An other year gun crime rises in England - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 10-21-2003, 07:08 PM

If someone wants to seriously discuss this, drop me a PM. I'm going to leave what has become of this thread to FEL.

Food Eater Lad · 10-21-2003, 07:38 PM

I will answer when you show me that the BBC is not a good source for british news.

smooth · 10-21-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I will answer when you show me that the BBC is not a good source for british news.

If you roll your eyes at me again I won't respond to you.

I never said the BBC wasn't a good source for British news--this is a strawman argument. The real issue I raised was that the BBC article didn't identify the source of the statistics they were using supporting the claim that violent crime trends were rising in England and Wales.

The article stated that one (unidentified) study found violent crime trends to be rising.

At the end of the story, however, the reporter explained that the British Crime Survey, the more reliable of the two studies, found violent crime trends to be declining.

Regardless, even if the first study is accurate, the number of homicides by guns only rose by approximately 2.4 persons per year in two nations--England and Wales--combined. Their total gun murders are 80 people.

While the figure of nearly 200 "gun crimes" (which could be anything from robbery to attempts to purchase guns--we simply don't know without the benefit of the source of the data or how the researchers operationalized their variable) per year is alarming, the evidence that fatalities are declining (or not increasing as severely as other regions, if you prefer) leads one to question whether personal handgun possession escalates street crimes to fatal episodes.

In consideration of these points that you haven't even attempted to refute, I do not believe you have presented a very convincing argument that gun control is a failure in the United Kingdom.

All that aside, what exactly would occur if people in the UK had handguns on their persons?

Are we to presume that robbers, rapists, and murderers approach victims from the front?

Do these "cowards" wait while someone pulls a firearm from under his or her clothes (according to the proponents on this board, weapons carriers shouldn't expose their weapons to effect the greatest level of deterence) and in defense?

Would they commit such crimes in view of witnesses who might be carrying?

If they did, would the witnesses shoot the offender? Should they? Do our trained police officers even shoot people in a stand-down situation between them and an offender with a victim/hostage?

The literature I am aware of would claim that violent offenders choose victims based upon the belief that the victim is either mentally disoriented due to a strange environment, timid, or otherwise not paying particular attention to his or her environment. They would reasonably do so in dimly lit places to avoid detection and apprehension. They are likely to do so in areas they are most comfortable in and knowledgable of. Unless they are stupid or desirous of being caught, they attempt to commit crime in the absence of witnesses. Finally, more often than not, they allow their victims to live.

Given that victims are highly unlikely to know when they will be attacked and, as a result, won't be able to turn a weapon on an attacker, it stands to reason that the threat of the presence of a firearm won't deter a criminal from attacking nor will its actual presence serve to make the victim more safe.

One might argue that witnesses could come to the aid of the victim if they are armed. Trained professionals, however, realize the danger inherent in shooting people who have guns to other people's heads or backs and, consequently, rarely do so. That said, if you ever see someone demanding my wallet, just let me hand it over--please don't try to "save" me because your efforts have a higher chance of resulting in my getting shot than helping me keep the 30 bucks in my wallet.

onetime2 · 10-22-2003, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
PS I notice that no one argued the fact that gun deaths went up after gun controls were passed. So just what are you arguing for? More gun deaths?

I think you are missing the point as well. There is no proof of causation between gun laws and crime. Without the gun law would that increase have been higher or lower than it was? No one can say.

And BTW, my earlier post was obviously directed at those people comparing multiple countries (and you did mention comparing other countries as well).

