Originally posted by: kmmatney
Some other "facts"
* In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73
people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.[8] In
comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.[9]
* In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in
the United States.[10]
8. Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Canadian Crime Statistics, Australian Crime
Facts & Figures 2004, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention - Criminal
Statistics 2004, Statistics New Zealand.
9. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
10. FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2005, Expanded Homicide Table 14,
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/...n/murder_homicide.html.
Originally posted by: sandorski
How far to the neighbouring State where guns are available?
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
I did not say anything about a link between gun legality and overall crime rate, I said:
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.
Originally posted by: nCred
Because guns are flooding in from neighboring states, and because there´s probably at least 10 times as many violent criminals in Washington DC? You can´t just ban guns in a small area with no border controls between. But if you ban guns in an entire country then the guns will have to be smuggled over the borders. Of course the organized criminals will always get hold of guns but it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: nCred
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
Bullshit. As I've pointed out in other threads, Washington DC has 1/2 the population of neighboring Fairfax County, but has 10 times the murder rate. Guns are banned in DC but anyone without a federal record in Fairfax can walk out of a store with a handgun the same day. If availability of guns was the cause, then why aren't hundreds of people being killed in Fairfax County every year?
But the real reason I qouted that article was because it showed that criminals with guns are more dangerous then criminals with knifes, that means fewer people will die in robberies and assaults if the criminals have more difficulty getting firearms. The rate of premeditated murder on the other hand would probably not be affected.
A study of personal robberies revealed that
escalation from threat to attack is less likely if
the robber is armed with a gun than if he or she
is unarmed.7 A similar pattern was found in
assaults.8 Perhaps the reason is that robbers
armed with guns are less nervous, or victims
confronted with guns are too frightened to resist,
or both. Either effect could reduce the risk of
escalation from threat to attack.
One implication of the lower escalation rate when
guns are used is that robbery and assault victims
are less likely to be injured when the perpetrator
has a gun. When data reported through the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) between 1973 and
1982 are combined, they reveal that among victims
who survive attacks, the chance of injury was 14
percent when the offender was armed with a gun. It
was higher when a gun was not used--25 percent when
the offender was armed with a knife, 30 percent
when unarmed, and 45 percent when armed with
another weapon.9
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: nCred
Because guns are flooding in from neighboring states, and because there´s probably at least 10 times as many violent criminals in Washington DC? You can´t just ban guns in a small area with no border controls between. But if you ban guns in an entire country then the guns will have to be smuggled over the borders. Of course the organized criminals will always get hold of guns but it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: nCred
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
Bullshit. As I've pointed out in other threads, Washington DC has 1/2 the population of neighboring Fairfax County, but has 10 times the murder rate. Guns are banned in DC but anyone without a federal record in Fairfax can walk out of a store with a handgun the same day. If availability of guns was the cause, then why aren't hundreds of people being killed in Fairfax County every year?
The point is that the gun is not the problem. Access to guns is not the problem. So by eliminating guns, you are only putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound, if you'll excuse the pun. Crime is the problem and you're not going to solve crime by removing guns.
But the real reason I qouted that article was because it showed that criminals with guns are more dangerous then criminals with knifes, that means fewer people will die in robberies and assaults if the criminals have more difficulty getting firearms. The rate of premeditated murder on the other hand would probably not be affected.
Again, this article that you quote doesn't seem to support its own conclusions:
A study of personal robberies revealed that
escalation from threat to attack is less likely if
the robber is armed with a gun than if he or she
is unarmed.7 A similar pattern was found in
assaults.8 Perhaps the reason is that robbers
armed with guns are less nervous, or victims
confronted with guns are too frightened to resist,
or both. Either effect could reduce the risk of
escalation from threat to attack.
One implication of the lower escalation rate when
guns are used is that robbery and assault victims
are less likely to be injured when the perpetrator
has a gun. When data reported through the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) between 1973 and
1982 are combined, they reveal that among victims
who survive attacks, the chance of injury was 14
percent when the offender was armed with a gun. It
was higher when a gun was not used--25 percent when
the offender was armed with a knife, 30 percent
when unarmed, and 45 percent when armed with
another weapon.9
The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an
estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for
knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies
with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for
robberies by unarmed offenders.10 For assaults, a
crime which includes threats, the most widely
cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived
from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides
committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention
of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2
percent of their intended victims. This is about 5
times as often as in attacks with knives, the
second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.11
With one exception, more recent studies have
generally concluded that death was at least twice
as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults.
Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.
Originally posted by: nCred
well, futher down it says:
The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an
estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for
knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies
with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for
robberies by unarmed offenders.10 For assaults, a
crime which includes threats, the most widely
cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived
from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides
committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention
of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2
percent of their intended victims. This is about 5
times as often as in attacks with knives, the
second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.11
With one exception, more recent studies have
generally concluded that death was at least twice
as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults.
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.
Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.
Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.
Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.
It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: nCred
well, futher down it says:
The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an
estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for
knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies
with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for
robberies by unarmed offenders.10 For assaults, a
crime which includes threats, the most widely
cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived
from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides
committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention
of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2
percent of their intended victims. This is about 5
times as often as in attacks with knives, the
second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.11
With one exception, more recent studies have
generally concluded that death was at least twice
as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults.
