Gun QUestion for the Yanks...

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

How does a rifle in the home prevent street crime?

By me shooting criminals who happen to be in the street in front of my home.

I really don't understand why this subject raises such passion. Why do you guys (meaning: my neighbors) want to take away firearms from me that you are unlikely ever to see.

I don't. I just want to see his claim verified.

Quote

Vierd.

And screw the statistics. People lie with statistics routinely. 'Member about 10 years ago when all those nice tourists were being carjacked in Florida? Since Florida is a "shall issue" state, the only way to know for sure that somebody was not armed in Florida was to carjack a rental car from an international airport.

But, Dr. Kallend, it's unlikely that anybody will change either of our minds about this, so the continued "look at these numbers!" "No! Look at these!" is silly. We should just put all these arguments in a folder and link to them when the subject comes up.

It's very difficult to lie about homicide statistics. Homicides are difficult to cover up and almost never go unreported.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

I am still looking...I will find it but until then enjoy this....

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

Example -

I am walking down a street in London - or any ol' town in England.
I am approached, and my wallet is demanded, I will say no. If they are persistant and have a weapon, I will fire my hand gun point blank, end of story. No third chances. I say third because you had chance one - the decision to try to rob me, two, I said no. Insisting is three. If you have no weapon, I will show you mine, if you don't leave - same thing - I will not draw my weapon unless I am ready to use it.

If I cannot carry one in a city known for it's crime rate, and muggings, I will not go there.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Homicides are difficult to cover up and almost never go unreported.

Tell that to the people in the foundation of my swimming pool.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

In moving to a country where private gun ownership is unusual, bordering on illegal, how willing would you be to discard your toys?

They are not my toys, they are my tools.

Quote

Would you chuck your job or relationship rather than give up your guns?

I wouldn't relocate to the UK. I enjoy visiting, but that's about as far as I would go. I haven't been to Aus, but I imagine I'd feel the same. I can always get another job, and my woman likes the states just fine.

Quote

Would you happily give up your guns to fit in with a society where the normal, law abiding majority, and the vast majority of the criminal element did not possess or use forearms?

If I ever left all the tools of self defense behind, it wouldn't be because I want to "fit in," but rather to obey the law. I was born in New Jersey and went to University of Maryland (two of the top five anti-gun states in the US). I can deal with not "fitting in" to every little nuance of my community. I still value my individuality.

ps - the vast majority of our criminals don't use firearms, either. They do have forearms though.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Report
2002

page 13

Willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

Rate: 5.6 per 100,000 of population.

That was easy to find. Why is the UK Home Office site so frigging hard to navigate? Good luck finding any specific information there.

edit: I found some numbers, but they are not comparable to the US category. Far too small or far too large. I guess they just don't want to tell you how many peoplewere killed by other people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Homicides are difficult to cover up and almost never go unreported.

Tell that to the people in the foundation of my swimming pool.

You too?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

No offense, but who the fuck are the people who put together that information? What is their reliability? Why are they to be believed, anyway?

Oh dear. It's source Jeffrey is listed at the bottom of the table. The data is from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention).

The United Nations has adopted the stance that civilians around the world should not have the right to own personal firearms. I hardly think can be considered an unbiased source of information, much as I'm sure you don't think that any pro-gun information we might post with the NRA as its source would be legitimate.

What about the survey that found people six times more likely to be the victim of violent crime in London versus New York City?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

People who advocate that attitude, or tolerate those restrictions, pretty much deserve what happens if they are victimized.

That's a very interesting statement, Jeffrey. Do you really mean it?

I was raped when I was 21 by four men in a pub car park. I'm sure that if I had been carrying a gun, I could have prevented it from happening. Does that mean I deserved it?

This (surprisingly, seeings its coming from me ) isn't an attempt to start a flame war, and I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in what you really think Jeffrey.

Oh, and sorry for taking this off topic, Mike.

I'm genuinely sorry you were raped. That shouldn't have happened, and I think that the people who did it should be dead.

My statement is meant more in the abstract, more as a generality. In one way, yes, a person who has not taken steps to prevent victimization reaps the effects of that failure to prepare for defense. That means one has to walk a fine line between being relaxed in his/her everyday affairs, and bristling with preparedness to go into personal combat mode. I'm not saying it's easy.

But a society that eschews, with prejudice, any effort to allow, much less encourage, individuals to defend themselves from criminal predation does deserve to have high crime rates. That is no the same, really, as an individual deserving to be a victim. Perhaps I should have said "*A* people, not just people." It would have been closer to what I meant.

Women in the USA actively repel rapists by being armed. It happens. And statistically (JohnRich has posted about it) those who fight back against criminal attack with a weapon are injured at a lower rate than those who acquiesce to their attacker, or who fight back without weapons. It's just a fact of life, if you want to survive, you have to be ready to do damage, and that generally means "have a weapon at your disposal."

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

People who advocate that attitude, or tolerate those restrictions, pretty much deserve what happens if they are victimized.

That's a very interesting statement, Jeffrey. Do you really mean it?

I was raped when I was 21 by four men in a pub car park. I'm sure that if I had been carrying a gun, I could have prevented it from happening. Does that mean I deserved it?

