Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Ghost Child]

Watch the Video of the week.

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/903.cfm

[Bargod]

Read "More Guns, Less Crime". The stats you always hear about this includes gang members who knew the other gang member they murdered (for example). Same with the stats about "children" being killed by guns.

While this is true, the majority are still considered "domestic disputes".

Anyhoo, a quick check on google I was able to find out how Lott's article cherry-picks stats on that Washington thingy. He picks very specific years to argue to make his numbers work.

This is why I don't trust the writings of anyone who is "FOR" or "AGAINST" gun control. They have an agenda so their "statistics" are biased.

The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose fivefold by 1974 and in the 20 years after the ban has averaged 114 percent higher than the pre-ban rate (never falling below at least 31 percent higher).

The Republic of Ireland has always had one of the smallest murder rates in the world, as well as some of the strictest, if not THE strictest gun control laws. The laws started in the 1920's to remove the weapons from the war that divided the country into the Rep. of Ireland and Northern Ireland. In the 1970's it was made stricter to prevent the flow of weapons to terrorists in N. Ireland. In 1971 there were only 10 murders in the entire country. In 1974 the murder rate increased to 51. Was this because of the gun control laws? No. It was because of the terrorist Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF - protestant para military group, one of the terrorist opposition groups to the Provisional IRA) blew up car bombs in Dublin and Monaghan killing 33 and wounding 300. Gun control laws had nothing to do with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_Bombings
Today Ireland still has some of the lowest murder rates in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_homicide_rate

International homicide patterns
The homicide rate is considered the most reliable measure in comparing crime levels among nations. The United States, which has a reputation for being more violent than Canada, generally reports a homicide rate three to four times higher. In 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported 23,305 homicides or nine per 100,000 Americans.

In the United States, where approximately four in every ten households contain a firearm, about 70% of all homicides in 1994 were committed with firearms.7 In Canada, where gun control laws are generally much stricter, the proportion of homicides committed with firearms (33%) is less than half that. When homicides committed with a firearm are factored out, the difference in the 1994 rates between these two countries is less dramatic ­ 1.4 per 100,000 population in Canada versus 2.5 in the United States. In other words, much of the difference in the homicide rates between the two countries can be explained by a much higher use of firearms in the United States.

A comparison to other western countries, however, shows that Canada's homicide rate was at the higher end in the mid 1990s. Of the countries surveyed, the United States (8.5), Northern Ireland (6.5), France (2.4) and Scotland (2.1) had higher homicide rates. The other European countries showed lower rates: Switzerland (1.1), Sweden (1.8), England and Wales (1.4), Germany (1.7), Italy (1.7) and Norway (1.0).8 However, there is no clear pattern between homicide rates and the rates for other violent crimes among these countries (see Table 2).

This is taken from The Correctional Service of Canada.

Reducing guns doesn't just leave guns in the hands of criminals. Criminals use guns bought on the black market and ditched after crimes. If you reduce the flow of weapons, you reduce the number of guns sold on the black market.

Still, the statistics put Virginia squarely in the midst of the argument. Data once collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) tracked the source of guns used in crimes that were collected by city police across the country.

In New York, four out of five guns came from out of state. The single largest source of those out-of-state guns? Virginia (with Florida, North Carolina and Georgia right behind).

The statistics run up the East Coast. In the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia together supplied more than half the guns found. In Camden, New Jersey, a poor city over the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Virginia was the source of one out of six guns. Virginia was the biggest out-of-state source in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Each region of the country has its own sources of guns. Chicago drew many from nearby Indiana, but also from the deep South; most Miami guns came from Florida, but its out-of-state sources were Georgia, Texas and California.

"They're going from low-regulation places towards high-regulation places," said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who last year produced a national analysis of state regulation of firearm dealers.

It's simple supply and demand - guns are easier and cheaper to get with fewer regulations, so a network springs up in response to the demand for guns in cities where they are harder to get.

Taken from here.

Personally, from looking at the little non-biased info I can find on the net, the problem doesn't seem to be making stricter gun laws, but enforcing the laws already existing. It's too easy for "Bad Guys" to get guns.

[Barkmann]

I know lets round up all the bad guys and have a good old shoot out at high noon

[Capt. Andtennille]

when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Police and army won't?

If only the police had the ability to be in attendance at every crime...

Just pointing out the clever play on words isn't really correct.

