Gun Control is ridiculous

[The Painter]

Originally Posted by The Painter
Only if they don't like you.

Accidental shootings don't happen?

So if you're standing there, talking to a cop, you're afraid his gun will accidentaly go off and kill you?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Don't go out in traffic, and you won't get killed in traffic.

But your original statement was "If you never drive, you won't be killed in a car crash."

Obviously, that statement is wrong. Car passengers and pedestrians are killed quite frequently. So instead of changing it to "Don't go out in traffic, and you won't get killed in traffic" just admit your original statement was wrong. Your original statement was wrong, right? Yes or no?

Great thread everyone, btw. I'm learning a lot.

 

[CFLarsen]

So if you're standing there, talking to a cop, you're afraid his gun will accidentaly go off and kill you?

Answer the question: Do accidental shootings happen?

But your original statement was "If you never drive, you won't be killed in a car crash."

Obviously, that statement is wrong. Car passengers and pedestrians are killed quite frequently. So instead of changing it to "Don't go out in traffic, and you won't get killed in traffic" just admit your original statement was wrong. Your original statement was wrong, right? Yes or no?

I was banking on the intelligence of some of the readers. Apparently, I overestimated it somewhat.

 

[baron]

The base data is worthless unless you account for the details we bring up! Why don't you get that? Otherwise, it's a correlation/causation fallacy!

My last word on this: The data shows how many people, and children, are killed by guns. If you remove guns, these particular stats reduce to zero. That is the correlation. Why do you pretend to fail to understand this? The issue of could any of these killings have been achieved by any other means can certainly then be discussed, but only after the basic problem has been quantified and accepted.

I'm not. You're the one obfuscating and avoiding important points. There is NO WAY any amount of gun control can stop illegal firearm sales. That's what the black market is!

So you conveniently ignore the firearms bought legally then used illegally? Firearms bought legally and passed onto people who use them criminally? The firearms stolen from civilian houses? Firearms stolen from civilians themselves, or direct from regulated suppliers?

That aside, do you think investigations into ways to improve civilian safety and security should be shelved because you personally don't know how the aim might be achieved?

All of the data say that it would. We didn't have this massive crime when drugs were legal. We did in Prohibition, and ending Prohibition ended the crime.

Let me get this straight. You believe the solution to the gun problem is to reject further gun law whilst legalising hard drugs, gambling and prostitution.

And if "all the data say it would" (references?) then why is this not being done?

 

[Skibum]

I was banking on the intelligence of some of the readers. Apparently, I overestimated it somewhat.

No, you made a false statement. Now you are dancing around and trying do do everything you possibly can to avoid admitting that you were wrong, as usual.

Obviously you overestimate your own intelligence and when you make a mistake you absolutely cannot admit it, that would mean you are admitting you are not perfect.

 

[shanek]

Might like to edit that as the quote was not originally Skibum's but could be read that way as it stands.

Well, I said I was piggybacking, and I nested the quote tags, and then you came in and clarified it, so I think we're covered.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I was banking on the intelligence of some of the readers. Apparently, I overestimated it somewhat.

If you're into making insults instead of clarification of your points that's your decision.

Your original statement was wrong.

 

[shanek]

(Piggybacking again)

Don't go out in traffic, and you won't get killed in traffic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17119542/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4493713.stm
http://www.whiotv.com/news/3803692/detail.html
http://www.nbc30.com/news/10990753/detail.html

(This is fun! I'm tempted to take him off of ignore just to see how many other holes he can wriggle himself into...)

 

[shanek]

Yes.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)
Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.

 

[Darat]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

And?

 

[shanek]

My last word on this: The data shows how many people, and children, are killed by guns. If you remove guns, these particular stats reduce to zero.

That is just a LIE!!! Remove the guns, and most of these killings would happen by some other means. And that's even assuming you can remove the guns in the first place, which you can't.

You are worthless. You don't listen to a thing anyone else says, you don't respond to criticisms of your data, and the only thing you ever come back with are childish attempts like this one to insist that you're right when you aren't!

How do you think this does anything towards furthering anything resembling a rational discussion?

 

[shanek]

And?

You wanted the stats, I gave you the stats.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is just a LIE!!! Remove the guns, and most of these killings would happen by some other means. And that's even assuming you can remove the guns in the first place, which you can't.

You are worthless. You don't listen to a thing anyone else says, you don't respond to criticisms of your data, and the only thing you ever come back with are childish attempts like this one to insist that you're right when you aren't!

