Gun controll?

[Stout]

Hi




Kind of like how they couldn't attack Pearl Harbor because of the patrols, radar, ship defenses, air defenses, and the study done by the American fleet folks that pretty much outlined how it happened, done some time before the attack?

Well, I presume if you're talking using rifles for defense, you're talking about repelling a land invasion, not an aerial bombardment like Pearl Harbour.

 

[Lothian]

Hi

Not exactly, I think.

Our gun-owning population, the only population capable of having a firearm, "accidental death," is about 75 million (because, if you're a criminal, and you have an accidental death, it's felony homicide because you aren't supposed to HAVE a gun).

You guys actually seem to have about about 1.9 million registered firearms.

We have 800 accidental deaths in a population of 75 million.

You have 50 accidental gun deaths in a population of 1.9 million, assuming that every firearm is owned by a different person. This is fair because it gives you the largest population of gun owners to account for the 50 deaths, hence the lowest multiplier.

If we adjust the gun-owning population of 1.9 million to 75 million, we get a multiplier of something like 38.73.

All other things being equal, you'd have something like 1,936 accidental firearms deaths.

I believe your real rate would be much lower. Possibly as low as 800.

I am not sure I follow your logic but I will take your lower figure of figure 800.

Hi




US Accidental deaths with firearms: About 800
US Deliberate deaths with firearms: About 29,700

How do you arrive at the accidental rate being 3 times the deliberate rate.

I'd have to know that before we do a C/B analysis.

OK. In the Uk (population between 60 and 61 million) we currently have around 50 murders with firearms a year. 1 in 1,215,524

On my estimates there would have been 166 accidental firearm deaths if we armed ourselves to the same extent you do. In those circumstances the total number of firearm deaths would quadruple from 50 to 216.

On your estimates if the UK was to arm its self like America the total Number of firearm deaths would increase 17 fold from 50 to 850.

Obviously that assumes that with the increased access to weapons the number of deliberate firearm deaths does not increase.

I will tell you what I will be generous. Lets say that by increasing gun ownership to US levels we eradicate all deliberate murders with fire arms.

How would a politician sell a policy that will increase the death rate by guns by a factor of 16 times?

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually, it has it's own website.

So does everyone else. It doesn't make their stupidity valid.

Why not take some college classes, learn some real stuff, get some hobbies, date a girl... anything other than watching YouTube and winding yourself up.

 

[brodski]

Actually, it has it's own website.

so does timecube.

 

[JonathanClement]

So does everyone else. It doesn't make their stupidity valid.

Why not take some college classes, learn some real stuff, get some hobbies, date a girl... anything other than watching YouTube and winding yourself up.

Yeah, I want to do all those things. Fortunately, I've recovered from zeitgeist for the most part. And I'm going to do those things when I get my Grade 12 and I figure out exactly what it is I want to be doing with my life.

Also, I'm planning on dissecting zeitgeist later this year.

so does timecube.

ARE YOU SAYING YOUR ONE OF THE "ONE-DAY" HERETICS?! BLASPHEMY! TIME CUBE IS THE ONLY TRUTH!

 

[Drudgewire]

So, which are you? A liar or a criminal?

Whichever makes you angrier.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Well, I presume if you're talking using rifles for defense, you're talking about repelling a land invasion, not an aerial bombardment like Pearl Harbour.

Talking about the possibility or impossibility of the two scenarios.

Anyhow - it WAS under consideration by the Japanese military, and Yamamoto DID advise against it on those grounds.

 

[brodski]

Whichever makes you angrier.

Well, he's only allowed to shoot one, so let him know quickly, whilst he's aiming...

 

[Drudgewire]

Well, he's only allowed to shoot one, so let him know quickly, whilst he's aiming...

That's the good part, I know he doesn't have any guns.

I normally don't troll for the sake of trolling, but when someone is that high on their horse I get the overwhelming urge to ride mine onto their lawn and let it take a poop.

 

[jimbob]

However, leaving that aside, I would suggest that the facts support the suggestion that strict gun controls are indeed associated with lower levels of gun crime and gun deaths and specifically with an absence of the characteristic US-style school shootings.

Rolfe.

So a decrease in gun crime is good, even if it's not a decrease in total violent crime?

Is it somehow better to murder a man with a knife as opposed to a gun in your mind? Robberies, rapes, and assaults all must be ok too, just as long as one of those EVIL guns isn't involved!

from a previous thread:

I have found an an analysis on this:

Sloan et al. (1988) compare the crime rates in Seattle and Vancouver, two similar cities in terms of population, climate, income per household, poverty, and unemployment rates. The only significant demographic difference lies in the racial composition of minorities, with more Asians in Vancouver and more Hispanics and blacks in Seattle. Gun regulations are much stricter in Vancouver. In Seattle, handguns may be purchased legally for self-defense in the street or at home. After a 30-day waiting period, a permit can be obtained to carry a gun as a concealed weapon. Handguns need not be registered. In Vancouver, self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason to carry a gun. Concealed weapons are not permitted. The purchase of a gun requires registration and a restricted-weapons permit. Handguns can be transported in a car, but only if stored in a locked box in the trunk. As a result, an estimated 41 percent of Seattle inhabitants own a gun compared to only 12 percent of Vancouver inhabitants.

