Utah official state firearm

[Feck]

I think that homicide being the second most likely cause of death for young people is a damning statistic .

A statistic that needs to be taken into context. The "young people" that are likely to be killed in the US are not innocent baby-faced children, they're members of violent inner city gangs. A serious problem, to be sure, but not the same problem one might first guess when looking at the statistics.

I knew that it was gang culture that caused this statistic ,I'm not a moron , but that does not in anyway mitigate the fact that there would be less dead gang members and a lot less dead innocents without so many guns .

[Wumbologist]

I think that homicide being the second most likely cause of death for young people is a damning statistic .

A statistic that needs to be taken into context. The "young people" that are likely to be killed in the US are not innocent baby-faced children, they're members of violent inner city gangs. A serious problem, to be sure, but not the same problem one might first guess when looking at the statistics.

I knew that it was gang culture that caused this statistic ,I'm not a moron , but that does not in anyway mitigate the fact that there would be less dead gang members and a lot less dead innocents without so many guns .

I really doubt it. No gang member I've ever heard of would let a thing like a lack of guns get in the way of killing other gang members. Violent criminals will always be violent criminals, no matter what tools they have at their disposal to carry out their violence. Rather than trying to take away all the tools (No guns! Ok, now no knives! No hammers! No rubber chickens!), we should be working on rooting out the underlying causes of such violence, if the true goal is to end it rather than just to pat ourselves on the back and feel good.

[Geoff]

I think that homicide being the second most likely cause of death for young people is a damning statistic .

A statistic that needs to be taken into context. The "young people" that are likely to be killed in the US are not innocent baby-faced children, they're members of violent inner city gangs. A serious problem, to be sure, but not the same problem one might first guess when looking at the statistics.

I knew that it was gang culture that caused this statistic ,I'm not a moron , but that does not in anyway mitigate the fact that there would be less dead gang members and a lot less dead innocents without so many guns .

I really doubt it. No gang member I've ever heard of would let a thing like a lack of guns get in the way of killing other gang members. Violent criminals will always be violent criminals, no matter what tools they have at their disposal to carry out their violence. Rather than trying to take away all the tools (No guns! Ok, now no knives! No hammers! No rubber chickens!), we should be working on rooting out the underlying causes of such violence, if the true goal is to end it rather than just to pat ourselves on the back and feel good.

But surely it makes sense to try and restrict the numbers they can kill, or the "collateral damage", or the ease with which they can kill. I don't recall many "drive-by knifings".

I do agree, though, that gun control in the US won't work, partly because of the culture, partly because of the huge number of weapons already out there.

[Wumbologist]

But surely it makes sense to try and restrict the numbers they can kill, or the "collateral damage", or the ease with which they can kill. I don't recall many "drive-by knifings".

I do agree, though, that gun control in the US won't work, partly because of the culture, partly because of the huge number of weapons already out there.

That's assuming that you can successfully enforce any law enacted to do so. They're not going to turn their guns in because they're illegal, y'know. Besides, in a country with such high criminal demand for firearms, I would imagine it wouldn't be long before a few enterprising thugs with access to machine tools started churning out their own.

I'd also be worried about the possibility of them switching to other tactics just as likely to cause "collateral" deaths. Can't do a drive-by shooting? Ok, do a drive-by Molotov-ing. Or burn their house down while they're sleeping. Or blow up their car.

[Geoff]

But surely it makes sense to try and restrict the numbers they can kill, or the "collateral damage", or the ease with which they can kill. I don't recall many "drive-by knifings".

I do agree, though, that gun control in the US won't work, partly because of the culture, partly because of the huge number of weapons already out there.

That's assuming that you can successfully enforce any law enacted to do so. They're not going to turn their guns in because they're illegal, y'know. Besides, in a country with such high criminal demand for firearms, I would imagine it wouldn't be long before a few enterprising thugs with access to machine tools started churning out their own.

I'd also be worried about the possibility of them switching to other tactics just as likely to cause "collateral" deaths. Can't do a drive-by shooting? Ok, do a drive-by Molotov-ing. Or burn their house down while they're sleeping. Or blow up their car.

I agree, hence my second sentence. I guess I'm thinking more in terms of not wanting the same thing to happen over here.

As I said, I don't think gun control will work over there, now. Probably better to concentrate on preventing them getting nukes.

[Ian]

As I said, I don't think gun control will work over there, now. Probably better to concentrate on preventing them getting nukes weaponized satellites for orbital precision bombardment .

Updated.

[Warren Dew]

I'd also be worried about the possibility of them switching to other tactics just as likely to cause "collateral" deaths. Can't do a drive-by shooting? Ok, do a drive-by Molotov-ing. Or burn their house down while they're sleeping. Or blow up their car.

Or use nerve gas, as in Japan - easy to make from common pesticides.

[FBM]

I agree with Feck.

But the main reason I'm posting here is to say, every time I've seen this thread I've read it as 'firealarm'.





Carry on.

dc.jpg (63.22 KiB) Viewed 805 times

└ Washington, DC




* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]



* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

[37] Calculated with data from:



Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Data supplied to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data available upon request.



Dataset: "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Data supplied to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data available upon request.



NOTE: The averages were calculated by averaging the murder rates from all years in which the ban was effective for at least 6 months of the year.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Stupid facts, coming in here and screwing up people's opinions. Oughta be ashamed.

[Feck]

From your graph FBM it looks like there was a large spike in deaths that had little to do with the legislation . 1976 -1986 before the rise and a drop from the peak at 1982 until 2007 .how on the graph can you see evidence that the hand gun law Caused that spike ? Because to me they look almost independent of each other .

[Seth]

Those who persist in offering nothing more than caricatures of the private gun owner do their argument no service. Caricatures are empty of fact, dismissive of reality, silly and invalid. They are displays of ignorance, petty bitterness, and suggest that the caricaturists know they can not support their position, otherwise have no argument, and are unworthy of a response.

However, they do play well to the choir and provide many chuckles I'm sure.

We had grandchildren on a sleep over last weekend and I must admit that if I lived in America
I probably would have had pump action shotgun at the ready to protect them. Luckily I live in the UK so it not necessary to have a weapon like that to hand. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

You just think it's not necessary because you've been well trained to be a sheeple and you labor under the delusion that banning guns makes you safer, and that the police will keep you safe. The UK is the most violent nation in the EU, and the violent crime rate in the UK, as of 2009, was 2,034 incidents per 100,000 people. The violent crime rate in the US is 466 per 100,000.

In my opinion, it's immoral for any person who has children, or who is responsible for children NOT to be armed and prepared to defend them.

[Feck]

Yes Seth we live a violent country so do you , but The numbers of guns in your country makes death for more likely ,thank you for proving the point .

IF Britain is a much more violent country as you have stated the much higher murder /homicide numbers in the US are only because of Guns then .

[Seth]

However, I still personally view the extent to which you allow the ownership and carrying of handguns in particular to be excessive, and likely to lead to a greater number of gun-related deaths than a situation of tighter controls.

The problem with this analysis is that you fail to distinguish between the lawful carrying of handguns for self defense, which is factually extremely safe, and the illegal carrying of handguns by criminals. No amount of "tighter controls" will prevent criminals from obtaining and carrying handguns illegally if they really want to do so. The UK is proof of this concept. Even with draconian anti-gun laws there is still a substantial amount of gun related crime in the UK.

I also feel uncomfortable with the view that carrying a concealed pistol is a citizen's true defense against criminals. A little too reminiscent of the Hobbesian "war of all against all" for me...

That's merely a manifestation of ignorance about guns and the nature of both crime and self defense. Most people (meaning the majority of people) in the US are not particularly comfortable with the prospect of carrying a concealed handgun themselves, even if it's lawful. Generally, only about five percent of people actually do so where "shall issue" is the law for concealed carry permits. But the beneficial effects of such laws, and the five percent who do choose to carry, far, far outweigh the incredibly small risks to the general population posed by lawful concealed carry. The statistics are really rather remarkable. In Florida, for example, where the widespread issuing of permits began, in the first 15 years of the program, out of nearly half a million permits issued, fewer than 150 people had their permits revoked for ANY type of criminal offense. This is the case in every state, where permit revocations for cause barely reach one percent of permits issued in most places.

Combined with the fifteen percent or more permanent reductions in violent crime in places where it's lawful, the benefits to the public demonstrably outweigh the generally paranoid fears of the gun-banners who hysterically weep and wail about rivers of blood in the streets if concealed carry is permitted.

It simply doesn't happen. The 20 year experiment in the US that now includes more than 40 states and millions of people lawfully carrying handguns without incident, is over, and the results are in.

More guns, less crime.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes Seth we live a violent country so do you , but The numbers of guns in your country makes death for more likely ,thank you for proving the point .

IF Britain is a much more violent country as you have stated the much higher murder /homicide numbers in the US are only because of Guns then .

Actually, on another thread I posted the murder rates comparing the US with Europe and with a couple of exceptions the US rate is as low or lower. That's, of course, not limiting the analysis to gun-related murders, but including all murders. There are a couple of European countries whose murder rates are astoundingly low, but overall, if you compare the US and Europa (which is normally where comparisons are made because of comparable size), the US has a lower overall murder rate than Europe. I can hunt down that material if you want me to.

[FBM]

From your graph FBM it looks like there was a large spike in deaths that had little to do with the legislation . 1976 -1986 before the rise and a drop from the peak at 1982 until 2007 .how on the graph can you see evidence that the hand gun law Caused that spike ? Because to me they look almost independent of each other .

I posted a graph. It has spikey parts and everything. Why aren't you blindly agreeing with it?

Anyway, it's statistics. Just numbers. Causation is another matter to be debated. It's unlikely that a single cause has a single effect. Stats aren't good at demonstrating this. Policing, changes in public opinion, etc, aren't reflected on the graph. Like you say, they seem "almost" independent. But not quite.

└ Chicago



* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45]



* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]



* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51]






[52]



* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.[53]

chicago.jpg (55.04 KiB) Viewed 793 times

[54]



* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

chicago_handguns.jpg (47.29 KiB) Viewed 793 times

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

[Seth]

Yes Seth we live a violent country so do you , but The numbers of guns in your country makes death for more likely ,thank you for proving the point .

IF Britain is a much more violent country as you have stated the much higher murder /homicide numbers in the US are only because of Guns then .

It also has to do with culture.

But this is not a matter of guns/no guns. It's a matter of individual rights. The argument that you implicitly make is that in order to reduce the statistical murder rate overall, banning guns is a good idea, even though in doing so, the primary impact is only to ban law-abiding citizens from owning them because criminals don't generally obey gun control laws.

The problem with this argument, and the reason I never accept it as the least bit valid, is that the right to self defense is an INDIVIDUAL civil (and constitutional) right that is acknowledged by every civilized nation on earth. The right to defend oneself against violent attack is so fundamental that any interference with that right must be very carefully considered before proceeding. When a government denies its own citizens the right to effective self defense, which includes the possession and carrying of effective tools of self defense, that government is abusing its citizens by disrespecting the right of every individual to provide for their own personal safety and the safety of their families and indeed the safety of the entire community. That is both immoral and tyrannical.

In the UK, your masters (and I use that word deliberately) have decided for you that you're not permitted to defend yourself against violent attack. Oh, I know that the law technically permits self defense, but literally everything your government does or says is intended to dissuade and prevent you from effectively defending yourself. From banning guns, to banning knives, to banning OC or tear gas, your government says, in no uncertain terms, that you are "better off" if you simply capitulate and cower before the violent criminal, and that neither your dignity, your life nor your property are worth fighting for. The police in the UK have stated that citizens should NOT defend themselves or carry weapons of any kind because it "increases the level of violence."

But the fact is that it is the policies of the morons in Parliament and your police force who are increasing the level of violence and the crime rates in the UK. When criminals know that citizens are unarmed by law, and when they know that citizens will be prosecuted for harming the criminals who are victimizing them, the criminals are emboldened and violent crime rates skyrocket.

On the other hand, in the US, wherever concealed carry is lawful, crime rates DROP, remarkably. There's an obvious reason for that; criminals don't want to get shot dead.

For a government to disarm its citizens is an act of tyranny and injustice because in order to try to achieve some abstract statistical reduction in "gun homicide" rates or whatever, the bureaucrats in charge utterly ignore the rights of the INDIVIDUAL to protect himself, and they deliberately and knowingly make unwilling victims of individuals by disarming them in order to try to achieve a broad social goal.

Well, no individual's personal right to self defense may be morally, ethically or lawfully removed on the premise that they are an acceptable casualty in achieving an abstract social goal like reducing homicide rates, particularly when doing so causes exactly the opposite effect when it comes to violent crime. A government that disarms its people and leaves them helpless before criminals is illegitimate and must be overthrown and replaced with one that respects and protects the individual by allowing the individual to make the decision about what arms or devices he needs to possess in order to ensure his personal safety and the safety of his family and community.

So yes, we in the US accept a higher firearm homicide rate, but a much lower overall violent crime rate, as a consequence of respecting the rights of the individual to be armed for self defense, because it is immoral to make involuntary victims of citizens in a vain attempt to achieve an abstract social goal.