Anyhoo, a quick check on google I was able to find out how Lott's article cherry-picks stats on that Washington thingy. He picks very specific years to argue to make his numbers work. Scroll to the bottom of this blog page (see below) to see ALL the stats and see how Lott cheery picks the numbers. For example, you don't hear from Lott that the average homocide rate for the whole 4 years prior to the gun ban appears to be significantely higher than the averge for the next 10 years after the ban. You don't hear that he picked the year 5 years before the ban specifically because the murder rate had a big dip that year, but immediately bounced back to a much higher number the next year (still 4 years before the ban)!

In fact, I added the numbers on the graph an the results are this...

In the 9 years prior to the ban the murder rate was about 32 per 100,000
In the 10 years after it was 29.5 per 100,000. So it actually dropped, even though it is clear in the 9 years prior the graph was tracking upwards, and after the ban it mostly tracked downwards (though with a lot of fluctuations per year for both).

Read it yourself. Scroll to near the bottom.

http://timlambert.org/category/guns/washington/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics they say. If you simply read Lott's article without investigating anything, you think the Washington experience was a slam dunk case against gun control. Look at ALL the stats and realized he twisted them beautifully to support his argument.

Anyway, I don't feel passionately about this issue, but just playing a little devil's advocate here. I would theorize that Lott's entire article is an exercise of cherry picking specific statistics and dates from places where he can make the numbers work. Unfortunately, it is hard to find an article that seems to be written by a non-right wing or left wing source. It would be interesting to see a combo of all the numbers from every place that had a change in hand guns laws, see the graphs on homicides and major crime over this period (not a cheery picked number), and compare those to similar places at the same time period that maintained the status quo. That would be a good study, but good luck trying to find it.

Lott has the stats from 1973 (I think) through 2003. Same results. Bark up another tree.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Police and army won't?

If only the police had the ability to be in attendance at every crime...

Just pointing out the clever play on words isn't really correct.

Anyhoo, a quick check on google I was able to find out how Lott's article cherry-picks stats on that Washington thingy. He picks very specific years to argue to make his numbers work. Scroll to the bottom of this blog page (see below) to see ALL the stats and see how Lott cheery picks the numbers. For example, you don't hear from Lott that the average homocide rate for the whole 4 years prior to the gun ban appears to be significantely higher than the averge for the next 10 years after the ban. You don't hear that he picked the year 5 years before the ban specifically because the murder rate had a big dip that year, but immediately bounced back to a much higher number the next year (still 4 years before the ban)!

In fact, I added the numbers on the graph an the results are this...

In the 9 years prior to the ban the murder rate was about 32 per 100,000
In the 10 years after it was 29.5 per 100,000. So it actually dropped, even though it is clear in the 9 years prior the graph was tracking upwards, and after the ban it mostly tracked downwards (though with a lot of fluctuations per year for both).

Read it yourself. Scroll to near the bottom.

http://timlambert.org/category/guns/washington/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics they say. If you simply read Lott's article without investigating anything, you think the Washington experience was a slam dunk case against gun control. Look at ALL the stats and realized he twisted them beautifully to support his argument.

Anyway, I don't feel passionately about this issue, but just playing a little devil's advocate here. I would theorize that Lott's entire article is an exercise of cherry picking specific statistics and dates from places where he can make the numbers work. Unfortunately, it is hard to find an article that seems to be written by a non-right wing or left wing source. It would be interesting to see a combo of all the numbers from every place that had a change in hand guns laws, see the graphs on homicides and major crime over this period (not a cheery picked number), and compare those to similar places at the same time period that maintained the status quo. That would be a good study, but good luck trying to find it.

Lott has the stats from 1973 (I think) through 2003. Same results. Bark up another tree.

Bark up another tree? LOL! Well, there goes the "rational" part of the discussion. Instead, just ignore completely that we can demonstate that Lott was manipulating the numbers with much of what he said, and tell people to get lost.

[Capt. Andtennille]

when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Police and army won't?

If only the police had the ability to be in attendance at every crime...

Just pointing out the clever play on words isn't really correct.

Anyhoo, a quick check on google I was able to find out how Lott's article cherry-picks stats on that Washington thingy. He picks very specific years to argue to make his numbers work. Scroll to the bottom of this blog page (see below) to see ALL the stats and see how Lott cheery picks the numbers. For example, you don't hear from Lott that the average homocide rate for the whole 4 years prior to the gun ban appears to be significantely higher than the averge for the next 10 years after the ban. You don't hear that he picked the year 5 years before the ban specifically because the murder rate had a big dip that year, but immediately bounced back to a much higher number the next year (still 4 years before the ban)!

In fact, I added the numbers on the graph an the results are this...

In the 9 years prior to the ban the murder rate was about 32 per 100,000
In the 10 years after it was 29.5 per 100,000. So it actually dropped, even though it is clear in the 9 years prior the graph was tracking upwards, and after the ban it mostly tracked downwards (though with a lot of fluctuations per year for both).

Read it yourself. Scroll to near the bottom.

http://timlambert.org/category/guns/washington/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics they say. If you simply read Lott's article without investigating anything, you think the Washington experience was a slam dunk case against gun control. Look at ALL the stats and realized he twisted them beautifully to support his argument.

Anyway, I don't feel passionately about this issue, but just playing a little devil's advocate here. I would theorize that Lott's entire article is an exercise of cherry picking specific statistics and dates from places where he can make the numbers work. Unfortunately, it is hard to find an article that seems to be written by a non-right wing or left wing source. It would be interesting to see a combo of all the numbers from every place that had a change in hand guns laws, see the graphs on homicides and major crime over this period (not a cheery picked number), and compare those to similar places at the same time period that maintained the status quo. That would be a good study, but good luck trying to find it.

Lott has the stats from 1973 (I think) through 2003. Same results. Bark up another tree.

Bark up another tree? LOL! Well, there goes the "rational" part of the discussion. Instead, just ignore completely that we can demonstate that Lott was manipulating the numbers with much of what he said, and tell people to get lost.

Lot has the stats from 1970 something through 2003 when his book came out. YOU are cherry picking, not Lott. In EVERY example he gave he used the 5 years prior and the 5 years post. There has only been one serious attempt to discredit Lotts work and that attempt was smacked down severely as a hack job. Do some research. Lot gives dozens and dozens of examples and you bring up one, but since you found it on Google it must be correct. Try again.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns

Police and army won't?

If only the police had the ability to be in attendance at every crime...

Just pointing out the clever play on words isn't really correct.

Anyhoo, a quick check on google I was able to find out how Lott's article cherry-picks stats on that Washington thingy. He picks very specific years to argue to make his numbers work. Scroll to the bottom of this blog page (see below) to see ALL the stats and see how Lott cheery picks the numbers. For example, you don't hear from Lott that the average homocide rate for the whole 4 years prior to the gun ban appears to be significantely higher than the averge for the next 10 years after the ban. You don't hear that he picked the year 5 years before the ban specifically because the murder rate had a big dip that year, but immediately bounced back to a much higher number the next year (still 4 years before the ban)!

In fact, I added the numbers on the graph an the results are this...

In the 9 years prior to the ban the murder rate was about 32 per 100,000
In the 10 years after it was 29.5 per 100,000. So it actually dropped, even though it is clear in the 9 years prior the graph was tracking upwards, and after the ban it mostly tracked downwards (though with a lot of fluctuations per year for both).

Read it yourself. Scroll to near the bottom.

http://timlambert.org/category/guns/washington/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics they say. If you simply read Lott's article without investigating anything, you think the Washington experience was a slam dunk case against gun control. Look at ALL the stats and realized he twisted them beautifully to support his argument.

Anyway, I don't feel passionately about this issue, but just playing a little devil's advocate here. I would theorize that Lott's entire article is an exercise of cherry picking specific statistics and dates from places where he can make the numbers work. Unfortunately, it is hard to find an article that seems to be written by a non-right wing or left wing source. It would be interesting to see a combo of all the numbers from every place that had a change in hand guns laws, see the graphs on homicides and major crime over this period (not a cheery picked number), and compare those to similar places at the same time period that maintained the status quo. That would be a good study, but good luck trying to find it.

Lott has the stats from 1973 (I think) through 2003. Same results. Bark up another tree.

Bark up another tree? LOL! Well, there goes the "rational" part of the discussion. Instead, just ignore completely that we can demonstate that Lott was manipulating the numbers with much of what he said, and tell people to get lost.

Lot has the stats from 1970 something through 2003 when his book came out. YOU are cherry picking, not Lott. In EVERY example he gave he used the 5 years prior and the 5 years post. There has only been one serious attempt to discredit Lotts work and that attempt was smacked down severely as a hack job. Do some research. Lot gives dozens and dozens of examples and you bring up one, but since you found it on Google it must be correct. Try again.

