And yet countries with stricter gun control have less crime then countries with little or no gun control.
Gee, imagine that.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Not at all true.
Switzerland has a higher rate of handgun homicide than other countries, such as Australia, Canada and Britain. Yet Switzerland, with a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 has a much lower murder rate than Australia (2.7) *300 and Canada (2.5), and a somewhat lower murder rate than Great Britain (1.1 for England and Wales, 1.7 for Scotland). The data suggest that there is not necessarily a relationship between the handgun homicide rate and the overall homicide rate.
American data also fails to provide support for a strict relationship between handgun density and total homicide. Population groups which are highest in handgun ownership rates-namely wealthier people, Protestants, whites, and rural populations-all have lower homicide rates than other groups. In addition, the American homicide rate rose tenfold in the first three decades of the twentieth century but U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable. Between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent. Homicide fell again in the early to mid 1980s, even as handgun ownership was surging.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...surely wealthy and therefore presumably healthy and, maybe, happy people will be less liable to kill each other regardless?
Or, to be cynical, simply less liable to be caught and punished. But I don't really believe that.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Switzerland has a higher rate of handgun homicide than other countries, such as Australia, Canada and Britain.
Switzerland also gives its citizens weapons. Although they have strict gun control, looking at the availabilty of weapons there as compared to Great Britain and other countries does show why they have a higher crime rate.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
But a LOWER murder rate.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And, of course, guns are never used for any purpose other than murder. For example, no-one's ever been robbed at gunpoint. Ever.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Compare the crime rates/murder rates/handgun homicide rates of Toronto against Philadelphia's, then sit down and shut up.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: [QB]Switzerland has a higher rate of handgun homicide than other countries, such as Australia, Canada and Britain. Yet Switzerland, with a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 has . . .a somewhat lower murder rate than Great Britain (1.1 for England and Wales, 1.7 for Scotland). The data suggest that there is not necessarily a relationship between the handgun homicide rate and the overall homicide rate.[QB]
And the OVERALL murder rate for the UK would be. . ? Not much higher given comparative population densities of England & Scotland. The actual difference is infinitesimal. You're going to have us believe that a few more people killed in the UK in one particular year, than in Switzerland, is sufficient proof that widespread gun ownership is not connected to murder rates?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
From the early ninteies.
Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)
United States 29% Switzerland 14 Finland 7 Germany 7 Belgium 6 France 6 Canada 5 Norway 4 Europe 4 Australia 2 Netherlands 2 United Kingdom 1
Handgun murders (1992) (2)
Country Murders* Population Rates** -------------------------------------------------- United States * 13,429 * 254,521,000 * 5.28 Switzerland * 97 * 6,828,023 * 1.42 Canada * 128 * 27,351,509 * 0.47 Sweden * 36 * 8,602,157 * 0.42 Australia * 13 * 17,576,354 * 0.07 United Kingdom * 33 * 57,797,514 * 0.06 Japan * 60 * 124,460,481 * 0.05
*Murders committed with handgunds ** Murder Handgun rate
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I am lifting my self-imposted ban on posting in the flameboard...
I was actually thinking of doing something like that myself. Not lifting one...rather imposing one.
The vast circular motion on this board is nauseating at times.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Indeed. I've been fighting off a bad case of motion sickness for a while.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Number of murders commited with a weapon of any type in Crawford county, MI in 2001, 0.
Number of murders commited with an automobile, 2.
Does this suggest that Crawford county should ban automobiles?
The story is that a woman got pissed at her passengers and rammed a building, deciding that their ribbing made her want to kill herself. The thing is they died and she lived.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Cars are built to transport people.
Guns are built to kill people.
Big difference.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Statisticly speaking, not in Crawfrod county.....
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No one has ever shot someone in Crawford county? No one transports themselves in cars in Crawford country? What do you do, ride your guns to work and take your cars to the shooting range ... ?
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
We tried that, but the fumes were a killer.....
I'd imagine that sometimes since the inception of the county someone shot somebody, but not in 2001.
On the flipside no one has held up anyplace at car point, a few places have been held up and pistol and knife points, so they have been used in the commission of a felony, just not the big one of murder.....
Although some of the tourists seem like they are holding the county at car point, but, I guess that is neither here no there for this.
We could go to the point of the Simpsons, complete and total disarmament, then when the aliens invade we have to fight back with two by fours with nails in them.....
