BF2S Forums Gun control logic

it's not about fear, it's about reality.  maybe your world is safe, maybe you imagine your world is safe.  you're comfortable relying on some employee to keep you safe and secure.  good for you.

AussieReaper wrote:

The British home office and the FBI class "violent" crime differently.

How so? Murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny-theft, manslaughter..

In fact it looks like the UK has a history of miscounting in terms of under reporting http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7685908.stm .. thus making the numbers even worse.

Reciprocity wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

What threat are you facing, alien invasion?

home invasion is my only immediate concern.  i don't put myself in dangerous situations, i don't seek threats.  and don't misunderstand me, i don't dislike police, i just don't leave myself in a position of reliance on police.

Okay, home invasion I can understand is a threat. But that does not equal the need to carry concealed weapons. I'd be more than happy to concede gun ownership at home only to take guns off the streets where I believe they do more harm than good.

kmar wrote:

How so? Murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, larceny-theft, manslaughter..

In fact it looks like the UK has a history of miscounting in terms of under reporting http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7685908.stm .. thus making the numbers even worse.

From your article:

The mistake happened when some crimes classed as "grievous bodily harm with intent" were recorded as less serious.

There is no real study that compares the two evenly. If violent crime is classed differently per country, and then weapon classifications are also downgraded or upgraded it doesn't make sense.

I think measuring "violent" crime compared to crime that didn't occur violence is inherently wrong anyway, each situation could play out differently depending on more factors than just what type of weapon was used.

AussieReaper wrote:

Okay, home invasion I can understand is a threat. But that does not equal the need to carry concealed weapons. I'd be more than happy to concede gun ownership at home only to take guns off the streets where I believe they do more harm than good.

people who legally carry concealed handguns statistically do not commit crimes.  guns are taken off the streets and destroyed every day.  sadly, this doesn't solve our poverty and drug problems,

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

I find it funny how some Americans talk about how they are the beacon of freedom in the world, about the American dream blah blah, and then own 6 guns because they don't trust their fellow Americans or government. Am i the only one who sees the irony?

I don't trust criminals, no matter their nationality. only idiots trust their government and only idiots depend on cops for their safety.

You sound so free, happy and full of fear of fucking everything

I see his point.

Also:
Thomas Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press."
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764

Kmarion wrote:

This is the first time I have heard this "could play out differently" argument. I guess this is what happens when you present concrete numbers. It looks like the classifications are VERY similar to me, and you have provided nothing to make me think otherwise. I'm not dealing in hypothetical, you are. This is not to say they aren't important.. but like you said, it makes no sense to attempt to compare them. Please remember to bring that up the next time the gun ban side of the argument attempts to present skewed facts.

Well if you really want to know how the numbers compare, and compare the "violent crimes" numbers, even though you have conceded it makes no sense to compare them, when both are measured differently anyway, let's try it on the United Nations report:

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
Times Online

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.

The attacks have been fuelled by a “booze and blades” culture in the west of Scotland which has claimed more than 160 lives over the past five years. Since January there have been 13 murders, 145 attempted murders and 1,100 serious assaults involving knives in the west of Scotland. The problem is made worse by sectarian violence, with hospitals reporting higher admissions following Old Firm matches.

The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.

That seems pretty conclusive. The UN have made a report on violent crime and Scotland is worse than England, but England is worse than America. So far your argument holds up really well. Congratulations.

So let's now analyse how this study was taken

The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults.

Based on telephone interviews? Recorded close to ten times official police figures? So who do we believe? The UN report, which takes into account global figures, or the the police reports which you have been going by?

They are both measuring violent crime, yet have figures blown out up to ten times in magnitude. So, okay, let's now look at some other British figures and see if they match up then,

The British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006. The UK does not use a calendar-year reporting scheme, but reports on a September-to-September time-frame. (These figures do NOT represent two years' worth of data.) The first problem is that there appear to be two separate figures for the crime rate.

If we look at the tables supporting Chapter 5, on Violent Crime, (this is an Excel Workbook) we are told that there was a total of 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time-frame covered by the report.

If we take the word of the CIA Factbook the UK had a population of 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.) This gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8.

However in Chapter 7, (Table 7a) of the BCS, the total violent crime rate per 1000 inhabitants is listed as 23, which is equivalent to 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants.

So if you cannot measure the violent crimes in one country accurately, yet you want to compare the figures of the US compared the Britain for violent crime, what chance do we have of finding any evidence that the US is safer than Britain?

It doesn't work for a number of reasons, more than just differing figures, The National Crime Recording System in the UK, used by the police and home office is very different to the the UCR. Over half of recorded violent crime in the UK results in no injury to anybody, and is made up of verbal threats, harassment or petty arguments.

Of the other 50% of violent crimes, more than 95% were simple assaults, resulting in very minor injuries, and the remaining 21,000 were recorded as more serious assaults against the person.

Hospital Data reviewed by Cardiff Medical Schools Violence Research Group, has shown a sustained drop in violent crime since 2000, with over 20% less hospital admissions for violent crimes (NHS Accident and Emergency Data).

This data ties in with the British Crime Survey.

So what's to be believed, the police figures which you've been going on, or telephone interviews by the UN which is 10 times higher in the case of Scotland? Any of the other statistics seem to be off by a large number also, and that is for one country.

So okay, my point is you can't compare violent crime rates because violent crime is measured differently, has varying results even when given a small sample such as Ireland, and is not accurately going to be representative of UK vs US figures no matter how hard you try.

So let's try measuring violent crimes, and in particular gun crimes, since hey, this is a "gun control logic" thread in a more conclusive manner. By, say, death rates? Homicides, perhaps. You know, concrete numbers...? You are either a homicide victim or not. You are either dead or alive. I mean, it doesn't get much more black and white than death or life now does it? Violent crime is measured differently, I'm sure death rates can't be.

We'll use some numbers that can't be fudged, and see what we can come up with, how about that, ok? Violent crime can fall into either category depending on who carried out the study. Knife and gun crime are both counted as violent in some cases, other cases only when the weapons are actually used and not just used as a potential threat.

Here's some numbers that are concrete, Murders.



That's the number per 100,000 population for 2000. And oh look, the US is above Germany, England, France and Australia.

Maybe I got lucky with that graph. I mean, it only looks one the year 2000. Do you think that it was different at perhaps another time?

Let's take 2002 and see the homicide rate:

UK: 2.03 per 100,000 in 2002

US: 7.6 per 100,000 in 2002

The US had 4 times the murder rate of the UK in 2002. Has that trend continued?

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Weapons used. Available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t … onstab.htm

That's a five times greater homicide rate in the US than UK. That's pretty conclusive which is the safer option when gun crime results in homicide. But again, just looking at a very small time period. Again, the data set could have just been lucky and presented data which does not fit the real trend over time.

So, how about we look at how long have the homicide rates in the US been above the UK?



Yet you think Britain is more violent?

That sketchy "Violent crime" rates are to be believed when greatly varied. That they can be compared when measured differently. And then used in a gun control debate when violent crime includes non-gun based crime included harassment. ?

Have a look at any of the homicide and murder statistics involving guns and you'll find the US is far higher than Britain.

I wonder why that is...

cuz we have 200 million more assholes than you.

AussieReaper wrote:

Since you've chosen to ignore most of my post anyway...

The fucking hypocrisy is nauseating.

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

My contention was violent crimes. Not homicides. So when left nowhere to go create a new debate> lol

Your data relates to violent crime, which I showed was inaccurate, conflicted and couldn't be used to compare crime rates to the US let alone in the case of Britain vs Ireland. I gave you a more concrete set of data which is gun crime, in a gun thread (omg gasp) in the case of homicides.

Conflicted sure. However I believe my data to be solid, straight from the horses mouth. I see you opted for option C, it's ok so long as you get to pick the data.

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Seriously are you replying with what you wished my position was? Thanks for making the effort of actually providing thoughtful analysis this time. Although I'm still not sure if you are saying it's ok to compare, it's not fair to compare, or if it's ok so long as you get to pick the data .

I doubt you more than glanced at my post. The homicide rate in the US is significantly higher than that of Britain, so you argue that violent crimes figures are to be believed? lol

You've got a reading comprehension problem tonight. Maybe it's just that you've come to realize you wasted your time making a point that wasn't even relevant to what I was saying (will not remind you again). Or maybe you just don't understand that despite having a higher homicide rate the other violent crimes more than make up for the difference. Either way I've lost hope in your ability to put it together.

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

However I believe my data to be solid, straight from the horses mouth. I see you opted for option C, it's ok so long as you get to pick the data.

I think I found the flaw in your argument.

Kmarion wrote:

The fucking hypocrisy is nauseating.

Jesus fucking mother mary in hell.. that was my point. ffs line a paragraph 1:That all depends on which data you look at.

I believe

AussieReaper wrote:

Then why not look at the more relevant data?

Violent crime =\= gun crime.

Unless you've somehow missed the title of this thread, you're not making much of a point.

I did and acknowledged.. do I need to write it out again? I swear man..lol

just let it go kman...he doesn't get it. They never will. That is our problem with gun control, people think they can live in utopia, with no need for guns, whilst we still live in a very chaotic, war torn age. We cannot reach an age where guns are no longer necessary, until our technology gets an incredibly extreme overhaul and our global society as a whole starts to get along, putting aside such petty differences as race, religion, etc. We need to be efficient, weed out corruption, and work on that thing called honesty. A gun-less world is far off, if possible at all.

Edit...Until then, Ive got my G3 ready to pop.

Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2009-04-03 23:59:52)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

people who legally carry concealed handguns statistically do not commit crimes.

But the fact remains that the vast bulk of spree shootings are carried out by licensed firearm owners.
As a firearm owner myself I would like to know how we can address that.

being permitted to purchase and own firearms does not include the legal capacity to carry concealed firearms.  that requires a separate licencing process.

in regard to these killing sprees, they are the anomaly.  by no means am i minimizing the tragedy of these events but the vast majority of gun crimes are isolated events within the concentric spheres of drugs and poverty.  guns are perceived as the most efficient means of exerting power and inflicting death and destruction, which, sadly, is part of our collective US culture.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-04-04 01:48:55)

i'm not sure any further steps could be taken besides confiscation and destruction of all privately owned firearms, which would be impossible.  and then someone goes on a stabbing rampage, or they build bombs, or they drive their buick through a kindergarten playground.  are you gunna regulate and destroy all those things as well? 

perhaps a psychological screening would have prevented this person from having legal access to firearms.  or not.  and maybe he would have made an ammonium nitrate bomb instead.  you can't always predict or prevent crazy.

as far as rhe responsibility of gun owners, i'd go so far as to say wreckless storage of a firearm resulting in theft should perhaps be a punishable offense.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-04-04 04:20:21)