-
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
what motivates a man to be anti-gun?
- Thread starter clemson357
- Start date
1985 7.9 .....$1,548
1986 8.6 .....1,647 up/up
1987 8.3 .....1,667 down/up
1988 8.4 .....1,810 up/up
1989 8.7 .....1,777 up/down
1990 9.4 .....1,602 up/down
1991 9.8 .....1,859 up/up
1992 9.3 .....1,829 >down/down
1993 9.5 .....2,095 > up/up
Seems like there's a correlation to me. There're more up/ups than anything.
I don't know what causes the small change. It doesn't matter. I'm not talking in terms of causation. I'm merely noting that there is a correlation between gun #s and the murder rate.
I don't enough about gun statistics to make a causal argument. I can bullshit--no guns means no gun crimes. But I'm not up for that today.
Really, tell that to the World Health Organization. Tell that to writers of the Statistical Abstract of the US, tell that to any science department in any university of the world.
Or better yet you could turn to the Heritage Foundation for support.
Tell me why.DOMS said:
Explain how and why and which personal rights are missing/enjoyed by the countries you mention. That would help in the discussion.DOMS said:
You're feeling your oats today aren't you? How about Australia? I await the slaughter.DOMS said:
Good night everybody.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 11,622
- Reaction score
- 333
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 64
- Location
- An alternate reality.
You've got the right facts, but you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Look at the cities in this country that have the highest murder rates. (I believe your fair city is number one on that list.) Interestingly enough, you'll find those are the exact same cities that have the most restrictive gun laws. Why do you suppose that is? I'm not going to give you the answer yet. I want to see what conclusion you come to.
You don't yell you do a Bronx Cheer in a lower tone to sound like a motorboat...gee whizamongers?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,312
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
You've got the right facts, but you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Look at the cities in this country that have the highest murder rates. (I believe your fair city is number one on that list.) Interestingly enough, you'll find those are the exact same cities that have the most restrictive gun laws. Why do you suppose that is? I'm not going to give you the answer yet. I want to see what conclusion you come to.
I hear we're great with knives?
In Hawaii between 1998-2003 most murders were by hand or knife/club/bat/etc.
Of a total 179 only 62 were gun related, leaving 117 non-gun related. Most of the gun related were by people with illegal firearms.
Of a total 179 only 62 were gun related, leaving 117 non-gun related. Most of the gun related were by people with illegal firearms.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
Decker, can you post a link for those statistics? Not that I don't believe you, just that I think if we extend them out to 2005-2006 you will see that they don't show much. As I understand it, total violent crime began an overall decline in 1992, dropped steadily until sometime around 2002 when it went relatively stagnant for a couple years, another drop was measured in 2004-2005 and now the latest measurement is a slight increase. Yet firearms purchases have been steady if not increasing, and firearms ownership has been increasing throughout this time period. Also, keep in mind that if you are measuring per capita firearm sales per year, which I think is the number listed on the far right of what you posted, that total firearm ownership is steadily increasing; given the fact that modern guns don't really have "shelf life," they last and function for over 100 years, while the RATE of purchase may change, if firearms are continually being manufactured and purchased then the total number of guns is only going up. Thus your up/up, down/down, down/up analysis may not be saying much. Also, I have read that the percentage of the population that owns guns has been relatively stable since 1950, hovering between 45% and 50% of American homes having guns since that time.
Also, a major major consideration is that you need to pay attention to what statistic you are analyzing. A very common tactic of the anti-gun lobby is to talk about "gun crime." i.e. "crime with guns has decreased," etc. From what you posted, I can't tell if those crime rates are total crime rates, total violent crime rates, or gun crime rates. I would submit, and I hope everyone can agree, that TOTAL VIOLENT CRIME is what is important. Are you willing for total violent crime to increase for the sake of gun crime decreasing? Any logical person would say no, in my opinion. Notice that these statistics are broken down in terms of murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. This negates any argument that murder is easier with a gun (which I concede). If MURDER, rape, armed robbery, and total violent crime increase, it is insignificant that gun crime has decreased. A person killed with a knife or bat is no more dead than a person killed with a gun.
I think the most persuasive/telling statistic, if not the only persuasive/telling statistic, is what happens to countries which impose gun controls. This is measured in terms of before and after the law in question. The reason this is the most telling statistic is because simply, as Decker has pointed out, there are differences between nations and cultures. Some have cold/hot wars, also differences in economic factors, law enforcement, and cultural differences cannot be accounted for. However these factors are largely consistent within the same country, so if you can see what happens before and after gun control within one country, other factors don't need to be considered. (Notice that other arguments work both ways, some countries may have more restrictive gun control and lower total violent crime, yet some contries have less restrictive gun control and lower violent crime. There is one European country, i think it might be finland, that essentially has machine guns in every home and violent crime is very low.)
