Gun Ban

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Concomitantly, the U.S. should be compared not to Western Europe but to other high-murder-rate nations such as Russia. There, severe and severely-enforced gun bans applied to a largely unarmed population succeeded in virtually eliminating gun murders -- so other weapons were substituted. In only four of the 35 years 1965-99 was Russia's murder rate (barely) lower than ours, while in another 10 the rates were almost identical. But in 21 years the Russian rate was higher, and in seven the Russian rate was more than twice the U.S. Today it is almost four times higher.22

These comparisons imply that the decisive factors in national homicide rates are socio-economic and cultural, not availability of some particular form of weaponry.

[Nick]

oh wow well that makes guns safe then thanks for clearing it up.

[Boogahz]

oh wow well that makes guns safe then thanks for clearing it up.

That's funny...nobody was arguing the safety factor of guns, but they were arguing about the (in)effectiveness of gun control!

[Zaelath]

Well...according to these figures, the ban we need should be banning young black men from cities.

Yet young urban Afro-Americans -- with far fewer guns per capita -- have a murder rate nine times higher than that of young rural Afro-Americans. Like demographics, geographic patterns of gun ownership relate inversely to crime: "areas in England, America and Switzerland with the highest rates of gun ownership are in fact those with the lowest rates of violence." This is true of Canada also.

What a fucking load of shit. This is just the kind of "tin helmets cause head injuries" interpretation of statistics that pisses me off and makes you look like a fucking moron for quoting it.

Rural areas are spread out, there's less opportunity for crime AND there's less poor/addicted/drunks out there.

Also, two things go along with "high rates of gun ownership"; rural location and affluence. Rich farmers don't tend to rob and shoot each other, which has Sweet-Fuck-All to do with them owning guns.

Jesus gun nuts are pathetic.

Edit: Just to make it clear on the "affluence" part, I will guaran-fucking-tee you, rates of gun ownership is inflated in the rural areas and minimised in the urban areas in NRA statistics. If you "have" (steal/buy on the black market) a gun it doesn't mean you "own" a gun, and farmers will have many guns, but they count the guns then divide by the number of people in the area.

[Nick]

Nobody was talking about black people either but I don't see you crying about that Boogahz

[Boogahz]

Edit: Just to make it clear on the "affluence" part, I will guaran-fucking-tee you, rates of gun ownership is inflated in the rural areas and minimised in the urban areas in NRA statistics. If you "have" (steal/buy on the black market) a gun it doesn't mean you "own" a gun, and farmers will have many guns, but they count the guns then divide by the number of people in the area.

I also doubt it would be easy to actually count the number of guns owned in an urban area. Counting the number that are possessed would be nigh impossible. If you could do that, you might as well take them away from those who shouldn't have them in the first place.

[Zaelath]

Edit: Just to make it clear on the "affluence" part, I will guaran-fucking-tee you, rates of gun ownership is inflated in the rural areas and minimised in the urban areas in NRA statistics. If you "have" (steal/buy on the black market) a gun it doesn't mean you "own" a gun, and farmers will have many guns, but they count the guns then divide by the number of people in the area.

I also doubt it would be easy to actually count the number of guns owned in an urban area. Counting the number that are possessed would be nigh impossible. If you could do that, you might as well take them away from those who shouldn't have them in the first place.

I don't dispute that, what I dispute is the validity of the NRA's claim that gun ownership stops crime based on what are clearly bullshit statistical data AND faulty interpretation of the data.

[Tuddi2]

for the most part, physos that'd do crazy shit are gonna do crazy shit with or without guns.

if u had to choose, which would you prefer

a) a psysos (as you like to call them) that's pissed at you in the street

or

b) a psysos that's pissed at you in the street and has a gun


saying gun control wont do any good, ranks way up there among the most stupid things i've heard. it's if as you think all the gun shops will be open to criminals who wont register their firearms and all the hapless citizens who were gonna simply defend themselves are gonna have to turn their weapons in and hope nothing bad happens to them. gun control means there will be less guns in circulation, on both sides of the fence meaning fewer people killed by them.
having a gun and using it to defend yourself against a criminal who is also armed is most likely going to ensure a round is fired instead of cash/valueable beeing handed over with no gun related physical harm done.
that's not to say that you'll never get shot by that criminal if he robs you but the chances of him having a gun in the first place is going to decrease over time by quite a bit if there is a law that says the public can't own handguns.

