it's too late for banning guns in the US to have any real effect anyays. even if they were banned it wouldn't stop people from producing and selling them on the black market
I completely agree poseidon, thats one of the first things i said.
Interesting to see how the paper got the number they did. Either they're reporting has different classifications or there are other offences that the paper is considering violent that you aren't... But thanks for showing that -at best your argument of gun bans doesn't even significantly reduce violent crime as compared to those armed states... For having no guns -you guys have quite a violent society. gg though.Vilham wrote:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109vol1.pdf
page 30 of doc or 50 of pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
First page
Pop of USA: 300 mil
Pop of UK: 60 mil
Violent crime US (2008): 4,800,000
Violent crime UK (2008): 900,000
Rates US (per mil): 16,000
Rates UK (per mil): 15,000
And thats ignoring that the classifications are much more strict in the UK, eg including what is effectively verbal abuse.
So anyway you were saying.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
You mean the homeoffice aka part of the UK government? The place that publishes the only official sets of data for this?Interesting to see how the paper got the number they did
Other way round matey, its the US that classifies far fewer crimes as violent.Either they're reporting has different classifications or there are other offences that the paper is considering violent that you aren't...
You mean showing that your argument before was rubbish from some blog (seriously?) and that having a gun does nothing to reduce crime only makes homicide rates 10x higher.But thanks for showing that -at best your argument of gun bans doesn't even significantly reduce violent crime as compared to those armed states...
No, a bolt action.1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
AR-15? I got mine when I was 16. It had a .22 upper. Then I got a 5.56 upper.War Man wrote:
If it wasn't for Illinois gun laws. I wouldn't of had my first gun I got for Christmas returned and I would be trained on operating a gun. Now the army is my answer to ever firing a gun in life.RAIMIUS wrote:
Did you expect gun control to make sense? How often does that happen?
Come to the US. Just stay away from Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
No, the numbers from one of your country's Newspapers, that you obviously didn't look at.Vilham wrote:
You mean the homeoffice aka part of the UK government? The place that publishes the only official sets of data for this?
Ok then divvy them out:Vil wrote:
Other way round matey, its the US that classifies far fewer crimes as violent.
US 454.5 violent crimes per 100,000.
UK pg 39 pdf 904 per 100,000.
Again. There should be a way lower number of violent crime in your country. There isn't. A stat I'd love to see is how many crimes were prevented/didn't happen because the would-be criminal thought the citizen was armed. I'd wager the number would be pretty high.Vil wrote:
You mean showing that your argument before was rubbish from some blog (seriously?) and that having a gun does nothing to reduce crime only makes homicide rates 10x higher.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Firstly Daily mail, secondly NOT OFFICIAL FIGURES. I have given you a direct link the UK crime figures.DBBrinson1 wrote:
No, the numbers from one of your country's Newspapers, that you obviously didn't look at.Vilham wrote:
You mean the homeoffice aka part of the UK government? The place that publishes the only official sets of data for this?
Ok then.Ok then divvy them out:
US: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (1,382,000)
UK: every single crime on that page you just linked.... including that the US doesn't: possession of weapons (30k), verbal harassment (200k), racial harassment (30k), non aggravated assaults (aka any assault without a knife or gun, 95% of ABH and GBH crimes thats a total of 579k)(page 53 of doc) So of those 900k UK classified violent crimes only 90k were US classified violent crime.
90k + 40k rape + 80k robbery = 210k thats 350 per 100,000 still lower than your 450 per 100,000.
Again. There IS a way lower number of violent crime in my country. Deal with it.Again. There should be a way lower number of violent crime in your country. There isn't. A stat I'd love to see is how many crimes were prevented/didn't happen because the would-be criminal thought the citizen was armed. I'd wager the number would be pretty high.
Last edited by Vilham (2010-02-09 12:33:29)
I appreciate it. I had read an article from one of your news sources. I guess they make shit up there like our journalists do.Vilham wrote:
Firstly Daily mail, secondly NOT OFFICIAL FIGURES. I have given you a direct link the UK crime figures.
Go look at Table 2.4US: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (1,382,000)
UK: every single crime on that page you just linked.... including that the US doesn't: possession of weapons (30k), verbal harassment (200k), racial harassment (30k), non aggravated assaults (aka any assault without a knife or gun, 95% of ABH and GBH crimes thats a total of 579k)(page 53 of doc) So of those 900k UK classified violent crimes only 90k were US classified violent crime.
90k + 40k rape + 80k robbery = 210k thats 350 per 100,000 still lower than your 450 per 100,000.
Your incidnece of violence with injury alone is 421K or 421 per 100,000.
Deal with it.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
What news source? Ive only posted Official government documents...
Go read what I wrote.
Go read what I wrote.