The authors find that the two cities essentially experience the same rates of burglary, robbery, homicides, and assaults without a gun. However, in Seattle the rate of assault with a firearm is 7 times higher than in Vancouver, and the rate of homicide with a handgun is 4.8 times higher. The authors conclude that the availability of handguns in Seattle increases the assault and homicide rates with a gun, but does not decrease the crime rates without guns, and that restrictive handgun laws reduce the homicide rate in a community

If a substitution effect exists, the correlations between gun ownership percentages and rates of homicides and suicides by other means than a gun would be significantly negative. They are not (respectively, 0.441 and -0.015, both nonsignificant). The correlation of 0.441, although not significant with this small sample, suggests that the number of homicides by means other than a gun increases with raising levels of gun ownership. Thus, the data do not support the existence of a compensation effect for homicides. Similar conclusions were reached by Duggan (2000).

There isn't much evidence, but other homicides also seem to increase.

is was partly due to Jerome da Gnome's assertion that the lower US klife expectancey could be explained by gun deathe. It seems that some can but not all (about 26%)...

 

[littlehulkster]

we've been through this before, and as I said then, robberies and assaults are "less bad than rape and murder. For some reason, despite lower urbanisation rates, and much higher gun ownership the USA has far more of the latter two than the UK (absolutely and per capita).

Tell me, do you think that robberies, assaults rapes and murders are all on a par to be lumped together?

Take a look at the increase in total violent crime in the UK, much of it is related to our drinking culture, do you really think that adding firearms to city centres awash with irresponsible drunks will have apositive outcome?

Yes, robberies and assaults are less serious than murders.

However, the murder rates in many countries have in fact gone up after gun control laws were introduced (And before you jump on me, I'm sure that the gun control laws had nothing at all to do with this rise.)

What I'm trying to say is that gun control is not crime control. I really haven't seen gun control laws making any definitive difference, good or bad anywhere. It's just something that politicians on either side grab onto for easy votes.

One thing that many forigen posters fail to realize is that the US is a much different country from yours. We have a horribly broken criminal justice system, the worst income equality of any first world nation, draconian drug laws, and more land to govern than two European Unions. Things that will work for you probably aren't going to work for us.

 

[Rufo]

With small arms, you can only START a revolution.

You don't need firearms to start a revolution.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... snip ...

OK. In the Uk (population between 60 and 61 million) we currently have around 50 murders with firearms a year. 1 in 1,215,524

On my estimates there would have been 166 accidental firearm deaths if we armed ourselves to the same extent you do. In those circumstances the total number of firearm deaths would quadruple from 50 to 216.

Ummm... Ok. you guys have about 50 gun murders per year. Where are you getting the accidental gun death information? Are you thinking perhaps that murder is the same as accidental deaths?

Sorry. I'm hungry, so I'm as thick as a whale omelet.

Going from 50 to 216 sounds more like a total population multiplier of your 60, maybe 61 million to out 303 million.

If arming your population to the... say, 25% that we have over here, that would take your gun ownership from a maximum of 1.9 million to 15.25 million, a multiplier of 8.03, so maybe 401 people. And a third.

On your estimates if the UK was to arm its self like America the total Number of firearm deaths would increase 17 fold from 50 to 850.

Actually, I was giving you a Rational British Citizen break, comparing armed population to armed population. If we're just talking numbers, 1.9 million gun owners producing 50 accidental deaths scales up at a factor of about 36, so it'd be about 1800 accidental deaths for 70 million gun owners.

Obviously that assumes that with the increased access to weapons the number of deliberate firearm deaths does not increase.

Ok - again - is the 50 number accidental, intentional or total? Whale omlet again. I fried my brain with the last bit of work.

I will tell you what I will be generous. Lets say that by increasing gun ownership to US levels we eradicate all deliberate murders with fire arms.

How would a politician sell a policy that will increase the death rate by guns by a factor of 16 times?

Over there? I couldn't.

You guys are BRITISH and we're UNITED STATES...ians... I guess.

This is a very important difference that most of the gun-discussion people miss! It's not at all obvious, though, and the last King and government we both shared didn't understand it, either.

I know I didn't catch on to it immediately, and was all for giving all those poor old pensioners a loaded shotgun to keep the bad guys from breaking in and beating the snot out of them in order to steal their fish suppers!

