Easier to Kill w/ a Gun Than W/out a Gun

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.

I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.

Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.

OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.

I personally feel that the majority of violence in my country as well as your country revolves around the war on drugs
[/quote]

Americas violence revolves around the war on drugs to a much greater extent than in Britain. The reason why is because America puts a lot more resources into law enforcement which causes the cost of drugs to be higher which in turn causes the drug trade to be much more competitive.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes in most circumstances then someone should have the right to defend themselves and I would support them doing that. I don’t think that equates to everyone buying a gun though.

Where do you draw the line? If I buy a gun for defence, the person attacking me needs a bigger gun, now we have escalation.

Here is something you may be missing. No one has the right to attack another person. [/quote]

In Britain if you have been drinking you do.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.

I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.

Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.

OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.

I personally feel that the majority of violence in my country as well as your country revolves around the war on drugs

Americas violence revolves around the war on drugs to a much greater extent than in Britain. The reason why is because America puts a lot more resources into law enforcement which causes the cost of drugs to be higher which in turn causes the drug trade to be much more competitive.
[/quote]

It is the efforts Law Enforcement puts into it that is the problem, we would need %50 of the cops if we had no drug arrests. It is a failed war, with all the efforts they put into it ,I can still go buy anything I want, it just costs more

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:

Ahhh, got it. On that note, just bought a S&W Model 37 (38 Special). Fits very nicely in my pants pocket.[/quote]

Is that the one with the internal hammer? If so, that’s the one I want to get for my wife. She’s not big on guns and that seems like the least intimidating if she had to grab it out of the safe in the middle of the night when I’m out of town.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

Ahhh, got it. On that note, just bought a S&W Model 37 (38 Special). Fits very nicely in my pants pocket.

Is that the one with the internal hammer? If so, that’s the one I want to get for my wife. She’s not big on guns and that seems like the least intimidating if she had to grab it out of the safe in the middle of the night when I’m out of town.[/quote]

No. It’s got a bobbed hammer. It would be a good gun for a woman to learn on, but you may want to get bigger than stock grips.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I take a couple of days off from TN and lo and behold, what do I find when I return? The omniscient British guy living in Mexico farting from the mouth again about what is best for Americans in regards to their self defense.

Adorable.

Don’t you just love it?

Britain is experiencing such massive increases in violent crime that the government official responsible for law enforcement can’t go out for a walk in her constituency in the daytime without a police escort and body armor. Despite the rising crime there still are die hards like this guy who think that when it comes to dealing with crime Britain has it right while America has it wrong.
[/quote]

Apparently things aren’t so good in Mexico either. Escalating drug violence has wealthy Mexicans fleeing to Texas for safety.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou090111_mp_drug-violence-mexico.1745bf03.html

What? They couldn’t possibly be safer in Texas. There are a bunch of crazy Americans there who own guns!

Anyway, I really get a kick out of Cockney coming in here and wailing about how dangerous it must be to live in the US if we all need guns. I’d say that Britain must have the TRULY VIOLENT populace, if we can’t trust the average citizen there with the means to reliably protect himself and his family without worrying about him going on a killing spree.

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
What? They couldn’t possibly be safer in Texas. There are a bunch of crazy Americans there who own guns!

Anyway, I really get a kick out of Cockney coming in here and wailing about how dangerous it must be to live in the US if we all need guns. I’d say that Britain must have the TRULY VIOLENT populace, if we can’t trust the average citizen there with the means to reliably protect himself and his family without worrying about him going on a killing spree. [/quote]

Had you ever seen British teenagers on a drinking binge during their holidays you would know that his worries are not completely unsubstantiated.

[quote]orion wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
What? They couldn’t possibly be safer in Texas. There are a bunch of crazy Americans there who own guns!

Anyway, I really get a kick out of Cockney coming in here and wailing about how dangerous it must be to live in the US if we all need guns. I’d say that Britain must have the TRULY VIOLENT populace, if we can’t trust the average citizen there with the means to reliably protect himself and his family without worrying about him going on a killing spree.

Had you ever seen British teenagers on a drinking binge during their holidays you would know that his worries are not completely unsubstantiated.[/quote]

England proves the converse of Heinlein’s dictum: an unarmed society is an impolite society.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
What? They couldn’t possibly be safer in Texas. There are a bunch of crazy Americans there who own guns!

Anyway, I really get a kick out of Cockney coming in here and wailing about how dangerous it must be to live in the US if we all need guns. I’d say that Britain must have the TRULY VIOLENT populace, if we can’t trust the average citizen there with the means to reliably protect himself and his family without worrying about him going on a killing spree.

Had you ever seen British teenagers on a drinking binge during their holidays you would know that his worries are not completely unsubstantiated.

England proves the converse of Heinlein’s dictum: an unarmed society is an impolite society.[/quote]

Did he have anything to say about “drunk” and “horny”?

These finding about gun laws and crime rates are interesting to say the least, especially when Canada is compared to the US, from wikipedia:

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies and papers published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate.[31] Academics have also taken the discussion to books, blogs, and oral debates.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott’s analysis of crime report data has shown statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime. The possible reasons for this rise in property crime are twofold:

* Property crimes include trespassing, and concealed-carry statutes that include prohibited-area laws introduce the possibility of trespass where the individual would otherwise be in violation of a weapons law by carrying concealed (e.g. unlawful carry) or would not carry and be lawful.
* Concealed carry allows potential victims of violent crime to prevent such crime; as a result, the assailant, if not fatally shot, is instead charged with a property crime such as burglary instead of homicide.