Food Eater Lad · 10-22-2003, 12:20 PM

The literature I am aware of is that a criminal will pick a weak target. In an area were the people are known to be allowed to defend themselves, a criminal will have to be more choosey. Thus the peopel NOT carrying concealed weapons can benifit from a concealed carried law even though they are not carrying a gun.
PLaces like New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado, car jackings are almost non existant. Why? Cause everyone in a car is assumed to be armed unless they are proven to be not armed. Thus, the criminals dont mess with people while in their cars. Even that gun hating guy gets the benifit of being protected by a gun, unless he has out of state plates or a rental.
Look at Louisianna. They were a mess with all the carjackings. Then the state approved a person's right to defend himself with deadly force in the case of carjackings. All the media claimed that this was a racist policey giving people permission to shoot blacks at will, but what happened? Car jackings became a thing of the past. And guess what? Black people are not getting blown away.
In England, the Russian Mafia is moving in, and selling cheep eastern European guns. The gun ban only effects those that obey the law. 200 gun crimes a week and rising, three years in row, as reported by that article and many more if you go to the BBC news site and search gun homicide rates. True it is no where near the USA, but that was never part of the argument. Why is crime rising? Cause the criminals have found a haven of victums. As they realise that Johnny ENglish is unarmed and ripe for attack, this rate will only get worse.
England's trouble with crime will rise each year. True it was tiny if you compare it to the USA, but our rate is going down for the past few years. At 45 % on year, 35 % the next and now this year, how much longer before England is the next Washinton DC ( a place with STRICT GUN CONTROL BY THE WAY!)

Take a way a person's ablity to defend himself, and what you are left with is not paradise, but a target.

splck · 10-22-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I am comparing England pre gun ban to England POST gun ban. Gun Crime has skyrocket since they banned guns, as it does every where after guns are banned.

Canada's gun murder rate actually went down last year with stricter gun laws. Here's a link for you.

Food Eater Lad · 10-22-2003, 06:43 PM

This is from the same article linked above:

"Canadian police reported 582 homicides last year, up 29 from the previous year.

The national homicide rate was 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001."

So a higher homicide rate is a victory for gun control activists?

smooth · 10-22-2003, 07:07 PM

FEL, we agree that criminals are selecting weak targets--your point wasn't opposed to mine.

Please provide some stats to back up your claim that carjackings have decreased to the point of virtual non-existence as a correlate to relaxation of gun control legislation.

If you are arguing that criminals now assume everyone to be armed as the reason they don't carjack, then you have to explain why they aren't shooting everyone before taking the vehicle versus their old model of threatening someone and taking it.

That is, if criminals are as rational as you assume them to be and they believed their potential victims to be armed, then why wouldn't they shoot their victims before they had a chance to respond and still take the car if they desired it?

SLM3 · 10-22-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
This is from the same article linked above:

"Canadian police reported 582 homicides last year, up 29 from the previous year.

The national homicide rate was 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001."

So a higher homicide rate is a victory for gun control activists?

What does the higher rate have to do with the gun control activists? Are you saying gun control, while decreasing the number of firearm homicides, is increasing the number of stabbing deaths?

Others have brought up the same point, yet no one has answered. How have we gotten to the conclusion that gun control increases gun related crimes? Just because crime goes up a few percentage points isn't reason enough to conclude that it is solely because of gun control. How can people make such a simple conclusion?

SLM3

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3

Others have brought up the same point, yet no one has answered. How have we gotten to the conclusion that gun control increases gun related crimes? Just because crime goes up a few percentage points isn't reason enough to conclude that it is solely because of gun control. How can people make such a simple conclusion?

SLM3

I have a much better question for you. If gun control does not lower gun crimes, why should the right be taken away?

Don't you think before you tell people what they should do, that what you force them to do should be of benefit?

I don't have the numbers to prove statistically what you are asking. Maybe they are out there, but I'm not doing a dissertation for you.

My question doesn't require those numbers, gun crime is RISING in areas with gun control and not rising in areas where you have the right to carry a gun. Whether or not gun control raises crime doesn't matter if gun control doesn't lower the crime rate.

VICTORY CLAIMED

Food Eater Lad · 10-23-2003, 06:53 PM

http://www.ncpa.org/press/nrsb052600.html

The effects of letting lawful people carry concealed guns.

DALLAS (May 26, 2000) - Marking the fifth anniversary of Texas' concealed carry law, a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) shows that Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

"Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report. "That prediction was dead wrong."

In 1995, Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law granting Texans the right to carry concealed firearms. This made Texas the 23 state to pass a concealed carry law since 1986.

According to the report, the slightly more than 200,000 Texans who have become licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person. Comparing arrest rates for example:

Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense.

They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense.

They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.
Moreover, of the six licensees who were arrested and tried for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, four were found not guilty because they had acted in self-defense.

The right to carry may also be affecting Texas' crime rate in a positive way. Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average.

Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole.

Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally.

Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally.
This experience is consistent with the experience of other states with concealed carry laws. According to University of Chicago law professor John Lott, concealed handgun laws on average reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

"Far from recreating the Wild West, concealed carry laws create a safer society," said Burnett. "The law allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C.

For more information:
Julie Hillrichs, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272
Sean Tuffnell, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272
Joan Kirby, Washington, DC 202-628-6671
Internet: http://www.ncpa.org

splck · 10-24-2003, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
This is from the same article linked above:

"Canadian police reported 582 homicides last year, up 29 from the previous year.

The national homicide rate was 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001."

So a higher homicide rate is a victory for gun control activists?

Er, I thought you just said "Gun Crime has skyrocket since they banned guns, as it does every where after guns are banned. " The link I posted clearly states that gun murders went down. When did we start talking about overall stats?
Your last sentence is rediculous. I don't know how you come up with a thought like that from the link.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 06:04 AM

I said gun crime skyrocketed in England, not Canada. And yes,
murder went up in Canada. So again, I guess murder going up is ok as long as they were not killed by guns? So I ask you, if murders go up even by one, as they always do after gun bans, why are you for gun control?

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by splck
Er, I thought you just said "Gun Crime has skyrocket since they banned guns, as it does every where after guns are banned. " The link I posted clearly states that gun murders went down. When did we start talking about overall stats?
Your last sentence is rediculous. I don't know how you come up with a thought like that from the link.

Look 29 more murders is an increase. So why is an increase in murder a victory for gun control. Why you dont understand my last sentence is ridiculous.

SLM3 · 10-24-2003, 11:10 AM

I think splck, like I, is just totally confused as to how you attribute every single murder stat, regardless of how it was committed, to gun control.

Interest rates went down this year, the same year Ontario and BC have allowed gay marriages, therefore gay marriages causes interest rates to lower.

See what I'm getting at?

SLM3

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 11:49 AM

That would be valid if it happened all the time. Every nation, city and state, when it enacts gun control homicide rates go up. Look at NY, California, ENgland, Canada, and Australia. Look at Texas, Miami and Louisianna, they allowed concealed carry permits and the murder rate goes down. But you are going to tell me that there is no correlation to that, right?

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 12:09 PM

FEL give up, the gun control people can't even show that gun control lowers violent gun crime, and don't want to talk about it. They like to talk about a magic world where no guns were allowed anywhere and THEN you will see a reduction in gun crime.

We already won this thread

SLM3 · 10-24-2003, 12:58 PM

You're totally right. I should just give up discussing it and accept that the US is the safest place in the world because everyone has a gun. That's why the US, with so many guns to protect you all, has the lowest number of gun homicides per year of any country in the world. Right?

You've got such a rediculous amount of gun murders a year and all you're doing is arguing to maintain the status quo. Maybe you guys should stop listing other countries that had 10 more homicides last year and start to ask yourself why the US had thousands upon thousands.

You're providing nothing except your fear of change. I never tried to provide an answer, all I did was ask questions which you couldn't answer.

Ya, you really owned this thread.

SLM3

seretogis · 10-24-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
I never tried to provide an answer,

I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread anymore, but I have to mention that this (the quote) really says a lot to me. So many people seem to have no problem with bashing the US (or anyone for that matter) for one thing or another, and yet fail to provide any sort of alternative solution. If you have nothing to say but "HAHAHA U SUK LOSAR!@@!", then maybe you shouldn't even bother posting. This goes for more than just liberals.

By the way, gun control is a factor in all violent crime, even violent crimes committed with knives. If every responsible citizen had a handgun on them at all times, do you think that knifings would increase, or decrease? Guns are not merely killing-machines, they serve very well as a violent crime deterrant when criminals don't know who may be "packing." This has been proven in every state that "shall-issue" CCW laws have been passed in the US.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
You're totally right. I should just give up discussing it and accept that the US is the safest place in the world because everyone has a gun. That's why the US, with so many guns to protect you all, has the lowest number of gun homicides per year of any country in the world. Right?

You've got such a rediculous amount of gun murders a year and all you're doing is arguing to maintain the status quo. Maybe you guys should stop listing other countries that had 10 more homicides last year and start to ask yourself why the US had thousands upon thousands.

You're providing nothing except your fear of change. I never tried to provide an answer, all I did was ask questions which you couldn't answer.

Ya, you really owned this thread.

