England: TV Star Warned Over Waving Knife At Intruders

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/03/london-gun-crime-shootings-rise

This one is interesting, because it explicitly mentions "the younger perpetrators are using cheaper shotguns and converted handguns". Now if you look on the Home Office statistics (see page 43), you will see that statistics for long shotguns is relatively straight (from 322 in 1998 to 375 in 2006 with the peak in 2004), and while it is ~15% increase, it means nothing if you look on total number (which is 21,521). The numbers for sawed-off shotguns decreased (from 320 to 267 - still not a huge number)

Converted handguns are also explicitly mentioned in Home Office report. I suggest you check the numbers yourself (there are multiple lines), but the statistics speaks itself. Statistics for "handgun total" clearly shows that while the crime rate indeed doubled comparing to 1998, it peaked in 2001, and was below that afterwise, mostly going down.

Air weapons, however, add significant numbers to statistics (10K in 2006). However as far as I know, they are not banned, so this cannot be attributed to "gun ban".

This is a good one!

Quote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

"There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99. "

However according to Home Office report (which matches the 1998 figure of 5,209) there were 11,071 firearm offenses (excluding air guns) in 2005, and 11,084 in 2006 - so the gun crime is clearly down, and not "keeps skyrocketing"!

Also the report clearly shows that a huge contributor is what the report calls "imitation weapons", including BB gun and imitation firearm. Those crimes went up from 566 in 1998 to 3,275 in 2006, and those are counted as "firearms" (NOT as "air weapons"!). Sounds amusing, but open the report, and you'll see it yourself (count the numbers).

Quote

I certainly don't claim to be up to your level of self-proclaimed expertise, but I'm reasonably certain that if someone is SHOT, it's considered a crime.

If you're trying to say that the gun crime increased in UK despite the gun ban, it only makes sense to count those guns which are banned. Counting BB guns and imitations would be quite useless for such purpose.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/03/london-gun-crime-shootings-rise

This one is interesting, because it explicitly mentions "the younger perpetrators are using cheaper shotguns and converted handguns". Now if you look on the Home Office statistics (see page 43), you will see that statistics for long shotguns is relatively straight (from 322 in 1998 to 375 in 2006 with the peak in 2004), and while it is ~15% increase, it means nothing if you look on total number (which is 21,521). The numbers for sawed-off shotguns decreased (from 320 to 267 - still not a huge number)

Converted handguns are also explicitly mentioned in Home Office report. I suggest you check the numbers yourself (there are multiple lines), but the statistics speaks itself. Statistics for "handgun total" clearly shows that while the crime rate indeed doubled comparing to 1998, it peaked in 2001, and was below that afterwise, mostly going down.

Air weapons, however, add significant numbers to statistics (10K in 2006). However as far as I know, they are not banned, so this cannot be attributed to "gun ban".

I see - so, gun crime DOUBLING since a ban went into effect is immaterial, but crime reducing for a few years is a valid point?

Yeah, that makes sense. Not.

Quote

Quote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

"There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99. "

However according to Home Office report (which matches the 1998 figure of 5,209) there were 11,071 firearm offenses (excluding air guns) in 2005, and 11,084 in 2006 - so the gun crime is clearly down, and not "keeps skyrocketing"!

Also the report clearly shows that a huge contributor is what the report calls "imitation weapons", including BB gun and imitation firearm. Those crimes went up from 566 in 1998 to 3,275 in 2006, and those are counted as "firearms" (NOT as "air weapons"!). Sounds amusing, but open the report, and you'll see it yourself (count the numbers).

Quote

I certainly don't claim to be up to your level of self-proclaimed expertise, but I'm reasonably certain that if someone is SHOT, it's considered a crime.

If you're trying to say that the gun crime increased in UK despite the gun ban, it only makes sense to count those guns which are banned. Counting BB guns and imitations would be quite useless for such purpose.

I'm pretty sure that dead is dead whether you're shot with a Webley or a zip-gun.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

A felony conviction is ALREADY a bar to purchase - again, minimal research would have shown you that.

The "permanent" is the most important part there. Is it permanent ban, or it is lifted after the conviction expires?

Quote

Really? So, since bank vaults get robbed, should any bank that gets robbed be forced out of business?

Criminals are not banned to carry money, so your example is bogus.

But if for example a nuclear arsenal gets "robbed", everyone responsible for its security should be convicted, and permanently banned from guarding a nuclear arsenal in future.

Quote

While I understand what you're saying (even though I don't agree with the bald statement), it's a ludicrous 'requirement'.

No, it is not. From what I read it is pretty much painless to provide criminals with guns by claiming there were "stolen" (or even have them really stolen - just leave them on the front seat on the parking lot). Those who contribute to providing guns to criminals, and therefore to gun crime increase, should be banned from owning guns completely.

Quote

I'm sure the criminals appreciate your efforts to disarm the law-abiding.

I don't care about criminals, I care about me and my family. I do not want to sacrifice safety of my family even if criminals also would be safer as a result.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

A felony conviction is ALREADY a bar to purchase - again, minimal research would have shown you that.

The "permanent" is the most important part there. Is it permanent ban, or it is lifted after the conviction expires?

If the conviction was expunged, the ban would be lifted, as it should be.

Quote

Quote

Really? So, since bank vaults get robbed, should any bank that gets robbed be forced out of business?

Criminals are not banned to carry money, so your example is bogus.

So is your 'requirement'.

Quote

But if for example a nuclear arsenal gets "robbed", everyone responsible for its security should be convicted, and permanently banned from guarding a nuclear arsenal in future.

Didn't somd Soviet 'suitcase nukes' go missing several years back?

Quote

Quote

While I understand what you're saying (even though I don't agree with the bald statement), it's a ludicrous 'requirement'.

No, it is not. From what I read it is pretty much painless to provide criminals with guns by claiming there were "stolen" (or even have them really stolen - just leave them on the front seat on the parking lot). Those who contribute to providing guns to criminals, and therefore to gun crime increase, should be banned from owning guns completely.

And they are, since it's a felony. The difference is, you want to impose it on SUSPICION rather than PROOF.

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the criminals appreciate your efforts to disarm the law-abiding.

I don't care about criminals, I care about me and my family. I do not want to sacrifice safety of my family even if criminals also would be safer as a result.

Well, guess what? You've made the criminals safer and done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family.

Congrats.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I see - so, gun crime DOUBLING since a ban went into effect is immaterial, but crime reducing for a few years is a valid point?

Yes, that is correct. Since you never know what the crime rate would be if the gun ban did not go into effect (you may speculate it would be 0.5x and not 2x, I can speculate it would be 5x instead of 2x), the mere fact the number doubled is meaningless. It may also mean that thing which weren't counted as crimes (imitations? BB guns) started to - for example, Uncle Jones keeping his guns and not telling anyone about them may be fine before the ban, but would be committing crime after the ban.

And crime reducing for a few years is obviously valid point. This means that after initial period of increased crime it is stabilizing and going down - despite the population increase (which is important, as the crime count is absolute).

Quote

I'm pretty sure that dead is dead whether you're shot with a Webley or a zip-gun.

The difference is statistics. Do you know if imitation handguns or BB guns were counted as "guns" before 2004? I guess they were not, because the statistics shows "-" in those fields, despite the total number being nonzero.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I see - so, gun crime DOUBLING since a ban went into effect is immaterial, but crime reducing for a few years is a valid point?

Yes, that is correct. Since you never know what the crime rate would be if the gun ban did not go into effect (you may speculate it would be 0.5x and not 2x, I can speculate it would be 5x instead of 2x), the mere fact the number doubled is meaningless. It may also mean that thing which weren't counted as crimes (imitations? BB guns) started to - for example, Uncle Jones keeping his guns and not telling anyone about them may be fine before the ban, but would be committing crime after the ban.

And crime reducing for a few years is obviously valid point. This means that after initial period of increased crime it is stabilizing and going down - despite the population increase (which is important, as the crime count is absolute).

The fact that the number went down is equally meaningless. Sorry, but it doesn't work one way and not the other.

Quote

Quote

I'm pretty sure that dead is dead whether you're shot with a Webley or a zip-gun.

The difference is statistics. Do you know if imitation handguns or BB guns were counted as "guns" before 2004? I guess they were not, because the statistics shows "-" in those fields, despite the total number being nonzero.

I don't believe they were, but they are now, from what I understand.

And the dead are still dead, whether killed with a Webley or a zipgun. It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

If the conviction was expunged, the ban would be lifted, as it should be.

I think that is wrong, and should be changed.

Quote

So is your 'requirement'.

My requirement is not bogus, it is very relevant. The fact you didn't like it does not make it bogus - unlike your example.

Quote

Didn't somd Soviet 'suitcase nukes' go missing several years back?

Never heard of that (and I believe "suitcase nuke" is a hoax).