Attitudes are the problem, not the weapons. The number of murders I have read about, while living in Port Huron and Atlanta (MI), have been mainly commited with cars, ball bats, knives, machetes, and the likes, 6 murders in the past 3 years in the areas I've lived and 1 (one) was commited with a firearm. This leads me to believe that if people are going to kill then it doesn't matter what they have at hand, they will. Once the attitudes of people change, from the tough guy syndrom, the I want your stuff syndrom, and the hatered of people being different syndrom is cured people will die from the actions of others. So to impose a ban on hand weapons, to the point of not making them even, will lead to sawed off shotguns and rifles, which will lead to a ban on them, all the way doen to a ban on 2x4s and nails.
The problem is the "nothing can be done" attitude towards changing society back to one where people respect each other without me proving to the others that I am worthy of respect without me killing someone, and our 'One Nation under God' is the one that needs the most changing.
You want to help ease crime, move to an area that needs volunteers to give guidance to troubled youths, show them there is a better way to live and treat people. This won't work 100% of the time, just like the death penalty hasn't, because some people just can not be reached, or thier mind goes.
So don't blame Smith & Wesson, Colt, Beretta, or the others, blame us.
Okay, I think I can give the soap box back, and remember
No, new taxes and a gun in every home and car
[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Lost ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Interestingly enough, the study I quoted a little bit from above goes on to find a VERY strong correlation between gun ownership/use by a certain segment of the population, and handgun crime.
That segment?
The police.
Countries with unarmed police, or police who rarely carry/use guns (Japan, The U.K.) tend to have low gun crime rates across the board.
When the police start carrying more guns, (as they have in the UK), the crooks start carrying more guns to 'even the field.'
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Introducing the new NRA slogan for '02: "Guns don't kill people, people do, and only because the cops are, like, seriously tooled up, dude."
I mean, has it occurred to you that maybe gun use among unarmed police forces has increased due to the growth of gun crime, and not the other way round? Probably not, since that would imply that gun ownership is somehow bad; instead you choose to submit that the police, the ultimate authority figures in our society, are to blame. From there it's a logical step to believing that you need guns to protect yourselves from these authoritarians, and boom there you are, forming militias and wearing too much camouflage clothing.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's occurred to me, all right.. it just isn't what the statistics show.
I generally reject theories that don't fit the facts, unlike creationists and socialists.
The police in the UK recently started carrying more guns as a result of an incident where some unarmed cops were killed by a person armed with a handgun, this is true. But this was ONE incident.
However, the ban was supposed to take care of that problem.
If the theory of banning was correct and the theory of reciprocal carry was incorrect, the number of gun crimes should have dropped substantially.
That the number has not dropped, but in fact has risen by 30%, demonstrates that at LEAST one of the above conclusions is false.
Either the gun ban is ineffective, or the gun use has risen in response to the police carrying more often, or both.
Or perhaps there's a third factor... but you'd have to tell me what that is.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Lost, are you Ritten?
Where the heck have you been? Welcome back!
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Yep, and Thanks Took a bit of time off and moved to Michigan's "Great White North" for a change of pace
No I am going to get a few things, in my life, changed and come back with a nasty vengence....
How's everyone doing???
"..... guns are great guns are good, not every one has one but every one should....."
Okay, so it is slightly modified lyrics.... Let the guy sue me.... Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Not to mention the meter...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Meter? It's not that long, more like a foot. 8)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Happiness is a warm gun....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
In response to Fo2's question, neither of the above.
First of all, if the British police stop carrying guns so much, gun crime will decrease? Nonsense. Criminals don't carry guns because the police do, there aren't running gun battles between cops and robbers. Possible reasons for the rise in gun crime include the increased threat and fear-factor imposed by a gun now they're no longer a part of everyday life, or the growth of foreign-origin gangster culture in the UK such as the Jamaican Yardie gangs.
So what if the gun ban is ineffective? At least we're trying to do something about it. Again, by your logic, banning guns doesn't work, therefore guns shouldn't be banned. Now apply that rule to, say, drugs, or child pornography and paedophilia. All the laws and bannings aren't working there, should we give up on that too?
And then there's the actual increase in gun crime. The streets are still safe. Guns are still used in robberies and hold-ups just like they always were, whether or not those are on the increase I can't say. Most of the murders are drug-related so no great loss there. As you said, people will still murder each other whether they have guns or not. Hijackers can still get knives on to airplanes no matter how much the authorities try to stop them, so maybe the airline knife ban should be given up too?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:whether or not those are on the increase I can't say.
The article said. Didn't you read it?
When a ban leads to an INCREASE in crime (Like Prohibition in the US in the 1920's), then the ban is "ineffective" in the way that I was putting it.
In the case of the other bans you mention, that is not the case (well, maybe with drugs, but drugs are generally more dangerous than alcohol, and their widespread use would likely cause greater problems).
In the UK gun ban, however, that does seem to be the case. Ban handguns, and gun-related crime jumps 30%? That does not have the air of a resounding success.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So what if the gun ban is ineffective? At least we're trying to do something about it.
Oh, my, well, let's give you a medal. You have good INTENTIONS! So what if the result is a massive increase in crime? You still meant well.
If what you try makes things worse, STOP IT and try something ELSE! Duh!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:If what you try makes things worse, STOP IT and try something ELSE! Duh!
And yet when anyone tries to tell you that the War on Drugs is a COMPLETE FAILURE, you turn a blind eye to it! DUH! Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What, they're not allowed to learn from our example?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Nice attempt at misdirection and changing the subject, though. Desperation tactic.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I love how Rob says I'm changing the subject when all I do is regurgitate Omega's post virtually word for word
Anyway, I suppose your answer would be to give everyone in England guns. Then, when their percentage of gun-related crimes is up to ours, you can feel proud and justified that guns prevent crimes, even though England's present jump in the crime rate is due to the presense of handguns. And when that makes things "worse", you won't even heed your own advice to ban guns, because that would be "wrong." Fuck the crime rate, you just want a handgun and are willing to go to any lengths to ignore facts that show that countries with fewer guns have far fewer crimes committed then the U.S. of A.
Yet more examples of indoctrinated gun owners clapping their hands over their ears and screaming "IT'S NOT TRUE! IT'S NOT TRUE!" and ignoring reality.
How childish.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: What, they're not allowed to learn from our example?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Nice attempt at misdirection and changing the subject, though. Desperation tactic.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Ah, so in Omega's WoD case, it's "learning from an example", but not here? Or could you *possibly* have meant that Ommie take note from Jeff's re-formulation of his post? Though I wonder why you'd refer to him in the plural form if that's the case.
And the real desperation tactic is accusing others of attempting to divert people's attention.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Okay, let's get back on the real topic of discussion, the apparent failure of the English ban, and let's Keep It Simple. No going on about Japan, no talking about the US's homicide rate, no digressions into who wants to own guns, knives, or tactical nuclear weapons, or into the respective characters of Bush, Gore, Clinton, Bush II, or Buddy. Talk about the situation in England, or Keep Off The Friggin' Grass.
1. England banned all civilian ownership of handguns. The intent being to reduce handgun crime.
2. Handgun crime (apparently perpetrated largely by civilians) has risen (30% to 90%, depending upon the type of crime, mugging to murder) since the ban.
Both of the above statements are incontrovertible, undisputed facts.
The inescapable conclusion is that the handgun ban did NOT have the desired result.
Given the significant RISE in the handgun crime rate, it is quite reasonable to theorize that the ban has had a contrarian effect, although it is possible to suppose that the rise is due to other factors, but it is the responsibility of the pro-ban speaker to provide us with the alternative factor and an explanation.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So what would your answer be?
Give everyone guns and hope the crime rate doesn't increase?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
For varying definitions of "give" and "everyone", it might not be a bad idea. How 'bout:
Allow any mentally compenant adult with no criminal record beyond a certain point (i.e. a traffic ticket) to purchase a gun if he or she chooses.
Work for you?
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Sadly, Omega, neither you or I are citizens of the U.K. And while those definitions would sit fine with me as someone whose got to put up with the Second Ammendment, it strikes me as kind of funny that any American would think they know what is best for England.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
I can tell you what would be good for the world.......
1. Get all the people together that want to do drugs on an island.... Mind if I borrow Australia for a bit here. Since most crimes that use firearms seem to be drug related....
2. On this island you print up trillions in some goof ball currency, and scatter it liberally about the land mass.
3. Plant all the plants needed to make all those pleasureable drugs, and set up the factories needed to refine and define them, plus those needed to make synthetic ones.
or......
Banning all firearms may seem like a sweet dream to some, but then you would have drive by cocktailings and sling shootings.
A real question here...
In any nation, what types of firearm saftey classes are offered to people, what types are manadory?
My father demonstrated the power of fireams to me before I was big enough to weild the things, since they were twice as long as I was tall, by taking me out and shooting things, deer, rabbits, coyetes, that the likes. Seeing the damage can have a sobering effect on one. Maybe institute that kind of class to the kids, anywhere, along with teaching the tyke's that they don't need to shoot someone to earn other peoples respect.
Here's what we have sofar. 1. A ban on legal ownership of hand firearm would only be followed by legal minded people. This makes me think that a reverse psyc thing is happening. Criminals won't use guns because the people they are robbing won't have one.....
2. The bans seem to have no effect on crime rates, or an increasing effect on it.
3. No one seems interested in rooting out the bottom lines of these crimes, just the weapons/tactics used in them.
4. Our time could be better spent fly fishing for Raptors in the Artic than continuing on in this circular set of arguments.
Does that sound right to you all????
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Snay: My answer is nothing so extreme as that.
You're falling into the 'Omega Either-Or Trap.' (TM).
Either handguns must be banned entirely Or the government must give everyone a handgun.
How about just repealing the ineffective law?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
And then what? Just. . . let anyone who wants to own a gun have one, and let this country become the Wild West?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Was it the Wild West BEFORE the ban?
If not, it's exceedinly foolish, bordering on deranged, to think that it will suddenly become so if the ban were repealed.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Rob actually makes a point, for once.
But I think the answer would be to keep the ban in place and find out *where* people are getting guns from, and shutting down the source. I'm sure that's not as easy as it sounds, but it shouldn't be impossible. A good place to start would be stricter controls on military and police weaponry.
Also, given the time between the passing of the ban and the jump of crime, I'd say its unrelated to said ban.
[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Doubtful. I believe that a study of the intervening years would show a rise each year. If it rises again this year, Other things remaining the same, a pattern should become obvious.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Whatever. But, since we Brits are obviously incapable of getting this right, let us sip from the fountain of your wisdom. We lose the ban. Then what?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, three days and no answer. That saddens me. I was hoping for some long, breathtakingly-researched plan to curb gun crime without infringing on Mankind's God-given right to own firearms. But obviously not. It seems this thread was, after all, just another chance to gloat over the misfortunes of others.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Nah, Nah, your country is getting as bad as ours.....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well of COURSE it's bad.. can't even tell that the 12th to the 14th is 2 days, not 3.
No wonder they're having problems with basic logical problems.
If I don't answer for two days, it's probably because it's Sunday and Monday, and I'm on vacation at my apartment where there is NO computer yet.
As for your question.. I don't know for certain what the answer is. But it's clear that the ban isn't it.
Since useless laws weaken the necessary laws, the useless law should be repealed. Brits aren't that likely to devolve.
Myself, I would suggest replacing the ban with an Exile-like program, where anybody who uses a gun in the commission of a crime (and this includes having a gun on your person when committing any other crime, even if it isn't used) gets a mandatory 5 years added on to any sentence.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, my thinking was more along the lines of it was the third day since I'd posted it. Keeping track of time gets tricky when the time-of-posting mark is 8 time zones out.
But, whatever, we're not here to criticise each other's grammar, that's Tim's job. We're not here to shoot each other's arguments down because of grammar, that's Omega's job. Between them we've ended up with a lot of posters who don't bother to use grammar at all. 8)
Has this Exile program ever been tried anywhere, and shown statistical results?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes. I don't have exact statistics right now.. .but I'll try and get some.
An excerpt from a brief statement from the Virginia Attorney General's office:
quote:Project Exile has been an effective tool for fighting gun-related crimes in Richmond. The capital city’s homicide-by-firearm rate for 1998 was more than 36% lower than that for 1997. So far this year, the rate has declined even further. More than 450 armed criminals have been removed from Richmond’s streets, and other would-be criminals have shown a great reluctance to carry weapons for fear of being subjected to harsher mandatory federal sentences.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
Michigan does it also..... Maybe that's why they are using baseball bats and cars as the weapons of choice here.... I remember reading that Flint wasn't the Murder Capitol of the World anymore, a title it held for quite sometime.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Michael Moore never mentioned that in Roger and Me. . .
I've always been ambiguous about guns. The thing I like about this country is, it's never been a gun-owning country really. Probably because we wiped out all the dangerous predators hundreds of years ago. And with a handgun ban, that means that ordinary people generally don't have an excuse to own them. This leaves them firmly in the hands of the criminal element, who don't care that they're illegal. Since, for the most part, they've always just been killing each other, no problem. But if they're starting to be used against unarmed members of the public, then something needs to be done.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)