SLM3

Thats right and if we talk all the guns away from people that obey the law, imagine how worse it will be. And your argument really supports the case that gun control lowers murder. Thanks for such compelling information.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-24-2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
By the way, gun control is a factor in all violent crime, even violent crimes committed with knives. If every responsible citizen had a handgun on them at all times, do you think that knifings would increase, or decrease?

This is a ridiculous argument. Allow me to illustrate.

If every person was rigged to explode when touched, would knifings increase or decrease? THEY WOULD DECREASE. Therefore, I propose that we strap explosives to everyone to prevent knifings.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 10:43 PM

Figures, not one gun control advocate can put up any proof that gun control reduces crime especially murder.

seretogis · 10-24-2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
This is a ridiculous argument. Allow me to illustrate.

If every person was rigged to explode when touched, would knifings increase or decrease? THEY WOULD DECREASE. Therefore, I propose that we strap explosives to everyone to prevent knifings.

It is only ridiculous because you turn it into something ridiculous. The fact is that "shall-issue" firearm carry laws do have a deterrant effect in every state that it has been tried in regards to the violent crime rate. That you have to resort to extreme exagerration in order to attempt to prove otherwise, says a lot.

almostaugust · 10-24-2003, 10:52 PM

This is such an idiotic debate. Personally, i think any society who wants more people to be packing firearms is maladjusted. I dont think that the great unwashed masses can be trusted with each owning a gun. And, frankly the situation in the US supports this. Obviously, the more guns there are around, the greater the chance they will be used for the wrong reasons- or get into the hands of kids or something.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-24-2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It is only ridiculous because you turn it into something ridiculous. The fact is that "shall-issue" firearm carry laws do have a deterrant effect in every state that it has been tried in regards to the violent crime rate. That you have to resort to extreme exagerration in order to attempt to prove otherwise, says a lot.

It just says that you haven't proven your point.

Do you have a source for your claim about concealed carry laws? I'd be interested in examining the source data.

Food Eater Lad · 10-24-2003, 11:11 PM

I guess i didnt post about Texas, Miami, and Louisianna. More facts Harmless Rabbit doesnt choose to see.

Ustwo · 10-24-2003, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
It just says that you haven't proven your point.

Lets pretend what you say is true, (note I said pertend).

Its YOU who wishes to take away a right, shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?

Show us how gun control lowers the gun crime rate.

seretogis · 10-25-2003, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
It just says that you haven't proven your point.

Do you have a source for your claim about concealed carry laws? I'd be interested in examining the source data.

Do a search on this board, or just google around. It's really not worth my time to search for you, if you'll simply ignore the facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by almostaugust
This is such an idiotic debate. Personally, i think any society who wants more people to be packing firearms is maladjusted. I dont think that the great unwashed masses can be trusted with each owning a gun. And, frankly the situation in the US supports this. Obviously, the more guns there are around, the greater the chance they will be used for the wrong reasons- or get into the hands of kids or something.

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. People who want to acquire firearm-carry permits are not simply "the great unwashed masses" -- they are people who have gone through the necessary training and background checks in order to carry a firearm. I'd like to see the percentage of people who commit violent crimes with a handgun who are legal pemit holders -- I bet it is less than .01%. Forcing law-abiding citizens to give up their rights in order to pretend to be able to enforce gun-laws against criminals (which is what gun control is supposedly for), makes no sense.

Gun control measures which rape the innocent makes about as much sense to me as confiscating every automobile because some woman kills her husband with one. Punish the criminals, not responsible law-abiding citizens.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-25-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Do a search on this board, or just google around. It's really not worth my time to search for you, if you'll simply ignore the facts.

I was curious if you were going to quote the recently debunked Lott report, which was shown to be fabricated, and Lott was shown to have created an alter-ego which he used to plant good reviews of the book on several sites. That's the only positive study of concealed weapon laws that I have seen.

I would bring up some studies that show that concealed weapons laws don't increase safety, but you would just ignore the facts anyway, so you can just google for them.

huggles.

Ustwo · 10-25-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit

I would bring up some studies that show that concealed weapons laws don't increase safety, but you would just ignore the facts anyway, so you can just google for them.

Again, YOU want to take away a right, YOU show that taking away the right is a good thing.

You can't.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-25-2003, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Again, YOU want to take away a right, YOU show that taking away the right is a good thing.

