An other year gun crime rises in England
 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=454186


Gun crime rises to record level with 200 incidents every week
By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
17 October 2003


Gun crime in England and Wales rose to record levels in the past year, with nearly 200 incidents every week.

There were 10,250 incidents, including 80 murders, involving firearms in the year to April, 276 (about 3 per cent) more than the previous year and double the number recorded five years ago.

Overall crime has dropped in the past few months, Home Office statistics show, but there is a continuing rise in the number of violent offences recorded by the police.

Public alarm over gun crime has been raised in recent months by a spate of high-profile murders, including a seven-year-old girl shot in the back in London and a shopkeeper killed during a robbery in Nottingham. Police and ministers stress, however, that Britain is still one of the safest places in the world, with one of the lowest levels of gun crime. There were 0.15 gun deaths in England and Wales per 100,000 population in the past year, compared with 3.6 per 100,000 in the US.

Two-thirds of the offences in England and Wales involved the firearm being used as a threat, but in about 17 per cent the weapon was fired causing injury. About two out of three firearms offences took place in three police force areas: the Metropolitan; Greater Manchester and West Midlands.

Yesterday's crime figures sent a mixed message on the subject of violence. Offences recorded by police in England and Wales rose by 9 per cent, or 27,800, in the three months from April to June, but the British Crime Survey, which was also published yesterday and is considered to be a more accurate, indicated that violent crime has fallen by 5 per cent in the same period.




My last post on this subject showed that gun crime in England rose 45% two years ago, and 35 % last year. So i guess this rising gun crime trend will prove that gun control is a great success?

Prior to enacting any gun control laws, Britain had a very small violent crime rate. In fact, pistol permits were first required in the 1920s as a means of denying weapons to "anarchists and Bolsheviks", who were considered to be dangerous political dissenters. Control of street wasn't even used as a selling point, being; English streets were virtually crime free. Policemen didn't even have to carry firearms. (they do now)
As gun controls have become more stringent, violent street crime has increased.


Is gun control the answer? Not if you compare Britain to Switzerland, where guns are common: Swiss per capita homocide rate is 1.2 per 100,000 pop.

Why the higher rates in the U.S.?
That's something that Moore claimed to be trying to answer in BFC, but never really did.
100 years ago, when the U.S. had virtually no restrictions on private firearms ownership, the homocide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 persons...just like currently in most western European nations. In the past century, we have gone from being primarily a homogeneous agraraian society to becoming urbanized. Most crime occurrs in Urban settings, with some of our large metropolitan areas being home to more people than many countries. Combine that with the rise of the illegal narcotics trade over the past thrity years and you have a crime cauldron in our inner cities.
Also, more criminals equals more crime. Three quarters of our violent crime is committed by repeat felons who have been released from prison.
In the 1960s, the courts and justice sysmtem began to follow an enlightened fad which stressed rehabilitation and release, rather than punishment of criminals.
This resulted in much higher crime rates because of a hard core of criminals
being released into society.
There are many causative factors to explore;
"Bowling for Columbine" mentions none of them.

Gun control is one of those bugaboos of the left.

All the facts point in the other direction (Australia is another excellent example) but they still cling to it. I'm not sure why. I think maybe its the core belief of power of the individual vrs the power of the state, though I'm only grasping there.

On a side note I think we will see a lot LESS gun control talk out of the 9 dwarves this year. Many think Gore's anti-gun stance is what cost him the south.

I see nothing useful to discuss here, especially since terms like "the left" are already being thrown around.

If you want to have a discussion, you can dispense with the left-baiting.

So you admit that gun control is useless or do you need more proof that nations show a rise in gun crime after gun control has been enacted?

wait, you cant characterize all liberals as being pro-gun control.

i dont think the govt should be regulating this area, except just make sure those heavy weaps stay outta the hands of the public (i dont want some aggies/sooners shellin my dorm!)

To be honest, you are the only liberal that i know that is against gun control.

Gun controll seems to be one of the core issues of 'the left' but rather then get people all worked up about labels just take what I said and replace 'left' with 'those who wish gun control and the people who vote for them'.

Now we can carry on.

The problem with gun control is honesty. Those who need to be controlled, simply cant. The good guys are honest, and dont get guns. The bad guys get guns anyway. Now their job is that much easier. The honest american citizen wont have a gun and they will. Regulations of that sort only hurts those that dont need to be controlled anyway. Those that dont get guns when they aren't allowed to wont be a problem. The ones you need to worry about are those who cant be regulated.

I think guns need to be much more commonplace. I know i would rob someone if there was a very good chance they could shoot me back. But i think Responsibility must come with looser gun control laws. I think all High School stundents must undergo a mandatory gun safety course. By Senior year all students must have practice be proficient in the use of a firearm, sort of like a high school exit exam. Gun knowledge, respect, and safety will save more lives than gun control will in my opinion.

I don't see how this helps your case. That's 24 times fewer gun deaths in England.

I'm not convinced of your reasons for the US' high statistics here considering; hey guess what, there are immigrants in England, there are drugs in England and there are inner cities in England. Heck, the English have even had liberal sentencing laws too. The population of Los Angeles County is about 9 million. The population of Greater London is about 7 million.

I'm not convinced by ALL of the anti-gun arguments myself but in this case I don't think you have the answers either.

I am also a liberal who objects to gun control. I'm sure there are more than two people like us; I see nothing odd about this.

Re: An other year gun crime rises in England
 

People who try to compare small European countries to the US are shooting themselves in the foot. Guess what? We're not England. Instead of comparing us to England, take a look at the violent crime rate of our own states which have varying degrees of gun control laws on the books. There's really no need to go outside of the US for proof that gun control simply does not work.

"Yeah, uh...I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there." I agree that we can't just compare ourselves to England, but to say that we only need to look at different parts of the US sort of ignores the fact that varying areas of the US are as different from each other than the US is different from England. Surely you can't compare the poorer areas of a major city to, say, quiet New England towns?

Note I'm not even arguing gun control.

My only point is that time after time when a place enacts gun control, gun crimes go up, as this article shows.

Well, gun control would work but then only the cops and bad guys would have guns. That's why they call them crooks-because they don't obey the law.

The problem with all this gun control is that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in the way. Some would like to pick and choose which parts to follow and let the rest just be ignored.

Where I live.... there is a gun, or two or more, in every other vehicle that comes down Main Street. There is a rifle or shotgun, in a rack, in the back window, of half the pickups in town. There is a .357 Magnum under the seat of my SUV. We haven't had a crime, involving a gun (other than some of them being stolen) in years. Guns have nothing to do with crime - they don't cause it, or contribute to it. A gun is a tool, just like a hammer or a wrench - you can kill with any of the three. I guess it really matters where you live as to how you look at this but the argument is inane.

And here is the point all of you are missing and always will miss. The guns that are stolen from your houses and trucks are used in crimes through out the country. If you didn't have a gun, the criminals wouldn't have access to guns and there would be a lot less gun violence in America. Yes, there would be black market guns smuggled across the border but think about how much those guns would cost. The everyday gangster that is doing most of the gun crime is not going to be able to afford that gun. He is going to have to use a knife or something less lethal.

Now, I am not saying there should be no guns. In my opinion we would be safer but again that is my opinion. Now, I am for getting rid of handguns. There is no need for them in the hands of non-law enforcement citizens. Not many people will use a shotgun or rifle to do the crimes that normally involve handguns.

Handguns are here to stay, you can't wish them away. The average citizen being armed is a great deterent to crime, after all are you going to try to mug someone, steal a purse, carjack, if you know that person has a firearm? Criminals are cowards, and you can't make people peacefull with legislation.

There are a few nations that basicly require you to be armed. Check out their levels of violent crime :)

First, <3 Office Space references <3 :icare:

Secondly, while there is a lot of variance as far as population, crime rate, and city policy goes, by and large cities in the US are more comparable to each other than they are to cities of other countries. A quiet New England town is more similar to North Minneapolis than it is to London or Amsterdam, in regards to gun policy.

You sure know how to make a guy feel good. :)

Fair. I may have overstated when I said that parts of the US are as different from each other as they are from England. I still think it's a bit of apples and oranges to compare Bedford, NH to Detroit, Michigan.

Finally, the only thing I will say with regard to gun control is that we had, in 2000, 28,663 gun deaths in this county. That's out of 148,209 "unnatural" deaths. Nearly 20% of the deaths are by gun. Cut/pierce deaths are just over 2000. Drowning, 4000. Falls, 14,000(but 13,000 of those are unintentional) Fire, 4000. Machinery, under 700. Gun deaths acount for a HUGE portion of the unnatural deaths in our county. The only thing that beats it is motor vehicles, at close to 47,000, with all but a few hundred unintentional. Guns are used in homicides. They kill people. A lot. On purpose. They are not tools. They are weapons. They kill.

Statistics taken from CDC.

:D

Well first off I agree with you -- guns are made with the intent to create injury and/or death. I don't think that any responsible legal gun owner would want them to be seen as anything else, and definitely not as toys or "tools" that anyone should use. An interesting thing about statistics, though, is that they can be used to prove anything. How many of those 28,000 gun deaths are suicide? How many are criminals which were killed in self-defense? How many are accidental deaths? Hunting accidents? Ammo reloading accidents? Homicidal clown attacks?

The only statistic that I'm really interested in is how many criminals use legally-acquired firearms to assault or kill innocent citizens. That number is what we should be concerned with lowering, by means of tougher sentences on violent criminals, and enabling the public to help protect itself.

Did you know legal assault rifels account for less then .01% of gun deaths but look how the media and the left goes berserk over them.

Tough to draw conclusions when comparing two different societies. Although we share a lot with the UK in terms of language, customs, history, etc the societies themselves are different. Things like exposure to violence in the media, numbers actively participating in religion, employment, overall crime rates, etc, etc, etc vary considerably from culture to culture. Trying to narrow it down to gun control laws as the primary difference seems a bit of a stretch.

Ever think that maybe the reason they result in less than .01% is because they are illigal?

You need to re-read what he said. He wasn't referring to any illegal weapons. By the way, fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they just require more training/certification to own/operate them.

Yep, misread what he was saying.

My apologies.

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.

Anyone else here think this correlation (gun control) implying causation (crime) is a very weak one? By the same logic, couldn't I imply that lack of gun control is why there are so many gun murders in the US?

Seretogis argues that we need to look at the details sorrounding the statistics being thrown around concerning gun related deaths in America. How come we don't ask the same questions given the 3 percent rise in England this year? Is it really fair that we automatically assume it is because of gun control and that's it? Couldn't there conceivably be a million other reasons that also contributed to the increase?

I'm sorry, but such a seemingly weak connection only leads me to believe that the purpose of this thread has little to do with England's crime problem, but more as a means to advocate gun ownership in the US. Why didn't you just say that?

While you're all here, though, I'd love to ask a question. If mass gun ownership meant a safer society, that would make the US one of the safest nations in the world. How come it isn't?

SLM3

How come areas with high gun control such as California and new york then have high crime? While other places with lower gun control have lower crime? Why did Canada's gun homicide rate rise when gun control laws were toughened? Australia's? Englands? Why does gun homicide go up every place AFTER gun control laws are enacted? Why does taking guns away from law abiding people solve gun murders?
I live in NYC and I know of three areas where I could purchase an illegal gun for less than 200 dollars. So who is being stoped by gun control, me or some criminal? The answer is me, a man that has never been arrested for anything other than exceeding the speeding limit ( but man was I eceeding the speeding limit! LOL).
Take all the guns you want away from law abiding people, and the guns that remain are in the hands of the unlawful. All you really did was strip the regular joe of his power to defend his home from an armed invader.

With stricter gun control, how long do you think that $200 illegal gun would stay at $200?

Why does the US have such a high murder rate?

You still have not proven that gun control increases gun violence. You have to understand that crime simply going up a percentage point or two does not automatically make your argument correct. Perhaps it is because of gun control, but perhaps it's not. You haven't proven anything.


SLM3

Fyi. The average price of an illegal handgun in Sydney, Australia is AUD$2000 (USD$1400).

