0
mnealtx

Gun control/availability of guns

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed.



Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did.

A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals.



Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.)



We also know from the US DoJ that guns are a favorite target of thieves, right up there with cash and jewelry. Hard to steal guns if you're avoiding them.



Weak sauce, Professor.... re-read the passage of mine you originally quoted, paying careful attention to the last seven words.



The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".



And the plural of "doctor" is not "statistician".

GIYF.



More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".



And the plural of "doctor" is not "statistician".

GIYF.



More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.



Putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda again, Professor....I honestly expected better of you.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".



And the plural of "doctor" is not "statistician".

GIYF.



More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.



Putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda again, Professor....I honestly expected better of you.



Hard to rebut data from the US DoJ, isn't it?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".



And the plural of "doctor" is not "statistician".

GIYF.



More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.



Putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda again, Professor....I honestly expected better of you.



Hard to rebut data from the US DoJ, isn't it?



What was the link to the DATA, again? I've only seen you post ANECDOTES.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

.....The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society.



I say let 'em kill each other off. They shouldn't even be listed a homicides.

Similarly, how many murder victims are particularly innocent? Should a couple drug dealers killed in a shootout be considered murder victims? I'm not sure how far it should go, but many victims put themselves at risk by their behavior.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".



And the plural of "doctor" is not "statistician".

GIYF.


More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.


Putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda again, Professor....I honestly expected better of you.


Hard to rebut data from the US DoJ, isn't it?


What was the link to the DATA, again? I've only seen you post ANECDOTES.


No, you haven't. You've seen the links over and over because you have participated in the threads where they are posted and commented yourself on the data in the link:P.:D:D

Here's some more stuff for you:

In 2004, the US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics released “Cross-National Studies in Crime and Justice,” which not only examined what might be responsible for the decline in U.S. crime rates but also put the U.S. crime rate in an international context, comparing U.S. data with that from England and Wales, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland.

It found that following a reduction since the mid 1990s, "crime now occurs in the United States with about the same frequency as in England and Wales".


The DoJ also wrote "The falling rates of crime in the United States most consistently were related to the aging of the population, falling unemployment rates, and rising risk of punishment by the justice system." NOTHING there about guns scaring off criminals.



The US DoJ also stated (data from actual reports) that guns are stolen from "law abiding citizens" about 4x as often as they are used to deter crimes (contradicting the Kleck study so beloved of the NRA).

And blaming the US "violent culture" for the homicide rate way out of line with other western nations is total BS. If it were true, ALL violent crime in the US would be way out of line. In fact, it's only gun homicides that are way out of line.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.




How many are recovered?

How many are stolen and exported?

How many are later found to have been used in a crime?

"300,000 guns stolen in a typical year" doesn't mean much by itself.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.




How many are recovered?

How many are stolen and exported?

How many are later found to have been used in a crime?

"300,000 guns stolen in a typical year" doesn't mean much by itself.



It certainly means that 300,000+ times each year criminals DO go where there are firearms, contrary to the claim that criminals avoid such places. The subsequent disposition of the guns doesn't affect that in the slightest.

mnealtx has also previously posted DoJ data on where criminals get their guns. Since we know that, how about shutting down those supply routes? Oh! That might just be inconvenient so we can't do that.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It certainly means that 300,000+ times each year criminals DO go where there are firearms, contrary to the claim that criminals avoid such places. The subsequent disposition of the guns doesn't affect that in the slightest.



SHOW where I said criminal avoid all guns, or admit you're talking crap.

What I *said*, and what you are (as usual) misrepresenting, is that criminals tend to AVOID places where they know people will be armed, or houses that they suspect the occupants will be armed.

Quote

mnealtx has also previously posted DoJ dta on where criminals get their guns.



When did I post that? I don't recall posting the 300k / year data you claim - at least not that I can recall.

Quote

Since we know that, how about shutting down those supply routes? Oh that might just be inconvenient so we can't do that.



Find a way to do it that does not FURTHER infringe on the rights of the law-abiding gun owner and their ability to protect themselves and their families, and I will support you whole heartedly. Until you come up with that solution, your arguments are all heat and no light.

I would, however, LOVE to see you TRY to rebut Wright/Rossi/Daly's studies....or Dave Koppel, for that matter.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

More than 300,000 guns stolen in a typical year in the USA. I suppose you'll now claim the thieves were not criminals, since criminals avoid going where there are guns.




How many are recovered?

How many are stolen and exported?

How many are later found to have been used in a crime?

"300,000 guns stolen in a typical year" doesn't mean much by itself.



It certainly means that 300,000+ times each year criminals DO go where there are firearms, contrary to the claim that criminals avoid such places. The subsequent disposition of the guns doesn't affect that in the slightest.

mnealtx has also previously posted DoJ data on where criminals get their guns. Since we know that, how about shutting down those supply routes? Oh! That might just be inconvenient so we can't do that.




This thread is about Gun Availability v. Cultural Issues as they relate to gunkills, so when you posted about "300,000 guns stolen...", I thought it might be because you felt it was relevant to the thread subject, and might have some info about how many stolen guns became murder weapons.

