A good (long) read on gun control.

[Peregrinator]

I've read the article exactly to the point SeanH mentioned. And it was enough for me.

A gun seller, trainer, who trained SWAT teams, and teachers sometimes for free, which means he is highly biased anyway, promised us to tell us something about guns and gun control, but instead he tells us something about armed teachers and how good it could be, if there were no gun free zones any longer....

...and then he mentioned Oregon as example of "not so many killed because no gun free zone". He forgot to mention that the killer wasn't stopped by any civil gun owner. No mall shooting ever was. Maybe the mall as a gun free zone would have made the same results.

If he wants examples like that: Chardon High School shooting, only 3 people died. Gun free zone.

Westroads Mall shooting, 9 people died, 6 injured. No gun free zone.


Now discuss.

"I can't be bothered to read the article, so here's some stuff I hope refutes what I think it might say."

Here. Read this one instead: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Specifically, read the .pdf linked in the third paragraph.

Anyone interested in the issue may also like to see what the NAS has to say: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

 

[Ishmael]

"I can't be bothered to read the article, so here's some stuff I hope refutes what I think it might say."

Here. Read this one instead: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Specifically, read the .pdf linked in the third paragraph.

Anyone interested in the issue may also like to see what the NAS has to say: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

Or perhaps this one;

A Nation of Cowards

Ishmael

 

[John Doe]

Try finding me one that isn't twelve years old.

So recent gun bans are more effective than older ones?

 

[Peregrinator]

Try finding me one that isn't twelve years old.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/15/gun-crime-soars-in-england-by-35-where-guns-are-banned/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

 

[Ishmael]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/15/gun-crime-soars-in-england-by-35-where-guns-are-banned/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

So, no argument on logic? Go figure?


And this philosophy is 12 years old or more? And what does this congenital moron have to offer of more recent counterpoint? Not a fucking thing, nothing, nada, He's a blank slate, a zero. Yet you, Perg, seem to think he has something to say, even though he's said nothing as long as he's been here. Not a single declarative thought, not a single 'hang it all out there' declaration.

Yet this moronic piece of shit jumps on everything I say, you say, anyone says, that he disagrees with with verbal vindictive, not logic, not reason. Just "shout you down and tell lies" street theater.

And you marvel as to why I think you're a suck up. Tonight is the first time I've seen you show some real balls. illegitimi non carborundum.

Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

when you went driving with your mom as a kid ..did you die?


when someone shoots a guy in the head... he died


your mom used the car with its intended purpose


the guy that shot the other guy dead.... used the gun with its intended purpose

So every time you use a gun, someone dies?

 

[CHNOPS]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/15/gun-crime-soars-in-england-by-35-where-guns-are-banned/

That clicks through to an article that is 10 years old. Check and see. Here it is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

This is an editorial using information almost exclusively from the mid-1990s. The lone 2000's example says the following: In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

So fewer guns appears to mean fewer deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

This is an article comparing 2006 with 2005, when an increase in gun-related crimes occurred. The article also notes the following:

[T]he trend in gun crime overall has been going down....
Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489.
The trend in firearms offences is down in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and London....
While there has been substantial concern in recent years over the use of imitation weapons in gang incidents - not least because some can be converted into real guns - the figures show there has also been a decrease here.
Police recorded some 2,517 offences in 2006/07 involving imitation firearms - down almost a quarter on the previous year.
What all of this means is that we cannot draw any simple nationwide conclusions about gun crime. What we can say with certainty is that gun crime is a problem that remains closely focused in some cities that have witnessed some terrible deaths.
The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales....In fact, the most common weapon used in a violent crime in England and Wales is not a gun - but a knife.

-------

Any theories as to why are these examples are so bad?

 

[richard_daily]

This is an article comparing 2006 with 2005, when an increase in gun-related crimes occurred. The article also notes the following:

[T]he trend in gun crime overall has been going down....
Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489.
The trend in firearms offences is down in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and London....
While there has been substantial concern in recent years over the use of imitation weapons in gang incidents - not least because some can be converted into real guns - the figures show there has also been a decrease here.
Police recorded some 2,517 offences in 2006/07 involving imitation firearms - down almost a quarter on the previous year.
What all of this means is that we cannot draw any simple nationwide conclusions about gun crime. What we can say with certainty is that gun crime is a problem that remains closely focused in some cities that have witnessed some terrible deaths.
The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales....In fact, the most common weapon used in a violent crime in England and Wales is not a gun - but a knife.

-------

Any theories as to why are these examples are so bad?

What happened to the statistics from 2007-2011?

 

[CHNOPS]

What happened to the statistics from 2007-2011?

It's an article from January, 2008. I'm going to go ahead and guess that they didn't have figures from 2008-2011 just yet.

 

[richard_daily]

It's an article from January, 2008. I'm going to go ahead and guess that they didn't have figures from 2008-2011 just yet.

One year alone doesn't give any significant information in terms of data, you should know that.

 

[CHNOPS]

One year alone doesn't give any significant information in terms of data, you should know that.

It wasn't my article, and you're making my point.

Aside from that, you're doing great.

 

[Ishmael]

What happened to the statistics from 2007-2011?

Still going down. (Reference he FBI's UCR.) Go to FBI.gov and click on the appropriate links.

Ishmael

 

[CHNOPS]

Still going down. (Reference he FBI's UCR.) Go to FBI.gov and click on the appropriate links.

Ishmael

Fbi.gov has a lot of information about gun crime in Britain, does it? Can you help out with a link? I just clicked over and they seem bizarrely focused on domestic crime. Weird, no idea why.

 

[richard_daily]

It wasn't my article, and you're making my point.

Aside from that, you're doing great.

