boudy 0 #26 January 7, 2003 There were a couple of interesting points raised in your contribution. However, I believe the debate concerns handguns, not handfuls. That said, despite the firm tone of the moment, I agree it is important to pause, take a broad view and reflect upon some of life's most profound blessings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #27 January 7, 2003 A quick thanks for the reality-check link Whew! Ok now- My input- Think about it- Take the weapons away from the people- and criminals - (CRIMINALS_-PEOPLE WITH LITTLE OR NO REGARD FOR THE LAW-) Can now walk into homes, up to cars, into shops, etc, with thier illegal guns, and commit crimes with impunity. Thier victims, people who most normally obey the laws (which is why they are unarmed) have little or no defense. (Unless new technology becomes available that enables them to dial the police, and have an officer dispatched to the scene and arrive in less time than it takes for the the bullet to leave the muzzle of the criminals' gun and strike the victim) Do stiffer penalities for illegal gun possesion deter these guys? Think about it- thier life has already deteriorated to the point that they have turned to crime. Breaking one more law doesn't phase them a bit- They need some more crack, or whatever, and that is the only thing that matters to them. If a person is willing to go to jail for murder, do you think a five year sentence for doing it with an illegal gun is going to stop them? And how about people who get stabbed to death- When do we go after the cutlery companies? A while ago a person was beaten to death with a baseball bat- I wonder if the victims' family is going to sue the Louisville Slugger compnay? And for that matter- Sue all the alcohol companies and bars and automakers, because they thet produce, sell and enable people to drive drunk and kill people- Oh, and make drinking illegal- And driving, too, then no will die in auto accidents. Concealed carry is a deterrent. I think alot of folks miss the point. And If I'm not mistaken, a concealed carry permit is not exactly easy to obtain- Background check, training, (which I beleive is conducted in co-operation with law-enforcement agencies-) etc. OK- I've rambled enough--- I sure am glad BOOBIES don't kill- Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #28 January 7, 2003 Quotecriminals - (CRIMINALS_-PEOPLE WITH LITTLE OR NO REGARD FOR THE LAW-) Finally someone gets it. Criminals dont respect the law. Control will not affect them unless by gun control you mean a strict crackdown on currently illegal guns, which is not how it is usually used. And even if that happen, criminals desire to break the law, they will find a way. One of the largest mass murders in the US was committed with $1 worth of gasoline http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1999/stn99005.htm Concealed carry is a deterent; a defense for the law-abiding citizens, it levels the playing field. And you are right....it is a very extensive process to get one. So you wanna target someone target the crooked merchant who sells guns without regard to the legal requirements.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #29 January 7, 2003 Okay, I'm pretty much on the fence as concerns gun laws, prohibitions and controls.....But here's my take on this anyways. Looking at weapons controls in isolation is not the way forward. We need to consider the punishment regimes in place as well. However look at these stats... Gun related murders per 100,000 population USA - 4.08 Canada (1999) - 0.54 England/Wales - 0.12 Scotland (1999) - 0.12 Japan (1998) - 0.04 Sunday Times So based on the above, I am about 40 times more likely to murdered in the US, than at home in Scotland. But these stats in isolation are pretty meaningless. As Malachi suggests, punishment is not a deterrent. Criminals are not afraid of doing the time. Its not that we need better gun control laws, we need better policing, and sufficient funds and resources to support them, thus limiting the power of the gangs. We need more effort to prevent kids getting sucked into the gang/violence/criminal culture in the first place. We need to give the people from 'deprived' areas a better chance so they can make a choice between a life of crime,and a worthwhile contribution to the community, we need to respect their situation and do something about it, as opposed to boxing people into ghettoes. As opposed to producing reactive legislation, we need to more proactive and avoid the crime in the first place. For what its worth I have lived in both the west midlands of England and also Texas, not to mention some other scary places too. Give me Houston over Birmingham anyday.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #30 January 7, 2003 Quote Give me Houston over Birmingham anyday. What do you have against Alabama???? Oh, you meant Buhhhhhminghummm.