O and nice maths fail there, if all of those crimes were classifiable under the US classifications (which my quote above demonstrates they aren't as the US only includes aggravated assaults which are only 5% of UK ABH and GBH crimes) it would still only be a rate of 142 per 100,000.non aggravated assaults (aka any assault without a knife or gun, 95% of ABH and GBH crimes thats a total of 579k)(page 53 of doc)
From one of your news papers over there...
Go read what I wrote. You're cherry picking your data. You're beat. Your own people even say so...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ … -europe.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … urope.html
I liked this one (although a bit dated):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Face it you people are just a violent society as the US.
Go read what I wrote. You're cherry picking your data. You're beat. Your own people even say so...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ … -europe.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … urope.html
I liked this one (although a bit dated):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Face it you people are just a violent society as the US.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-02-09 20:47:37)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
My god. Your failure to comprehend is incredible. Ill break it down to junior school level for you.DBBrinson1 wrote:
From one of your news papers over there...
Go read what I wrote. You're cherry picking your data. You're beat. Your own people even say so...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ … -europe.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … urope.html
I liked this one (although a bit dated):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Face it you people are just a violent society as the US.
Different countries do things differently. The US classifies crime in a different way to the UK. The UK includes 50% more crimes in its data than the US does.
Understand yet? You can keep posting articles that ignore that above fact, but the stats I posted don't lie. The US statistically DOES have higher crime rates. Instead of ignoring those statistics how about you try and disprove them. Until you do, you have no argument.
wtf you talking about. Viljam posts OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FIGURES. You respond by quoting some shite from this is london, the daily mail, and the telegraph!!! LOOOL fuck man that's like citing the National Enquirer. Do yourself a favour and ignore everything in those 'newspapers' yeah? They're full of shit.DBBrinson1 wrote:
From one of your news papers over there...
Go read what I wrote. You're cherry picking your data. You're beat. Your own people even say so...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ … -europe.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … urope.html
But you get another LOL for trying to 'prove' that the UK is 'just as violent' as the US. I think you're gonna have to define what you mean by 'just as violent' first mate.
You post statisitcs from one year, hardly a trend to base a claim on. The others' data is averaged -which all the articles have. Doens't matter if one state views a crime violent and another doesn't. I'm looking at the classification. Again, there isn't a huge statistical difference to support your claim. Sort it whichever way you want, cherry pick the data, and pepper with it insults. GG vil. I'm not even responding to ram.Vilham wrote:
My god. Your failure to comprehend is incredible. Ill break it down to junior school level for you.DBBrinson1 wrote:
From one of your news papers over there...
Go read what I wrote. You're cherry picking your data. You're beat. Your own people even say so...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ … -europe.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … urope.html
I liked this one (although a bit dated):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Face it you people are just a violent society as the US.
Different countries do things differently. The US classifies crime in a different way to the UK. The UK includes 50% more crimes in its data than the US does.
Understand yet? You can keep posting articles that ignore that above fact, but the stats I posted don't lie. The US statistically DOES have higher crime rates. Instead of ignoring those statistics how about you try and disprove them. Until you do, you have no argument.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Im not cherry picking the data, considering both countries crimes are on the fall, the US's falling faster than the UKs and that the US's is currently higher than the UKs, shows that the US has had higher crime rates for quite a while not just "one year" as you claim.
All the articles you have posted don't take the classifications of crimes into account at all, they all either knowingly or ignorantly ignore that. They just assume that there is some magic global classification used by all countries, meaning crimes the HomeOffice considers violent are identical to crimes the FBI considers violent. Which as I have repeatedly stated and you have failed to comprehend is blatantly not true. I have taken the exact figures for crimes the FBI considers violent and taken the figures from the HomeOffice that fit that same FBI violent classification (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and the rates for those FBI classifications are lower for the UK.
If anyone is cherry picking data its them.
Im gunna take you last few statement as acceptance that this all goes over your head and you can't even debate or refute it.
All the articles you have posted don't take the classifications of crimes into account at all, they all either knowingly or ignorantly ignore that. They just assume that there is some magic global classification used by all countries, meaning crimes the HomeOffice considers violent are identical to crimes the FBI considers violent. Which as I have repeatedly stated and you have failed to comprehend is blatantly not true. I have taken the exact figures for crimes the FBI considers violent and taken the figures from the HomeOffice that fit that same FBI violent classification (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and the rates for those FBI classifications are lower for the UK.
If anyone is cherry picking data its them.
Im gunna take you last few statement as acceptance that this all goes over your head and you can't even debate or refute it.
Suprising since all the guns we have over here. I guess since they're dead though they can't commit any more crimes. Right?Vilham wrote:
Im not cherry picking the data, considering both countries crimes are on the fall, the US's falling faster than the UKs and that the US's is currently higher than the UKs, shows that the US has had higher crime rates for quite a while not just "one year" as you claim.