In both cases, crime is reduced overall, and criminal activity that does occur is recategorized as to type and severity because of the effects of the change in law.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[32]

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the “shall-issue” concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[33] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.[34] Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby’s massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.[35]

Research comparing various countries’ violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[36][32]

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported “Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states.”[37] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is ? a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[37]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Simply because you can’t imagine a situation where you would have the courage to defend yourself with lethal force doesn’t mean those with less fear of confrontation should be penalized.

see, I didn’t infer that you called me a coward, you didn’t imply it, you flat out said it, don’t try and weasel out.[/quote]

Lack of courage need not make you a coward. It makes you a sheep. You simply exist and watch instead of act. Nothing more. If you believe that makes you a coward then so be it.

suruppak: Very interesting about Canada vs US in the last post.

Any chance of a link to the source?

Also, if you are allowed to have a gun, then I seen no reason why you shouldn’t have concealed carry.

Sifu: In the Harriot Harman picture what you fail to mention is that she is wearing a stabproof vest, not bulletproof. And the reason that she is wearing it is that she is on a visit with the police. They had been talking about how light the new vest was, so she put one on. Great tabloid journalism there bud.

And I love that you think Mexico is totally lawless except for the gun laws which no-one dares break. Great consistant arguing!

Push: take a chill pill, you get so bent out of shape at the very audacity of someone disagreeing with you that I really wonder why you are on a discussion forum in the first place.

Thanks for the link, found one for you so that you can wack off over the pictures of big guns
http://findmyhobby.com/collecting/militaria/

Orion: Very true. The scally kids were far more dangerous than the drugs gangs when I was living in Manchester.

MrRezister: The average Brit reads the sun and voted for Tony Blair, I wouldn’t trust them with a sharpened pencil let alone a firearm.

Loosetool: not so safe in Houston by all reports

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080807_jj_12_year_old_shot_killed.2333cb64.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/houstonmetro/stories/khou080209_tnt_niteclubshoot.a7956601.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/houstonmetro/stories/khou080105_tnt_dadubspotshooting.11cdc958.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou071219_tj_gunrangeshooting.31ce3eca.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou070918_jj_fortbendshooting.e730943d.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou070918_jj_fortbendshooting.e730943d.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/galveston/stories/khou070629_jj_shootingvictim.27098c5f.html

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou070525_jj_6yearoldshot.ccc934a.html

[quote]hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Simply because you can’t imagine a situation where you would have the courage to defend yourself with lethal force doesn’t mean those with less fear of confrontation should be penalized.

see, I didn’t infer that you called me a coward, you didn’t imply it, you flat out said it, don’t try and weasel out.

Lack of courage need not make you a coward. It makes you a sheep. You simply exist and watch instead of act. Nothing more. If you believe that makes you a coward then so be it.

[/quote]

Enough with the sheep comments, just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me a sheep. On the whole I actually have a contrarian position to the majority, hence continuing to flog the dead horse of this thread I guess.

Cockney, do you mean to imply that the people fleeing from the murder, social disintegration and chaos prevalent in Juarez, now face an even greater threat in the form of the accidental discharge of legally-owned firearms in Houston?

:stuck_out_tongue:

Oh, and the Wiki article suruppak was quoting can be found here: Concealed carry - Wikipedia

:wink:

and thanks for the link

And here is some oposition to the previous link

Opposition
Academic studies that have rejected Lott’s conclusions include the following. With the exception of the 2003 study by John J. Donohue, these studies generally contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. Donohue’s 2003 study finds an increase in violence. (This is contradicted by Moody and Marvell’s September 2008 study in Econ Journal Watch; a response from Donohue and Ayres will be forthcoming in the January 2009 issue.)

David Hemenway, ‘Review of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws’, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998.[10] Hemenway’s review states
Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially increases murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott’s results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic rise in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws
Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that “Lott?s massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task”, and that he “compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City” without proper statistical controls. He alleged that econometric methods are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science. [11]
Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue, Stanford Law School, ‘Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis’. Stanford Law Review, 2003.[12]
Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, “Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data”, published in International Review of Law and Economics, 1998.[13].
Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do ‘Right-to-Carry’ Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 209-213 (January 1998).
Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, “More Guns, More Crime,” National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.[14]
Steven Levitt, University of Chicago, ‘Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not’. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004.[15] Levitt lists ‘Laws allowing a right to carry concealed weapons’ as number five in his list of ‘Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline’.
Jeffrey Miron, Boston University, ‘Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis’. The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[16]
Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, “Right-To-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?” Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003) pages 363-396.
John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, ‘The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis’, Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.[17]

[edit] Ambiguous results
Academic studies that have both agreed and disagreed with aspects of Lott’s conclusions include the following.

David E. Olson, Loyola University Chicago, and Michael D. Maltz, University of Illinois at Chicago, “Right-to-carry concealed weapons laws and homicide in large U.S. counties: the effect on weapon types, victim characteristics, and victim-offender relationships,” The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[18]

I do worry about solving Mexico and Britain’s problems. I am actively envolved in trying to improve the situation in Mexico.

But what you have to remember Push, is that this is a discussion forum. For discussing things. This area is called ‘politics and world issues.’ It is on the internet and therefore open to people from all over the world to post on. That’s one of the great things about the internet.

As I have repeatedly stated, having a different background can give you a different perspective on a situation which leads to an interesting discussion.

I have learnt some interesting things by having the discussion.

If you haven’t, feel free to not read the thread. Feel free to read one of the thousands of others.

Or better yet, close yourself up in your house, switch off all forms of media and totally avoid having to hear, read or see anyone’s opinion other than your own.