I recommend that anyone who is interested read this entire article, but I will just post excerpts:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp
"The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey completed, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate of that in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out later this year, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35 percent, while those in the U.S. have declined 6 percent.
Australia has also seen its violent-crime rates soar immediately after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32-percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1995. The same comparisons for armed-robbery rates showed increases of 74 percent.
During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry firearms. Thirty seven of the fifty states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns after passing a criminal background check and paying a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murders and other violent crimes.
Many things affect crime: The rise of drug-gang violence in Canada and Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. (Few Canadians appreciate that 70 percent of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of our counties, and that a large percentage of those are drug-gang related.) Just as these gangs can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.
With Canada's reported violent-crime rate of 963 per 100,000 in 2003, a rate about twice the U.S.'s (which is 475), Canada's politicians are understandably nervous."
Also, a major major consideration is that you need to pay attention to what statistic you are analyzing. A very common tactic of the anti-gun lobby is to talk about "gun crime." i.e. "crime with guns has decreased," etc. From what you posted, I can't tell if those crime rates are total crime rates, total violent crime rates, or gun crime rates. I would submit, and I hope everyone can agree, that TOTAL VIOLENT CRIME is what is important. Are you willing for total violent crime to increase for the sake of gun crime decreasing? Any logical person would say no, in my opinion. Notice that these statistics are broken down in terms of murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. This negates any argument that murder is easier with a gun (which I concede). If MURDER, rape, armed robbery, and total violent crime increase, it is insignificant that gun crime has decreased. A person killed with a knife or bat is no more dead than a person killed with a gun.
I think the most persuasive/telling statistic, if not the only persuasive/telling statistic, is what happens to countries which impose gun controls. This is measured in terms of before and after the law in question. The reason this is the most telling statistic is because simply, as Decker has pointed out, there are differences between nations and cultures. Some have cold/hot wars, also differences in economic factors, law enforcement, and cultural differences cannot be accounted for. However these factors are largely consistent within the same country, so if you can see what happens before and after gun control within one country, other factors don't need to be considered. (Notice that other arguments work both ways, some countries may have more restrictive gun control and lower total violent crime, yet some contries have less restrictive gun control and lower violent crime. There is one European country, i think it might be finland, that essentially has machine guns in every home and violent crime is very low.)
I recommend that anyone who is interested read this entire article, but I will just post excerpts:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp
"The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.
The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey completed, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate of that in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out later this year, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35 percent, while those in the U.S. have declined 6 percent.
Australia has also seen its violent-crime rates soar immediately after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32-percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1995. The same comparisons for armed-robbery rates showed increases of 74 percent.
During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry firearms. Thirty seven of the fifty states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns after passing a criminal background check and paying a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murders and other violent crimes.
Many things affect crime: The rise of drug-gang violence in Canada and Britain is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in explaining the U.S.'s rates. (Few Canadians appreciate that 70 percent of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of our counties, and that a large percentage of those are drug-gang related.) Just as these gangs can smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.
With Canada's reported violent-crime rate of 963 per 100,000 in 2003, a rate about twice the U.S.'s (which is 475), Canada's politicians are understandably nervous."
Not trying to get long and drawn out here Deck ... I guess what I'm am trying to do is say the the numbers slid up and down evenely overall with nothing significant in either direction as far as change goes. A .00001% change is nothing to use as a supportive statistic. Not baggin on ya Deck, just sayin these numbers are way below anything that matter.
Very interesting facts. The criminals know they have free roam when no one has a means to protect themselves.
Decker made a statement about no guns=no crime. Well this disproves that. If they take away guns from law abiding citizens, criminals will still have them and get them!
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Its a simple fact.
I don't think anyone can dispute that a gun is a device that makes killing easier. But the fact that a law abiding citizen is allowed to own and use one deters crime. If you take away that right, not only will you do all criminals a favor by disarming their victims, criminals will no longer even need guns. They may use a gun if they can find one, if not they can just use a knife to do their murder, rape, or robbery.