As long as the Russian mafia is shipping them from Eastern Europe, I would assume they are going to be cheep. So what is your point? I guess if we melted all American guns, the factories in Europe and Asia would refurbish the gun market. And then, only criminals would be armed.


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'm not arguing whether they've gone up or not (I haven't seen the stats). Regardless, what I'm wondering is why the went up. Just implying that it's simply because of gun control is far too simple a concept, in my opinion.

I keep asking why the US isn't the safest place in the world, by your logic, and no one will answer that either. Why is the murder rate so high in the US?

SLM3

I never said the US was the safest place on earth. Too many people wont let Americans defend themselves, so criminals are having fun in places with low gun control like California, and New York. As a Swis person, a nation were most people are required to have a loaded gun in their house about safty.

What are you talking about? Using your own article:

Lowest level of crime, true, but skyrocketing GUN CRIME. How long till it is no longer the safest place? Or is gun crime increases three years in a row not important untill it surpases another nation?

You're mixing two studies. The claim of a statistical rise in gun crimes you cite are coming from the less reliable source (an unknown source, by the way). The claim that there has actually been a decline in violent crime is coming from the more reliable British Crime Survey--without looking at the survey we are unable to make a claim in regards to the rise or decline of gun crime in respect to its data.

Now, allowing for the rates to be accurate for the sake of your point:

There were 80 gun homicides last year. A three percent increase was a measly ~2.4 more deaths this year for England and Wales.

How many do you think occurred yesterday in the United States? I already know of two.

Accepting your tenuous link between gun restrictions and subsequent gun-crime levels:

Yes, at the very least, you would have to produce evidence that a heavily controlled region was experiencing a rise in gun crimes above non-controlled regions before you could even begin to argue that control was ineffective.

Finally, examining incidents rather than rates in this case would illustrate the following:

80 gun homicides per year
200 gun "crimes" (we really ought to know how the researchers operationalized "gun crime") per week
[actually, 10,250 per year)

One might be prompted to research whether the absence of guns in the citizens' hands is exposing them to overall gun crimes but actually reducing their chances of being shot to death.

The BBC has reported a skyrocking amount of gun crime three years in row. That is not an unknown source.

The BBC is, at best, a secondary source unless they compiled the statistics themselves. Since we can assume the reporter did not survey officers, compile victim surveys, or conduct any field research, we are left with the question of what his sources were. Whatever they were, the reporter asserted that the British Crime Survey data is considered more reliable than them so it seems odd to use such statistics as the fundamental basis for your argument.

Are you going to respond to the rest of my post?

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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. :rolleyes:


SLM3

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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

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

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

Gun control advocates would prefer this girl dead i suppose?

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

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.

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. :)

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.

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

As a side note, Hitler and Stalin had strict gun control ;)

Seretogis, did you even read the article? It was not a case of someone defending themselves with a firearm. It was a case of a lone, unidentified gunman executing someone drive-by style who was purportedly attacking someone.

This is not self-defense. If you are going to attempt to debunk my arguments, can you avoid changing what we are talking about?

I was not responding to or defending the article, I was responding to your assumption that guns are rarely used for any good, which is not correct.

So the moral thing to do was let her die?

So you solution to stoping gun homicides from illegal guns is to take them away from the people that DIDNT use them illegally or obtain them illegally?

Stop trying to create both sides of the argument.


I'm wondering about the number of cases like the one in the article you posted compared to the numbger of gun homicides committed using illegally acquired guns.

I'm having a hard time trying to follow you, but are you implying that I said the guy in your article was using an illegal gun? I really don't know how you got that but if that's what your interpretation is then I'm telling you you totally missed what I was saying.

Also, if you're referring to your article, are you saying that the guy who shot the man assaulting the girl used his gun legally?

I'm lost. Often when you get to this point the thread has degraded into meaningless attacks.


SLM3

We dont know anything about the guy in the article other than he saved a womans life. Did he use the gun legally? Thats why they are investigating. My gut tells me he saved her life, but that is not legally binding in any way. I already posted the number of homicides using LEGAL guns. And they were ignored.