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #31 January 7, 2003 [Ozzy voice on] Sharon, I said Bum-in-ham [Ozzy voice off]-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 January 7, 2003 QuoteGun related murders per 100,000 population QuoteSo based on the above, I am about 40 times more likely to murdered in the US, than at home in Scotland. Flawed logic. You are 4 times as likely to be murdered by a gun in Scottland. But what about total murder rates? It's possible you're just as likely to be murdered, but with a knife or bat instead of a gun. It's probably not the case, but your numbers prove nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #33 January 7, 2003 Quotebut your numbers prove nothing. I disagree. While not "proof", they do show a correlation between the easy availability of guns and the use of guns in murders. You're right that it shows nothing about the overall murder rates. But ours probably is higher in general as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 January 7, 2003 Yes, your conclusion is valid based on those numbers. But to conclude that since 4 times as many people are killed by guns, than 4 times as many people are murdered is faulty logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #35 January 7, 2003 Yeah, the show correlation...but from a statistician's standpoint that is dangerous and tempting solution to assume. Many of the so called 'statistics' in the world today show correlation without any proof that is an exclusive correlation. You may also be able to show a correlation in income levels, prison populations, etc or even if you wanted to prove a point maybe the number of beers consumed or the pounds of bacon sold. Does a correlation in and of itself proof anything? NO, not at all. The prudent statistician has to isolate variable and try to show an exclusive correlation. Unfortunately, many times they don't, which is why there are 3 types of lies: black, white and statistics. Unfortunately this contributes to a lot of the stories on the radio that read: "In a recent study scientists have shown that people with more ..... have a smaller ..... " Well yeehaw are the two related? They might not really be sure.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #36 January 7, 2003 Philly Kev, point well undrestood "It's probably not the case, but your numbers prove nothing." hence "But these stats in isolation are pretty meaningless." I am very unlikely to murdered by a bat here in Scotland (note spelling) as we don't like cricket, and no one plays baseball, unless I am beaten up by an irate table tennis hoodlum.“Flawed logic. You are 4 times as likely to be murdered by a gun in Scottland” Flawed math sir, with respect to your opinion on gun control, about 4 divided by about 0.1 = about 40. And it is 40 times more likley to happen in the US than in Scotland, and 4 times more likely to happen in Canada. Besides, I thought we were talking about guns here, not knives, claymores, pointy sticks, automobiles, or other disembowelling devices. By the way, we ain’t allowed to carry knives over 4” either, and the bastards have just made it illegal to consume alcohol in ‘public places’, so no more beach parties....Its NOT 'all good'. And for the record......This was not a Glock, or a 45 etc, the weapon used was a 'sub-machine gun', hence the furore....The UK hasn't banned all guns either guys, we can still kill maim and terrorise with shotguns, rifles etc..... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 January 7, 2003 Exactly...it's like saying: That kid who hung himself listened to heavy metal. Therefore, if you listen to heavy metal you're more likely to hang yourself. Lots of people try to pass that kind of logic off to advance their own ideas about things, but it's not legitimate. Suppose the kid in my example also went to church every Sunday. Then I could say that going to church makes you more likely to hang yourself and that statement would be equal in validity to the first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #38 January 7, 2003 Woohoo! The dead horse is getting it again!By the way, has anyone found the "UN survey" that the original article refers to? This was also brought up ~1 month ago, but back then no-one could find any mention of the survey from anywhere else than The Telegraph... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #39 January 7, 2003 Or one could garner some interesting statistics about the correlation between post numbers and jump numbers. Does more posting cause less jumping? or Does more jumping cause less posting? As for dead horses, the real question is what killed it? a gun? or a guncontrol advocate trying to make glue to hold their arguments together? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #40 January 7, 2003 "While not "proof", they do show a correlation between the easy availability of guns and the use of guns in murders. You're right that it shows nothing about the overall murder rates. But ours probably is higher in general as well. " Either way Justin, I think neither of us want our kids to grow up in a society where one requires a sidearm just to 'feel comfortable'. Whichever way you look at it, that just ain't right. It isn't supposed to be like that.