Quote

And they are, since it's a felony. The difference is, you want to impose it on SUSPICION rather than PROOF.

For example, if you own a dog, and your dog runs away and bites someone, you are generally liable for its actions, even though it was clear negligence. Basically in this case you're punished because you did not secure the dog enough. In my opinion, a gun owner whose gun was stoled and then used in a crime should be barred from owning any more guns.

Quote

Well, guess what? You've made the criminals safer and done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family.

Your opinion is not supported by real facts - supposedly "safe" European criminals did not bother me there more than here.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The fact that the number went down is equally meaningless. Sorry, but it doesn't work one way and not the other.

It is indeed meaningless in estimating the effect of a gun ban, but it is important enough to prove that the claim that "UK gun crime rate keeps skyrocketing" is indeed false - the rate is currently going down.

Quote

I don't believe they were, but they are now, from what I understand.

I agree - note that the amount of those crimes committed might not actually increase (nobody counted them before so we can't say for sure). But since they started counting it, it indeed went from - to 2000. This makes impression that crime rate increased, while it was always there, just uncounted. In the same way, Russian homicides statistics for 2002-2003 showed major increase because the crime reporting system changed, making it very difficult to hide homicides from reporting.

Quote

And the dead are still dead, whether killed with a Webley or a zipgun. It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool.

A criminal with this tool is more dangerous than without it.
Are those who supply the tool to the criminal abiding the crime (and can be considered criminals as well)?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If the conviction was expunged, the ban would be lifted, as it should be.

I think that is wrong, and should be changed.

Why?

Quote

Quote

So is your 'requirement'.

My requirement is not bogus, it is very relevant. The fact you didn't like it does not make it bogus - unlike your example.

My example is just as valid as yours.

Quote

Quote

Didn't somd Soviet 'suitcase nukes' go missing several years back?

Never heard of that (and I believe "suitcase nuke" is a hoax).

They're not.

Quote

Quote

And they are, since it's a felony. The difference is, you want to impose it on SUSPICION rather than PROOF.

For example, if you own a dog, and your dog runs away and bites someone, you are generally liable for its actions, even though it was clear negligence. Basically in this case you're punished because you did not secure the dog enough. In my opinion, a gun owner whose gun was stoled and then used in a crime should be barred from owning any more guns.

If can PROVE he 'left it out on the car seat', then fine - prosecute him for whatever crime is applicable in that case.

Quote

Quote

Well, guess what? You've made the criminals safer and done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family.

Your opinion is not supported by real facts - supposedly "safe" European criminals did not bother me there more than here.

So? Anecdote != data, as kallend is so fond of saying.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The fact that the number went down is equally meaningless. Sorry, but it doesn't work one way and not the other.

It is indeed meaningless in estimating the effect of a gun ban, but it is important enough to prove that the claim that "UK gun crime rate keeps skyrocketing" is indeed false - the rate is currently going down.

I'd say that doubling in a decade would be considered 'skyrocketing' - obviously you think differently.

Quote

Quote

And the dead are still dead, whether killed with a Webley or a zipgun. It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool.

A criminal with this tool is more dangerous than without it.

And a law abiding gun owner is still law-abiding.

Quote

Are those who supply the tool to the criminal abiding the crime (and can be considered criminals as well)?

Yes - that's called 'aiding and abetting'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Why?

To make it more strict, so less people would even try.

Quote

If can PROVE he 'left it out on the car seat', then fine - prosecute him for whatever crime is applicable in that case.

Why would they need to prove that? If the gun owner was negligent enough to have his guns stolen, he should not get any more guns. Since all of stolen guns are stolen by criminals (it is a crime to steal a gun, right?), it would be reasonable to assume that most of them will be used for criminal purposes. This way maybe people would start paying more attention to their guns than they do to their laptops. If this site is correct, there are 341,000 guns stolen each year in USA (I've seen other numbers, but never less than 150K a year). This is just fucking insane, and shows that there is a lot of gun "owners" who should have never been able to own a gun,

Quote

So? Anecdote != data, as kallend is so fond of saying.

Then it is anecdote for anecdote, as you didn't provide data either. After all, despite all those nasty gun bans and "skyrocketing gun crime", USA has 5.4 homicides per 100K while England has only 1.37, and UK has 2.03 (2009).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I'd say that doubling in a decade would be considered 'skyrocketing' - obviously you think differently.

Saying that it "doubled in decade" and "keeps skyrocketing" would mean that it was increasing like 10% a year, and keeps increasing. This is, of course, not the case. The crime rate more than doubled in first FOUR years, and was relatively stable after that (with recent declining).

Quote

Yes - that's called 'aiding and abetting'.

Good. So any "law abiding citizen" who supplied a criminal with a tool directly or through negligence should be prosecuted for 'aiding and abetting'.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Gun threads are more aggressive though.

that's because each side cherry-picks stats to show their point.

and the anti-gunners refuse to understand that outlawing guns will not eliminate them, but simply take them out of the hands of the lawful gun owners. This doesn't directly affect the anti-gunners, because they don't own guns (for varying reasons). For this reason (or others) they're ok with disarming the law abiding public.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why?

To make it more strict, so less people would even try.

Seeing as how there's a QUESTION about it on the purchase form, I'm pretty sure the people doing it already know it's illegal.

Quote

Quote

If can PROVE he 'left it out on the car seat', then fine - prosecute him for whatever crime is applicable in that case.

Why would they need to prove that?

Because, in the USA, they have to PROVE you committed a crime. Russia might be different.

Quote

If the gun owner was negligent enough to have his guns stolen, he should not get any more guns. Since all of stolen guns are stolen by criminals (it is a crime to steal a gun, right?), it would be reasonable to assume that most of them will be used for criminal purposes. This way maybe people would start paying more attention to their guns than they do to their laptops. If this site is correct, there are 341,000 guns stolen each year in USA (I've seen other numbers, but never less than 150K a year). This is just fucking insane, and shows that there is a lot of gun "owners" who should have never been able to own a gun,

Yeah, whatever dude. That's about all the comment that attitude is worth.

Quote

Quote

So? Anecdote != data, as kallend is so fond of saying.

Then it is anecdote for anecdote, as you didn't provide data either.

I'm supposed to provide data about whether you were a crime victim when you were in Europe?

Quote

After all, despite all those nasty gun bans and "skyrocketing gun crime", USA has 5.4 homicides per 100K while England has only 1.37, and UK has 2.03 (2009).

Ok, now prove it was the presence of guns that caused the disparity.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

that's because each side cherry-picks stats to show their point.

Same as with religion or politics.

Quote

and the anti-gunners refuse to understand that outlawing guns will not eliminate them, but simply take them out of the hands of the lawful gun owners.

This is what I cannot understand completely. Are you trying to say that every ban which does not prevent the problem completely is useless? Nobody expects that making gun ownership illegal would prevent ALL gun crimes, same as making murder illegal did not prevent ALL murders.

Quote

This doesn't directly affect the anti-gunners, because they don't own guns (for varying reasons). For this reason (or others) they're ok with disarming the law abiding public.

The problems I have with this "law abiding public" is the following:

a). Some of them stop being law abiding and become criminals the first time they use a gun (Cho), hurting a lot of people this way. If they didn't have access to guns, I consider it very unlikely that they would get any - being non-criminals and having zero connections with underworld - therefore switching to something less lethal, or just committing a suicide.

b). Some of them (up to 340K a year) gladly provide criminals with guns through negligence, letting their guns being stolen and then used to commit crimes, and having no real penalties for that. This is completely unacceptable.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

that's because each side cherry-picks stats to show their point.

Same as with religion or politics.

Quote

and the anti-gunners refuse to understand that outlawing guns will not eliminate them, but simply take them out of the hands of the lawful gun owners.

This is what I cannot understand completely. Are you trying to say that every ban which does not prevent the problem completely is useless? Nobody expects that making gun ownership illegal would prevent ALL gun crimes, same as making murder illegal did not prevent ALL murders.So you are admitting that gun laws that take guns from the law abiding do not work?

Quote

This doesn't directly affect the anti-gunners, because they don't own guns (for varying reasons). For this reason (or others) they're ok with disarming the law abiding public.

The problems I have with this "law abiding public" is the following:

a). Some of them stop being law abiding and become criminals the first time they use a gun (Cho), hurting a lot of people this way. If they didn't have access to guns, I consider it very unlikely that they would get any - being non-criminals and having zero connections with underworld - therefore switching to something less lethal, or just committing a suicide.

b). Some of them (up to 340K a year) gladly provide criminals with guns through negligence, letting their guns being stolen and then used to commit crimes, and having no real penalties for that. This is completely unacceptable.

Legal gun owns (permited conceal carry owner) have been shown to be and are more law abiding (statistically) than the general population. What the hell is your point?