[Tuddi2]

This still doesn't address my point. According to miir's numbers, Toronto (pop 4,558,800) had 26 non gun related homicides. That means per capita you have 5.7 per million non gun related homicides. Chicago had roughly (using the 70 percent figure) 179 non gun related homicides for its population of 2,869,121 or 62 per million non gun related homicides. If you want to try use the comparitive homicide rates to prove anything to me about how superior gun control is, you need to take into account that the non gun related homicide rate for Chicago is ten times that of Toronto and somehow explain how whatever factor is causing this difference doesn't completely swamp whatever effect you are positing about gun control (or as I said earlier, explain how gun control legislation can have that huge of an effect on the non gun related homicide rate).

i got an idea that might explain this correlation of ratios

toronto is too fucking close to the gun infested u.s. of a.

[miir]

There is no point in debating a fanatic. Here's a few more articles for you to ignore before you spew more bullshit rhetoric:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... per-capita

http://hnn.us/articles/871.html

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.1 ... detail.asp

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/conte ... p?aid=7862

Grats you for finding some unrelated facts and a few opinion pieces that support your views.

The Total Crimes (per capita)by country is amusing.
You do realise that violent crime and homicides make up a very small portion of crime statistics. Since the original topic is about guns, I don't see how crimes like shoplifting, DUI, fraud, theft, etc are even remotely related to gun control.

[Chmee]

This still doesn't address my point. According to miir's numbers, Toronto (pop 4,558,800) had 26 non gun related homicides. That means per capita you have 5.7 per million non gun related homicides. Chicago had roughly (using the 70 percent figure) 179 non gun related homicides for its population of 2,869,121 or 62 per million non gun related homicides. If you want to try use the comparitive homicide rates to prove anything to me about how superior gun control is, you need to take into account that the non gun related homicide rate for Chicago is ten times that of Toronto and somehow explain how whatever factor is causing this difference doesn't completely swamp whatever effect you are positing about gun control (or as I said earlier, explain how gun control legislation can have that huge of an effect on the non gun related homicide rate).

i got an idea that might explain this correlation of ratios

toronto is too fucking close to the gun infested u.s. of a.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on my point.

[Aabidano]

Affluent people in the countryside owning lots of guns? I'll go for the gun ownership by people who don't live in an urban area part, the affluent part just isn't the case. Poor to middle class would be the demographic that owns the firearms in non-urban areas. Amazingly enough, they rarely shoot each other either.

Look at who commits the crimes and the areas they happen in. These people aren't (generally) out robbing people in affluent areas, even if there's one a mile away. They're shooting their neighbor, a gang banger down the street or the poor guy who runs the 7-11. If you don't address those peoples issues all the gun control, steak knife control and baseball bat control in the world doesn't mean a thing.

I lived across the street from some projects in Alameda, and 1/2 a mile from Oakland. We had no crime, and no gates either. The people across the road were perfectly happy to shoot, stab and rob each other. No one from Oakland came over to steal from us, they were perfecly happy to prey on each other as well. Same deal when I lived in downtown Tampa, we were a city block away from cracktown and saw no crime. We did see the helicopters and ambulances go by though.

If you don't deal with the cause of the problem dealing with the symptoms is a complete waste of time.

I was going to respond to Tuddi, but it seems largely pointless. The US isn't Europe, never has been and won't likely ever be.

[kyoukan]

banning guns is pointless, so are any statistics that don't also show the rate of murders commited by legally owned firearms and illegal firearms. sure, a lot of firearms used in crimes are stolen, but most crimes are commited with weapons that have never seen the inside of a respectable gun shop or have ever been liscensed. at least in Canada where it is reasonably difficult to aquire the right to own a handgun.

I am not in favor of only police and criminals being the sole possesor of concealable firearms until the day comes that the police outnumber the criminals and can be at my house faster than some whacked out junkie asshole can kill my family for the seventeen bucks in my wallet. Until then, the shotgun remains in the velcro sheathe behind the headboard. my children will learn the importance of respecting guns.

it is unfortunate that you don't have to pass an intelligence test to buy a firearm.