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #41 January 7, 2003 Well..here are some stats for you. US %households with guns: 39 Homicides/100k pop: 5.7 Firearm homicide/100k pop: 3.72 Norway %households w/ guns: 32 total homicide/100k pop: 0.97 firearm homicide/100k pop: 0.30 N. Ireland %households w/ guns: 8.4 total homicide/100k pop: 6.09 firearm homicide/100k pop: 5.24 That clearly shows a country with almost the same percentage of the population owning firearms while having a much lower overall and firearm related murder rate. It also shows a population with a much lower rate of gun ownership with higher total and higher firearm related homicides. The correlation that I make from these statistics is that the % of people owning firearms can not be used as a predictor of either total homicide rates or even firearm related homicide rates. It indicates that other social conditions are most likely the cause of homicide and maybe if those issues were addressed the numbers would look drastically different. Don't have time to go into further research on stats, but I'm willing to bet that a majority of those homicides in the US are related to the illegal drug trade. I'm sure I could find some numbers that would strongly support the decriminalization of drugs as a means to reduce homicides more effectively than gun control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #42 January 7, 2003 Quote Either way Justin, I think neither of us want our kids to grow up in a society where one requires a sidearm just to 'feel comfortable'. Whichever way you look at it, that just ain't right. It isn't supposed to be like that. I totally agree. As you've probably seen in the numerous gun control debates, I'm in favor of both limiting public ownership and tough enforcement of smarter gun laws. Philisophically and practically, I just don't buy the "Guns=Freedom" and "Guns=Safety" arguements. They are both inherently flawed. I'm not that worried about my daughter seeing fictional violence in movies, as the nightly news has plenty of real violence to disturb her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #43 January 7, 2003 I have to say I am pretty impressed this thread produced some valid statistics and interesting opinions. Often this topic=flame bait. I offer a collective beer to all.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #44 January 7, 2003 Quote Often this topic=flame bait. No! You can't be serious! Quote I offer a collective beer to all. Accepted and enjoyed. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #45 January 7, 2003 Phillykev, once again those stats in isolation are kinda meaningless, especially these "N. Ireland %households w/ guns: 8.4 total homicide/100k pop: 6.09 firearm homicide/100k pop: 5.24 " There's been a spot of trouble over there recently, its called terrorism, and its been going on for a wee while. The people using the guns are hardly likely to have them registered, so they wouldn't really show up on any kind of census. That said, I'd also rather live in Northern Ireland than Bummingggghummmm, because I've worked in Belfast as well, and its a great party town.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #46 January 7, 2003 That's exactly the point that I'm trying to make. The cause of the high homicide in N. Ireland is not rate of gun ownership, but other social conditions. My claim is that the same is true in the US. I believe we could have 100% gun ownership yet have a much lower homicide rate if other social issues were addressed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #47 January 7, 2003 Kev, I think we are in agreement so I'm accepting Malachi's fine Texan beer, and am enjoying it right now ...cheers!-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tb62871 0 #48 January 7, 2003 Arm everyone and see who still wants to shoot KNOWING that the person that they shot at CAN shoot back. Just my opinion. Or is it? --TB Welcome my friends to the show that never ends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hagar 0 #49 January 7, 2003 QuoteUS %households with guns: 39 Homicides/100k pop: 5.7 Firearm homicide/100k pop: 3.72 Norway %households w/ guns: 32 total homicide/100k pop: 0.97 firearm homicide/100k pop: 0.30 I have a possible explanation for that: Most guns in Norway are either hunting rifles, shotguns or assault rifles. Not easy to hide when you are up to no good, not something you bring 'just in case' either. Do you have any numbers or general idea about long guns vs short guns used in crime?--- PCSS #10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #50 January 7, 2003 Quote Quote Either way Justin, I think neither of us want our kids to grow up in a society where one requires a sidearm just to 'feel comfortable'. Whichever way you look at it, that just ain't right. It isn't supposed to be like that. I totally agree. As you've probably seen in the numerous gun control debates, I'm in favor of both limiting public ownership and tough enforcement of smarter gun laws. Philisophically and practically, I just don't buy the "Guns=Freedom" and "Guns=Safety" arguements. They are both inherently flawed. I'm not that worried about my daughter seeing fictional violence in movies, as the nightly news has plenty of real violence to disturb her. Tell that to the young woman in California whose siblings were killed by a psycho armed with a pitchfork three years ago. When Gun Safety Locks Kill When Gun Safety Locks Kill by Erich Pratt Director of Communications Gun Owners of America August 2001 It has been said that if you don't study history, you are doomed to repeat it. That's why Americans should take note of a horrible tragedy that occurred one year ago this month in Merced, California. It is a tragedy that could have been prevented. On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce was high on drugs. He slipped inside a home when the parents were away and began attacking the children inside. Armed only with a pitchfork, and without a stitch of clothing on his body, Bruce proceeded to chase the children through the house -- stabbing them repeatedly. The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was babysitting at the time. Having been trained by her father, Jessica knew how to use a firearm. There was just one problem: the household gun was locked up in compliance with California state law. Because of California's "lock up your safety" law, Jessica had few options. She could not call 911 because the intruder had cut the phone lines to the house. She could not protect herself, for state officials had effectively removed that possibility. Her only option was to flee the house and leave her siblings behind. Thankfully, Mr. Bruce's murderous rampage was finally cut short when police officers arrived at the house. They shot and killed Bruce, but not before two children had already been murdered. Now, notice when the attack ended. It screeched to a halt when the good guys -- carrying guns -- showed up on the scene. Which has made many wonder: could Jessica have protected her brother and sister if the state law had not prevented her from doing so? Well, the family seems to think so. After the murders, Jessica's uncle, Rev. John Hilton, blasted California legislators for having scared the father into hiding the gun where Jessica, who was trained in the use of firearms, could not get it. "If only [Jessica] had a gun available to her," said Rev. Hilton, "she could have stopped the whole thing. If she had been properly armed, she could have stopped him in his tracks." Of course, that kind of talk sends gun haters into orbit. "Hold on," they say. "Kids shouldn't have access to guns. And you can't expect a 14-year-old to handle a weapon in a responsible fashion during a high-pressure encounter like that." Oh really? Tell that to the 12-year-old Mississippi girl who used a gun to save her mother's life this past April. The girl's mother was being choked in her own apartment by Anthony Fox, a 25-year-old man who had forced his way into the apartment. The cries for help woke up the daughter who grabbed her mother's handgun and shot Fox in the chest. One shot. One dead killer. A 12-year-old saves the day. Prosecutors ruled the shooting a case of justifiable self-defense. Which brings us back to Jessica. She could very well have saved the lives of her two siblings. If she had access to her father's gun to save those children's lives, would that have been wrong? For that matter, was it wrong for the 12-year-old girl in Mississippi to have access to her mother's handgun in order to prevent a murder? In California, the answer to these questions is: "Yes, it is always wrong for anyone to have immediate access to a firearm, even when it's to save the life of a family member." Governor Gray Davis just signed a bill last month putting more "teeth" into California's original gun storage law. Under the new legislation, parents face additional criminal penalties if they refuse to lock up their best means of self-defense. Many legislators -- both at the state level and in Washington, D.C. -- seem to think they know what's best for each family in every situation. Parents are told they need to put trigger locks on their guns. Or that they must store their ammunition separately from their firearms. Or that they must store the weapons in a safe. But many times, locking up your safety in any of those ways can be deadly. Americans use guns almost 50,000 times every week to defend themselves or others. And in most of those situations, a trigger lock would give criminals the advantage. Consider a case from March of this year, where a trigger lock would have cost the life of homeowner, Chuck Harris. After being repeatedly stabbed by three young men in his Colorado home, Harris managed to grab the .44-Magnum pistol he kept in a desk drawer. Thankfully, Harris didn't have to remember a combination or fiddle with a trigger lock -- he just pointed the gun and fired. That quick thinking saved his life, and has caused Harris to later reflect upon what was, perhaps, the obvious. "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead," he said. "If my pistol had been in a gun safe, I'd be dead. If the bullets were stored separate, I'd be dead. They were going to kill me." Which raises a very important question: when it comes to life or death issues, who is best suited to make choices for you? You, or some faceless bureaucrat who is hundreds of miles away, impotent to rush to your aid? You, or the politicians in the U.S. Congress? It would, perhaps, help to know how those bureaucrats and politicians answer that question for themselves. They are not left unprotected. They have security officers nearby who are carrying guns. And no, those guns don't have trigger locks on them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm always hearing the bleeding hearts going on about "If it saves the life of one child..." Therefore, I challenge you: WHAT ABOUT THESE CHILDREN? I'm dying to read your answer."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