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Seeing as how there's a QUESTION about it on the purchase form, I'm pretty sure the people doing it already know it's illegal.

Making the penalties more stiff typically leads to less people willing to commit a crime. Do you agree that there would be more DUI offenses if DUI only carried a $100 fine? Note that DUI would be still illegal.

(and making gun ownership illegal pretty reduces number of straw purchases to almost zero)

Quote

Because, in the USA, they have to PROVE you committed a crime. Russia might be different.

Very simple. The law would require a gun owner to maintain all the guns in possession, and be prepared to have them audited any time after the 48 hour notice. If any gun is missing during audit, and there is no associated paperwork (i.e. it can be repaired or so), all your guns are revoked and you're barred from owning any more guns.

Quote

Yeah, whatever dude. That's about all the comment that attitude is worth.

That's really useful comment to the phrase which actually pointed out to a lot of FACTS. Makes it really worthy investing time in research.

Quote

I'm supposed to provide data about whether you were a crime victim when you were in Europe?

No, I would like you to prove the relationship between "You've made the criminals safer" and "done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family"

Quote

Ok, now prove it was the presence of guns that caused the disparity.

I didn't say that. I just pointed out to the FACT that "making criminals safe" by dramatically restricting guns does NOT necessary lead to "done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family", and situation in Europe proves that .

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So you are admitting that gun laws that take guns from the law abiding do not work?

No, I am not. That's what pro-gun says - that if a specific behavior is outlawed but such incidents do not decrease to zero, then the law "does not work" and "is bad".

The funny thing is that they only apply it to the laws restricting gun ownership. If you ask them whether the laws against murder, rape or DUI do not work as well (as there are murders, rapes and DUIs!), and therefore are useless or "bad", they usually silently ignore that.

It is obvious to anyone that the law restricting something does not eliminate that completely. However it in most cases reduces the number of such incidents. And since the majority of Americans do not own guns (according to 1997 stats, if you have newer numbers I'd like to see them), for them it would be clear win.

Quote

Legal gun owns (permited conceal carry owner) have been shown to be and are more law abiding (statistically) than the general population. What the hell is your point?

Nobody is born as a criminal, so everyone is law-abiding until they stop being law-abiding, so your comment is meaningless.

And since those 300,000 guns are stolen each year from LEGAL gun owners (it would be funny to see a felon reporting to the police that somebody stole his gun), this indeed looks like requiring a change.

Also "legal gun owner" is not the same as "permitted conceal carry owner".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That's really useful comment to the phrase which actually pointed out to a lot of FACTS. Makes it really worthy investing time in research.

Well, with such tolerant ideas as "making gun ownership illegal", and 'all your guns are revoked and you're barred from owning any more guns', I don't think any MORE facts are going to sway you.

Quote

Quote

I'm supposed to provide data about whether you were a crime victim when you were in Europe?

No, I would like you to prove the relationship between "You've made the criminals safer" and "done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family"

It's already been proven that the criminals don't respect your beloved 'gun free zones' and gun bans, and that police can't be on every corner. But SOMEHOW you think criminals are going to obey yet MORE laws.

Quote

Quote

Ok, now prove it was the presence of guns that caused the disparity.

I didn't say that. I just pointed out to the FACT that "making criminals safe" by dramatically restricting guns does NOT necessary lead to "done sweet fuck-all for the safety of your family", and situation in Europe proves that .

No, you just THINK it does and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

The Boy Who Cried Wolf
an Aesop's Fable

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

[rhaig 0]

just to ask, because I think I understand what you want, but can't believe it.

You want gun bans so that some gun crime will be reduced.

Is that what you're saying? You want a ban, so that there will be SOME less gun crime. A simple yes or no will do. I'm not introducing other factors into this reply. I just want to be clear on your stance. And I'd like a straight yes or no answer.

--
Rob

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Well, with such tolerant ideas as "making gun ownership illegal", and 'all your guns are revoked and you're barred from owning any more guns', I don't think any MORE facts are going to sway you.

No, at this moment it is very unlikely. However this way you're basically saying that if you write a well-researched post with facts, you'll find it acceptable if your opponent replies something like "Yeah, whatever dude".

Quote

It's already been proven that the criminals don't respect your beloved 'gun free zones' and gun bans, and that police can't be on every corner.

The crime rate comparison between St.Louis and NYC does not support this statement.
Raw count of school shootings happened in Europe and USA during last ten years does not support this statement either.