You can't.

That's a ridiculous argument. The right to "keep and bear arms" is already regulated and controlled in a million ways. Can you take your gun into a federal building? No. Can you take your gun to any school? No. Can you take your gun to any place of work? No. Can you go to the gun store and buy 20 automatic rifles and walk out with them that day? No. Can you purchase a howitzer and set it up in your yard for home defense? No.

So I'm unsure what "right" I am arguing to take away. Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own guns, I just draw the line at a different point than you would, so we're arguing shades of gray here, not absolutes.

Seretogis made a bold claim that concealed carry laws have been show to reduce crime whereever they are implemented. I suspect he is using the results of a study that have recently been shown to be almost completely falsified. You can toss out polemics all you want, but Seretogis made the claim, so he can defend his claim if he chooses to do so.

Food Eater Lad · 10-25-2003, 10:13 AM

And you can provide the proof that the study was falsified? And you can provide proof that gun control reduces crime? And you can provide proof that murder rates go down after gun control is enacted?

So far all you showed was talk, no proof.

SLM3 · 10-25-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread anymore, but I have to mention that this (the quote) really says a lot to me. So many people seem to have no problem with bashing the US (or anyone for that matter) for one thing or another, and yet fail to provide any sort of alternative solution. If you have nothing to say but "HAHAHA U SUK LOSAR!@@!", then maybe you shouldn't even bother posting. This goes for more than just liberals.

By the way, gun control is a factor in all violent crime, even violent crimes committed with knives. If every responsible citizen had a handgun on them at all times, do you think that knifings would increase, or decrease? Guns are not merely killing-machines, they serve very well as a violent crime deterrant when criminals don't know who may be "packing." This has been proven in every state that "shall-issue" CCW laws have been passed in the US.

You see, I don't pretend to have all the answers but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to weigh into the discussion. What you don't realize is nothing ever gets better until people start to ask questions. No one shows up with everything figured out and just says, "You guys are wrong, here's how it should work".

You see, I never picked one side or the other. All I asked (over and over again) was how people were correlating gun control and increasing crime rates. Is that such a bad thing?

You guys are creating the other side of your argument here. I never said I advocated strict gun control. I just want to know how gun control increases gun related crimes. Simply telling me crime has gone up a bit in one area after gun control was instituted doesn't tell me anything. There could be a million reasons but many here have selected the one that best supports their argument. No one has proven anything.

Mentioning the extreme murder rate in the US isn't "bashing the US". Stop being so scared to look at the big questions. Why is that rate so high? How can you people possibly pretend to think the status quo is ok when so many people are being killed every year? Why not take a step back and consider that perhaps an amendment that's hundreds of years old isn't exactly applicable the same way today. Is that so horrible?

Open your mind. Ask questions, even if you don't pretend to have the answers already.

SLM3

Food Eater Lad · 10-25-2003, 04:04 PM

Again you are saying that the right to bear arms leads to higher murder rates. And again, no proof.

HalfPint · 10-25-2003, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Again you are saying that the right to bear arms leads to higher murder rates. And again, no proof.

Sigh.

No, I'm not.

SLM3

Food Eater Lad · 10-25-2003, 07:42 PM

Re read your last two sentences of your second to last paragraph. I guess you were not talking about the right to free speech.

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 03:56 PM

Gun control advocates would prefer this girl dead i suppose?

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/nshot23_20031023.htm

SLM3 · 10-26-2003, 08:52 PM

Such a weak argument. I'm sorry but I thought people here were past using the tactic of finding a single article that "supports" their argument. Anyone can find an article that supports what they have to say.

How many instances occur like the one in your link compared to the number of gun homicides committed each year using illegally obtained weapons? You think it's about even?

SLM3

P.S. Remember, I never labeled myself as a gun control advocate so I hope you're not trying to.

Nizzle · 10-26-2003, 09:54 PM

I'm not at all comfortable with civilian vigilantes. We have police that are extensively trained to do this job and are officially accountable for their actions. We have a justice system designed to determine the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator. To promote vigilantism is to mock our very concept of Justice. If we find we do not have enough police to combat rising crime rates, should we not be investing in crime prevention and perhaps more (or a more effective) police force?