[Funkmasterr]

banning guns is pointless, so are any statistics that don't also show the rate of murders commited by legally owned firearms and illegal firearms. sure, a lot of firearms used in crimes are stolen, but most crimes are commited with weapons that have never seen the inside of a respectable gun shop or have ever been liscensed. at least in Canada where it is reasonably difficult to aquire the right to own a handgun.

I am not in favor of only police and criminals being the sole possesor of concealable firearms until the day comes that the police outnumber the criminals and can be at my house faster than some whacked out junkie asshole can kill my family for the seventeen bucks in my wallet. Until then, the shotgun remains in the velcro sheathe behind the headboard. my children will learn the importance of respecting guns.

it is unfortunate that you don't have to pass an intelligence test to buy a firearm.

That about sums it up.. Also, I think it would be a safe bet to say that the majority of illegal firearms come from outside of the country. And at least in the U.S., the government has showed that they either

A- are incapable of stopping large quantities of anything illegal being smuggled into the country, or
B- they don't try as hard as they make it look.

[Zaelath]

Affluent people in the countryside owning lots of guns? I'll go for the gun ownership by people who don't live in an urban area part, the affluent part just isn't the case. Poor to middle class would be the demographic that owns the firearms in non-urban areas. Amazingly enough, they rarely shoot each other either.

We're kinda on the same page, and yeah, as to affluent I meant people in urban areas that own guns legally; buying a gun legally to sit in a drawer for years "in case" isn't something the poor tend to do a lot of.

BTW, I'm not saying guns *cause* violent crime either, I just hate when the NRA pretends it *prevents* it. Violent crime rates are much more affected by demographics than anything else, as multiple people have said.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

BTW, I'm not saying guns *cause* violent crime either, I just hate when the NRA pretends it *prevents* it. Violent crime rates are much more affected by demographics than anything else, as multiple people have said.

Violent crime goes DOWN in every state that passes a concealed carry law. Property crimes go up in that same area. That is a fact. The gun-grabbing left will never have gun control here in the US because most people in the US realize that the people who intend to use them for the purpose of committing a crime are not going to be deterred by some words written in a statute. So unless the government can come up with some magic way of zapping the gun out of the hands of anyone who should not have it, it can never work.

[miir]

Violent crime goes DOWN in every state that passes a concealed carry law. Property crimes go up in that same area. That is a fact.

Can you provide any links to those facts?

most people in the US realize that the people who intend to use them for the purpose of committing a crime are not going to be deterred by some words written in a statute

Is that a quote from the NRA website?

[masteen]

it is unfortunate that you don't have to pass an intelligence test to buy a firearm.

A firearms handling and safety course should be mandatory before you can buy a gun. No, this wouldn't do a thing to prevent criminals getting guns, but it would help to prevent accidents of negligence.

I also think that if you're going to own guns, that you should expose your kids to them and teach them proper handling. Don't just demonize and mystify the weapon, as that just makes the little bastards more curious.

[Zaelath]

BTW, I'm not saying guns *cause* violent crime either, I just hate when the NRA pretends it *prevents* it. Violent crime rates are much more affected by demographics than anything else, as multiple people have said.

Violent crime goes DOWN in every state that passes a concealed carry law. Property crimes go up in that same area. That is a fact. The gun-grabbing left will never have gun control here in the US because most people in the US realize that the people who intend to use them for the purpose of committing a crime are not going to be deterred by some words written in a statute. So unless the government can come up with some magic way of zapping the gun out of the hands of anyone who should not have it, it can never work.

Fucking hell, if I wanted a parrot I'd have one in a cage. Can't you think about anything for yourself or just regurgitate bullshit "facts" from NRA pamphlets?

I bet they have a pamphlet somewhere blaming the racially motivated riots we had here recently on the lack of a concealed carry law, or tried to tie in what has been a general upswing in racially motivated violence into tightening our gun laws.

Sometimes you need to look a little deeper than comparing two numbers to understand a trend.

As your hero, Bill would say, "You can have the last word" because I'm done wasting my time.