Quote

But SOMEHOW you think criminals are going to obey yet MORE laws.

First, the law dramatically restricting gun ownership will have very direct effect on every criminal, because the number of guns available to criminals through straw purchases, purchases from legal but corrupt gun traders, and stolen guns will be significantly lower.

Second the law providing something like mandatory life sentence without parole for any criminal caught with a gun would definitely result in less crimes where the gun is used.

I cannot understand why most states do not even require a gun owner to report his stolen gun to authorities.

Quote

No, you just THINK it does and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

So far you did not present any evidence that making "criminals safe" would lead to less safety to me an my family. You did not explain why there is no more violent crime (or gun crime) in European countries - as it supposed to be according to your logic, since the criminals are safer there. What you presented was just abstract thoughts, which contradict with general crime statistics and my personal experience.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

just to ask, because I think I understand what you want, but can't believe it.
You want gun bans so that some gun crime will be reduced.

It is unreasonable to expect guns to be banned completely - we still have the police, the army, security and so on. Even in those European countries - as well as in Russia - guns are not banned completely, but the law greatly limits what kind of gun an individual can buy (generally long smooth-bore rifles), who can buy them, and where one can store them (probably not at home).

I'm explaining that because I think that if I simply reply "no" to your post, you'd ask for clarifications and I would have to explain it anyway, so it will save time for both of us. If it doesn't matter, then you can ignore it, and just take "no" as my answer.

Quote

Is that what you're saying? You want a ban, so that there will be SOME less gun crime. A simple yes or no will do.

Then a simple "no" is the answer.

Again, to save time: I would be happy if the guns were much less available that they are now. Something like European level of gun availability is fine with me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, with such tolerant ideas as "making gun ownership illegal", and 'all your guns are revoked and you're barred from owning any more guns', I don't think any MORE facts are going to sway you.

No, at this moment it is very unlikely. However this way you're basically saying that if you write a well-researched post with facts, you'll find it acceptable if your opponent replies something like "Yeah, whatever dude".

That's what you did with virtually EVERY post that you were given info in - 'yeah, whatever, I don't think so'.

Quote

Quote

It's already been proven that the criminals don't respect your beloved 'gun free zones' and gun bans, and that police can't be on every corner.

The crime rate comparison between St.Louis and NYC does not support this statement.

So prove it's because of the guns. Hint: saying 'they didn't have as many' isn't proof.

Quote

Raw count of school shootings happened in Europe and USA during last ten years does not support this statement either.

So prove the crimes never would have happened without the guns. Hint: saying 'they didn't have as many' isn't proof.

Quote

Quote

But SOMEHOW you think criminals are going to obey yet MORE laws.

First, the law dramatically restricting gun ownership will have very direct effect on every criminal, because the number of guns available to criminals through straw purchases, purchases from legal but corrupt gun traders, and stolen guns will be significantly lower.

Yeah, that worked really well foe DC, NY, Chicago....no violent crime in ANY of those places right?

IOW - NO.

Quote

Second the law providing something like mandatory life sentence without parole for any criminal caught with a gun would definitely result in less crimes where the gun is used.

And, we're back to the 'ludicrous punishments' theme, again.

Quote

I cannot understand why most states do not even require a gun owner to report his stolen gun to authorities.

Why are you assuming that gun owners AREN'T reporting thefts?

You're arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.

Quote

Quote

No, you just THINK it does and nothing is going to convince you otherwise.

So far you did not present any evidence that making "criminals safe" would lead to less safety to me an my family.

No, we have - you ignore it or dismiss it. You've already decided that nothing can sway you from your viewpoint, so why should I bother?

Quote

You did not explain why there is no more violent crime (or gun crime) in European countries - as it supposed to be according to your logic, since the criminals are safer there.

Never claimed that - I claimed that it is a CRIMINAL problem and not a TOOL problem. I'm sure that the 'respect shootings' talked about in London are just due to the guns taking over the minds of those poor innocent youths.

Quote

What you presented was just abstract thoughts, which contradict with general crime statistics and my personal experience.

You mean the general crime stats that show that the gun laws have had NO effect on crime in either direction? Those stats? Or the ones from George-world that only show an effect if the crime numbers go DOWN after a ban?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Again, to save time: I would be happy if the guns were much less available that they are now. Something like European level of gun availability is fine with me.

Tell you what - since European gun law is so great, why don't you just move there, instead? You'll be happier (until something happens and nobody's around to protect you), and you won't be infringing on MY rights.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706