You cite a very specific -- and rare -- instance of a vigilante presumably saving someone, and then go on to draw conclusions you can't possibly infer. First, that the girl would have been killed had the civilian not intervened (you don't know that). Second, that executing someone without a fair trial is a good thing. (Here's a hint: it's not.) Third, you uttery fail to take into account how the victim may be endangered by the ineptitude of the vigilante. Not being trained, a drive-by shooter could easily put a bullet through the head of the person they are trying to save. Fourth, you assume that only a gun could have resulted in her rescue. Without a gun, the same person may have wrestled the attacker to the ground and detained him for police. In fact, I bet I could find more stories of someone without a gun being a hero than someone doing so with a gun. That's just a guess, but my instincts tell me it's true.

That said, I'm glad she got out of it okay. Really, I am. But I still don't think this case supports your argument in any way whatsoever.

Your suggestion that pro-gun control lobbyists would rather see her dead is just insulting. By this logic, could I not say that Hitler helped fight communism and therefore people that disagree with his actions are communists and evil? Any sane person would balk at this logic, and rightly so. We all know that it is irrelevent; the problem with Hitler is that he tried to exterminate an entire ethnic group and conquer the world. Yet this logic is exactly what you propose we accept. The fact that someone, somewhere, used a gun to save someone, maybe, does not address any of the issues that the debate over gun control revolve around.

Your accusation that gun control supporters would prefer to see the girl dead is remarkably similar to the argument that states: those of us who disagree with the invasion of Iraq support Saddam's atrocities. Or that those of us who belive in the right to choose are somehow "for" the death of babies.

I sense a theme coming from the idealogical Right. And it's getting tiring. I'm tired of being accused of some preposterous immorality when the other side starts losing the logical debate. Let me tell you something. If I supported ideas that you label as liberal because I like to see people die, I'd be in the armed services where I can kill with impunity.

Okay, that was a cheapshot.

seretogis · 10-27-2003, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
I'm not at all comfortable with civilian vigilantes. We have police that are extensively trained to do this job and are officially accountable for their actions. We have a justice system designed to determine the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator. To promote vigilantism is to mock our very concept of Justice. If we find we do not have enough police to combat rising crime rates, should we not be investing in crime prevention and perhaps more (or a more effective) police force?

Don't confuse vigilantism with allowing someone to defend themselves. As stated on other threads, police are not legally obligated to help you. If you want to put your life and the lives of your loved ones in the hands of local authorities, you can feel free to do so -- just don't tell me that I have to, as well. You are in no way forced to own or carry a firearm, so if you feel that they are nasty dirty tools of Satan, don't get one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
In fact, I bet I could find more stories of someone without a gun being a hero than someone doing so with a gun. That's just a guess, but my instincts tell me it's true.

Well, I'd hate to be the one to shoot down what your instincts tell you is true, but..

Quote:

Survey research during the early 1990s by criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck writes. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997)

Most protective firearm uses do not involve discharge of a firearm. In only 1% of protective uses are criminals wounded and in only 0.1% are criminals killed.

A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

10-21-2003, 07:08 PM	#41 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	If someone wants to seriously discuss this, drop me a PM. I'm going to leave what has become of this thread to FEL. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-22-2003, 12:20 PM	#45 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	The literature I am aware of is that a criminal will pick a weak target. In an area were the people are known to be allowed to defend themselves, a criminal will have to be more choosey. Thus the peopel NOT carrying concealed weapons can benifit from a concealed carried law even though they are not carrying a gun. PLaces like New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado, car jackings are almost non existant. Why? Cause everyone in a car is assumed to be armed unless they are proven to be not armed. Thus, the criminals dont mess with people while in their cars. Even that gun hating guy gets the benifit of being protected by a gun, unless he has out of state plates or a rental. Look at Louisianna. They were a mess with all the carjackings. Then the state approved a person's right to defend himself with deadly force in the case of carjackings. All the media claimed that this was a racist policey giving people permission to shoot blacks at will, but what happened? Car jackings became a thing of the past. And guess what? Black people are not getting blown away. In England, the Russian Mafia is moving in, and selling cheep eastern European guns. The gun ban only effects those that obey the law. 200 gun crimes a week and rising, three years in row, as reported by that article and many more if you go to the BBC news site and search gun homicide rates. True it is no where near the USA, but that was never part of the argument. Why is crime rising? Cause the criminals have found a haven of victums. As they realise that Johnny ENglish is unarmed and ripe for attack, this rate will only get worse. England's trouble with crime will rise each year. True it was tiny if you compare it to the USA, but our rate is going down for the past few years. At 45 % on year, 35 % the next and now this year, how much longer before England is the next Washinton DC ( a place with STRICT GUN CONTROL BY THE WAY!) Take a way a person's ablity to defend himself, and what you are left with is not paradise, but a target. Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-22-2003 at 12:23 PM..

10-22-2003, 06:43 PM	#47 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	This is from the same article linked above: "Canadian police reported 582 homicides last year, up 29 from the previous year. The national homicide rate was 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001." So a higher homicide rate is a victory for gun control activists? Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-22-2003 at 06:49 PM..

10-22-2003, 07:07 PM	#48 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	FEL, we agree that criminals are selecting weak targets--your point wasn't opposed to mine. Please provide some stats to back up your claim that carjackings have decreased to the point of virtual non-existence as a correlate to relaxation of gun control legislation. If you are arguing that criminals now assume everyone to be armed as the reason they don't carjack, then you have to explain why they aren't shooting everyone before taking the vehicle versus their old model of threatening someone and taking it. That is, if criminals are as rational as you assume them to be and they believed their potential victims to be armed, then why wouldn't they shoot their victims before they had a chance to respond and still take the car if they desired it? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-24-2003, 11:10 AM	#55 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	I think splck, like I, is just totally confused as to how you attribute every single murder stat, regardless of how it was committed, to gun control. Interest rates went down this year, the same year Ontario and BC have allowed gay marriages, therefore gay marriages causes interest rates to lower. See what I'm getting at? SLM3 Last edited by SLM3; 10-24-2003 at 11:15 AM..

10-21-2003, 07:38 PM	#42 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I will answer when you show me that the BBC is not a good source for british news.

10-23-2003, 06:53 PM	#51 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	http://www.ncpa.org/press/nrsb052600.html The effects of letting lawful people carry concealed guns. DALLAS (May 26, 2000) - Marking the fifth anniversary of Texas' concealed carry law, a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) shows that Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen. "Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report. "That prediction was dead wrong." In 1995, Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law granting Texans the right to carry concealed firearms. This made Texas the 23 state to pass a concealed carry law since 1986. According to the report, the slightly more than 200,000 Texans who have become licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person. Comparing arrest rates for example: Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder. Moreover, of the six licensees who were arrested and tried for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, four were found not guilty because they had acted in self-defense. The right to carry may also be affecting Texas' crime rate in a positive way. Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally. Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. This experience is consistent with the experience of other states with concealed carry laws. According to University of Chicago law professor John Lott, concealed handgun laws on average reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. "Far from recreating the Wild West, concealed carry laws create a safer society," said Burnett. "The law allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an office in Washington, D.C. For more information: Julie Hillrichs, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Sean Tuffnell, Dallas, TX 972-386-6272 Joan Kirby, Washington, DC 202-628-6671 Internet: http://www.ncpa.org

10-24-2003, 06:04 AM	#53 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I said gun crime skyrocketed in England, not Canada. And yes, murder went up in Canada. So again, I guess murder going up is ok as long as they were not killed by guns? So I ask you, if murders go up even by one, as they always do after gun bans, why are you for gun control?

10-24-2003, 11:49 AM	#56 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	That would be valid if it happened all the time. Every nation, city and state, when it enacts gun control homicide rates go up. Look at NY, California, ENgland, Canada, and Australia. Look at Texas, Miami and Louisianna, they allowed concealed carry permits and the murder rate goes down. But you are going to tell me that there is no correlation to that, right?

10-24-2003, 12:09 PM	#57 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	FEL give up, the gun control people can't even show that gun control lowers violent gun crime, and don't want to talk about it. They like to talk about a magic world where no guns were allowed anywhere and THEN you will see a reduction in gun crime. We already won this thread __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-24-2003, 12:58 PM	#58 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	You're totally right. I should just give up discussing it and accept that the US is the safest place in the world because everyone has a gun. That's why the US, with so many guns to protect you all, has the lowest number of gun homicides per year of any country in the world. Right? You've got such a rediculous amount of gun murders a year and all you're doing is arguing to maintain the status quo. Maybe you guys should stop listing other countries that had 10 more homicides last year and start to ask yourself why the US had thousands upon thousands. You're providing nothing except your fear of change. I never tried to provide an answer, all I did was ask questions which you couldn't answer. Ya, you really owned this thread. SLM3

10-24-2003, 10:43 PM	#62 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Figures, not one gun control advocate can put up any proof that gun control reduces crime especially murder.

10-24-2003, 10:52 PM	#64 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	This is such an idiotic debate. Personally, i think any society who wants more people to be packing firearms is maladjusted. I dont think that the great unwashed masses can be trusted with each owning a gun. And, frankly the situation in the US supports this. Obviously, the more guns there are around, the greater the chance they will be used for the wrong reasons- or get into the hands of kids or something. __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

10-24-2003, 11:11 PM	#66 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I guess i didnt post about Texas, Miami, and Louisianna. More facts Harmless Rabbit doesnt choose to see.

10-25-2003, 10:13 AM	#72 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	And you can provide the proof that the study was falsified? And you can provide proof that gun control reduces crime? And you can provide proof that murder rates go down after gun control is enacted? So far all you showed was talk, no proof.

10-25-2003, 04:04 PM	#74 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Again you are saying that the right to bear arms leads to higher murder rates. And again, no proof.

10-25-2003, 07:42 PM	#76 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Re read your last two sentences of your second to last paragraph. I guess you were not talking about the right to free speech.

10-26-2003, 03:56 PM	#77 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Gun control advocates would prefer this girl dead i suppose? http://www.freep.com/news/locway/nshot23_20031023.htm

10-26-2003, 08:52 PM	#78 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	Such a weak argument. I'm sorry but I thought people here were past using the tactic of finding a single article that "supports" their argument. Anyone can find an article that supports what they have to say. How many instances occur like the one in your link compared to the number of gun homicides committed each year using illegally obtained weapons? You think it's about even? SLM3 P.S. Remember, I never labeled myself as a gun control advocate so I hope you're not trying to.

10-26-2003, 09:54 PM	#79 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	I'm not at all comfortable with civilian vigilantes. We have police that are extensively trained to do this job and are officially accountable for their actions. We have a justice system designed to determine the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator. To promote vigilantism is to mock our very concept of Justice. If we find we do not have enough police to combat rising crime rates, should we not be investing in crime prevention and perhaps more (or a more effective) police force? You cite a very specific -- and rare -- instance of a vigilante presumably saving someone, and then go on to draw conclusions you can't possibly infer. First, that the girl would have been killed had the civilian not intervened (you don't know that). Second, that executing someone without a fair trial is a good thing. (Here's a hint: it's not.) Third, you uttery fail to take into account how the victim may be endangered by the ineptitude of the vigilante. Not being trained, a drive-by shooter could easily put a bullet through the head of the person they are trying to save. Fourth, you assume that only a gun could have resulted in her rescue. Without a gun, the same person may have wrestled the attacker to the ground and detained him for police. In fact, I bet I could find more stories of someone without a gun being a hero than someone doing so with a gun. That's just a guess, but my instincts tell me it's true. That said, I'm glad she got out of it okay. Really, I am. But I still don't think this case supports your argument in any way whatsoever. Your suggestion that pro-gun control lobbyists would rather see her dead is just insulting. By this logic, could I not say that Hitler helped fight communism and therefore people that disagree with his actions are communists and evil? Any sane person would balk at this logic, and rightly so. We all know that it is irrelevent; the problem with Hitler is that he tried to exterminate an entire ethnic group and conquer the world. Yet this logic is exactly what you propose we accept. The fact that someone, somewhere, used a gun to save someone, maybe, does not address any of the issues that the debate over gun control revolve around. Your accusation that gun control supporters would prefer to see the girl dead is remarkably similar to the argument that states: those of us who disagree with the invasion of Iraq support Saddam's atrocities. Or that those of us who belive in the right to choose are somehow "for" the death of babies. I sense a theme coming from the idealogical Right. And it's getting tiring. I'm tired of being accused of some preposterous immorality when the other side starts losing the logical debate. Let me tell you something. If I supported ideas that you label as liberal because I like to see people die, I'd be in the armed services where I can kill with impunity. Okay, that was a cheapshot. __________________ Nizzle