Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
Gun control in the USA
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
You picked a city and a year in an attempt to disprove a point I'd just made.Do we want to go down the race path in this discussion?
I pointed out that if you remove the special conditions that apply to Chicago, and take a much broader view than your own artificially-limited one, then my point stands.
At this stage of a debate, it's customary for you to admit that I'm right
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
You picked a city and a year in an attempt to disprove a point I'd just made.
I pointed out that if you remove the special conditions that apply to Chicago, and take a much broader view than your own artificially-limited one, then my point stands.
At this stage of a debate, it's customary for you to admit that I'm right
And if you extend that logic to the wider debate about gun laws and remove an entire section of Black and Hispanic murder victims from the US murder rates, you will find a murder rate equivalent to UK levels.
So gun ownership and US gun laws do not in fact increase murder rates outside of those "special conditions" then those of us arguing that viewpoint are in fact correct.
And so at this stage of a debate, it's customary for you to admit that we are right 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Well given that you persistently maintain that death by homicide is exactly the same as having an encounter with an armed assailant and the result of that encounter will exactly match the national statistics on homicide - I'd say it's you.
A) I never claimed that (I only implied that overall statistics reflected on the gun related statistics) and
they do. The US has five times as many homicides as the UK, and five times as many gun related homicides as the UK (with respect to gun ownership).
I would also point to the fact that you have also repeatedly mistated that the homicide rate in the US is 5 times the UK rate. According to the UNOCD figures you are now so reliant on, that rate is in fact only 4 times - 1.2 per 100,000 vs 4.8 per 100,000. Have you even read what you are posting as authoritative?
The UNODC figure is from 2010, the gun related deaths figure is 2009 and the gun ownership figure is from 2007. Some small difference is expected.The Czech Republic has a homicide by firearm rate of 0.2 per 100,000 compared with 0.1 per 100,000 for the UK - at 20 deaths per year this is a statistically negligible difference. UNOCD figures.
You just said that the UK had 1.2 deaths per 100,000. Now its 0.1. Can you make up your mind? The Czech rep. had 1.7 deaths per 100,000 (cell U312 in the UNODC pdf).I see - you can't actually deny it, so here's a platitude for me to agree with.
I've made this point (bad cops will misinterpret any law) pretty much since the start. Don't tell you only know are reading it.Nope, not if there is an established defence because the law was written that way. In the case of US gun law the self-defence defence is well established. Your badly enacted UK knife law relies on some imaginary "good reason" that is impossible to prove/disprove, hence the innocent being convicted.
You still have to convince someone that you needed to defend yourself.Wut? The violent actions of those that commit such crimes are what makes those crime dangerous. The knives are inanimate.
A criminal without a weapon is less dangerous than a criminal with a weapon.http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/Gary-Kleck-Biography.htm
15% of those who used a gun (he interviewed 2000 households)
Thank you for the link.
Its odd that only 15% of those who used a gun actually felt like it actually helped. Even assuming that what these people felt is a reliable measure of how the incident occured, that means 85% of gun users used their guns (at best) completely ineffectually.So I didn't show a number of people being arrested for having knives that did not appear to have malicious intent in mind.
I beleive we got onto the topic with my assertion that it is illegal in the UK to cross the street to your neighbour's house with a kitchen knife. All your arguments so far have failed to show this is untrue - and in fact seem to support such a law.
If you say you are going across the street to give your neighbour a knife, you demonstrate that you have no malicious intent. If you are uncooperative with the police, and will not say what you are doing with the knife, then I believe its justifiable to assume some sort of illegal intent for it.You said "Retrieving a gun to defend your home is different to carrying a gun in public because of a constant fear of threat."
To use your analogy people wear clothes because of the constant threat of rape. Are you fcking kidding me?
Are you talking to yourself? You must be, because your non sequitor about clothes and rapes has nothing to do with what I said.Jesus, do I have to explain your every statistical boo-boo. I thought you were good at this... assuming for a minute that:
1. Every criminal meets an armed defender in the US.
2. That the crime statistics for the UK and US gather the same data.
3. That an interrupted burglary is not reported just as a "burglary".
You still have societal factors, noteably the social welfare safety net that makes crime more likely in the US. Assuming that factors driving crime in the US are identical as the UK is a very silly assumption.
So what you are saying is that withou guns, the numbers of gun-related homicides would be much higher in the US? Any evidence for that?The UNODC data does not test your hypothesis "that carrying a weapon doesn't change the likelihood of being a victim and that everyone carrying weapons just encourages criminals to become better armed themselves (ie escalation)." so how can you rely on that data to support your position.
The UNODC data does give similar overall figures to previous data (on gun deaths vs ownership). If you don't like the UNODC data, then the older data proves you wrong too.
Even in the UNODC data by itself, if my hypothesis was wrong, you would expect to see the overall homicide rate drop in countries which have higher and higher numbers of people carrying guns. We dont see that.Fuck me. There really is no hope for you. What sentence should someone receive for being silent?
You tend to post your reactions to my points, without actually explaining why I'm wrong. Its not self evident that I'm wrong (at least to me), so you really need to explain yourself.
And I already said that you don't have to give a sentence to someone who remains silent, but the knife should be confiscated.And again you put words in my mouth. Where did I ever say that?
Several times you've referenced a study on the number of times people have used guns in self defence. You attempted to justify self defence as a reason to carry a knife.You know, had I thought the UK police would have the powers they do today and mentioned them in 1984 you would have said the same thing.
Now to avoid another game of "If I call it a fallacy I don't have to respond" with you - how about you tell me what limits on police surveillance are appropriate. Or are there none in your view.
There are plenty of limits I agree with (many based around the home being private) but I'm not going into them here because whataboutery is irrelevant to this discussion.Bitch-slapped?? Lol. I'm not the one trying to equate world military conflict with civilian violence. You seriously think anyone here doesn't see that. Besides I'd say you Godwin-ed there, big time.
You tried to justify gun ownership laws as being reactionary to the violent environment that existed in the early 1900s in the US. Are you unaware of the violent environment that existed in Europe at that time?Compromise? The UK police were given any power they asked for, as confirmed by accounts of the period by the then Home Secretary, that's not compromise that's a path to a police state.
You would have imagined they would have asked for tanks. And skimply clad ladies to serve them tea.I said "Funny how removing civil liberties appears to be your idea of 'improvement'."
And you decided not to respond. No answer to that?
Strawman
You mean how to take statements and the intricacies of traffic laws?
Are you familiar with the concept of "citizens arrest" - we already empower our citizens to do a police officers job (I believe they even have police-wimmins now!) without any training at all.
I said in terms of accosting armed criminals. Do try and read my posts.Despite the data being from '94, did 2.5 million people wind up dead when they used a gun to defend themselves? Must have been a hell of year for homicides/
2.5million people used guns in self defence in 1994... but in from 1987-1992 there was only 83,000 per annum, according to the Department of Justice. You number seems bafflingly high.Armed conflict? This isn't some Somalian war zone, most of this is idiots looking for a quick hit.
Armed conflict doesn't necessarily mean a war. Any incident where two people attack each other is a conflict, and when they are armed, it is an armed conflict.Wow - way to generalise. I know 70 year olds who could kick your ass.
You don't know my ass :PYou have been trotting out the (incorrect) rate of homicide and trying to make something stick to it.
Its not the incorrect rate. Unless you think the UNODC, the CDC or the Small Arms Survey published incorrect data.More fascist "let's prosecute thoughtcrime" nonsense.
As I've said repeatedly, you don't have to presecute if you don't like. But if someone responds with uncooperation, then uncooperation should be dealt back to them.Because it will completely derail this thread and is not representative of the civilian legal system. Or would you like to debate how long the UK can hold people without charge within their civilian legal system?
We could also look at the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which allows the US to lock up civilians indefinitely, if you like.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »A) I never claimed that (I only implied that overall statistics reflected on the gun related statistics) and they do. The US has five times as many homicides as the UK, and five times as many gun related homicides as the UK (with respect to gun ownership).
UNDOC figure for US Homicide is 4.8 (cell V178) and the UK 1.2 (cell U348)
4.8/1.2= 4
But the 20% overage suits your case huh?The UNODC figure is from 2010, the gun related deaths figure is 2009 and the gun ownership figure is from 2007. Some small difference is expected.
You just said that the UK had 1.2 deaths per 100,000. Now its 0.1. Can you make up your mind? The Czech rep. had 1.7 deaths per 100,000 (cell U312 in the UNODC pdf).
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population Czech Republic = 0.2 (Cell U234) UK = 0.1 (Cell U282) apologies I did say homicide earlier and not homicide by firearm.
And your explanation for this widespread abuse is that it is all bad cops and prosecutors. You really do argue yourself into some corners. Nothing wrong with random stop and search laws in your view then?I've made this point (bad cops will misinterpret any law) pretty much since the start. Don't tell you only know are reading it.
Nope, you could rely on forensic or eyewitness reports.You still have to convince someone that you needed to defend yourself.
Except the law you support makes the innocent into criminals with weapons. The person is only a criminal once they act in a criminal manner in my book, in yours, a simple screwdriver is a weapon.A criminal without a weapon is less dangerous than a criminal with a weapon.
I have to give it to you, you are very good at twisting things to look like something else. 15% of those who used a gun said it saved theirs or someone else's life, not that it "helped". Your conclusion that 85% of gun users used their guns completely ineffectually is an entirely erroneous and spurious conclusion.Thank you for the link.
Its odd that only 15% of those who used a gun actually felt like it actually helped. Even assuming that what these people felt is a reliable measure of how the incident occured, that means 85% of gun users used their guns (at best) completely ineffectually.
How do you prove you are going to the neighbours? Your logic is that lying to the police is less suspicious than saying nothing. What a weird way to look at the world.If you say you are going across the street to give your neighbour a knife, you demonstrate that you have no malicious intent. If you are uncooperative with the police, and will not say what you are doing with the knife, then I believe its justifiable to assume some sort of illegal intent for it.
If you assume that carrying a defensive firearm equals living in fear of threat, then being dressed in public is living in fear of rape. I dress for convention and practicality - it has nothing to do with fear. If I choose to carry a gun, I simply dress for the practical purpose of defence should the need arise. To represent that as "fear" is pejorative and emotive.Are you talking to yourself? You must be, because your non sequitor about clothes and rapes has nothing to do with what I said.
Huh? That is not what I said at all, well done at a silly attempt to make that sound foolish. What I said was that there are other factors driving higher crime rates in the US not just the number of guns. Do you think crime rates would be higher in the US if guns vanished overnight?So what you are saying is that withou guns, the numbers of gun-related homicides would be much higher in the US? Any evidence for that?
The UNODC data does give similar overall figures to previous data (on gun deaths vs ownership).
Show me where the UNODC data compares ownership rates directly with gun deaths please.
If your hypothesis is true, then why do deaths by firearms in the Czech republic bear no relation to the US figures?
But no corresponding jump in homicide by firearm rates in the Czech republicIf you don't like the UNODC data, then the older data proves you wrong too.
Even in the UNODC data by itself, if my hypothesis was wrong, you would expect to see the overall homicide rate drop in countries which have higher and higher numbers of people carrying guns. We dont see that.
Maybe you should compare your proto-fascist position on the right to silence with the law codes of the overwhelming majority of developed nations, would that give you a hint?You tend to post your reactions to my points, without actually explaining why I'm wrong. Its not self evident that I'm wrong (at least to me), so you really need to explain yourself.
Why? If they legally own it? Because of what I might do with it? Should a car be confiscated if you are found to have car keys in your pocket whilst drunk. Which has greater potential for harm?And I already said that you don't have to give a sentence to someone who remains silent, but the knife should be confiscated.
Try to be honest and answer this straightforward comparison instead of hiding behind your cowardly "strawman" one word question-dodging tactics.
I said there were many lawful reasons to carry a knife.Several times you've referenced a study on the number of times people have used guns in self defence. You attempted to justify self defence as a reason to carry a knife.
And....another question dodge. If you agree that police should have powers to stop and search without probable cause then you have to accept that being asked a question about the limits of those powers is the very opposite of whataboutery - answer the question please.There are plenty of limits I agree with (many based around the home being private) but I'm not going into them here because whataboutery is irrelevant to this discussion.
Violence in cities in Europe in 1901 was greater than the violence in the US in 1901... sure. Whatever you say.You tried to justify gun ownership laws as being reactionary to the violent environment that existed in the early 1900s in the US. Are you unaware of the violent environment that existed in Europe at that time?
http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/europe/london/
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html
And from the same siteTo appreciate how violent the West was, we need to consider not only the annual homicide rate, but the risk of being murdered over time. For instance, the adult residents of Dodge City faced a homicide rate of at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year, meaning that 0.165 percent of the population was murdered each year—between a fifth and a tenth of a percent. That may sound small, but it is large to a criminologist or epidemiologist, because it means that an adult who lived in Dodge City from 1876 to 1885 faced at least a 1 in 61 chance of being murdered—1.65 percent of the population was murdered in those 10 years. An adult who lived in San Francisco, 1850-1865, faced at least a 1 in 203 chance of being murdered, and in the eight other counties in California that have been studied to date, at least a 1 in 72 chance. Even in Oregon, 1850-1865, which had the lowest minimum rate yet discovered in the American West (30 per 100,000 adults per year), an adult faced at least a 1 in 208 chance of being murdered.
Now would be the time to admit you are way wide of the mark.
Strawman. Introducing skimply clad ladies is pure whataboutary.You would have imagined they would have asked for tanks. And skimply clad ladies to serve them tea.
Then I will simple ask what other civil liberties are you prepared to lose to drive crime to zero? Right to privacy? Right to have a lawyer?Strawman
Try to read mine. Are you familiar with the concept of citizens arrest? Yes or No?I said in terms of accosting armed criminals. Do try and read my posts.
83,000 reported. No all incidents would be reported, or even included in the DoJ figure.2.5million people used guns in self defence in 1994... but in from 1987-1992 there was only 83,000 per annum, according to the Department of Justice. You number seems bafflingly high.Armed conflict doesn't necessarily mean a war. Any incident where two people attack each other is a conflict, and when they are armed, it is an armed conflict.
http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/definition_of_armed_conflict/An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility which concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Armed+conflict
= guess what, WAR.
Ah, revenge for knowing your rights. How civilised.As I've said repeatedly, you don't have to presecute if you don't like. But if someone responds with uncooperation, then uncooperation should be dealt back to them.We could also look at the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which allows the US to lock up civilians indefinitely, if you like.
Or we could discuss the fact that the UK has enacted that law, whereas this one is under legal challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Legal_challenges_to_indefinite_detention0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement