Changing attitudes about firearms

[BigShot]

No stats for the yeti.

So bascally your argument is based not on the real world, but on what you think is the case regardless of what the case actually is.

I'm aware that you used petite in response. My point wasn't quite as specific as that - my point was more a request to be shown that most murder victims (even a 51-49 majority would do) are armed citizens who are disarmed and not, in fact, criminals killing other criminals.

In the USA stats are available which show that in the case of muggings, where the victim is unarmed, about 80% end in loss of property and way over half in injury to the victim - yet where the victim was armed only about 5% end in property loss and something like 25% in injury to the victim. Rough estimates of the numbers, but given time to dig up some old bookmarks I could provide the exact numbers.

Looking at what actually happens is uncomfortable viewing to those who are principally opposed to private firearm ownership for self defence (or outright) - but reality simply doesn't bear out the fears many have.

 

[Armleywhite]

Largely, since 1997. People weren't being shot with pistols left, right and centre. Many more people have licenses for carrying a gun for defense purposes than you might think. MPs have an automatic eligibility. Several types are permitted to be held on a firearms certificate still; muzzle-loaders for instance.

I never said they were being shot left right and centre did I? No, but I still don't see why the Wyat Earp brigade really thinks that keeping the 357 under the bed increases their quality of life either.

For defense, for target shooting, for humane destruction/slaughtering of animals, for hunting/pest control situations unsuitable for a rifle or a shotgun, for collection/historical research purposes, for scientific/ballistics research.

I'm pretty sure rese's (sp?) parent will congratulate you on your argument there. Just what we need legal guns being knicked to keep idiot gun toting gangs. As to your other point all the official depts ie police, vets, military can carry out those tests without the need for jo public to own the Harry callahan version of sidearm.

The 'Wild' West was in many ways more civilised than the UK these days; no rape, no burglaries, no robberies beyond stagecoaches and banks,murders were gang-related or a result of 'fair' fights between consenting men -- because most people carried a gun, and if they didn't the third party who walks past did.

You really believe that the old west was safer than today, where the law was the gun and whoever managed to get it out of the holster quickest was the safesst? No rapes get serious. Of course my stats are non existence, but at least I know hollywood when I see it!

 

[Armleywhite]

No stats for the yeti.

So bascally your argument is based not on the real world, but on what you think is the case regardless of what the case actually is.

I'm aware that you used petite in response. My point wasn't quite as specific as that - my point was more a request to be shown that most murder victims (even a 51-49 majority would do) are armed citizens who are disarmed and not, in fact, criminals killing other criminals.

In the USA stats are available which show that in the case of muggings, where the victim is unarmed, about 80% end in loss of property and way over half in injury to the victim - yet where the victim was armed only about 5% end in property loss and something like 25% in injury to the victim. Rough estimates of the numbers, but given time to dig up some old bookmarks I could provide the exact numbers.

Looking at what actually happens is uncomfortable viewing to those who are principally opposed to private firearm ownership for self defence (or outright) - but reality simply doesn't bear out the fears many have.

I live in the centre of one the largest cities in the UK and dread to think how it would deteriorate into total anarchy were it made legal to carry a sidearm!! Your talking about rational people and guns, not the chavs that are more than able in the ability to steal the things!!! Kids are waling round right now carrying blades of over 6 or 7 inches, cos it makes them feel safe. Utter rubbish. Knife crime is on the up. Imagine the dammge they would do if able to carry guns.

Have you ever used one? In anger? Seen the consequence of doing so? Or have you just been part of the gun club culture that was made illegal several years ago?

 

[durulz]

The 'Wild' West was in many ways more civilised than the UK these days; no rape, no burglaries, no robberies beyond stagecoaches and banks,murders were gang-related or a result of 'fair' fights between consenting men -- because most people carried a gun, and if they didn't the third party who walks past did.

Mmm...think you're being a tad naive and disingenuous. Been watching too many 1950s westerns with those pesky injuns, I think...

 

[BigShot]

the .357 under the bed means the WHOLE of society is less likely to be the victim of a home invasion at night; that means occupants not home, and that means less violence in home invasions - which is a good thing.

The .357 in the shoulder holster means the WHOLE of society is less likely to be a victim of violent crimes including assault, robbery, rape and homicide - which is a good thing.

What's wrong with that?



