Gun Control is ridiculous

[baron]

You clearly don't know much about your own country, then, since the UK (and Australia) has a higher rate of violent crime, including violent crime involving firearms, than the US does. Murder rate is moderately lower...

Moderately lower?

Murders in USA 2005: 16,692 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
Murders in UK 2005: 765 (including manslaugher and infanticide) http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

Let's balance it out to account for the population difference
65m / 296m = .22

So we have 765 : 3672

That's 480% more murder in the USA than in the UK, taking account of population difference

(More figures here - P10 http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf)

The fact that the UK homicide rate appears much lower than it is is due to major differences in reporting between the UK and US.

Feel free to account for how minor differences in catagorisation would account for the gargantuan descrepancies above.

Check out page 11 of the above link ~

No. of murders per 100K capita in London (avg '99 to '01): 2.6
No. of murders per 100K capita in Washington DC (avg '99 to '01): 42.8 (murder capital of the world 1998 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/153988.stm - is there anyone left alive?)
No. of murders per 100K capita in New York (avg '99 to '01): 8.65

The elimination of one of the most effective tools of self-defense in the UK and Australia has been a major factor in aggravating this increase.

Oh, those good old days in England when we all carried guns and everyone could leave their back door open...

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Moderately lower?

Murders in USA 2005: 16,692 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
Murders in UK 2005: 765 (including manslaugher and infanticide) http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

Let's balance it out to account for the population difference
65m / 296m = .22

So we have 765 : 3672

That's 480% more murder in the USA than in the UK, taking account of population difference

(More figures here - P10 http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf)

Feel free to account for how minor differences in catagorisation would account for the gargantuan descrepancies above.

Check out page 11 of the above link ~

No. of murders per 100K capita in London (avg '99 to '01): 2.6
No. of murders per 100K capita in Washington DC (avg '99 to '01): 42.8 (murder capital of the world 1998 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/153988.stm - is there anyone left alive?)
No. of murders per 100K capita in New York (avg '99 to '01): 8.65

Oh, those good old days in England when we all carried guns and everyone could leave their back door open...

The irony is gun crime was higher in Scotland for example before 1997.

You know, when we all lived in a gun carrying Utopian paradise...........

 

[baron]

The fact is, if we're both armed with a firearm, then we're both equal. Sure, a man can be more skilled with a firearm than another man, but at the heart of it I actually have a chance. If he's unarmed, and superior in strength and experience than me, then I don't have any chance!

Let me get this straight. You would rather take a gun yourself and go up against an experienced gun-toting criminal than have a hand-to-hand fight with someone bigger than you? Is that actually what you're saying?

I have almost no experience of guns. However, I have spent most of my life frequenting places where fighting occurs, and have witnessed probably five thousand hand-to-hand fights, and been involved on several occasions. In that time, I have witnessed no more than two dozen serious injuries, and no deaths.

Tell me, if I had witnessed five thousand gunfights, do you think I could say the same? Of course not, the notion is absurd.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Let me get this straight. You would rather take a gun yourself and go up against an experienced gun-toting criminal than have a hand-to-hand fight with someone bigger than you? Is that actually what you're saying?

I have almost no experience of guns. However, I have spent most of my life frequenting places where fighting occurs, and have witnessed probably five thousand hand-to-hand fights, and been involved on several occasions. In that time, I have witnessed no more than two dozen serious injuries, and no deaths.

Tell me, if I had witnessed five thousand gunfights, do you think I could say the same? Of course not, the notion is absurd.

5000 hand to hand fights? Thats a stag night up my way!!!!

 

[baron]

5000 hand to hand fights? Thats a stag night up my way!!!!

That's why I'm afeared to go north of the border

 

[volatile]

Tell me, if I had witnessed five thousand gunfights, do you think I could say the same? Of course not, the notion is absurd.

That's the core contradiction at the heart of the pro-gun lobby - their advocacy for gun liberalisation relies on the argument that, in the right hands, guns are "safe", all the while claiming that the reason they want more access to guns in the first place is because gun possession makes killing someone easier.

They can't have it both ways...

 

[Lothian]

You clearly don't know much about your own country, ...... Murder rate is moderately lower, but all other violent crime is substantially higher, in some cases nearly three times higher. Since handgun ban in... '97 I believe it was, firearm-related violence has almost tripled in the UK.
I predict that this problem will continue to grow steadily for the forseeable future unless the UK and Australia make some substantial changes to the legislation. Not just firearm legislation, but drug prohibition legislation as well.

Your figures are out of date. The firearm murder rate in the UK is 0.00075 per 1000 people or 1 in 1.32 million. In the USA it is 0.035 per 1000 or 1 in 28,000. You are nearly 50 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than the UK. That is not in my opinion moderately lower.

The number killed by guns in the UK is as follows.

95 - 66
96 - 47
97 – 58
98 -52
99 - 46
2000 -61
2001 - 72
2002 - 97
2003 – 75
2004 - 68
2005 - 75
2006 - 50


Source Table 1.03 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf


Section 2 of the above report specifically deals with fire arms. Firearm crimes did not treble following the ban, even allowing for increases as a result of differing recording procedures. Since 2003/4 the gun crime rate is falling.

Sure we would like to get rid of gun crime altogether, I don’t think arming everyone will do that, neither will the ban, However the public do not want freely available firearms no matter how much Americans try to tell us we do.

 

[Thanz]

Just as the call for mandatory seat-belts is an indication of underlying fear of a car accident, yes?

Yes, it is. But as anti-gun control advocates are fond of pointing out, car accidents are unfortunately frequent. And there is no real downside to wearing a seatbelt. So, I'd say that the two situations are not equivalent.