This (surprisingly, seeings its coming from me ) isn't an attempt to start a flame war, and I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in what you really think Jeffrey.

Oh, and sorry for taking this off topic, Mike.

Nope...you didn't deserve it and too bad you didn't have a gun to permanently remove those a$$holes from the gene pool.

Rock ON, Lady! You're my kind of woman!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Nope...you didn't deserve it and too bad you didn't have a gun to permanently remove those a$$holes from the gene pool.

Yes, you're probably right. Although I'm not sure if the impact on me of killing someone would have been better than the impact of being raped. That sounds stupid, doesn't it?

But, either way, its an interesting point that Jeffrey's raised isn't it? I mean, if I'd have had a gun, I'd have been ok, if they had been decent people, I'd have been ok.

I guess its like we need better people, not necessarily more guns.

I'd say that in the meantime, while we're waiting for the basest, most evil people among society to become such sweethearts, it's best to be armed to defend yourself when one of the stragglers (or four) cross your path.

Which is the more immediately effective solution: to arm yourself, or to wait for everyone to become benign and good at heart?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The country to which you refer also has just about the most homogenous population in the world and (depending on which year you look at) the highest per capita income in the world.

How does a rifle at home prevent street crime?

The question remains - can anyone provide a link to a reliable source that shows the UK has a higher per-capita firearms murder rate than the US?

I never said the UK had a higher per capita murder rate, someone else did, but I do know that while our U.S. rate may be higher (MAY), ours is not growing by leaps and bounds the way the UK rate is, in the sense of double-digit percentage increases! THAT is FACT.

We in the U.S. have available numerous cities and states that can be used to contrast what happens when concealed firearm carry is legal with what happens when it is not. It is not legal in Detroit, New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago. These happen to be the areas where murder rates and violent crime are the highest. Vermont, which does not even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun (neither does Alaska, now), has one of the lowest violent crime/murder rates in the entire nation.

Your comment about Switzerland's population being homogenous seems to indicate you think a homogenous population generally has a lower crime rate than a multicultural one. Can we take that to mean that if a society really wanted to decrease its violent crime, it ought to seek out ways to make the culture homogenous? If the government fails to take such steps, isn't it not doing all it could to make its citizens safer??

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope...you didn't deserve it and too bad you didn't have a gun to permanently remove those a$$holes from the gene pool.

Yes, you're probably right. Although I'm not sure if the impact on me of killing someone would have been better than the impact of being raped. That sounds stupid, doesn't it?

But, either way, its an interesting point that Jeffrey's raised isn't it? I mean, if I'd have had a gun, I'd have been ok, if they had been decent people, I'd have been ok.

I guess its like we need better people, not necessarily more guns.

I'd say that in the meantime, while we're waiting for the basest, most evil people among society to become such sweethearts, it's best to be armed to defend yourself when one of the stragglers (or four) cross your path.

Which is the more immediately effective solution: to arm yourself, or to wait for everyone to become benign and good at heart?

-

It must be terrible to live your life in constant fear.

I've lived and worked on the south side of Chicago for 26 years and I do NOT feel the need to arm myself against would-be attackers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

on the south side of Chicago

Isn't that the 'baddest part of town'?

[billvon 3,076]

>I thought the question was more about being willing to live without them . . .

I've fired them, but I don't own one and I've never needed one. On the other hand, I have used my reserve five times so far, yet I am still willing to jump without one (under the proper conditions of course.) So in terms of "needing" things, guns would come well below reserves for me, and I could live without reserves. Although I wouldn't be that happy since I'd be jumping a lot less.

[billvon 3,076]

>Isn't that the 'baddest part of town'?

Not since Leroy Brown was reduced to a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone.

[Deuce 1]

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If the nation does not carry guns it does not use guns in self-defence. If they are not used in self-defence they cannot be an impact on crime. If they would not be an impact on crime there is no real logic in stating that legalising them would lead to a reduction in crime here.

What you are failing to consider is the new reality -- guns are pouring into your country, from wherever they may (eastern Europe is the suspectd culprit, right?). They are being used in gang and mafia warfare, but some number of them IS trickling and WILL continue to trickle down through the black market to street criminals, including robbers, rapists, burglars, muggers, and drug dealers. Given time, this will result in more of your average civilian population being victimized with them.

You say that since they are not being used in self defense, they cannot be an impact on crime. How's that? If hundreds of thousands more come flowing into your country, they will have an impact on crime. They will be used in crime. More people who didn't have guns with which to commit crimes will have them. Confiscating guns from honest people who had licensed them is what won't have an effect on crime.

But let's say you did now begin to license civilians to carry guns, in response to the knowledge that over the next decade more and more street criminals will be obtaining and using them. That will have an impact on crime. It may even help keep your crime rate under relative control. From all accounts, it is spiraling OUT of control as we speak.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I don't. I just want to see his claim verified.

In the meantime, this section from the link he provided is interesting, although it's probably best discussed in a different thread. I just thought I'd contribute it as "color" for the background of a discussion about civilian safety in England:
------------------
Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)
------------------

Chilling.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

It must be terrible to live your life in constant fear.