Rolfe talked me out of it.

Do you allow the police to enter without warning to check firearms storage requirements, or did I get that wrong, too?

Over here, Ok?

We take away convicted criminals right to own firearms as one of the major bits of being convicted of a felony. That and not being allowed to vote are about he only lasting effects of a felony conviction. To be convicted of a felony is all this, "due process," and appeals and legal representation and stuff...

Passing a law taking away 65 million handguns and requiring licensing and imposing storage and inspection requirements on another 202 million or so firearms would royally piss off a fifth to a third of the voting public.

I think it SHOULD piss of any Americans interested in things like freedom, liberty and stuff like that, but yeah - that's just me.

...and if the police get to come into the house without warning (that's why I asked), then that's WORSE than we treat convicted criminals! Even parolees, who are still officially serving prison sentences, get search warrants, and thus assumptions of innocence and requirements of probable cause, before the police come through the door.

How would you sell that to the American Public to save 800 (actual accidental, rounded up) deaths per year?

 

[Lothian]

One thing that many forigen posters fail to realize is that the US is a much different country from yours. We have a horribly broken criminal justice system, the worst income equality of any first world nation, draconian drug laws, and more land to govern than two European Unions. Things that will work for you probably aren't going to work for us.

To be fair I think a lot of us foreigner do realise that. I think the problem is that many US posters fail to realize is that the US is a much different country from ours. You have a horribly broken criminal justice system, the worst income equality of any first world nation, draconian drug laws, and more land to govern than two European Unions. Things that work for you probably aren't going to work for us.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

You don't need firearms to start a revolution.

Better have some lined up. It's the only way you're going to get the tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, better guns, land mines and all the other stuff people say a modern revolution would have to face.

Revolutions are born of ideas, but they don't START until someone takes a stand.

 

[Architect]

To be fair I think a lot of us foreigner do realise that. I think the problem is that many US posters fail to realize is that the US is a much different country from ours. You have a horribly broken criminal justice system, the worst income equality of any first world nation, draconian drug laws, and more land to govern than two European Unions. Things that work for you probably aren't going to work for us.

Incidentally, they may have a greater land area but not a greater population.

 

[The Painter]

Ancient history. What's your point?



I see. Western Europe. Not first world. Despite, say, having universal healthcare systems which give us longer life expectancy. Despite welfare systems that care for our poor in a way yours doesn't even aspire too. Despite, for example, statutory minimum holidays for employees which are in excess of your national norms.

I think you have a political view on "the rest of the world" which is unsupported by reality, but there you go.

OK one at a time. First;

Ancient history. What's your point?

This....“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Next;

Despite, say, having universal healthcare systems which give us longer life expectancy. Despite welfare systems that care for our poor in a way yours doesn't even aspire too. Despite, for example, statutory minimum holidays for employees which are in excess of your national norms.

You see these all as good things "minimum holidays" are you kidding? WOW. Do you get off for the 4th of July? When I said going into the future, I didn't mean socialism. I meant technologically.

I think you have a political view on "the rest of the world" which is unsupported by reality, but there you go

You think the rest of the world is Europe? Nice but unsupported. As I said, technologically, not political.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Incidentally, they may have a greater land area but not a greater population.

I read an article about a democratic Governor of a western state the other evening. He carries a gun, and is pro-gun!

He said that he doesn't see gun control as Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican, but more Urban/Rural.

The US is still pretty rural. Most of the Germany I was in, back in '75, '76 was one long, poorly designed town with "entering a new town," markers on the roads every now and again.

I wonder what it'll be like when it crowds up over here.

 

[jimbob]

You think the rest of the world is Europe? Nice but unsupported. As I said, technologically, not political.

In the context of this thread, I think it is appropriate to limit it to OECD countries.

 

[Architect]

This....“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

I see. Didn't work for (variously) ETA, the IRA, the INLA, the Corsicans, the Malays, and various other groups more recent than your war of independence, did it? Mind you, the Vietcong did manage to walk all over you and the French.

You see these all as good things "minimum holidays" are you kidding? WOW. Do you get off for the 4th of July?

You've deftly ignored the healthcare, the welfare systems, and so on. And incidentally, typically in the UK paid holiday entitlement is 4 weeks plus statutory holidays, so at least 27 all round - the legal minimum is a bit less - which knocks the States into a hat. The French take an extra fortnight on top of that. Want to hear about statutory sick pay? Statutory maternity pay?

When I said going into the future, I didn't mean socialism. I meant technologically.

And which aspects of that were you thinking about? Name some technology we don't have in Western Europe, then, that you chaps enjoy every day. I hear this "electricity" thing is good, but I'm waiting to see if davey lamps catch on first...