[masteen]

It's more than just NRA pamphlets, asshole. It's professors of criminology from England and the US reaching the same conclusions. As rates of personal firearm ownership goes up, violent "contact crimes" (love the English term for it) go down, while property crimes (burglary, ect.) go up. I'm sure there are other factors, but academics on both sides of the pond agree that these two particular numbers are significantly related.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

http://www.crimestats.ohio.gov/Violent%20Crime.pdf

Note the very first concealed carry state was Florida in 1987. As of this year, there are 39 states. can you notice that violent crime peaked about 1990 and has steadily decreased every year? Yea...I know you will struggle to see that a FACT is slapping you fucktards in the face, but try and keep up when your superiors are telling you how things work.

[miir]

It's professors of criminology from England and the US reaching the same conclusions. As rates of personal firearm ownership goes up, violent "contact crimes" (love the English term for it) go down, while property crimes (burglary, ect.) go up.

Provide some facts to back up those claims.
Not some op/ed by some quack with a degree who doesn't provide sources.... or provides sources which are both isolated and outdated.

I don't want to read some rightwing windbag who found an isolated study that corroberates his opinions and passing it off as 100% fact.




Stupid shit like this is the article you linked:

Last year, London saw more serious assaults, armed robberies, and car thefts than New York; 2002 could see London's murder rate exceed the Big Apple's.

In 2004 the murder rate in London was 2.4 per 100k.... New York was at 6.9 per 100k.

Those figures came at a time when London's crime/homicide rate was surging and New York's was at it's lowest rate in over 40 years.



and this:

violent crime rates throughout the European Union, Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States.

I could provide HUNDREDS of links with raw data that show the opposite.




Do you expect people to take you seriously when you're linking horseshit like this?

[miir]

http://www.crimestats.ohio.gov/Violent%20Crime.pdf

Note the very first concealed carry state was Florida in 1987. As of this year, there are 39 states. can you notice that violent crime peaked about 1990 and has steadily decreased every year? Yea...I know you will struggle to see that a FACT is slapping you fucktards in the face, but try and keep up when your superiors are telling you how things work.

How does that correlate to firearms?
Violent crime in the US peaked in the 80s and has been trending down since... all across the US.



And you know, if I looked hard enough I bet I could find some op/ed that would claim that violent crime increased in some areas after they enacted a conceal carry law.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

How dense can you be to ask how it coorelates? Every post you and Zaeleth have made for the last page has been EXACTLY about asking for facts. This is the FACT you asked for. How is violent crime affected by firearms? It's instances go DOWN when the citizens arm themselves. This chart backs that up...as does every single fucking fact checking instance you will find. It will also show that yours will keep rising....just like England's did and continues to do.

I don't know how much evidence you need to see the truth, but you sure would have been welcome in O.J.'s jury.

[miir]

This is the FACT you asked for. How is violent crime affected by firearms? It's instances go DOWN when the citizens arm themselves. This chart backs that up...as does every single fucking fact checking instance you will find. It will also show that yours will keep rising....just like England's did and continues to do.

It proves nothing of the sort.

Violent crime and homicides in Canada and the UK is markedly lower than in the US.

Violent crime and homicides in the US were at an all time high in the 80s and have been trending down since the 90s.

You can't base trending on something like that on one single statistic like concealed carry laws.... you'd look like a fucking idiot.

Why not look at the concerted efforts law enforcement has made in cities like New York that happened to coincide with an amazing drop in violent crime and homicide.

Why not link the violent crime and homicide rates of states that don't have a concealed carry law. You probably won't because they will also show a downward trend since 1990. Yeah, I get it.. only show the isolated facts that support your viewpoint and ignore the ones that don't.

Very rarely are isolated facts a microcosm for the bigger picture.

[Boogahz]

Miir, your right to request any proof is still suspended for 11 hours!

Aside from that...


I can't remember, and I won't bother looking at whether or not I posted the link to my Boston homicide numbers. I think that the first article you will see after searching for Boston Homicide Statistics on Google will touch on the drop in rates from 1990 on, but it will also note that they are slowly starting to increase. This helps show that looking at numbers showing a decrease in violent crimes/homicides can be good, but we have to keep in mind that trends will change (similar to the quote above regarding Russia). In other words, we can possibly prove that removing guns from the streets and "legal" owners reduces violent crimes committed with them by a huge amount, but we cannot prove that this will continue indefinitely. The Boston article will point out that a new generation of teens might be one reason for the newer jumps. As long as children are born, we will continue through the cycles. It's only through educating others and practicing good "behavior" ourselves that those cycles can be broken.

