georgerussia

Guns are my everyday items pretty much the same way as nuclear bombs are. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because I think the stats support it. I wonder whether you are trying to pretend that you know what I think better than me? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's why I think voting on restricting gun rights will not increase crime, and might decrease shooting sprees depending on restriction - therefore it is worth doing. Why should they? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, there is no difference. Both are based partially on the same fact (crime statistics), which basically shows no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rate. Your conclusion is that "relaxing gun laws will not increase violent crime", and mine is that "restricting gun laws will not increase violent crime". For the rest of the "facts", they're basically interpreted opinions. You do not accept mine, I do not accept yours. You think yours is valid and mine is shit, I think mine is valid and yours is shit. So the debate is over, there is nothing left to discuss - and both of us will vote accordingly to our opinions. The only thing which worth adding is that in past I considered gun issues pretty much the same way as gay marriage - as something irrelevant to me, but if others like it, let them have it. Thanking to local posters (especially Ron) it has been changed, and now I'm much more likely to vote for further gun ownership restrictions than a month ago. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nobody has, and this includes you - you cannot prove your case either. I thought it was obvious after the last three-page discussion. So you'll keep your opinion, and I'll keep mine. And we will vote accordingly. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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

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

No, it is still warranted as it states that restricting gun ownership is unlikely to increase the crime level (including violent crime), while it will reduce at least some kind of crime (most shooting sprees). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

so do nuclear bombs and cyanide gas. What is your point? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I just ignore Ron posts. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

We have discussed this during last two pages, and this statement is not supported by: - Statistics from countries where personal gun ownership/carrying is severely restricted versus U.S.; - Statistics from U.S. cities where gun ownership or carrying is severely restricted; None of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

We have to, as this is the only statistics we have available in U.S. That's similar to what I'm saying. I can repeat my point - I do not own guns, and do not plan to, so for me it's the matter of my own safety, not matter of what someone thinks is his or her rights. If I think further restricting guns would make me safer, I'd vote for it. If I think it will make me less safe, I would not. If restricting guns would prevent incidents like recent shooting sprees AND even keep the same crime rate we have now, the choice is quite obvious. No, because it would be harder for criminals and to-be criminals to obtain guns, for example, for shooting sprees. No stolen guns, and no straw purchases (assuming the restrictions are really tough). Of course, some criminals will still obtain them, and the crime will not decrease to zero, but - assuming the restriction is enforced, and the penalty is serious enough - gun-related crime should decrease. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Mostly agree (some time police guns are stolen and end up being used by criminals, but it is relatively rare event to worth discussion). Which worth as much as yours that it is. I didn't even see the '43 times more likely' study or whatever. Just wanted to see what would you use as a proof it's not valid, and was amused when you tried to prove that it is not valid by using the number of search hits. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Please explain. Did you read the link I provided? It covers 8 years (1998 - 2006) - quite a trend. And why should I be looking for exactly 20 years? And I'm fine with that. Nobody followed that guy, so nobody KNOWS what we did. This means your thoughts about what he may do are no more valid than mine, and calling mine "shit" would apply to yours as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. It's language issue, as I translate all the words I'm not familiar with to Russian, and "capitol" has a completely different meaning (the most relevant being "the top score") than "capital". Ok, I'm admitting I screwed up as I should have checked for possible mistypes and not rely on your exact words. So what? We can compare cities, and it is enough to see that limiting gun rights does not mean increase of crime rate. Indeed. So does this mean that you basically acknowledge that guns do little to prevent crime - much less than other factors (like law enforcement activity - I wonder what the crime rate in NYC was before Juliani?), and therefore restricting gun rights will not necessary lead to increase of violent crimes? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You brought police which allows to carry guns anywhere, even in countries where regular citizens cannot. I pointed out that even police does not carry any kind of gun, i.e. even for law enforcement the gun ownership is still restricted Since you did not provide any evidence that the information from this 1993 study is still relevant in 2010, the study is not considered valid evidence. I see no reason then to further discuss it until we can establish that the study is at least somehow relevant. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, that's what you said. So what? Edit: Got it. You probably meant "capital", not "capitol". It does. Statistics shows that some cities with guns banned have reduced crime comparing to those with liberal gun laws. Why there is more criminals? They should be afraid of guns, shouldn't they? So why the number of violent crimes is LOWER in NYC, where - as you said - "victims are prevented from effective means of defense"? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You must be kidding. Ok, I'm saying this information is outdated, and therefore may not represent current situation. 17 years is significant time to support such a statement. Now it's in YOUR court. Go back and re-read the first bit of the paragraph again. I accept it as "it does not, and I have no more arguments". Thank you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You claimed that "Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US". Since it was not at least in 2008 (which is recent enough to be covered by "is"), your claim is not valid. My point is that someone in this post claimed that "We did that experiment already" (regarding changing gun availability and that it "Didn't make a difference". He even mentioned NYC there if you can see! So the question is valid, and relevant. Yes, Houston versus NYC statistics about violent crime shows that despite criminals still being able to get guns, the violent crime rate in NYC per 100K is almost twice less than in Houston. So while it indeed keeps roughly 1/4 of law abiding as disadvantage to the criminals (25% according to this source), it still provides more safety for the overall population. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It seems to be common illusion of some pro-gun posters - they think if they write ten times that someone's point was proven false, or that they provided "facts and references", it would somehow make it true. You'd have hard time proving this information is still valid. Yes, I read that, and I found that they did not use "preventing a crime" there. In fact you read the phrase carefully, someone who was caught while committing a burglary and brandished a gun to get out safely could claim "bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime" as well! So where it says about prevented crimes? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Really murder capitol of the US? Even Baltimore has higher murder rate for 2008. Also if I read this table properly, it looks like Houston, TX has higher number of violent crimes than NYC. Are guns not allowed in Houston? There is nothing perfect in this world - but it does not mean we shouldn't even try. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Indeed. The benefits to society for allowing the police to carry guns are larger than drawbacks. However it is still regulated - I don't think every U.S. police officer can carry any kind of gun, including sniper or machine guns. In Europe not every police officer carries a gun either. "were prevented" would be the best explanation, as the survey is at least 17 years old. And where does it say about prevented crimes? I read the article, but didn't find it. It mostly talks about "defensive gun use", which may or may not be the same as "preventing a crime", and somehow you used the largest number, where the range provided is 800K-2.5M in five years. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

How do you see it didn't make a difference? It won't help them to obtain illegal gun if there is no gun in such place (or if the place is heavily guarded - I haven't heard for a while about someone burglarizing a police station for guns). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Stating it just like this, and not quoted out of context (like "Guns do kill people in the hands of gun owners") - I agree. Guns, however, make an ordinary person potentially more dangerous, and capable to do much more damage than he would be able to do otherwise. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's exactly what we are discussing - how the gun availability* and gun ownership** affects violent crime rate, and gun crime rate. We're also speculating what would happen with those rates if laws covering gun availability* and ownership** change either way, like switching U.S. to Europe-like laws or vice versa. *gun availability does not mean just having guns stored somewhere, it means a) which guns (if any) are available for purchase by prospective owners and on which terms, and b) how easy is it for a criminal to obtain a gun illegally (going to black market arms dealer versus gun theft or straw purchase) **gun ownership does not cover guns stored on shelves, it means people owning, and possibly carrying, guns - either legally, or illegally. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *