Ursa Majoris Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I was looking for something to answer my own question, " have stricter gun laws ever resulted in a significant decrease in gun violence?" found an interesting (though several years old) article about gun laws in england here Since carrying a gun was very rare in the UK anyway, this increase in crime has much less to do with guns and / or gun laws than it does a total breakdown of respect for authority and a mind-numbingly stupid culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 I have been a hunter for years and a member of the NRA for over a decade. Taking gun violence and making an asinine connection to gun laws proves . . . nothing. So what is the point of this entire thread Nick? A shot at gun laws? Laws only affect the law-abiding. It would not have done a thing to prevent these killings, unless dmarc was somehow roaming the streets of Chicago last weekend, but was powerless to stop then due to being hamstrung by an anti-handgun law in an intensely urban area. I doubt that a Cubs fan has that kind of civic pride . . . do you understand what a deterrent is? laws only affect the law-abiding????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Numbers can be manipulated to prove almost anything. Like man-made global warming Mr. Gore? There is a lot more evidence that stricter gun laws make for a more violent society than there is that man has any significant impact on climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Since carrying a gun was very rare in the UK anyway, this increase in crime has much less to do with guns and / or gun laws than it does a total breakdown of respect for authority and a mind-numbingly stupid culture. Actually carrying a gun is very rare in the US as well. The point is in many places in the US, law abiding citizens are allowed to carry a gun, and the possibility that the victim of a rape, robbery, or assault might have a gun surely weighs on the minds of criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Like man-made global warming Mr. Gore? Yes, their is no doubt the right is very adept and manipulating data and fooling their followers into doubting an overwhelming scientific consensus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Since carrying a gun was very rare in the UK anyway, this increase in crime has much less to do with guns and / or gun laws than it does a total breakdown of respect for authority and a mind-numbingly stupid culture. "53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S." you don't think gun laws might have anything at all to do with that disparity? I dunno....plenty of places have enacted gun bans. so if they work, there should be plenty of data suggesting that they work. yet I've never seen gun control advocates offer any such data, they just try their feeble best to dismiss the gobs of data that suggest the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) I dunno....plenty of places have enacted gun bans. so if they work, there should be plenty of data suggesting that they work. yet I've never seen gun control advocates offer any such data, they just try their feeble best to dismiss the gobs of data that suggest the opposite. There's no motivation to argue for common sense. It's winning. Edited June 2, 2009 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) There's no motivation to argue for common sense. It's winning. right. seems like you're doing plenty of arguing here, just none that is remotely convincing or backed up by the scantest of facts. Edited June 2, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 seems like you're doing plenty of arguing here Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 right. seems like you're doing plenty of arguing here, just none that is remotely convincing or backed up by the scantest of facts. u give him too much credit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 "53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S." you don't think gun laws might have anything at all to do with that disparity? I'm not disputing that at all. I was commenting on the general decline of law and order in the UK. Like I said, it has always been very rare for a gun to be carried in the UK and also very rare for one to be in the house. There has never really been a gun culture there, as opposed to here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'm not disputing that at all. I was commenting on the general decline of law and order in the UK. Like I said, it has always been very rare for a gun to be carried in the UK and also very rare for one to be in the house. There has never really been a gun culture there, as opposed to here. Where do you get this information from, Ursa? What would be considered "rare" in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 "53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S." you don't think gun laws might have anything at all to do with that disparity. How many times did owning a gun help in those 87% of times the burglary occurred when US occupant was not home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 How many times did owning a gun help in those 87% of times the burglary occurred when US occupant was not home? they helped 400% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 they helped 400% of the time. Looks like the math of a hedge fund manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 How many times did owning a gun help in those 87% of times the burglary occurred when US occupant was not home? I assume it wouldn't help at all, but you are completely (and probably intentionally) missing the point. the increased likelihood of an occupant being armed is almost certainly a deterrent to burglary. do liberal gun laws somehow magically prevent ALL burglary? of course not. criticizing liberal gun laws because people can still get robbed when nobody is home is just plain silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Where do you get this information from, Ursa? What would be considered "rare" in this case? Here's something that looks back 10 years. Firearms crime A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in only one in every 250 recorded crimes (one in every 500 when air weapons were excluded). It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[26] The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[27] In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [27] By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[28] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. [29] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[30] While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[31] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[32] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[33] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e. did not require detention in hospital, did not involved fractures, concussion, or severe general shock, or penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a raise in non-fatal injuries. [34][35]Justice Minister Mr Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall." [36] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) I assume it wouldn't help at all, but you are completely (and probably intentionally) missing the point. the increased likelihood of an occupant being armed is almost certainly a deterrent to burglary. By your own logic above, it has only increased the likelihood of the burglar waiting until the house is empty. If there is a causal link between an increasingly armed society and decreasing burglary rates you've yet to provide it. Global Burglary Stats. Here we see that the United States (a very armed society) had the highest total burglaries of the nations studied. On a per capita basis, the United States had the 17th most burglaries. With European countries both above and below the US in terms of per capita burglaries I'm not sure the causal link you have assumed actually exists. For the record, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on gun laws. Just popping in to call BS when I smell it. Carry on. Edited June 2, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Here's something that looks back 10 years. The statement that I am questioning what sources of information you referenced was in respect to people carrying firearms and having them in their homes and how that was such a rarity. The handgun ban was enacted in 1997, and all handguns were confiscated and destroyed. People not turning their handguns in risked a prison sentence. Even prior to 1997, the laws were significantly more restrictive than in the US. But, the wiki you present doesn't show how people's ownership or carrying habits were common or rare, and on top of that...it's a wiki. Nice to read and some nice information, but not a source for reliable statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 By your own logic above, it has only increased the likelihood of the burglar waiting until the house is empty. Burglars typically look for empty houses, That's not new or a surprise. The deterrent matters because if someone is burglarizing your house while you are not in it then the chances of you and your family not being hurt are much more in your favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 By your own logic above, it has only increased the likelihood of the burglar waiting until the house is empty. If there is a causal link between an increasingly armed society and decreasing burglary rates you've yet to provide it. the UK has twice as many burglaries per capita as the US (according to your own link, thanks BTW). australia, another country with restrictive gun laws, has 3 times as many per capita. even mannerly canada has more burglaries per person than the US. I would think that indicates there just aren't as many people willing to go into that line of work when it poses a significant hazard to your health. it shouldn't be surprising, then, that the places where a burglar really has to scope out his mark to make sure someone isn't home experience a lot less burglary than the places where he doesn't really have to worry whether they're home or not. however, I will point out once again that anecdotal comparisons of once place to another aren't as meaningful as comparisons of the same place before and after gun laws were tightened or loosened. and on that score, well, the article I linked to sorta speaks for itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Gun laws are one thing. To stupidly attach gun laws to what has been happening in some of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods is borderline moronic. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...,0,565784.story Since a dumb connection was made to gun laws and random violence, does the opposition care to weigh in how the absence of gun laws would have prevented this tragedy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Burglars typically look for empty houses, That's not new or a surprise. The deterrent matters because if someone is burglarizing your house while you are not in it then the chances of you and your family not being hurt are much more in your favor. Now that's a valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) the UK has twice as many burglaries per capita as the US (according to your own link, thanks BTW). australia, another country with restrictive gun laws, has 3 times as many per capita. even mannerly canada has more burglaries per person than the US. I would think that indicates there just aren't as many people willing to go into that line of work when it poses a significant hazard to your health. it shouldn't be surprising, then, that the places where a burglar really has to scope out his mark to make sure someone isn't home experience a lot less burglary than the places where he doesn't really have to worry whether they're home or not. however, I will point out once again that anecdotal comparisons of once place to another aren't as meaningful as comparisons of the same place before and after gun laws were tightened or loosened. and on that score, well, the article I linked to sorta speaks for itself. (sigh) Spain has the most restrictive firm arms rules in Europe. And yet it has only a tiny fraction of the per capita burglaries in contrast to either the US or the UK. So the availability/restriction of guns cannot be the single most determinative factor here. Your logic is predicated on a false assumption, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. If owning a gun makes you "feel" safer, fine. But that doesn't mean it actually makes you safer. It's the old tiger repellent fallacy. Edited June 2, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 So the availability/restriction of guns cannot be the single most determinative factor here. I never said any such thing. for all I know, spain may chop off your hand if you get caught stealing, like saudi arabia. there are far too many factors at play in something like that for me to suggest that any one thing is a "single most determinative factor". rather, I quoted an article suggesting that there was probably some connection between gun laws and the fact that 53% of burglaries in the UK occur while an occupant is at home, compared to only 13% in the US -- and, further, that that disparity may shed some light on why the UK has twice as many burglaries per capita as the US. it seems like a pretty simple, obvious, straightforward common sense point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.