminal will be hurt while committing a crime. OTOH, many more non-criminals get hurt by having guns around (I'd assume that can't be argued ... that gun accidents go up with legality)
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mise said:"Through the roof?"
I'm convinced that you're trolling now.
Not at all. When your country is listed as being in the top few IN THE WORLD in reported violent crime, yeah, I am not trolling by saying your rate is throught the roof. You however, are free to deny it all you want.
So, now you are going to argue that its all a misunderstanding and just semantics.
The funny thing is the story itself was run via a british newspaper. Scotland, England, Wales and Australia have the highest rates of violent crime in the world and some of the most restrictive gun control laws around. I see a correlation there.
Mise
isle of lucy
You can see THAT correlation but you can't see the correlation between US gun ownerships and the number of gun deaths per capita?MobBoss said:Not at all. When your country is listed as being in the top few IN THE WORLD in reported violent crime, yeah, I am not trolling by saying your rate is throught the roof. You however, are free to deny it all you want.
So, now you are going to argue that its all a misunderstanding and just semantics.
The funny thing is the story itself was run via a british newspaper. Scotland, England, Wales and Australia have the highest rates of violent crime in the world and some of the most restrictive gun control laws around. I see a correlation there.
The only thing that's through the roof is that I'm 30 times more likely to get shot in the US than the UK.
And I take it you can't account for said differences in reporting of "violent" crimes, prefering to roll your eyes instead.
