Another ban falls

[CUDA]

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

link

[CUDA]

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

[CUDA]

Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

[CUDA]

Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower

[CUDA]

Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower

[CUDA]

It seems the numbers say you're wrong

[callmeslick]

with the exception of Florida, those aren't even statistically significant, CUDA. And the whole international study is beyond flawed. Anomalies?

I think it's fair to say that open carry laws haven't generated any mass of bloodbaths yet, but I'm with vision(and apparently Will) here: slowly ramp up the laws, and address public safety on a slow trajectory. That seems like a sensible approach. The problem is that the gun lobby wants no part of sensible, as stated. They market upon fear of your fellow citizens.

[Krom]

I think the thing that these local gun bans miss, is in the absence of a total national ban of guns; the fewer people who have guns, the more powerful those people are. And criminals are well aware of this fact, so they become much more aggressive and bold in an area with a gun ban in place.

So it isn't really that guns are safer when they aren't banned, it is just that criminals with guns are more dangerous when guns are banned. And you can also extend this logic to the government (so any national weapons ban should also require the government to disarm and destroy theirs as well).

[callmeslick]

I think the thing that these local gun bans miss, is in the absence of a total national ban of guns; the fewer people who have guns, the more powerful those people are. And criminals are well aware of this fact, so they become much more aggressive and bold in an area with a gun ban in place.

So it isn't really that guns are safer when they aren't banned, it is just that criminals with guns are more dangerous when guns are banned. And you can also extend this logic to the government (so any national weapons ban should also require the government to disarm and destroy theirs as well).

and, you would expect this to EVER happen? I mean, the serious weaponry that the government has goes far past 'guns'.

[Will Robinson]

I think the thing that these local gun bans miss, is in the absence of a total national ban of guns; the fewer people who have guns, the more powerful those people are. And criminals are well aware of this fact, so they become much more aggressive and bold in an area with a gun ban in place.

So it isn't really that guns are safer when they aren't banned, it is just that criminals with guns are more dangerous when guns are banned. And you can also extend this logic to the government (so any national weapons ban should also require the government to disarm and destroy theirs as well).

and, you would expect this to EVER happen? I mean, the serious weaponry that the government has goes far past 'guns'.

England for years had some benefit from that situation. Cops and robbers both used clubs...
And Mexico, mostly because the Federales didn't want to be faced with armed local police, kept the guns in the hands of the troops and made the local cops go unarmed.

Kind of an example of the practice at its best and it's worse....

I don't think you could ever stuff all the toothpaste back in the tube here, you would just create the situation Krom described on a larger scale. Bold bad guys and unarmed victims.

[CUDA]

with the exception of Florida, those aren't even statistically significant, CUDA. And the whole international study is beyond flawed. Anomalies?.

WAIT,
The studies show that in cities where people are armed the crime rate is lower "statistically significant" or not is irrelevant, it is lower. you chose to cite 1 instance of an dumbass trying to be a hero as another reason for gun control in the vain hope that it will make us safer. The numbers prove (however small in some instances) that in cities and states where citizens are allowed to own gun and carry them that violent crime is down.

Krom wrote:

I think the thing that these local gun bans miss, is in the absence of a total national ban of guns; the fewer people who have guns, the more powerful those people are. And criminals are well aware of this fact, so they become much more aggressive and bold in an area with a gun ban in place.

he is spot on. taking guns out of the peoples hands will not reduce violent crime. the numbers prove that as fact

[vision]

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

I'm sorry, but none of that data show causation. If you have a keen eye you will notice the graphs all show changes following the national average, which of course means a gun prohibition has little to do with violence. And as slick said, no statistical significance.

Try again.

[Will Robinson]

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

I'm sorry, but none of that data show causation. If you have a keen eye you will notice the graphs all show changes following the national average, which of course means a gun prohibition has little to do with violence. And as slick said, no statistical significance.

Try again.

Except when arguing against a faction that stands on the premise that 'guns cause crime'. In that debate the numbers are quite relevant and refute that flawed premise. A large drop isn't needed to prove there is no large increase. A flat line would suffice.

[vision]

Except when arguing against a faction that stands on the premise that 'guns cause crime'.

Greed causes crime. However, guns can facilitate certain types and volumes of crime. School shootings come to mind. Of course, it makes no difference what the laws actually are without proper education and social reform. Any change in gun laws should have provisions attached to address the cause of gun crime.

[CUDA]

it makes no difference what the laws actually are without proper education and social reform.

education does not stop crime, do you think that those that commit crimes don't know they are doing so??

I'm sure they stop and say WOW this is against the law, and maybe if I don't use a Gun it will be OK.

Any change in gun laws should have provisions attached to address the cause of gun crime.

you want to address the "CAUSE" the "cause" is not the Guns. the cause are the criminals that use them

[Tunnelcat]

your logic is flawed.
if you agree that tighter gun control increases violence in cities. Then the opposite must be true. Less restrictive gun control has to lower the violence rate

The only thing that has any bearing on murder rates is poverty. More poverty, more desperation and violence. Take away all guns, nothing would change. Some other form of weapon would be substituted.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/gun ... tain/12466

[CUDA]

The only thing that has any bearing on murder rates is poverty. More poverty, more desperation and violence. Take away all guns, nothing would change. Some other form of weapon would be substituted.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/gun ... tain/12466

I agree, there have always been murders, we as a species have just found more efficient ways of doing it

[vision]

education does not stop crime, do you think that those that commit crimes don't know they are doing so??

Proper education increases a person's understanding of the world and also provides them more opportunities for greater well being. Education provides better life planning and problem solving skills so people can realize there are better ways to overcome adversity than resorting to crime. After reading your post above it sounds like you could use some education yourself:

you want to address the "CAUSE" the "cause" is not the Guns. the cause are the criminals that use them

You mean anthropomorphic guns are walking around by themselves shooting people? Wow, I did not know! You're a goddamn genius!

Guns cause gun deaths and facilitate certain types of crime by making some crime easier and more attractive.

[Tunnelcat]

Unfortunately, guns make killing very efficient and quick. That's why people like to target guns for special treatment under the law, because they think that will slow the killing down.

But we will always have murder in some form or fashion whether we have guns or not. Too bad we can't find a better solution for the real reason for murders, poverty and hatred, then we'd have a chance to cut down the killing. Probably not going to ever happen though, judging from human behavior. Liberals think that if we just lend a helping hand for as long as it takes, people will eventually pull themselves out of poverty and magically not abuse the system while doing it, if they pull themselves up at all. Conservatives think if we make them all work hard for their money, no matter how paltry that income is, then they'd become model self-supporting citizens on their own accord and we wouldn't need the system. Neither scenario works in all cases, does it?

[Spidey]

Once again I’m going to say…poverty does not cause crime and violence, there are too many examples of cultures around the world that would be considered destitute by our standards and have little violence.

No you must look for something different…

Look at the roaring twenties, the mafia was warring and killing like crazy…but there was no poverty to be found amongst their ranks.

Look at the gang members shooting and killing…there is also a lot of money in that community.

Look at the school shootings…mostly white middle class.

Sorry…not buying it, if anything violence breeds poverty.

Now hatred...you might have something there....

.............................................

Just seen this tonight......

So Ray Rice bashes his girlfriend and knocks her out then drags her listless body off an elevator.

Is this guy poor?

On a side.....

He gets a two game suspension, while a guy who makes racist remarks gets banned from the league.

So violence is less important than a piss pore attitude?

[CUDA]

you want to address the "CAUSE" the "cause" is not the Guns. the cause are the criminals that use them

You mean anthropomorphic guns are walking around by themselves shooting people? Wow, I did not know! You're a goddamn genius!

Guns cause gun deaths and facilitate certain types of crime by making some crime easier and more attractive.

please show me one gun that has ever pulled it's own trigger. PEOPLE cause Gun deaths, people were committing those same types of crimes LONG before the gun was ever invented
you wish to continually blame the instrument. saying guns cause deaths is like saying the Spoons causes people to get fat.

[vision]

you wish to continually blame the instrument.

Show me where I ever said guns cause crime. I dare you. I have consistently maintained that guns facilitate certain types of crime and that gun laws (and even talking about them) are a waste of time. However, it is my strong personal belief that no one needs a gun and this fact is separate from my position on gun control.

[CUDA]

and exactly what types of crimes do Guns facilitate that could not or have not been committed by other weapons?

[Ferno]

shooting someone dead from 60 feet out?

[CUDA]

and that hasn't been done before Guns?

[vision]

and exactly what types of crimes do Guns facilitate that could not or have not been committed by other weapons?