Yes, you're probably right. But then, I wouldn't know for sure because I don't live my life in constant fear. I live in constant preparedness to deal with threats to my safety. There is a huge difference, and you apparently do not understand it.

Quote

I've lived and worked on the south side of Chicago for 26 years and I do NOT feel the need to arm myself against would-be attackers.

I've cooked in my kitchen, at various residences, for twenty-some of my 32 years. I have never had a fire that I had to deal with. Therefore I do not feel the need to equip my kitchen with a fire extinguisher.

See the parallel? (By the way, the statement is false. I DO have a fire extinguisher, because I realize not having had a fire is no guarantee of never needing an extinguisher in the future.)

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>I thought the question was more about being willing to live without them . . .

I've fired them, but I don't own one and I've never needed one. On the other hand, I have used my reserve five times so far, yet I am still willing to jump without one (under the proper conditions of course.) So in terms of "needing" things, guns would come well below reserves for me, and I could live without reserves. Although I wouldn't be that happy since I'd be jumping a lot less.

Silly me, I thought that stating you had used your reserve parachute FIVE TIMES proved that you would have DIED without it, not that you don't need it. All you're saying is that you feel able to selectively determine when you will or won't need to have a reserve with you. Fine. As with a gun, I can selectively determine whether I'm likely to need it in my daily travels. If I'm just going 1 mile away to Publix, I'm very unlikely to have to use my gun in self defense. I still take it, because I am unable to know what may happen on the way to, while in, and on the way back from the store. Perhaps I'll come home to disturb an armed burglar?

Pray tell, when are these "proper conditions" when you feel it's perfectly safe to jump without a reserve? Are you talking BASE jumps, or something else? Are you prepared to let these exceptions be the rule?

Your example of having needed, and used, a reserve parachute five times is tantamount to saying that you'd have died now, five times over, if you had not had it there to deploy. And yet you use your (reckless? responsible? considered? ill-considered?) willingness to now and then jump without a reserve as some sort of cockamamie proof that guns are unnecessary? You say that guns come well below reserves, and you've needed the reserve.

I find it odd that someone whose life was saved by reserves five times could ever say, "I could live without reserves." If that is not a recklessly stupid statement, I don't think I'd know one. You seem to be implying you'll always be in control of your need of emergency life-saving devices (both reserve parachutes and guns qualify).

Man, you really lost me on that one, as I'm sure you did others.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>Isn't that the 'baddest part of town'?

Not since Leroy Brown was reduced to a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone.

That was bad, bad.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

But let's say you did now begin to license civilians to carry guns, in response to the knowledge that over the next decade more and more street criminals will be obtaining and using them. That will have an impact on crime.

I simply mean that there are not that many people who have ever wanted to carry firearms in this country. It's not part of our history; it's not entered our national psyche. It's simply not something the average Brit would ever consider.

My simple point was that just because it would be legal to carry a firearm, doesn't mean people would suddenly start doing so. That is the link to our culture I'm trying to explain. The legality or otherwise of firearms here may have a far less effect than in America as there is a far greater proportion of Americans who want to arm themselves by comparison to Brits.

That's my only point on cultures. Legality simply does not automatically mean they'll be carried. If they're not carried they wont impact on crime - even if they are legal.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"What about the survey that found people six times more likely to be the victim of violent crime in London versus New York City?"

Hearsay, and urban myth until you can actually point people to a source for the survey.

But I don't actually give a rat's ass, we in the UK are actually quite happy in our (apparently) vulnerable idyll.

I don't want our gun laws to change, neither does Mr2, and probably neither does Skyrad, I'm not sure about MikeD, but I'd hazard a guess that he does not need the extra overtime that free gun ownership might bring.
So, of the UK peeps who regularly partake in political debates here, none of us want to change our laws.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that there is a cultural difference in our respective approaches to firearm legislation.

This particular dead horse has been well and truly flogged.

We have been driving on the left hand side of the road since an act of parliament in 1772, perhaps you'd like us to change that as well?

--------------------

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

[Ripple 0]

Quote

I'd say that in the meantime, while we're waiting for the basest, most evil people among society to become such sweethearts, it's best to be armed to defend yourself when one of the stragglers (or four) cross your path.

Which is the more immediately effective solution: to arm yourself, or to wait for everyone to become benign and good at heart?

Thanks for replying Jeffrey, I thought you'd forgotten

You're right, arming oneself is the most effective way of dealing with the immediate situation. However, don't you think that its rather like treating the symptom, rather than the cause?

I know there are a huge number of 'causes' for crime, violent or otherwise, and its a huge subject to tackle. Nevertheless, I believe that because we have the means of dealing with the symptom, we have, largely, absolved ourselves of finding a way of dealing with the cause. Consequently, because we don't have to deal with the cause, it never gets treated and therefore, has the opportunity to grow and grow and never go away.

So maybe it a bit of both, have some way of protecting oneself (whether that's a gun, or awareness or whatever), but look for ways of addressing the causes of crime too.

What d'ya reckon?

Btw, I'm not for or against guns, per se. But I'd rather have them used purely for sport, than as a means of protection.

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes