georgerussia

So despite the provided Google translation of the entire official document you still claim I'm lying? I already provided JohnRich with the latest gun crimes statistics available from Home Office when he made similar claims. This statistics showed that the gun crime there was going DOWN. Never heard back from him yet. Maybe you will provide the official information about "trends in England"? Well, you do not have to live in SF or Oakland. I can't find the recidivism rate for robberies, but from what I remember it was quite high, so I doubt he'd shit his pants just from being shown a gun if some criminals still rob after serving jail time. Not everyone wants to arm himself, and some of us feel safer when others around are unarmed too. Sounds egoistic? That's exactly how pro-gun lobby sounds. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Ok, you are not going to be laughing. What is your point here? Good, at least you admitted that it is not realistic to expect the law to prevent ALL crimes. Do you agree that making some behavior illegal reduces the number of violations, and when the penalty for the violation is increased, there are typically less crimes committed (assuming the decrease is not linear, and the number is still not zero)? Then the main question is whether there more gun crime than in U.S. and Brazil, or less gun crime? If yes, this means the gun ban works. If no, this means gun ban does not work. That simple. Just look on recidivism rates - those include people who went through being arrested, convicted and serving some jail time. This guy wasn't even arrested, just shown a gun for a few seconds. Why would he stop his criminal activities? Not at all. The first time I've seen this argument used by Ron and you here - saying that if gun ban does not prevent all gun crimes, then the gun ban is useless. This is quite silly argument, so I'm really surprised you used it too. It will result in less GUN crime, and you acknowledged it yourself. You just claimed Europe has different criminals :) See kepldiver's link which compares murder rate Brazil versus U.S. versus some European countries. That's what I'm saying - you did not read the study, you read someone's (who is of course pro-gun) opinion about the study, but you still say the STUDY mentions that. This is hearsay. No, I'm saying that if you think culture (which is also based on gun ownership being mostly illegal with a few exceptions) is the reason here, you need to prove your point. Where? Link to the post, please. Which means they didn't enforce it before. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

'Gun ownership' includes discussing people owning guns, and that's what we are discussing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I am not. I'm discussing gun OWNERSHIP (mostly carrying), which includes gun ownership by both criminals AND law abiding citizens. Discussing guns per se in this context is useless - guns on shelves do not commit crimes AND do not prevent crimes. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I'm not. Only an idiot would think that by saying "Guns do not kill people" he actually made a point, or even said something worth discussion. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is if you consider the alternative of "plane landed safely and nobody got hurt". This, however, was not a viable alternative in that situation. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Criminals always will have advantage over non-criminals - selecting a place and time to attack, striking first - so this is moot point. The crime statistics in Europe seems not to support your conclusion. Despite "no-carry" gun laws and criminals allegedly ignoring those laws, the violent crime in Europe still seem to be less than in USA, so overall impact on law-abiding citizens is still positive. Again, crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person. And this "worked" pretty much the same way as I prevented this crime against myself simply by not being there - no guns were needed. What is your point? Are you saying again that if the ban for specific behavior (like carrying guns) does not prevent ALL crimes, then the ban is useless? Such statement could easily backfire - since, as you say, carrying gun prevents violent crimes, I guess that's why there is no more violent crime in TX, right? That's what you have been saying all the time, but simple comparison U.S. versus Europe versus Brazil does not support your statement. You're trying word play again. Are you out of arguments? Why should I? You and JohnRich mentioned this report and alleged it supports your theories. None of you so far was able to present it, and none of you actually said you read it themselves, so your statement is moot. (I have to admit thought that you're one of the few pro-gun who still hasn't falsely claimed that you "provided all facts" as JohnRich and Ron did; kudos to you for that, at least you're being fair.) Well, this is kinda silly. You made a statement that the difference in crime rate is not because of the guns but because of criminal behavior. This is a major statement, which obviously need to be backed up. If this is all you can back it up, then it's indeed useless to discuss anything, as this is not a discussion anymore. Going circles. Where was this questions asked, and where did he say the guy turned and ran? This was the point. Do they have enforced gun ban in those countries you lived? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There were not a lot of them. As I said, I routinely flied this route (AMS-DTW) last two years, and at least in half of cases I do not have luggage and have one-way tickets. I don't believe he had no passport or no visa as the passport/visa check is pretty meticulous in AMS, and I do not know whether DHS shares the "warning" information with AMS as there may be privacy issues. I also doubt those lists are useful - during my life I've had five passports, and EACH of them spelled my first and last names differently using Latin alphabet, and in some cases difference was significant - I have seen my first name spelled as HEORHIY, GEORGE, GEORGIY and so on, so I wouldn't blame the list for that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you compare it to the option to flow the plane in another large building (which presumably was the plan) and killing 1,000 more people, would you call it failure? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're not missed them - you're carefully trying to bend the discussion to avoid getting to the statement that the violent crime level does not depend on whether the gun ownership/carrying is legal, and basically having people with guns around does not prevent violent crime in statistically significant numbers. If pepper sprays, clubs and knives prevent crime as much as guns, then much stricter gun control laws make sense, as they would prevent more crimes like shooting sprees, while pepper spray is still being available for self-defense (kinda hard kill 30 with pepper spray). Slight correction - according to alleged criminal statements; I didn't see those statements yet, despite all my requests, and now I'm pretty sure you didn't see them as well as you didn't read the study. But anyway. This is what you need to explain. What makes them different, and how much different? Which basically means that guns do not play any statistically significant role in preventing crimes. My point was that in this "bus stop" example the crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person. The crime has been committed at the moment the robbery was attempted. I'd agree that "a robbery was prevented" if he called the police and the criminal was locked up (so he wouldn't be able to rob anyone else for a while), but since he didn't, the criminal was free to go. Therefore he likely robbed someone else,. More than Bosnia though. At least they didn't have a war/genocide on that scale. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You do remember why his father reported him? I'll gladly remind you: because of his extreme religious beliefs, which led him to going into the plane with explosives in his underwear. So taking a shot at religion seems to be very justified here. Regarding Christianity - for a person who is not religious they're basically not different from Muslims - just praying a different imaginable Santa Claus, while some also commit crimes in his name. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're carefully trying to put the equal sign between "victim without a gun" and "unarmed victim". Those are two different things, which I pointed out. Since people are not unarmed in Europe, discussing the situation in other contexts makes zero sense as it would invalidate most of your points. Could you please explain both of those quotes? My thoughts: 1. You're saying that possibility of victim to carry a gun deters some violent criminals. 2. This means that if the gun ownership/carry is banned, those criminals who were deterred at (1) would not be deterred, and therefore there should be more violent crimes. 3. Carrying guns is generally illegal in all European countries I know, and is strictly enforced in most of them. Applying 1-3 would mean Europe should have less violent criminals deterred, which should result in more violent crime being committed - comparing, for example, to U.S. or Brazil. But it seem not to be the case. So either there is something wrong there, or the real reason is that amount of violent crime depends very little on right to bear arms, and much more depends on other things, having guns irrelevant in the large picture. Spin?! So you think you were correct when you assumed that the crime was not committed (and therefore prevented) just because a robber didn't take his wallet? They have kind of permanent war going there, don't they? Not typical European countries, I'd say. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes, in those circumstances it can be considered success. You do understand that success or failure is not absolute thing, right? For example if I made $1M a year, at this moment I'd consider that "success", but for Bill Gates making only 1M a year would likely mean failure. I think the "problem" there is that it's kinda hard for terrorists to find people who believe in imaginable Jesus/Mohammad so much that they're ready to destroy themselves who are also smart enough. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

"Gunless" != helpless. This seems to be local culture (groundless) belief that a person is helpless without a gun. No, it's a problem of criminals using guns and committing robberies no matter whether victims are armed. The amount of violent crime in Brazil is large than in U.S., and it contradicts your point that criminals are less likely to commit a crime if they think a victim is armed. So if what you said about criminals was true, then the violent crime rate in Europe would be much higher than in U.S., right? No, you just misunderstood the fact that the crime (attempted armed robbery) has been committed at the moment a guy with a knife asked his money. It doesn't matter that he didn't get any. Where? I lived in Ukraine, European Russia and Romania. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Does your belief match your personal experience, as you lived in Europe? True - it is irrelevant whether victim is armed or not if a criminal is. So why talk and waste time at all, and losing the moment, if criminal can just smash me in the face? If everything was that easy, nobody would even ask for money - smash'em, search'em and go. And at the same time it's hard to use it for shooting spree. Good compromise. Then the crime rate in Brazil (where like everyone has guns) should be non-existent, correct? Isn't almost every potential victim armed there? Because it is not banned in Europe, and you're trying to play "gun ban" -> "all weapon ban", which is not the case. Why not? The "example at the bus stop" did not prevent crime, only diverted it. The crime already happened when a guy with a knife asked for money, even though no money was taken. Nor did my example shown crime _prevention_. So how long have you lived in Eastern Europe (which I explicitly mentioned)? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But does it translate to less safety to citizens? This is the most important question; criminal safety is less concern. Even armed victims are, as an armed criminal has advantage of striking first. Takes more time, and more steps ("I have no pockets", "I have nothing in my pockets" and so on). And time is critical. Yeah, some basic care is necessary - like closing your eyes and holding your breath. However pepper spray is also useful against straw dogs, making it useful in some countries/regions as well. I do not watch TV. Let's agree that the more time criminal is spending on robbery, the better is chance for police to caught him. None of us would be able to present statistics of police response time in Europe anyway. Yes, but gun owners are no different in this case. Just look on a recent example, he claimed that he just shown a gun, and the guy left - apparently looking for someone else who does not own a gun, left it at home or whatever. Word play. It is obvious we're discussing gun ban. But an amputee without both arms can use this option - and he cannot use guns. Neither do guns. If you're not familiar with situation, you might want to keep your mouth shut. JFYI, Europe is not limited to Balkans. Well, it doesn't. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I didn't ask proof either, I asked what you think. From your statement it seems like you're saying Europe is technically safer for robbers (less chance to get hurt as nobody carries a gun), but the real safety question is impact on citizens, not impact of robbers. If even despite being safer there is still the same amount of robberies, this would mean the safety issue for robbers is not really an issue, even despite their contrary claims. There are more branches in this graph - for example, a reply like "I do not have a wallet" - which could be true - opens up entire page. Same does "I will not give you my wallet", which would put a criminal into choice - fight, and risk getting injured (by pepper spray, for example), or caught by police (population density in Europe is pretty high, so it's hard to do anything unnoticed by no one), or go find someone who will be scared and just give him wallet, no questions asked. This does not seem to be the case. As I said, pepper spray works extremely well even in such situations. So does running away. For old people - don't know how it works in Western Europe, but in Eastern Europe old people are rarely robbed because they usually have little to no money, and because the police takes such robberies much more seriously. Most police officers have an older mother or father, so they take violence against old people very personally. This means the chance for a criminal to get caught and experience some intense beating in a police station (he'd be happy to end up just with a couple of broken ribs) in this situation is much higher, following ten to twenty in prison (because while being beaten he also acknowledged participation in a couple of murders or whatever else the police had). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So do you think the robbery rate is higher in Europe comparing to USA? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Could you please clarify "keeps skyrocketing"? At least Home Office statistics (see page 43) does not give such impression. While the rate was up in 2001-2003, it was going down in 2004-2006. I didn't find more recent statistics though, so if you have one, let me know. I wonder why would one want to believe? This is not church (where you have no other options), and we're not talking about imaginable non-existing Jesus either. You said there is a real study we can read - so present it. Another point is that if you didn't read the study report yourself, you're not "believing Wright and Rossi", you're believing someone else who read the study and interpreted the result as they wanted. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I didn't say this study proves this and that - you did. So this is your job to prove your statement, not mine. Based on the fact that nobody from a local gun lobby provided a link to the actual study so far, my conclusion is that it is not that easy to find as you claim, and if you do not want to waste time finding it, I see much less reasons for me to do so. I'm also getting an impression that none of you quoting the study here actually read it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This works pretty well in Europe, where the ban exists and is being enforced, and I wouldn't say it is full of violent criminals. I guess the reason is that when penalty for having in possession (not just carrying, even storing in your home) an illegal weapon is grave enough, it makes little sense for most criminals to even try it. If a pick-pocketer got caught and the police is called, he still might get away with it as it is not easy to prove that he indeed was pickpocketing. But if they search him and find an illegal gun - nobody gonna even bother about pickpocketing, he'll do much heavier for the gun itself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Since you didn't present any facts besides that such a study exists somewhere (which was not disputed BTW, so you just wasted time), there is nothing to discuss either. Expecting me to search for a needle in a haystack only because you told me it's there is naive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I doubt they would do anything good if they were enforced on EVERYONE (and not only on those who committed crimes afterwards). Most likely the law enforcement resources would be wasted checking out everyone who had a website depicting gun crimes or buying several propane tanks. That's why gun ban seriously reduces the amount of crimes committed with stolen guns (much less guns available to stole, and they are guarded much better), and pretty much eliminates crimes with straw purchased guns. Agree - I would speculate that punishing straw purchasers or those who were negligent and let their guns being stolen (or "stolen") by mandatory life sentence without parole would reduce this kind of crimes as well. So I would consider this option too :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I would like to get more narrow link that "somewhere", and I will form my own opinion about it once I get through. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's reasonable expectation as I'm not pro-gun. Apparently there seems to be little difference in allowing gun ownership (Brazil) versus banning it but not enforcing the ban (Mexico). That is why the ban needs to be enforced, as I stated long time ago. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *