kallend 2,150 #51 December 11, 2004 QuoteJust wanted to include the next paragraph of the work you cited as reliable... QuoteDespite all these reasonable explanations for the few odd results, the latter create enough doubt to cause one to worry about the robustness, if not the direction, of the authors' overall conclusion about deterrence. As mentioned earlier, one of the strengths of John Lott's work on guns is that the continued attacks by opponents of his view have resulted in continuous reassessment that has confirmed and thereby strengthened his original conclusions. His original paper was reworked into a book, More Guns, Less Crime, in 1998, which was updated again with a second edition, in 2000. ...since I recall you being such a fan of John Lott's work and all. Incorrect memory. My concern with Lott is that he has been claimed to be a University of Chicago Professor (John Rich said this a year or so back), when in fact he never held such a post. PS just because he has strengthened his conclusions doesn't meant at they are correct or that other researchers agree with them - I believe many have criticized his methodology. I haven't looked in detail at the work or at the criticism, so I don't know who is correct.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nate_1979 9 #52 December 11, 2004 Quote 1997 was the year that all handguns and all semi-auto long guns were confiscated. And since then, gun crime has doubled! Is this your idea of a successful gun law? You should pray that you don't have more such "successes"... Ofcourse the gun crimes increased, they made it easy for the criminals.. You do something stupid to somebody here in the good 'ol USA and you have this little thought in the back of your head that "hey, this guy could be armed".. might make you think twice,.. Make it illiegal and now the criminals know that only they have guns now, much less threat, easier targets, why not... I'll keep my gun(s) thank ya very much FGF #??? I miss the sky... There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #53 December 11, 2004 I wonder how many criminals that carry guns would be prepared to use them?! I would think a good percentage... after all - they mostly think they wont get caught... Bearing that in mind - Do you think there is a possibility that if some criminals thought there was a chance someone was going to defend with a gun they may just be prepared to shoot earlier? - If I was going to rob someone at gun point.... I would probably be drawn and prepared before they are..? Just a thought Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nate_1979 9 #54 December 12, 2004 Quote I wonder how many criminals that carry guns would be prepared to use them?! I would think a good percentage... after all - they mostly think they wont get caught... Bearing that in mind - Do you think there is a possibility that if some criminals thought there was a chance someone was going to defend with a gun they may just be prepared to shoot earlier? - If I was going to rob someone at gun point.... I would probably be drawn and prepared before they are..? Just a thought Robbery at gun point is one thing... Does a law keep the robber from having a gun? NO, they break the law, why would they not break that one also.. Guns will always be available, like drugs, legal or not.. Something that they may think twice about would be something like breaking into a house, or commiting some kind of crime in a public place where who knows if a home owner / person standing around has a gun ready in the house / or in the case of a public type place may have a conceled weapon (with a permit)... I have had a permit to carry mine, rarely ever used it, .. But it is there, and I have used it in the past, just adds that extra doubt when they know they may not be the only one with a weapon, I feel that is a GOOD thing.. FGF #??? I miss the sky... There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #55 December 12, 2004 Yes Nate, and I accept all of those points.... but they in no way refer to the post I made! It was about a criminals willingness to use a gun (ie Shoot it) as they would be prepared first Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #56 December 12, 2004 An interesting read for some England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #57 December 12, 2004 Intersting in places - and also laughable in others. I love the opening, where as do alot of posters on here refer to independance history etc... Just for the record - I have no rememberance of that or any other war personally, and have certainly 'gotten over it' I think we would all do alot better in a gun discussion if we ruled out History, National pride, and one-up-manship, while sticking to the issue... guns! Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #58 December 12, 2004 Quote Intersting in places - and also laughable in others. I love the opening, where as do alot of posters on here refer to independance history etc... Just for the record - I have no rememberance of that or any other war personally, and have certainly 'gotten over it' I think we would all do alot better in a gun discussion if we ruled out History, National pride, and one-up-manship, while sticking to the issue... guns! The author seems to hero-worship Pinochet! I don't see that as an indication of good judgement. That said, the UK guns laws are indeed absurd. Britain came to rule the biggest empire in the history of mankind by being a pirate nation, not by being goody-goody. The Empire fell apart because after the butchery of WWI the British lost the will to be nasty.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #59 December 12, 2004 QuoteI wonder how many criminals that carry guns would be prepared to use them?! I would think a good percentage... after all - they mostly think they wont get caught... Well, here in the states, I would say criminals that carry are ready to use them. Afterall, here in the states we have very aggressive prosecution of any use of a gun in a crime. It would be foolish to carry and not use itwhen carrying brings such a heavy penalty. However, any jurisdiction where guns are against the law but not heavily punished (as many articles describe England to be) more criminals would be likely to carry them but not necessarily ready to use them. QuoteBearing that in mind - Do you think there is a possibility that if some criminals thought there was a chance someone was going to defend with a gun they may just be prepared to shoot earlier? No. Most criminals a re not suicidal, and they choose the weakest, easiest prey. The possibility of a victim being armed scares the bejeezus out of hoodlums. Studies have shown that a high likelyhood of victims that will fight back lead to a drop in confrontation crimes and a rise in property crimes where the owner is absent (car theft, burglary). Studies have also shown that a disarmed victim pool leads to a rise in confrontation crimes such as home invasion and robbery. Quote - If I was going to rob someone at gun point.... I would probably be drawn and prepared before they are..? Just a thought You'd be a very poor robber if you didn't have your weapon out before your intended victim. Yes, action is faster than reaction.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #60 December 12, 2004 QuoteYou'd be a very poor robber if you didn't have your weapon out before your intended victim Always wanted to be on TV... but America's dumbest criminals will have to do as a starting point Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 December 13, 2004 QuoteI wonder how many criminals that carry guns would be prepared to use them?! Do you think there is a possibility that if some criminals thought there was a chance someone was going to defend with a gun they may just be prepared to shoot earlier? Your theory that haveing armed citizens will lead to more shooting deaths by criminals, is incorrect. Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection: Robbery Assault Physical force ............................ 51% 52% Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 49% 40% Knife ..................................... 40% 30% Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 35% 26% Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 31% 25% Other measures ............................ 27% 21% No self protection ........................ 25% 27% Other weapon .............................. 22% 25% Gun ....................................... 17% 12% From: Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", Table 4.4. Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b). Note: Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal incident can involve several different types of self- protection methods. Notice how the victim having a *gun* is *the* best method of avoiding injury? That info directly contradicts your theory... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #62 December 13, 2004 QuoteIt was about a criminals willingness to use a gun (ie Shoot it) as they would be prepared first According to your theory then, the states which have passed concealed handgun laws for their citizens, should have increased shooting deaths from criminals. But in fact, the exact opposite has happened - crime has gone down. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns" John R. Lott, Jr. School of Law University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 and David B. Mustard Department of Economics University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 July 26, 1996 Abstract "Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect in the highest crime counties." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/search.taf Search by author Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #63 December 13, 2004 Quote Yes Nate, and I accept all of those points.... but they in no way refer to the post I made! It was about a criminals willingness to use a gun (ie Shoot it) as they would be prepared first If I'm carrying a gun, and someone points a gun at me, the last thing I'm going to do is draw mine. They'd shoot me as soon as i made a move. So my having a gun has no bearing on the scenario you presented. But then you say the criminal may be more likely to just shoot first. If that's the case and instead of just being suprised by a gun being pointed at me I'm suprised by a bullet in my shoulder, I'm going to be pretty glad I have my own. And your entire scenario is completely illogical and has been proven so by the facts posted here many times. In areas that have adopted concealed carry for citizens, robbery and other violent crimes have generally decreased while property crimes, theft have increased. In other words, the criminals have decided it's safer for themselves to break into a car for the stereo, than carjack a person in a car driving down the road. And they're right, it's safer for them AND it's safer for us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #64 December 13, 2004 QuoteJust thought it would be fun to note that quite a few criminals have been locked up for illegally possesing guns here in the UK Hence proving that some gun laws do stop some criminals That's not a gun control law, that's a criminal control law, and, yes, sending criminals to jail when they break the law is good thing. In the U.S., it's a felony violation for a convicted felon to even attempt to buy a gun, with up to 10 years in prison. The Clinton administration would brag that it's restrictive laws of background checks prevented up to 100,000 felons from purchasing firearms each year, yet how many cases did they insist on prosecuting each year? Less than a dozen. Sounds pretty soft on criminals, but as hard as they could get away with on law abiding gun owners. Let's hear it for cheap hi cap mags again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #65 December 13, 2004 QuoteLet's hear it for cheap hi cap mags again Woot! Nevermind the new AR-15 I'm going to put on lay-away sometime in jan/feb...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 16 #66 December 13, 2004 That said, the UK guns laws are indeed absurd. Britain came to rule the biggest empire in the history of mankind by being a pirate nation, not by being goody-goody. The Empire fell apart because after the butchery of WWI the British lost the will to be nasty. Much of the gun control enacted in the 1920's and 30's in England were a reaction not to lawlessness, but to the successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. That scared the hell out of a lot of governments, and in the disatisfaction following WWI, it led to them to disarm their populace as a means of keeping the ruling class in power. That, of course, has been a strategy for many unpopular governments over the years. I'm sure you know that the government of Britain then had to beg for scores of thousands of personal firearms from U.S. citizens to arm their own citizens against Hitler's seemingly imminent invasion a few years later. Like Chairman Mao used to say, "True power comes from the barrel of a gun." Don't give it up without a fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #65 December 13, 2004 QuoteLet's hear it for cheap hi cap mags again Woot! Nevermind the new AR-15 I'm going to put on lay-away sometime in jan/feb...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #66 December 13, 2004 That said, the UK guns laws are indeed absurd. Britain came to rule the biggest empire in the history of mankind by being a pirate nation, not by being goody-goody. The Empire fell apart because after the butchery of WWI the British lost the will to be nasty. Much of the gun control enacted in the 1920's and 30's in England were a reaction not to lawlessness, but to the successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. That scared the hell out of a lot of governments, and in the disatisfaction following WWI, it led to them to disarm their populace as a means of keeping the ruling class in power. That, of course, has been a strategy for many unpopular governments over the years. I'm sure you know that the government of Britain then had to beg for scores of thousands of personal firearms from U.S. citizens to arm their own citizens against Hitler's seemingly imminent invasion a few years later. Like Chairman Mao used to say, "True power comes from the barrel of a gun." Don't give it up without a fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #67 December 13, 2004 QuoteYour theory that haveing armed citizens will lead to more shooting deaths by criminals, is incorrect. Thats not really what my theory is at all.. My theory :- . More guns in circulation = easier access for crimnials Hence I agree with citizen right to own in US (which guns are rife already) and think enabling a flood of weapons in the UK would be stupid. . More guns = more accidents Hence a flood of guns in the UK would not help that either . Defence by gun in the UK is not really necessary IMHO As your not likely to meet a criminal with a gun (more likely if you are a criminal) - PS Dont come back with the criminals in the UK are all armed via the black market... yes some have guns ... probably too many... but not every criminal has a gun by a long long way. So... my view Guns for you US people.... Not for UK people. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #68 December 13, 2004 QuoteMore guns in circulation = easier access for crimnials Actually, criminals will always have access to whatever basic items they want. The only variable is the price. QuoteMore guns = more accidents This is simply not true. The number of guns in the USA has risen every year for decades, and the number of accidents involving guns has dropped. Your statement is false. QuoteDont come back with the criminals in the UK are all armed via the black market... yes some have guns ... probably too many... but not every criminal has a gun by a long long way. You're right about one thing. Not all UK criminals are armed. But you should keep in mind that not all USA criminals are armed, either. Neither one if for lack of a bility, it is because they chose not to be armed. Any UK criminal who wants a gun can get one. The ones who are not armed have chosen to be that way. editted for typo pointed out by Paulipod.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #69 December 13, 2004 QuoteMore guns = more accidents This is simply not true. The number of guns in the USA has risen every year for decades, and so has the number of accidents involving guns. Your statement is false Am I missing it.... or are you saying my statement is false after verifying it with facts? Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #70 December 13, 2004 QuoteAny UK criminal who wants a gun can get one. The ones who are not armed have chosen to be that way. This is simply do not accept. It is NOT that easy to get a gun.... and to this point - I have asked all the 'bad' people I know. Some sell drugs, others are just nasty (note I said ppl I know not like! lol - I used to live in a rough area) And not a single one of them has a gun that they could sell.... or get hold of within a short space of time. Simply put - Yes people can always get hold of stuff.... but It would certainly be alot easier for me to get a gun if I was so minded - If everyone had one. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #71 December 13, 2004 Quote Am I missing it.... or are you saying my statement is false after verifying it with facts? That was a typo. The facts are that the number of guns in the US has risen each year and the number of accidents has dropped each year. (hence John's starting this thread) Just like more guns does not equal more crime, it also does not equal more accidents.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #72 December 13, 2004 Here's something to chew on: Chicago's murder rate has declined by nearly 50% over the past two years. And no, King Richard does not allow concealed carry.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #73 December 13, 2004 Quote Just like more guns does not equal more crime, it also does not equal more accidents Dont agree. If 1000 people had guns, they are more likely to have a larger number of accidents than a single person with a gun. Simple mathamatical probability. You would be right in suggesting that the accident likelyhood also has other factors involved (like public awareness / safety campaigns / general culture etc) but the primary influence still stands..... More guns = likely more accidents. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #74 December 13, 2004 QuoteMy theory :-. More guns in circulation = easier access for crimnials "The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted... There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996. QuoteDefence by gun in the UK is not really necessary IMHO As your not likely to meet a criminal with a gun Criminals don't need a gun to rape, hurt or kill you. A self defense gun in the home will protect you against all manner of intruders, armed or not. "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #75 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteAny UK criminal who wants a gun can get one. The ones who are not armed have chosen to be that way. This is simply do not accept. It is NOT that easy to get a gun... England confiscated all handguns and semi-auto long guns in 1997. Now, in 2004, gun crime in England has doubled since that mass confiscation. If your theory were plausible, this fact could not be true. But since it is, by your own Home Office statistics, then your theory must be incorrect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
