Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 112 of 452 (519941)
08-18-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Legend
08-17-2009 4:19 AM


Re: When's the last time you heard of a drive by stabbing?
quote:
Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.
How is that? Are you suggesting that gun control laws would take guns away from the police? FBI? Military? Are you suggesting that putting 'limits' on gun control, will take them away from 'good' poeple?
I will need to read through the posts before I continue, but your comment was just plain fallacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Legend, posted 08-17-2009 4:19 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Legend, posted 08-18-2009 3:57 PM DBlevins has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 114 of 452 (519951)
08-18-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Legend
08-18-2009 3:57 PM


Re: When's the last time you heard of a drive by stabbing?
quote:
I'm stating that the criminalisation of gun ownership ensures that law-abiding citizens have no access to guns while it has minimal effect on criminals who still do.
I'm curious how you equate, 'gun control laws = criminalization of gun ownership = only bad guys have guns'?
Gun control laws are designed to limit criminal access to guns. They also have been designed, in the past, to limit ownership of certain weapons that threaten the safety of society, such as automatic weapons. While it would be impossible, imho, to get rid of all the weapons "on the street', gun control laws would help make it harder for criminals to get them.
Of course, I still wonder how gun control laws would only allow 'bad' people to have them? Which is what you stated. Do you believe that gun control laws would make it a crime for the State to defend itself and it's citizens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Legend, posted 08-18-2009 3:57 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Legend, posted 08-19-2009 6:36 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 119 of 452 (520330)
08-20-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Legend
08-16-2009 11:17 AM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
quote:
Assuming that the presence of guns causes the extra violence in the US is just a wild assumption, nothing more.
You’re making the wild assumption that the presence of guns would act as a deterent, and you have been shown that that is false. If we follow your assumptions to their logical conclusion, then more guns would mean less crime and that is patently false. If you weren’t emotionally wedded to your ‘cowboy’ mentality, you could see why: Here, at Message 43 of 114, here, Message 47 of 114, and here, at message 57 of 114.
So it appears that you’re not debating in good faith. You could change that perception by: not moving the goal posts by now equating ‘socio-cultural’ connections between two countries [bold] you [/bold] arbitrarily chose. Because as it stands now, it appears you’re resorting to Cherry-picking the data. Finally, making the claim that someone is giving a ‘wild’ assumption, even after being presented with facts, is disingenuous and plainly banal.
quote:
Gangs are hardly affected by gun controlsThis is just one of many factors which may explain why more crimes are committed in the US with guns.
Would you show me the study you’re referring to above?
You have failed so far to show that this is true.
There isn’t as much data on gangs in the United Kingdom, as there is in the United States but I did come across this (my bold)
quote:
Where do weapons come into the equation?
Again it's very difficult to say. A Home Office study published in 2004 looked at arrested adults who declared gang membership.
[bold]It found an increase in the numbers claiming to carry any weapon, but little change in the number claiming to have carried a gun. Experts think the increase is down to more knives being in circulation.[/bold]
From this link.
And the correlative would be that more guns in circulation would lead to an increase in gang members claiming to carry guns.
quote:
Shooting an intruder in your house is simply the best way to minimise risk of harm to you, your family or property in a situation you didn't initiate or are otherwise responsible for.
Why do you continue to entertain this position when you have been shown that it is very likely, NOT to be true, in those cases which have been outlined to you. Going out Rambo-style is not the best tactic to employ in regards to where you, your family, and innocent bystanders are concerned. A tactic outlined by Rhavin, that you conveniently glossed over. Having a predetermined safe room, communication devices, and/or escape routes for your family is the most tactically sound strategy for keeping you, your family, and innocents safe, in the case of a burglary.
quote:
Shooting an intruder in your house is simply the best way to minimise[sic] risk of harm to you, your family or property in a situation you didn't initiate or are otherwise responsible for.
Rambo was a movie. Hollywood exaggerates the survivability of its actors because it just wouldn’t be any fun seeing them get ‘wasted’ in the first five seconds of a shootout. You aren’t Neo; you, your family, and innocent bystanders, don’t have the ability to dodge bullets; we aren’t in the Matrix. Bullets that go flying around and out of a house have the nasty habit of going through walls and even striking innocents. If you think having a shootout in your house would leave your family and others safe, I would not want to be your neighbor. If you should still be unclear about that, let me repeat it to you slowly. Rammbbowasamoooovvvvie.
quote:
Guns may exacerbate violence when it occurs but the value of armed deterrent is well established on an international level, as well as a domestic one. Most crime is opportunistic and the probability of resistance, especially armed, will deter most burglars or muggers.