[Drinsic Darkwood]

banning guns is pointless, so are any statistics that don't also show the rate of murders commited by legally owned firearms and illegal firearms. sure, a lot of firearms used in crimes are stolen, but most crimes are commited with weapons that have never seen the inside of a respectable gun shop or have ever been liscensed. at least in Canada where it is reasonably difficult to aquire the right to own a handgun.

I am not in favor of only police and criminals being the sole possesor of concealable firearms until the day comes that the police outnumber the criminals and can be at my house faster than some whacked out junkie asshole can kill my family for the seventeen bucks in my wallet. Until then, the shotgun remains in the velcro sheathe behind the headboard. my children will learn the importance of respecting guns.

it is unfortunate that you don't have to pass an intelligence test to buy a firearm.

I couldn't agree more.

[Tuddi2]

This still doesn't address my point. According to miir's numbers, Toronto (pop 4,558,800) had 26 non gun related homicides. That means per capita you have 5.7 per million non gun related homicides. Chicago had roughly (using the 70 percent figure) 179 non gun related homicides for its population of 2,869,121 or 62 per million non gun related homicides. If you want to try use the comparitive homicide rates to prove anything to me about how superior gun control is, you need to take into account that the non gun related homicide rate for Chicago is ten times that of Toronto and somehow explain how whatever factor is causing this difference doesn't completely swamp whatever effect you are positing about gun control (or as I said earlier, explain how gun control legislation can have that huge of an effect on the non gun related homicide rate).

i got an idea that might explain this correlation of ratios

toronto is too fucking close to the gun infested u.s. of a.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on my point.

well if you're a close minded person then yes, it has no bearing on your point. i yield.

[Nick]

lol people actually think ownership of guns minimises violent crimes.

[Canelek]

I would like a license to shoot those 'Cowboy Up' people... also the lowered honda people.

that aboat covers it, eh?

I like guns.

[Neost]

lol people really think that not allowing ownership of guns minimises violent crimes.

[Canelek]

True, but one thing does make sense from the Euro/canuck perspective:

Most Americans are rather stupid. That is pretty spot-on. Fortunately, we have the lovely Darwin Effect to cull out many yahooties and the like; but there is still a large (very large) population of folks (mainly in the Southern US) who are, in fact, complete and utter lackwits.

Sad but true. Hey, I love living in this country. We have great variety and interesting culture-meshes. I also enjoy popping off a few rounds into various tidbits of refuse in the odd quarry. Dealing with idiots is unfortunately a daily task. I figure to not really worry so much about all the people I find to be 'less than capable' at even the slightest of social courtesy....makes life a little more bearable than constantly worrying about everyone else's shit.

[Boogahz]

I figure to not really worry so much about all the people I find to be 'less than capable' at even the slightest of social courtesy...

I think you are attributing this to the wrong geographic area of the US...or you're an idiot who believes the stereotypes set by the media.

[Canelek]

Not fair to be focusing on just the South as there are buffoons-a-plenty throughout our fair country. However, Texas isn't really the South so you don't really need to take offense as my reference was mainly to the Bible-Belt as it is called...more like AR,LA,MS,TN,AL,GA,etc. Lot's of great people in all those places, but also lots of 'old-timey' ignorance, praise jesus.

This is first-hand experience, not media asshattery...grew up in fuckin' Arkeensaw for pete's sake. Churches the size of Costco....

Hell, this wacky state I live in now is 1 part hippy and 8 parts backwater overall-wearers. I will bash Texas often--but they are on my good side of late due to some good fucking BBQ @ Busters.

[kyoukan]

what? texas is like the stupid, gun toting retard capital of the world. they have used car and insurance salesmen that think they are cowboys. YEE HAW

[Canelek]

It was rather good BBQ...if nothing else, they understand that BBQ sauce is a condiment and does not need to be slathered all over to hide the meaty goodness.

I don't care much for those cowboy hat wearing cocksuckers though...damn trend has spread to the western states now...damn I angerbats country music.

[Niffoni]

Texas has given us fantastic bread which, ironically, is useful mostly just for making French Toast. Merci beaucoup, Texas!