So the article can't seem to make up its mind.
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
I did not say anything about a link between gun legality and overall crime rate, I said:
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
I did not say anything about a link between gun legality and overall crime rate, I said:
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.
Rocket launchers, surface to air missiles, artillery, RPGs and explosives aren't illegal to own in the US. I've seen plenty of them in private hands.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.
Man, these are the most illustrative comment ever of how anti-anything people think. It's all about making decisions for other people under the misguided belief that you know best. Fortunately, we can just shoot them.
It's just the same old regressive thinking that has dominated humanity for millenia. They believe that people are evil and prone to sin from birth, therefore some authority must be invoked to prevent people from sinning before they sin and to save them in spite of themselves. And then they're heroes! They saved the world with their right-thinking! Authority be praised!
Huh, if that's the thinking, why do you need a gun?
it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.
Do you really believe this? I suppose you actually think the "War on Drugs" has kept all the indigents from getting them too. As of 2003, the federal prison system housed 55% drug offenders. Yet, there are still drugs on the street and they are definitely still illegal. Perhaps you missed the whole prohibition period in our history. Crime went up so much they repealed the damn law. By your logic and a little history, I propose that crime will increase to offset the increased price of firearms. You really only need to look at the world around you to see your argument just doesn't hold water.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
It's ignorant because it's contrary to all historical precedent. Rifles are a sufficient deterrent to keep a military from murdering its own citizens (nice straw man with the rocket launchers though). While OTOH, some 120 million people were genocided by their own governments last century AFTER their governments had disarmed them.
The legality or non-legality of guns has ZERO effect on crime rates, just like the Drug War does nothing to stop drug use. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You can't just half-assed pass some sweeping draconian law out of laziness and then fool yourself into believing that you've solved all the world's problems.
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.
Do you really believe this? I suppose you actually think the "War on Drugs" has kept all the indigents from getting them too. As of 2003, the federal prison system housed 55% drug offenders. Yet, there are still drugs on the street and they are definitely still illegal. Perhaps you missed the whole prohibition period in our history. Crime went up so much they repealed the damn law. By your logic and a little history, I propose that crime will increase to offset the increased price of firearms. You really only need to look at the world around you to see your argument just doesn't hold water.
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
It's ignorant because it's contrary to all historical precedent. Rifles are a sufficient deterrent to keep a military from murdering its own citizens (nice straw man with the rocket launchers though). While OTOH, some 120 million people were genocided by their own governments last century AFTER their governments had disarmed them.
The legality or non-legality of guns has ZERO effect on crime rates, just like the Drug War does nothing to stop drug use. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You can't just half-assed pass some sweeping draconian law out of laziness and then fool yourself into believing that you've solved all the world's problems.
Of course rifles where could be enough a hundred years ago, just like swords and pitchforks worked a few hundred years earlier. Show me a guerrila that primarily use pistols. Just look at Iraq, the insurgents are useing AK-47s and explosives. Using glocks and shotguns against a modern military is like using pitchforks and swords against rifles, sure you can do some damage but it will probably end in a slaughter.
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.
Do you really believe this? I suppose you actually think the "War on Drugs" has kept all the indigents from getting them too. As of 2003, the federal prison system housed 55% drug offenders. Yet, there are still drugs on the street and they are definitely still illegal. Perhaps you missed the whole prohibition period in our history. Crime went up so much they repealed the damn law. By your logic and a little history, I propose that crime will increase to offset the increased price of firearms. You really only need to look at the world around you to see your argument just doesn't hold water.
umm.. just compare the level of gun crime in the US compared to the UK. I believe the overalll crime rate is about the same. Why do you think guns are much more used by criminals in the US?
edit: and you cant compare the need for drugs with the need for guns.
What I mean is it´s somewhat strange to say that owning a gun is a basic right but owning a machinegun is not, especially if you justify the ownership of the gun with that you want to protect yourself against the government.Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.
This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?
Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.
Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.
It's ignorant because it's contrary to all historical precedent. Rifles are a sufficient deterrent to keep a military from murdering its own citizens (nice straw man with the rocket launchers though). While OTOH, some 120 million people were genocided by their own governments last century AFTER their governments had disarmed them.
The legality or non-legality of guns has ZERO effect on crime rates, just like the Drug War does nothing to stop drug use. Correlation doesn't equal causation. You can't just half-assed pass some sweeping draconian law out of laziness and then fool yourself into believing that you've solved all the world's problems.
Of course rifles where could be enough a hundred years ago, just like swords and pitchforks worked a few hundred years earlier. Show me a guerrila that primarily use pistols. Just look at Iraq, the insurgents are useing AK-47s and explosives. Using glocks and shotguns against a modern military is like using pitchforks and swords against rifles, sure you can do some damage but it will probably end in a slaughter.
Your argument is that the people should have nothing then? :roll:
I said: "Rifles are a sufficient deterrent to keep a military from murdering its own citizens."
Originally posted by: nCred
Of course rifles where could be enough a hundred years ago, just like swords and pitchforks worked a few hundred years earlier. Show me a guerrila that primarily use pistols. Just look at Iraq, the insurgents are useing AK-47s and explosives. Using glocks and shotguns against a modern military is like using pitchforks and swords against rifles, sure you can do some damage but it will probably end in a slaughter.