There are practically no legal guns in the UK to be stolen - the guns used in violent crimes aren't being stolen - they are being smuggled in. Stop shuggling and people will resort to building them - gunsmithing in its non-artistic form ain't all that hard.


The "draw" - 20 paces stuff was a DUEL between consenting adults - not random violence like the Rhys Jones incident was.

 

[Tadpole]

Tadpole - again - comparing one country directly with another is sketchy as it ignores a whole rack of factors that must be considered.
I'll ask you again to provide some statistics that are not skewed by the massively higher rates of violent crime in areas of the USA that are under firearm prohibition.

I'll also ask again for stats that show the TRENDS in violent crime.

As I said to Armleywhite - I can bring a mountain of stats to bear on this discussion but it will make your argument much harder to maintain so will only do it if you want - your call.

Google TRENDS IN VIOLENT CRIME
The Institute for Criminal Policy Research School of Law King’s College London

Over all violent crime is 21% down on what it was in the 1999
Reported crime is up, but this, as the report indicates is due to new methods of recording crime

" This is because there have been major changes in the counting rules, in the coverage of violent crime statistics and in the procedures for recording. All of these changes have had the effect of artificially uplifting violent crime trends. There have also been changes in police powers, notably in levying Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) which will have further uplifted the count of crimes of harassment" Page five
Included in the new "violent" crime figures are charges of Harassment

I'll end my involvment in this thread by saying if "deaths per 100,000" is good enough for the government bodies that compile such stats then it is good enough for me.

 

[Mike Ameling]

Aah, the New England Journal of Medicine. They are well known for their ... political ... articles, and their ... creative ... use of statistics. When they stick to real medical issues, they do well. But every so often they pick up a --- pet political cause. And when they do, they twist, edit, cherry-pick statistics to push that political cause - ignoring anything that might not support it. In such cases they end up being little better than the National Inquirer - more fantasy than truth.

A number of years ago, one US Congressman was really pushing for a new gun control bill - to CONTROL all the MACHINE GUNS and full automatic ASSAULT RIFLES out committing mayhem on the streets of our cities. He had his articles from the New England Journal of Medicine, and his statistics from various gun control groups - to back up his new proposed law. But in the committee hearings on the bill he was finally asked WHERE he got all his information about the numbers and use of machine guns on the city streets. His answer? Not from the FBI or from Law Enforcement people in the cities, but from watching the TV show Miami Vice!!!!! He was laughed out of the now closed hearings, and practically laughed out of Congress. He thought a hollyweird TV show was factual evidence of criminal use of machine guns on city streets!

The reality is that machine guns in the US have been fully restricted since the 1920's, and there have been no crimes/arrests/convictions of anybody using a fully licensed/owned machine gun in the US since then. Do some machine guns get used in crimes? Yes. By CRIMINALS who are already ignoring the law just to possess them.

Several years ago, the FBI and a "research" university conducted interviews of criminals in prison. They asked a number of questions, including what those criminals feared the most - laws, police, etc. The number one fear mentioned by those criminals was the ... armed citizen! Especially amongst criminals that did home burglery, muggings, rapes, etc. They said that the Laws didn't bother them unless they got caught, and then only if their lawyer couldn't get them off. And the cops were easy to get around - since the cops could not be everywhere at once. Plus the cops had to ...try ... to arrest them. But they most feared running into an armed citizen.

Several years ago, a court case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The decision? The police are not ... legally obligated ... to protect you!!!!! They are only legally obligated to show up eventually, investigate the crime, and then try to solve it and catch the person who committed that crime. Such a comforting decision by the top Court here in the US. It gives new meaning to that joke phrase:

Call 911? Government sponsored ... Dial A Prayer!

A complex issue, with much ... disinformation ... floating about. Especially those selectively using "statistics" to push their political agendas.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

p.s. If you really want to believe those "home danger" and "kid deaths" statistics, just go LOOK at the details of HOW they came up with those ... statistics ... and interpretations of what they mean. Those "details" are a real eye-opener! Lying by statistics has quite a bad rep here in the US - because of its overuse (besides the lies built into their distorted statistics)! It's much like how a lawyer ... twists ... the facts and truth.
!

 

[BigShot]

I live in the centre of one the largest cities in the UK and dread to think how it would deteriorate into total anarchy were it made legal to carry a sidearm!! Your talking about rational people and guns, not the chavs that are more than able in the ability to steal the things!!! Kids are waling round right now carrying blades of over 6 or 7 inches, cos it makes them feel safe. Utter rubbish. Knife crime is on the up. Imagine the dammge they would do if able to carry guns.

Have you ever used one? In anger? Seen the consequence of doing so? Or have you just been part of the gun club culture that was made illegal several years ago?

Not used one, no.
But I do see the benefit of having them.

I'm starting to get bored now - convince me that legal firearms being stolen from their owner is an even vaguely significant problem anywhere that has legal guns and I'll eat my shorts.

Rational people with guns play a HUGE part in stopping the from acting like such.

Violent crime is on the up for one huge reason.
Noone in the UK is allowed to take steps to ensure their own safety.
The police can't (and don't) guarantee our safety, yet if you carry anything from a rolled up newspaper to a good quality, well maintained and accurate sidearm with hollowpoints - you're breaking the law.
Criminals know that and take full advantage of it.
Granted, a few will spend about 5 years training in effective martial arts and be handy against 1 or 2 attackers - but on the whole the entire public is a flock of sheep being prayed on by the wolves within.

Arm the sheep and the wolves will be less inclined to attack.

 

[Armleywhite]

Tougher sentences on the idiot gun carrying fraternity is the only way forward. Not to arm each and everyone with their shoulder holsters and strutting around with a gun under the arm.

People can make weapons out of anything. Give me one round and I'll make you an anti personnel mine. Not rocket science..

I DIDN'T say all guns on the streets are stolen legal UK guns did I? I said imagine how many will be stolen for the silly brave kids brigade if they ARE made legal!!

As far as the use of stats go, I'm with Mark Twain on that!

 

[Armleywhite]

Not used one, no.

Seen enough films though eh? Gun crime is dropping in the UK due to tougher laws and... Oh well, take a look yourself. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

Still, I bet that would rise if every home rambo had one, Still, you have the stats eh?

 

[Tadpole]

Lying by statistics has quite a bad rep here in the US - because of its overuse (besides the lies built into their distorted statistics)! It's much like how a lawyer ... twists ... the facts and truth.
!

Lying by statistics or relying on the data collected by Kleck-Gertz (data collected a over six month period using eight separate surveys ranging in size from 400 people to 1500 people, done over the telephone in the middle of the day). They sampled something between 4500 and 5000 people in total, a disproportionate number were from the southern and western states.
Glaring inaccuracies from their surveys stand out for all who wish actually to read them. For example their survey found 8.9% of the adult population is black, when in fact it is closer to 13%, they also found that only 38% of households in the nation possess a gun, when it much higher than that.

This situation is amplified by the numbers of errors in the survey results, false positives, and according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality

“The Kleck-Gertz survey estimates of victimization rates are far higher than the NCVS victimization results, indicating a substantial problem of telescoping of events. For example, in the Kleck-Gertz survey, 2.5% of U.S. adults report being robbery victims in the past year. That corresponds to 5 million robberies. But NCVS results show only 1.2 million attempted or completed robberies in 1992. The victimization rate was 0.6% for individuals 12 years and older and only 1% of households were victimized.”

Using the Kleck-Gertz method of statically collection.
“a gun was used by defenders for self-defense in approximately 845,000 burglaries. However, from the NCVS, we know that there were fewer than 6 million burglaries in 1992. Over 55% of the time the residence was definitely unoccupied at the time of the burglary (in another 23% it was not known whether the dwellings was occupied or not). Only 22% of the time was someone certainly at home (1.3 million burglaries). Kleck accepts as valid the claim that the dwellings were occupied in only 9% of U.S. burglaries.
Since fewer than half of U.S. households have a firearm of any kind and since the victims in two-thirds of occupied dwelling were asleep, the Kleck-Gertz result asks us to believe that burglary victims in gun owning households use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time, even though most were asleep”

Using extrapolated data by Kleck-Gertz as if it was fact, if their methods of gathering statistics is to be used for other data gathering it would show that 30,000,000 Americans have been abducted at least once in their life.

Last post on this (honest )

 

[BigShot]

Armleywhite - nah, not films.
I've spent plenty of time in the USA and Switzerland though, I know plenty of gun owners, some of whom concealed carry - I know several people who have used a gun in anger and know the results (both soldier and civilian) - and I also know that I feel far safer in the USA and Switzerland - despite their massively higher legal gun ownership (what with ours being effectively zero).

Google TRENDS IN VIOLENT CRIME
The Institute for Criminal Policy Research School of Law King’s College London

Over all violent crime is 21% down on what it was in the 1999
Reported crime is up, but this, as the report indicates is due to new methods of recording crime

" This is because there have been major changes in the counting rules, in the coverage of violent crime statistics and in the procedures for recording. All of these changes have had the effect of artificially uplifting violent crime trends. There have also been changes in police powers, notably in levying Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) which will have further uplifted the count of crimes of harassment" Page five
Included in the new "violent" crime figures are charges of Harassment

I'll end my involvment in this thread by saying if "deaths per 100,000" is good enough for the government bodies that compile such stats then it is good enough for me.

Bingo!
Right - here we go with something pretty conclusive. You brought in some stats - now it's my turn.

Some numbers.
1997 after Australia passed new gun laws:
Homicide rose 3.2% Robbery rose 44% Assaults rose 8.6% and in Victoria homicide rose by 300%
Gun control works though, doesn't it?

In 1997 the UK banned the private sale and ownership of handguns.
In the following 5 years, violent crimes (including homicide) involving firearms rose from 394 incidents in 2000 to 819 incidents in 2007 with a peak of 1046 in 2006. At peak that's an increase of over 250%.
My source - Home Office Statistical Bulletin 03/08 - Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006/07 (Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2006/07)

That's not "reported crime" which may indeed be affected by new ways of recording crime - that's the number of people shot and killed with firearms.
In the same bulletin the numbers for woundings, by firing, use as a blunt instrument and threats increased in a similar fashion.

Here for your own use http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

Unfrotunately those figures don't cover the years between 1997 and 1999/2000 so it's incomplete, but the trend is clear to see.
Apart from a slight dip in the year immediately following the ban, the trend has been generally and clearly upward ever since.

 

[firecrest]

I think people are forgetting it matters which nation we are talking about. Nations actually do have different collective personalities based on their culture, education and quality of upbringing. The whole of the UK armed would be a very different kind of experiment than the whole of Singapore armed, or the whole of Norway. Other things are at play such as Law and social attitude.

 

[Armleywhite]

I think people are forgetting it matters which nation we are talking about. Nations actually do have different collective personalities based on their culture, education and quality of upbringing. The whole of the UK armed would be a very different kind of experiment than the whole of Singapore armed, or the whole of Norway. Other things are at play such as Law and social attitude.

Do you have stats to back that up??? Bang on the button.

 

[firecrest]

dare I mention it without derailing the thread..... "with great power comes great responsibility"
cough *wewouldneedthedeathpenalityaswell*cough if we were going to allow citizens to carry firearms in public.

 

[BigShot]

And that's exactly why I'd like to see a gradual reintroduction, not blanket legalisation.

I don't agree with precisely with the method described, but this is a particularly good document which argues a good case.
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin133.pdf

 

[BigShot]

Firecrest - agreed with great power, not agreed with the *cough*deathpenalty*cough*.

I think it's perfectly valid to argue for the armed citizen and against the death penalty.
I'm unconvinced that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (bizarre as that is).
"life means life" sentencing would be a good start though.

 

[firecrest]

Do you have stats to back that up??? Bang on the button.

Yes , just look at crime rates among nations and speak to some foreigners. there really is no need to google social comparison. Going abroad is enough to let you know people react differently in various cultures. For instance, most countries have alcohol freely available, but some have low consumption, others high, based on social rather than economical factors. All teenagers everywere are capable of getting pregnant, but teen pregnancy stats are not the same from one country to another, nor is smoking, crime relating to anger or even mental illness.

 

[xylaria]

deleted as makes no sense, thread moved alot during writting.

i agree with mike ameling

 

[firecrest]

Firecrest - agreed with great power, not agreed with the *cough*deathpenalty*cough*.

I think it's perfectly valid to argue for the armed citizen and against the death penalty.
I'm unconvinced that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (bizarre as that is).
"life means life" sentencing would be a good start though.

Life means life is good. Over 300 italian lifers have patitioned the government for the right to be executed, a real Life sentence may actually be less humane!
death penality, again is subject to national attitude. it is not effective in america where death takes place usually a decade later after countless appeals. it is effective in singapore where there is no if's buts or maybes and the sentence is very swiftly carried out.