How do you think this does anything towards furthering anything resembling a rational discussion?

Temper, temper...

 

[HarryKeogh]

(Piggybacking again)



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17119542/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4493713.stm
http://www.whiotv.com/news/3803692/detail.html
http://www.nbc30.com/news/10990753/detail.html

(This is fun! I'm tempted to take him off of ignore just to see how many other holes he can wriggle himself into...)

after all this time you still have not figured out how to debate him. He will point to those stories and note no one was killed.

This story is better... http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/16/farmers.market.crash/index.html

And for the sake of the forum, please don't take him off ignore. You two calling each other liars every five seconds is headache inducing.

 

[shanek]

More:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=9

A current Weekly Standard article, Crime Without Punishment, observes that European crime rates are soaring to levels that match or exceed the U.S.’s even while U.S crime rates decline for the tenth consecutive year. Schadenfreude is not a pretty emotion, but it’s hard not to feel a twinge of it after so many years of listening to snotty Europeans lecture us Americans on how U.S. crime rates demonstrate that we are a nation of violent barbarians who can be saved only if we swallow European social policies entire.

What’s new in Europe is not comparatively poor policing, but rather the combination of two trends: laws disarming civilians and the formation of persistent, crime-breeding ghetto cultures analogous to the U.S.’s urban underclass. Both trends are clearest in Great Britain, where violent assaults and hot burglaries have shot up 44% since handguns were banned in 1996, and police now find they have to go armed to counter gangs of automatic-weapon-wielding thugs in the slum areas of Manchester and other big cities.

 

[Lothian]

You wanted the stats, I gave you the stats.

I wanted the stats to show why the hand gun ban in the uk "did affect the number of hot burglaries" as stated in your post number 819. Your cited report does not mention the ban. Reasons have been given why the arguments in your quote do not apply to the Uk. I would repeat them but suspect they would again be ignored.

 

[shanek]

And here's the article the above is referring to:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/266umtwb.asp

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 a 2001 study, the British Home Office (the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Justice) found violent and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates throughout the E.U., Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan
socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States.

(Of course, they miss the biggest reason for the drop in crime in the US, explained in Freakonomics, but again that's a different subject)

 

[CFLarsen]

Crime hasn't "exploded" in Denmark. On the contrary, it's dropping, despite our gun ban.

This, of course, will be totally ignored.

 

[Darat]

You wanted the stats, I gave you the stats.

You haven't given me any "stats" that have any relevance to the question that you asked me.

You asked: "But it did affect the number of hot burglaries. Do you deny this?"

I said "Yes".

Your statitics do not support your apparent claim that the change in the law caused an increase in "hot burglaries" and let me try to again explain to you why:


At the start of 1996 and the end of 1997 there were zero homes in the UK which had a loaded legally owned handgun.

Is that clear enough?

Let me put it another way.

The last lot of restrictions on hand guns in the UK did not alter the percentage of homes that had a legally owned and loaded handgun.

Therefore any change in "hot burglaries" since 1997 can not have had anything to do with the chances of a burglar facing an armed with a loaded handgun since this did not change after 1997.

I think this is something that the many USA Members struggle to keep in mind, in England and Wales since the 1930s (i.e. 75 years ago) you have not been able to legally own a loaded handgun and carry it on your person in public or keep a loaded gun in your bedside cabinet and so on. Since the 1960s all handguns had to kept unloaded and locked away in a manner subject to police approval.

The 1997 act only affected people who kept handguns unloaded and under lock and key in their homes, this number is estimated to have been around 50,000 people.

As I have already said in this thread in 1996 there were just over 3 million legally owned firearms in the UK after the 1997 change in the law there were still just over 3 million legally owned firearms in the UK.

Just to try and hammer this point home the changes in 1997 did not take one legally owned loaded firearm out of the hands of any homeowner or remove one legally owned loaded firearm from anyone walking around the streets.

 

[CFLarsen]

From shanek's quote above:

Both trends are clearest in Great Britain, where violent assaults and hot burglaries have shot up 44% since handguns were banned in 1996, and police now find they have to go armed to counter gangs of automatic-weapon-wielding thugs in the slum areas of Manchester and other big cities.

Why would gangs go from handguns to automatic weapons, just because handguns are banned if they can get handguns anyway, illegally?

If gangs use automatic weapons, it means that handguns are not easily accessible to gangs, once handguns are banned.

So, shanek's own link shows that gun bans work.