I don't think anyone can dispute that a gun is a device that makes killing easier. But the fact that a law abiding citizen is allowed to own and use one deters crime. If you take away that right, not only will you do all criminals a favor by disarming their victims, criminals will no longer even need guns. They may use a gun if they can find one, if not they can just use a knife to do their murder, rape, or robbery.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
Good post. This I concede.
Thanks. Hopefully your opinion on gun control is at least a little swayed by it.
That's a pretty good post. I really appreciate the work you put into it.
I don't have a link for the firearm sales/gun deaths chart but I did list the sources.
Here's a link for the international comparison stats that I started with. The article is dated but it was the best I had at the time. http://guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Here's a link that disputes the above link http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html
My only point in showing a correlation in the gun# and gun deaths is to be provocative. To raise a question. I can't prove anything one way or the other b/c I am not trying to prove causation. At this time, I can't do that nor am I inclined to do so. Here's why: Beyond the question of the validity of a fundamental right to own a gun, I'm just plain not interested in guns. For me to answer the question of the effect of guns on our society, I would have to read books by credible experts on both sides of the argument. I haven't.
Even my personal view is somewhat muddled by the fact that I used to own a gun and shot it somewhat infrequently. I don't own a gun now though. The thought of hunting disgusts me and I don't have self-defense issues. I'm not too thrilled about handgun violence either.
The only fact that I can hang my hat on is that guns make killing much more feasible...it's easier to kill with a gun than without.
Sure it is. But why punish EVERYONE for an act of a criminal who doesn't care? They don't get punished for their crimes. That is why they do it and it happens. Make the punishment tough and it will ease. Enforce the laws we already have. Don't let them off on a technicality.
I'm not advocating gun control to the extent of elimination of rights to ownership. Admittedly, I'm ambivalent on the topic. Clearly regulation is needed but I'm not sure how much.
A draconian law like this--the death penalty or 25 years in the can for all illegal uses of a firearm resulting in death or serious bodily harm--would really curb gun crime in my opinion.
What about issues of self-defense and provacation?
Florida has the 10-20-Life law. Basically 3 strikes and you're out.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Draconian laws (especially by American standards) don't do shit. California has a three strike law (three felonies and your in prison for life) and that hasn't done shit to curtail the commission of felonies.
It's not the laws, it's the undesirables. By "undesirables" I mean Mexicans. And by "Mexicans", I mean everyone south of the United States. They've all gotta go.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
Here in florida we do have 10-20-life. I love that law. Commit a violent crime with a gun, 10 years minimum sentence. Fire the gun, you get 20 years minimum sentence. Shoot someone and you get a life sentence, regardless of whether your victim dies.
The only thing wrong with this law is that it should be 20-40-life, and it should be applicable nation wide.
Self-defense is not an illegal use for a firearm if the level of force used is justified.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
You'll notice I said "by American standards".
hahahaha. Especially.
Is the death sentence effective as a prophylactic measure to crime?
It certainly cuts down on recidivism.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
The three strikes law does at least one thing: specific deterrence.
I think it has reduced crime, but I am not aware of the statistics surrounding that fact. Even if it hasn't, the law suits me fine. If you demonstrate that you are absolutely unwilling to follow the law, and that punishment does not effect you, you should be locked up for life.
I think it has reduced crime, but I am not aware of the statistics surrounding that fact. Even if it hasn't, the law suits me fine. If you demonstrate that you are absolutely unwilling to follow the law, and that punishment does not effect you, you should be locked up for life.
Oh good lord YES!!
I've always said... as soon as we start killing off criminals for violent (gun) crimes we'll have a helluva lot less gun related crimes!
I can certainly appreciate the arguement for regulation but, i honestly think that this is merely treating a symptom and not the cause of violent crime. You know the old addage... Guns don't kill people, I kill people.
That is very funny. And frankly Wit, disturbing. You're right though, not about your homicidal tendencies, but about the deterrence of death.Oh good lord YES!!
I've always said... as soon as we start killing off criminals for violent (gun) crimes we'll have a helluva lot less gun related crimes!
I can certainly appreciate the arguement for regulation but, i honestly think that this is merely treating a symptom and not the cause of violent crime. You know the old addage... Guns don't kill people, I kill people.
zombul
Registered
Here in florida we do have 10-20-life. I love that law. Commit a violent crime with a gun, 10 years minimum sentence. Fire the gun, you get 20 years minimum sentence. Shoot someone and you get a life sentence, regardless of whether your victim dies.
The only thing wrong with this law is that it should be 20-40-life, and it should be applicable nation wide.
That's a good fucking law!