Why don't you try re-reading it and looking at the graph. After what he wrote, you'd think that homicide rate was dropping before the law came in, and immediately jumped right afterwards (which is what he wants the reader to think). In fact, in the 5 years prior it was, on average, much higher than it was the 5 years after the new law. BUT Lott cleverly writes it in such a way that it you don't read carefullly, you get exactly the OPPOSITE impression. The point is the graph was jumping up and down a lot, but Lott would cherry pick a number when the number was down, and use it. For you to say I'm cherry picking when I calculated a FULL decade average BEFORE and AFTER the gun law came into effect is absolutely ludicrious! I'm using 10 years before and after the law came into effect to try and gauge it's effect. He grabs a number form this year and one from that year, writes it up in a way to suggest a TREND that DID NOT EXIST! After 10 years, I would think it would be hard to make comparisons anymore, since there could be a multitude of other factors in play, especially since this was merely a handgun bun. What would happen if you stopped the sale of most semi-auto rifles and submachine guns to all but registered collectors?

Anyway, sorry if I don't try and peruse the Internet to try and debunk all his theories. I figure once you can seriously debunk the opening paragraph people generally would know that from that point on, you take what he says with a few grains of salt.

Now, if you want to debunk the debunker, go right ahead. Find where the 20 year graph shown in my link it completely made up and false, and you win. But if the graph is true and accurate, any objective reading of it clearly shows Lott's statements were tailor designed to be misleading. I mean, when the average homicide rate actually drops buy 3-4 people over a 10 year average after the new law comes in, how can anyone suggest that Lott would use THAT example of why gun laws don't work, unless he was putting the numbers through a meat grinder to make them unrecognizable.

[THE Mechanic]

Boy this post is steaming..

The Capt. and MOD should meet at high noon.

Choose your weapons boys..Spitballs are your weapons.

The first one to get it between the EYE's ...looses..lol..



Here's an example for you.

I'n New York state you must have a pistol license.And thier not easy to get.. It could take as long as a year with background checks,and they dig deep.If you so much as farted up wind you could be denied.

I dont know about upstsate,but downstate in New York city and Long Island if you are caught with a hand gun unregistered and unlicence you will do a year in jail.



My neighbour owns a club in China town.And he had a registered pistol licence to carry because he deals with receipts etc.He had been having lots of problems with gang activity and other bad asses crashing his club.

One night about three years ago 3 punks showed up at the club and pulled guns demanding his receipts.

Well they messed with the wrong person. "Steve" shot two of them dead on the spot and the other ran off.

The NYPD did an investigation and it was considered a justifyable shooting.no charges filed.

I asked him how he felt about it and he said"everything happen so fast"they were going to shoot me..it was either me or them..!! He says he felt really bad about killing these young people but he really had no other option.

After this happened a few months later he decided to make his club a private club.

Here's the worst part the NYPD took his gun and then told him he can no longer posses a fire arm.And revoked his license in definately in the state of New York.

He still carries heat to this day regardless and said "I'm going home to my family tonight".

He has had no holdups to date.I guess the word got out on the street,and changing the club to a membership club helps as well.



"T.M."

[Jack]

[quote name='THE Mechanic' date='09/10/07 12:23am' post='160203']
Here's the worst part the NYPD took his gun and then told him he can no longer posses a fire arm.And revoked his license in definately in the state of New York.

He still carries heat to this day regardless and said "I'm going home to my family tonight".

He has had no holdups to date.I guess the word got out on the street,and changing the club to a membership club helps as well.
"T.M."



[quote]





BS all i can say is BS yea where was you guys when it all went down but thats just it.FACT no ones ever around when you need them but your prosecuted for taking matters into your own hands. im tired of debating

and thinking about it you just fall deeper into the web if im ever held up by crooks ill just let them kill me so every thing will be ok no one gets upset and no laws are broken thats seems right dont it?




blaaaa









This post has been edited by Jack: 09/10/07 1:50am

[Bargod]

Boy this post is steaming..

The Capt. and MOD should meet at high noon.

Choose your weapons boys..Spitballs are your weapons.

The first one to get it between the EYE's ...looses..lol..



Here's an example for you.

I'n New York state you must have a pistol license.And thier not easy to get.. It could take as long as a year with background checks,and they dig deep.If you so much as farted up wind you could be denied.

I dont know about upstsate,but downstate in New York city and Long Island if you are caught with a hand gun unregistered and unlicence you will do a year in jail.



My neighbour owns a club in China town.And he had a registered pistol licence to carry because he deals with receipts etc.He had been having lots of problems with gang activity and other bad asses crashing his club.

One night about three years ago 3 punks showed up at the club and pulled guns demanding his receipts.

Well they messed with the wrong person. "Steve" shot two of them dead on the spot and the other ran off.

The NYPD did an investigation and it was considered a justifyable shooting.no charges filed.

I asked him how he felt about it and he said"everything happen so fast"they were going to shoot me..it was either me or them..!! He says he felt really bad about killing these young people but he really had no other option.

After this happened a few months later he decided to make his club a private club.

Here's the worst part the NYPD took his gun and then told him he can no longer posses a fire arm.And revoked his license in definately in the state of New York.

He still carries heat to this day regardless and said "I'm going home to my family tonight".

He has had no holdups to date.I guess the word got out on the street,and changing the club to a membership club helps as well.



"T.M."

My second cousin, Harold Bringman, ran a club in NYC as well. Not sure if he had a license for his gun or not, but most likely won't get another license any time in the future...

Yes, I'm taking my own thread off topic...

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressrelease...roconvicted.pdf

[Capt. Andtennille]

BS all i can say is BS yea where was you guys when it all went down but thats just it.FACT no ones ever around when you need them but your prosecuted for taking matters into your own hands. im tired of debating

and thinking about it you just fall deeper into the web if im ever held up by crooks ill just let them kill me so every thing will be ok no one gets upset and no laws are broken thats seems right dont it?




blaaaa

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Well, it sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of you feel safe unless your packing heat.

I live in a place where I don't lock my door, day or night, nor do I own a gun. Amazingly, I don't constantly fear for my life either.

[Nothing]

I live in Chicago. I do not constantly live in Fear. I do however lock my doors. Even if I lived in the area with the smallest crime rate in the world, I would still lock my doors. I dont wany anyone in my house unless I open the door and let them in. It in no way means I live in fear.

If I remember right, Coke, Pot, Meth, Heroin and many other kinds of drugs are banned/against the law in both USA and Canada. With all of these being banned/against the law, how easy are they obtained in both Canada and USA? I would dare to say pretty simple. But for some of the upstanding people that dont offiliate with criminals, its not so easy for them. By banning guns, it will only make it impossible for the upstanding people in the country to get guns, but there will still be ample on the streets. Its a fact. People smuggle things into the country all the time. I see it first hand with my business. Only few are caught. Go to a flea market and tell me how many merchants are selling fake brand named items. Where are they coming from?? I can tell you that 99% of these are not made in the USA, and its Illegal to import them, so where and how are they coming from?? Guns would come in these same exact way. They would actually sell for higher prices and these criminals would love a ban because they would make more $$ than they already are.

A ban is against my constitutional right, and would be the worst thing we could do if you asked me. Many will argue it to be different, and I can say to them, I dont care what you think, its my right.

And it is so true, people kill people, not guns. If someone wanted to kill another person, there is many things they could use, if guns were banned, they would be using something else. If you want me to make a list of things they could use, I would. But dont want to inspire some young nuts that may be viewing this, lol.

[Bargod]

And it is so true, people kill people, not guns. If someone wanted to kill another person, there is many things they could use, if guns were banned, they would be using something else. If you want me to make a list of things they could use, I would. But dont want to inspire some young nuts that may be viewing this, lol.

Australia has shown that making guns more difficult to obtain lowers the murder rate. The murder rate was lowered because the number of murders caused by guns was lowered. These people did not find a different weapon to murder somebody with.
Most murderers do not plot and scheme and find a way to kill somebody. Most murders are in the heat of the moment. Guns are a very good way to kill people and readily available.
So, making guns more difficult to get = fewer murders.
Guns > other weapons for killing people.

Also, Ireland has basically banned most guns and their murder rate shows it. There was not an influx of black market weapons into the country.

Having said that, I'm not for banning guns. How would you get rid of the 200 million guns in this country?

[Capt. Andtennille]

Well, it sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of you feel safe unless your packing heat.

I live in a place where I don't lock my door, day or night, nor do I own a gun. Amazingly, I don't constantly fear for my life either.

I suspected you were from another country, which one?



I wouldn't say that no one can feel safe unless they are packing heat in the U.S.. I do own guns, don't carry (illegal in my state) and don't fear for my life. My country has a constitution that guarantees my rights to own a gun if I so choose. It sure must be terrible living in a country where apparently none of it's citizens can be trusted.

And it is so true, people kill people, not guns. If someone wanted to kill another person, there is many things they could use, if guns were banned, they would be using something else. If you want me to make a list of things they could use, I would. But dont want to inspire some young nuts that may be viewing this, lol.