I've refuted, debated and even coceded a few points. Bottom line is that there isn't that big of a statistical difference. Your country is about as violent as the US. And there's this.All the articles you have posted don't take the classifications of crimes into account at all, they all either knowingly or ignorantly ignore that. They just assume that there is some magic global classification used by all countries, meaning crimes the HomeOffice considers violent are identical to crimes the FBI considers violent. Which as I have repeatedly stated and you have failed to comprehend is blatantly not true. I have taken the exact figures for crimes the FBI considers violent and taken the figures from the HomeOffice that fit that same FBI violent classification (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and the rates for those FBI classifications are lower for the UK.
If anyone is cherry picking data its them.
Im gunna take you last few statement as acceptance that this all goes over your head and you can't even debate or refute it.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-02-10 06:40:01)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Rate is still higher than UKs, so clearly not. O and isn't the US getting more strict on gun control, correct me if im wrong.
Thanks for proving my point. We are far more strict on what is classified as violent crime, so much so that we think even more crimes should be classified violent. Whereas in the US only rape, killing, aggravated assault and robbery are considered violent, you don't consider assault, verbal abuse or harassment as violent.
Thanks for proving my point. We are far more strict on what is classified as violent crime, so much so that we think even more crimes should be classified violent. Whereas in the US only rape, killing, aggravated assault and robbery are considered violent, you don't consider assault, verbal abuse or harassment as violent.
Broken record here, its not my fault the UK classification and citizens are more sensitive than ours. I won't argue semantics. But it isn't that significant of a difference.Vilham wrote:
Rate is still higher than UKs, so clearly not. O and isn't the US getting more strict on gun control, correct me if im wrong.
Thanks for proving my point. We are far more strict on what is classified as violent crime, so much so that we think even more crimes should be classified violent. Whereas in the US only rape, killing, aggravated assault and robbery are considered violent, you don't consider assault, verbal abuse or harassment as violent.
Actually, no the big O, much to his dismay, had to back off of his agenda with regards to gun control. When he was elected and began rolling out his plans, there was a frenzy of people buying up ammunition and all kinds of firearms. So much so that there was a back log at the BATF&E. However, that doesn't mean that he won't try again (I'd almost bet on it in his second term -Lord Google forbid he wins again). In wake of Katrina, this was passed.
Live and die by the statistics though, here's one you may find interesting. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens aren't the problem, less than one percent there...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Are you kidding me. It makes it >200% higher! 50% of all our violent crime is common assault (that's anything from slapping to punching etc) The article I first posted for the American stats has the same classification as the UK and it reported 3.5 million cases of common assault:But it isn't that significant of a difference.
In the UK aggravated assault is 5% of all assault in the US its 20%.Assault 4,331,530 4,100,850 17.3 16.3 -6.0
Aggravated 858,940 839,940 3.4 3.3 -2.9
Simple 3,472,590 3,260,920 13.9 12.9 -6.8
Wasn't keeping up on whether that was progressing or not, i would suggest its a good thing it didn't, too late to make a change now.
Maybe, but 20% off assaults being aggravated against 5% is a hell of a lot worse.
this really isn't the way i had intended this thread to go
Karbin wrote:
SVT-40 isn't prohibited but is restricted
Why? Barrel length.
came in the mail today told you it was non-res
Surprised the hell out of me..... and congrats on getting it.
Looks like some of the rifles have changed class's.
I'll have to take a new look and see whats now available.
Looks like some of the rifles have changed class's.
I'll have to take a new look and see whats now available.
shoot me a pm sometime i can probably cut down on some search time
And you'd be right.DBBrinson1 wrote:
A stat I'd love to see is how many crimes were prevented/didn't happen because the would-be criminal thought the citizen was armed. I'd wager the number would be pretty high.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405
...
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%.
...
Last edited by Pubic (2010-03-05 22:47:23)
The vast majority of people I know don't have guns. The ones that do don't use them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I have a feeling that Canada will eventually loosen up its gun laws. They're reaching a population size where the current restrictions just aren't practical anymore.
Also, it's pretty shortsighted to heavily restrict handguns when you live right next door to one of the biggest manufacturers of guns.
Another thing to consider is that Canada's violent crime would not likely go up with more guns because they don't have the same kind of poverty issues we have.
I don't want to make this a race issue, but honestly, the majority of gun related deaths in America involve black people killing black people. Canada has ghettoes just like America, but they aren't nearly as violent as ours in most cases. I don't think that has to do with guns, but rather, cultural differences.
So, more guns in Canada probably won't equal more crime or more murder.
Also, it's pretty shortsighted to heavily restrict handguns when you live right next door to one of the biggest manufacturers of guns.
Another thing to consider is that Canada's violent crime would not likely go up with more guns because they don't have the same kind of poverty issues we have.
I don't want to make this a race issue, but honestly, the majority of gun related deaths in America involve black people killing black people. Canada has ghettoes just like America, but they aren't nearly as violent as ours in most cases. I don't think that has to do with guns, but rather, cultural differences.
So, more guns in Canada probably won't equal more crime or more murder.