As it turns out, your post was not relevant, and you don't have any idea how many stolen guns are used in murders. Could be zero, or it could be ~16,000, or whatever the total gunkill number is. Perhaps ALL gun crime is committed with stolen guns. Perhaps none. Does it matter to you?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
In 2004 about a third of women were killed by intimates, whereas only about 3% of men were killed by intimates. For the 1990-2004 period two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse victims were killed by guns. Detailed statistics for the 1976-2004 period is summarized in the following table (rounding errors give a total of 100.1%):
MURDERER MALE FEMALE
Intimate 5.3% 30.1%
Family 6.7% 11.7%
Acquaintance 35.5% 21.8%
Stranger 15.5% 8.8%
Undetermined 37.1% 27.7%
Total 100.1% 100.1%

Considering who kills who, the "criminal" appears to be the least of the problem. Best arm against those you know;)
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks)



Would that possibly be a

Quote

(gangs / drugs / lack of respect for the law / lack of responsibility)



issue? :)


Sure sounds like it to me. The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society.


Yeah, and stray bullets never killed any bystander. I mean, the US has smart bombs, I'm sure they have smart bullets as well. B|
And I won't even address the "as long as it's not my problem, it's not a problem at all" attitude.
Cheers,

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

.....The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society.



I say let 'em kill each other off. They shouldn't even be listed a homicides.

Similarly, how many murder victims are particularly innocent? Should a couple drug dealers killed in a shootout be considered murder victims? I'm not sure how far it should go, but many victims put themselves at risk by their behavior.



Yep. And women who get raped often are really asking for it, don't you agree? I mean, why weren't they safely in their homes instead of out in the street where they were attacked?
Ciao,

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Could it just POSSIBLY be a cultural issue (gangs/drugs/lack of respect for
>the law/lack of responsibility) and not an availability issue?

I believe it is, and that's the point that Moore makes in his movie. I think we, as a culture, see guns as symbols of virility, power and control; witness how armed criminals/policemen are represented in popular media. Once the gun appears, the person holding it "wins" whatever dispute is going on, and indeed this is portrayed as a common and indisputable means of controlling any situation.

Heck, look at all the posts here that ridicule those who would go up against a gun, and all those who gleefully discuss "two in the chest, one in the head" as a way to deal with criminals. The underlying assumption is that the guy with the gun always wins.

Translate that to real life, and you have criminals (or even ordinary people with poor judgment) who see a gun as a tool that endows the user with power and protection, and which forces other people to show the owner respect. To a petty thief, this can be a powerful draw indeed. Add lack of respect for the law, or people who desire acceptance by their gang more than they fear legal repercussions, and you have the formula for gun abuse.

What's the solution? I don't know. You can't outlaw guns, obviously. You can make them harder for convicted criminals to obtain, but unfortunately new criminals are made at a pretty steady clip. You can't legislate common sense or respect for the law, and you can't legislate changes in culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

.....The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society.



I say let 'em kill each other off. They shouldn't even be listed a homicides.

Similarly, how many murder victims are particularly innocent? Should a couple drug dealers killed in a shootout be considered murder victims? I'm not sure how far it should go, but many victims put themselves at risk by their behavior.



Yep. And women who get raped often are really asking for it, don't you agree? I mean, why weren't they safely in their homes instead of out in the street where they were attacked?
Ciao,

Vale



I don't see that as a valid comparison. A gang member is part of a criminal enterprise, hence more likely to be a 'victim' of crime. A woman walking down the street is just that, and nothing more.

Think of it in relation to the mafia heyday. They mostly killed eachother.

And I know a stray bullet can kill, but I was talking about the statistically most significant portion of gun crimes and victims.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah, and stray bullets never killed any bystander. I mean, the US has smart bombs, I'm sure they have smart bullets as well. B|
And I won't even address the "as long as it's not my problem, it's not a problem at all" attitude.
Cheers,

Vale



Oh, here we go again....:S. How about a posting WITHOUT the hyperbole, for once? I mean, I know it's the only way you can make your point, but...

Maybe you can show me all that 'blood in the streets' in the various states after they re-legalized concealed carry.... kthxbye
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the reasoned reply, Bill.

I don't know that there's any immediate solution, either - but I know that taking away the means for people to protect themselves from criminal who ALREADY have guns and can easily get more doesn't appear to be a sane answer.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yeah, and stray bullets never killed any bystander. I mean, the US has smart bombs, I'm sure they have smart bullets as well. B|
And I won't even address the "as long as it's not my problem, it's not a problem at all" attitude.
Cheers,

Vale



Oh, here we go again....:S. How about a posting WITHOUT the hyperbole, for once? I mean, I know it's the only way you can make your point, but...

Maybe you can show me all that 'blood in the streets' in the various states after they re-legalized concealed carry.... kthxbye


And there you go confusing "hyperbole" with "sarcasm".
And I don't understand what re-legalizing concealed carry as got to do with gang violence, which is what the poster I replied to was talking about.
Sometimes your responses give new meaning to the expression "going off on a tangent". :PB|
Ciao,

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks for the reasoned reply, Bill.

I don't know that there's any immediate solution, either - but I know that taking away the means for people to protect themselves from criminal who ALREADY have guns and can easily get more doesn't appear to be a sane answer.



Don't get me wrong, I love guns myself and have owned quite a few over the years but, the most fervent gun lovers constantly pull the "criminal card" as the main reason to own a gun when the criminal is the least person to kill you. You are more likely to be shot by someone you know. Women are more likely to be shot by a husband or boyfriend. Men are more likely to be shot by a friend. Were all of these killers criminals before they pulled the trigger? Why not argue that we need guns to defend against the more likely? I can''t find the statistic but, I have seen that in a high number of shootings alcohol was a main factor so, one should argue that they need to arm against drunk spouses and friends. To hear the arguement of some, the streets are shoulder to shoulder with criminals with guns just waiting to kill them (most crimes are committed without a weapon) when the real danger is at home or in a bar with drinking buddies. But, I guess that facts wouldn't play on the fear of some like the word "criminal" does.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0