You're pulling an ishmale.

You posted the information as proof of something, but one year alone doesn't prove anything, as anyone who's taken even high school level statistics course should know.

 

[CHNOPS]

You're pulling an ishmale.

You posted the information as proof of something, but one year alone doesn't prove anything, as anyone who's taken even high school level statistics course should know.

I didn't post the article as proof of anything. Perg posted it--as proof that gun crime was increasing. (For future reference, you can tell that by the "Originally posted by Peregrinator" that precedes the article link.) I quoted it to point out that it's a silly article to post in defense of his position, which, near as I can tell, is the same as yours.

Now you've similarly attacked it as useless.

This puts you in kind of a funny position.

 

[richard_daily]

I didn't post the article as proof of anything. Perg posted it--as proof that gun crime was increasing. (For future reference, you can tell that by the "Originally posted by Peregrinator" that precedes the article link.) I quoted it to point out that it's a silly article to post in defense of his position, which, near as I can tell, is the same as yours.

Now you've similarly attacked it as useless.

This puts you in kind of a funny position.

One year of statistics is useless, whether you cited it, or perg.

As an example; the only post-"assault weapons" ban info that you can find is from one year after that ban, from there on after, it was proven to be useless.

 

[CHNOPS]

One year of statistics is useless, whether you cited it, or perg.

As an example; the only post-"assault weapons" ban info that you can find is from one year after that ban, from there on after, it was proven to be useless.

You are correct: when it comes to long-term trends, one year of statistics is useless.

Which is why the more salient part of that article was when it placed gun crime in the larger trend, and noted that it had decreased.

I appreciate your support on this point.

 

[PoppingTom]

That presumes that the intent of all guns is killing humans -- a presumption that is false.

Guns are made for killing. Period.

It doesn't matter if you only can kill a mouse with it or only injure a human. Their intent is killing. There's no other use.

 

[BusyAfternoon]

We're told what we need to know, about events around the country, by the national media. When to be shocked, sympathetic, outraged. We're just not told everything that takes place because it might give us conflicting thoughts. Like cattle in a thunderstorm we could stampede!


On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to
a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more
people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it
like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.

I LOOKED IT UP: "EMBASSY THEATER SAN ANTONIO SHOOTING"

 

[PoppingTom]

"I can't be bothered to read the article, so here's some stuff I hope refutes what I think it might say."

Here. Read this one instead: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

I did, until this:

"Nations with (1) stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the (2)lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)."

It's obvious that 1 and 2 are two separate things. Mixing them together is the typical pro-gun tactic.

It's new to me that Norway had the highest possession of firearms in Europe, but no problem, the Los Angeles Times wrote:

"Gun ownership in Norway is common, although strict gun regulations and limitations are in place on ammunition for certain kinds of guns.

The rules for having a gun at home have been tightened in recent years, with gun safes becoming mandatory, according to local Norwegian news reports, The end cap of guns must be removed before storage, and those without a gun safe must remove components of the weapon before it is stored, essentially disabling it. In addition, Norwegians have been told the vital parts of the weapon should be locked up separately."

I call it gun control.

Btw: Norwa only got 4-5 million citizens. Japan got 128 millions - and a lower homicide rate than Norway. Now read about their gun laws:

"Japan, in the postwar period, has had gun regulation which is strict in principle. Gun licensing is required, and is heavily regulated by the National Police Agency of Japan.

The weapons law begins by stating "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed. The only types of firearms which a Japanese citizen may acquire are rifles or shotguns. Sportsmen are permitted to possess rifles or shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[81] Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands."

I call it strict gun control.

I'm sorry to say that, but if even a harvard professor in your country confuses "ban" with "control" and makes such shitty , half-baked, non-falsified arguments, something must be very wrong.

 

[PoppingTom]

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. ...

We call that "police".....and who cares that she was off duty ? Policemen are responsible gun owners. Never said anything else.

 

[PoppingTom]

So every time you use a gun, someone dies?

i know, Americans use their gun, if they forgot their key.

Strange to say, Americans rather forget their key than their gun.

 

[tactful]

Damn that Samuel, and mental illness.

 

[Sean]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/15/gun-crime-soars-in-england-by-35-where-guns-are-banned/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Chinups already hit the high points. You're doing exactly what the GW deniers do.

So, no argument on logic? Go figure?


And this philosophy is 12 years old or more? And what does this congenital moron have to offer of more recent counterpoint? Not a fucking thing, nothing, nada, He's a blank slate, a zero. Yet you, Perg, seem to think he has something to say, even though he's said nothing as long as he's been here. Not a single declarative thought, not a single 'hang it all out there' declaration.

Yet this moronic piece of shit jumps on everything I say, you say, anyone says, that he disagrees with with verbal vindictive, not logic, not reason. Just "shout you down and tell lies" street theater.

And you marvel as to why I think you're a suck up. Tonight is the first time I've seen you show some real balls. illegitimi non carborundum.

Ishmael

Aww, still upset that I pulled you on the last lie you tried to pass off on this subject?

 

[Peregrinator]

Chinups already hit the high points. You're doing exactly what the GW deniers do.


Aww, still upset that I pulled you on the last lie you tried to pass off on this subject?

Chinups doesn't argue. He strokes his ego in public. He's a boring and patronizing poster with a set of standards for himself and another for everyone else.

I have never seen a correlation proved between strict gun laws and lower gun crime rates. Here, take a look at this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world

Or just explain why Vermont has so few gun crimes, with our crazy Wild West style gun laws. If you want to make the argument that strict gun laws save lives, you need to start explaining why Chicago and DC are gun murder Meccas while VT and AK are not. I think there's another explanation at work. There are other variables.