I never said these crimes could not or have not been committed by other weapons. But you would have to be a colossal moron to not see how having a gun is more powerful, efficient, faster, and emotionally detachable than the next best/easiest to obtain weapon: a knife. For instance, it would be considerably more difficult to sit in a bell tower and pick off people with a bow and arrow. And imagine how different hunting deer would be if you had to, instead of shooting from a blind, snare it with a rope, wrestle it, and slit it's throat with a knife. making it easier and more opportunistic to kill someone inevitably makes for an increase in homicides, just like there were more automobile deaths before seat belts and seat belt laws (along with better vehicle designs). It's not rocket science.

However, this whole conversation is stupid since any meaningful gun laws should have been enacted many, many, many decades ago and the chances of dying by a firearm is minuscule compared to automobile accidents, diabetes, and heart disease. (Note: this is also why out policy regarding terrorism is stupid. You literally have a better chance of dying by lightning than by terrorism).

[Spidey]

The problem with that theory is there are many ways to kill massive amounts of people (again I can’t go into them here, for obvious reasons) without guns, all you need to do is be creative….guns are just cheap, easy and more sexy.

[CUDA]

So what he just said is. There ARE NO crimes that gun facilitate.

[vision]

….guns are just cheap, easy and more sexy.

This is exactly my point.

[Spidey]

But it’s kind of a pointless point…in the context I used it.

[Tunnelcat]

But it’s kind of a pointless point…in the context I used it.

Not necessarily. A gun automates killing. Instead of wielding a knife, which requires close up work and being in actual contact with the intended victim, a gun only requires obtaining it, which is pretty easy in the U.S., loading it, pointing it and pulling the trigger.

OK Spidey. If poverty is not one of the main reasons for gang violence and murder in the inner cities, what is? Adolesent male chest thumping, turf wars for dominance or perhaps making money off of drugs because it is easier and more lucrutive than having a normal job, if they can even find a job?

[vision]

But it’s kind of a pointless point…in the context I used it.

Yeah I see what you are saying, but which is more likely to be used in a crime of passion? A gun or some method that takes some creativity and I assume some planning a preparation too? We all know there are other ways to do mass killing, but the average murderer is not a mad scientist or supervillian.

[Spidey]

tc, If poverty is the cause of violence, why aren’t all poor people violent?

Why did that football player with everything knock his girlfriend silly in that elevator?

Why did OJ murder two people?

I know answering a question with a question is not kosher, but I don’t really have all of the answers as to why people are violent, but I do know what doesn’t cause it.

Some of the things I can think of….

The feelings of helplessness
You have been told someone owes you something
The idea that you are poor because someone else wants it that way
Improper upbringing
Lack of empathy
Booze
Anger
Evil….

The list is endless…who knows…but poverty in and of itself in not one of them.

I don’t accept poverty as an excuse for poor behavior…I just don’t.

[Spidey]

but which is more likely to be used in a crime of passion?

The first thing that is available, I would think.

If I caught my wife with another man, it might be the lamp.

[flip]

Not if your within 21 feet . I saw an expert marksman have to use expert maneuvers to be able to draw his gun and fire on a man running at him. Even more if your talking about the average joe. The only way to avoid being stabbed was if he drew and fired backwards or rolled first. Now, if I'm running at someone that has a gun, I'm gonna roll too, so really the only viable defense was to pull and immediately fire behind you without turning. Not many people can do it but he was able too. As long as they weren't within 10-15 feet.

[CUDA]

When was the last time some stopped to go get their gun in a crime of passion?

Never. Because it then is no longer a crime of passion, it is now murder

[woodchip]

shooting someone dead from 60 feet out?

1) Bow and arrow

2) Spear

3) Sling

4) Crossbow

[callmeslick]

and that hasn't been done before Guns?

every so often, I'm quite sure someone could chuck a rock or a knife that far, but are you really so far gone as to not acknowlege that little about guns?

[callmeslick]

shooting someone dead from 60 feet out?

1) Bow and arrow

2) Spear

3) Sling

4) Crossbow

another one reaching for extreme what-ifs......looks like the argument has fallen apart. See y'all after the weekend! I have some harness races to go lose money on!!

[CUDA]

and that hasn't been done before Guns?

every so often, I'm quite sure someone could chuck a rock or a knife that far, but are you really so far gone as to not acknowlege that little about guns?

Try to stay up with the conversation before you comment. You make youself look the fool.