 

[Skibum]

If it were a burglar, he would get the hell out. The last thing a burglar needs is people being present when he tries to steal stuff. And a ear-splitting alarm going off kinda takes the wind out of what he wants to do.

If it were someone who wanted to murder me, he would also get out. His cover is blown, people will appear, he will be seen.

If it were someone crazy who wanted to murder me, or someone high on dope, it wouldn't make any difference whether I had a gun or not. People like that don't think rationally, they'd go against a raving herd of elephants. Lock your doors, get an alarm.

Evidence?

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Your figers are out of date. The firearm murder rate in the UK is 0.00075 per 1000 people or 1 in 1.32 million. In the USA it is 0.035 per 1000 or 1 in 28,000. You are nearly 50 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than the UK. That is not in my opinion moderately lower.

The number killed by guns in the UK is as follows.

95 - 66
96 - 47
97 – 58
98 -52
99 - 46
2000 -61
2001 - 72
2002 - 97
2003 – 75
2004 - 68
2005 - 75
2006 - 50


Source Table 1.03 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf


Section 2 of the above report specifically deals with fire arms. Firearm crimes did not treble following the ban, even allowing for increases as a result of differing recording procedures. Since 2003/4 the gun crime rate is falling.

Sure we would like to get rid of gun crime altogether, I don’t think arming everyone will do that, neither will the ban, However the public do not want freely available firearms no matter how much Americans try to tell us we do.

This is patently absurd. How could less people be killed in 2006 than in 1995 when I was defended by my inherant right to keep my registered gun locked in a cabinet without any ammunition in it? You are simply making things up now. Dont you understand Im DEFENCELESS now goddammit!!!!

 

[baron]

...
The number killed by guns in the UK is as follows.

95 - 66
96 - 47
97 – 58
98 -52
99 - 46
2000 -61
2001 - 72
2002 - 97
2003 – 75
2004 - 68
2005 - 75
2006 - 50


Source Table 1.03 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

Yes, I was searching for these figures but couldn't find them in the limited time I had available. They are more relevant than simply looking at the murder stats, and far more damning of US gun culture.

 

[Lothian]

This is patently absurd. How could less people be killed in 2006 than in 1995 when I was defended by my inherant right to keep my registered gun locked in a cabinet without any ammunition in it? You are simply making things up now. Dont you understand Im DEFENCELESS now goddammit!!!!

See table 1.05. 10 years ago a higher proportion of deaths were caused by a family member as opposed to a stranger than today. Given the increase in national population has increased by a greater amount than your family has increased it follows that the proportion of safe people (i.e. strangers) is higher so you are therefore safer today.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

See table 1.05. 10 years ago a higher proportion of deaths were caused by a family member as opposed to a stranger than today. Given the increase in national population has increased by a greater amount than your family has increased it follows that the proportion of safe people (i.e. strangers) is higher so you are therefore safer today.

Yes, but a stranger is simply a friend you don't know yet.

So it's more dangerous now.

Or is it?

I don't know my head hurts now

 

[CFLarsen]

See table 1.05. 10 years ago a higher proportion of deaths were caused by a family member as opposed to a stranger than today. Given the increase in national population has increased by a greater amount than your family has increased it follows that the proportion of safe people (i.e. strangers) is higher so you are therefore safer today.

Relationship of injured victims to their attackers

In more than half of the cases in the CDC study, the victim's relationship to the offender was not reported. When relationship was reported, 49% of the victims were attacked by strangers and 28% did not see who shot them.Firearm Injury and Death from Crime, 1993-97, (p.5)

(Emphasis mine)

Oops.

 

[baron]

In the UK, the status of firearm deaths are re-categorized depending on prosecution and later determination; if a firearm death is originally coded as a homicide, but later determined to be accidental or incidental, it's recoded as such, which does not happen in the US.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf

Percentage reclassification in UK in 2003 was 3.6%. Negligable. And yet you hold that for the reason that the US has 5X the murder rate and 50X the murder-rate by firearm of the UK!

Now that is some creative use of statistics!

 

[Tricky]

Is anybody else here worried about spear control?

 

[Lothian]

(Emphasis mine)

Oops.

Claus,

If you look at the table I refered to in 1985 : 410 out of 662 murders were by family/friends. In 2006 it was 342 out of 746. My quotes were "10 years ago a higher proportion of deaths were caused by a family member as opposed to a stranger than today" Which is true.

Your stats cover a different period and look at a different thing. Confess I am right or I will add to the stranger murder rate.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

If you look at the table I refered to in 1985 : 410 out of 662 murders were by family/friends. In 2006 it was 342 out of 746. My quotes were "10 years ago a higher proportion of deaths were caused by a family member as opposed to a stranger than today" Which is true.

Your stats cover a different period and look at a different thing. Confess I am right or I will add to the stranger murder rate.

Are you saying that stronger gun control means that strangers, more than family members, kill?

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Is anybody else here worried about spear control?

No but I am worried about pear control. And bannanas. And pointy sticks too.

 

[shanek]

Take a non-dangerous creature with opposable thumbs. You pick the species.

Okay: human beings. Any other species is irrelevant.

Would you, in the same room as this creature, be safer if you both had guns, or if neither of you had guns?

Safer with the guns, of course.

Now, answer my question.

There certainly are. None quite as effective as a gun though...

That totally depends on the situation. There are situations where a knife is more effective. As I showed in another thread, there is at least one situation where a piano is more effective.

Guns are generally better at range. But even they're limited in range (depending on the firearm, ammunition, etc.). There are many ways in which hunting bows and arrows are comparable, and arguably do much more damage to the person being shot.

Given a gun and the opportunity and / or will to shoot someone with it, both are equally likely to be able to cause death.

Given the will to kill someone, not having a gun is not likely to be a deterrent. The other person possibly having a gun is.