You have shown that this is false. Your comprehension of the data has already been questioned. Cherry-picking the data does not help your position.
quote:
Unless you can show that the burglars knew that guns were stored at the houses, that they suspected the owners to be present and armed and despite that they still broke in, then sorry but that means nothing other than you have lots of burglaries in your neghbourhood[sic].
Or it could mean that unless you have a permit to carry your gun, and you do so all the time, it has a chance to be stolen, which just exacerbates the problem with criminals having guns. More guns equal more crimes committed with armed criminals.
quote:
You're presenting just one side of the coin. How many intruders are confronted and routed by armed householders? How many robberies/burglaries/gome invasions are averted because of armed householders?
It is up to you to show the data that intruders would be deterred by armed householders, as that is your position. Present the data and we can continue.
quote:
Besides,even if it turned out that more innocent people are hurt by guns that would still bear no impact on the right of people to own guns, any more than the number of innocent people killed in car accidents has an impact on the right of people to own and drive a car. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say.
We have ‘car control’ laws. You know. Those pesky laws that tell you how fast you can drive and what side of the street you’re supposed to drive on. Among other laws which allow your license to be revoked. Besides that, lets be real, equating owning a gun with owning a car is just plain silly. Cars were not made to ‘kill’. They weren’t made for self defense. Guns were not made to make peoples shopping easier (unless you count hunting as ‘shopping’) nor were guns made to facilitate the easy transportation of people and goods over distances.
Finally, something to chew on in regards to how a majority of the Supreme Court views our Second Amendment right.
By the way this opinion was written by Justice Scalia, who I wouldn’t call a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
No. 07—290
June 26, 2008
(my bold)
quote:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. [bold] Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not [/bold], see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for [bold] any sort [/bold] of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Legend, posted 08-16-2009 11:17 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 11:40 AM DBlevins has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 121 of 452 (520859)
08-24-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Legend
08-21-2009 11:40 AM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
quote:
It's not so much a wild assumption as an extension of the common-sensical principle of not starting fights with people who can hurt you.
So far in this debate, the only thing hurt has been your credibility.
Your common-sensical principle falls apart when both parties have guns. The only advantage you would have against another in that case, would be ground. You give up your ground advantage when you wander away from your more secure position. Its a plain, tactical, common-sensical ( to use your term) position to take. Your failure to address that point, and hand-wave it away just exposes the weakness of your argument.
You could begin repairing what little credibility you have left by addressing these points:
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
Just saying your position is common-sensical is weak, so I am sure we would all appreciate it if you provided a much stronger reason for your argument.
quote:
Incorrect. SHOW ME how and where.
Frankly, I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Either that or perhaps it is you who has failed to read the thread. How many times should I repeat myself before you actually admit you have seen how and where?
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
quote:
If we follow my assumptions to their logical conclusion, then more guns would mean less burglaries.
Your logic and comprehension of statistics could use a brushing up. In any case, you have been shown why that is a false assumption:
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
Your cherry-picking, common-sensical approach to the data just gives me the impression youre talking out of your backside.
quote:
It appears you haven't read the whole thread, like I advised you.
Thats funny, considering it was I who had to point you to posts in the thread you glossed over or dismissed. You can read them:
Here Message 43, here Message 47, and here Message 57
quote:
Why should *I* need to change *YOUR* false perception? Do you also want me to go and buy you reading glasses?
You can lead a Dog to waterK
quote:
When the presented facts do not support the stated assertion, then I'm within my rights to label it a 'wild assumption'.
You have yet to show how the stated facts do not support the assertion. Moving the goal posts, cherry-picking, and your common-sensical approach of hand-waving away those positions, supported by facts, is plainly disingenuous as well as banal.
quote:
I'm not quoting a study, I'm presenting one of the factors that may affect the causality of the extra gun violence in the US.
Your common-sensical say-so has been shown to be cherry-picking of the data. Why do you persist in presenting this as an argument? Why should we accept your factor when you have been provided statistics that show that your notion is false, or at best misleading?
quote:
Unfounded speculation. An increase in circulation of registered guns bought by homeowners and which can only be obtained by gangs by taking the risk of burglary/robbery against an armed person in order to obtain a gun which can be tracked by police, bears no similarity to an increase in the circulation of knives where any gang member can legally and anonymously buy one from their local DIY store or outdoors & trekking shop.
Fallacy of the Fairy Tale. (Though this is wrong on many more levels.)
Gangs and criminals have already obtained their guns so your position that they would have to risk burgling a house sans weapon is pointless. RAZD already pointed out that unless you have your gun in your possession 24/7, you run the risk of losing it. Guns dont have tracking devices installed in them (that I know of) so serial number tracking doesnt strengthen your position any. It WOULD if the police could use satellite tracking to find the gun the criminal had obtained. Finally, you seem to believe that a criminal was a criminal from the day he was born. Non-criminals can obtain a gun, be law abiding citizens for a period of time, and then decide they want to rob their neighbors house with the nice 52 LCD TV. The point is that there are countless ways a gun, once bought, could end up on the street. One rational course of action, in light of that knowledge, would be to limit the number of guns, enforce and strengthen the regulation, and have a strong and balanced police institution.
You are also subtly contradicting your position here.
quote:
DBLevins writes:
Gun control laws are designed to limit criminal access to guns. They also have been designed, in the past, to limit ownership of certain weapons that threaten the safety of society, such as automatic weapons. While it would be impossible, imho, to get rid of all the weapons "on the street', gun control laws would help make it harder for criminals to get them.
Yet, they don't. Despite strict gun controls, gun crime in Britain has been rising steadily over the.

In order to keep guns limited to non-criminal homeowners, you would need to have gun control laws. Those same laws which help police track guns by serial number.
quote:
1) Sometimes it increases risk. It can be done if you're living by yourself but with having a family and especially with the children being in separate rooms you can't just wait and hope that your wife or kids won't panic and make a noise. Even more worryingly you're giving the intruder the chance to come upstairs and put himself within harm's range of your family. Why take that risk?
Do you tell your children what to do in case of fire? Do you have a plan, if they are too small to fend for themselves, to move them away from danger in such a case? If you do, then what can you not understand about having a plan in case of burglary? If you dont, I would recommend you develop a family plan in such cases. We always had a plan, as a family, for different problems. In our case, I had a roll up ladder I could use to escape out my bedroom window for various emergencies, as a 5 year old. I knew where to go, who to run to, and what to do if something bad happened. Why take the risk of NOT having a plan.
quote:
Who said anything about Rambo-style tactics? I'm advocating -if possible- attacking the intruder before they can get the lay of the land and establish an offensive planK2) By waiting in ambush you're giving the intruder a tactical advantage. When he first enters your house he's at his most ignorant and therefore at his most vulnerable. He doesn't know the layout of the house, the lay of the land so to speak, how many people live there, where they are located, etc. The only thing he does know is his entry point, the window or door he came in from, which can be also used as his exit point. This is the time to attack him. if he's not incapacitated by the attack his first instinct would be to flee and that's bound to be through his only known route. It's all about not giving him time to think and choices to make. You give him just enough time for the adrenalin to kick in and you allow him only one choice: flee. if you wait upstairs in ambush you give him the time to assess the layout of the house, how many people live there, where they're likely to be, how wealthy they are, etc. He can then decide if he just wants to steal your TV and leave or if he'd like to torture you until you give him your credit card number and then rape your wife as he's just seen her picture in a bikini on the mantlepiece and she looks hot. Why take that risk?
No youre not. Besides that, you contradict yourself. If, as you say, he doesnt know the layout of your house, he wouldnt know where you are waiting for him in ambush, and he wouldnt know if you were waiting for him anyways even if he thought your bedroom was occupied. Therefore, you have the tactical advantage.
Secondly, it doesnt matter how much you know the land if you dont know where they are or even how many are there. Take this with a grain of salt if you like, but I am not some shmo who doesnt understand this type of position. I have had extensive training in similar circumstances. The chances of you, your family, or an innocent bystander being hurt rises significantly if you should go out and confront an intruder or intruders. You are better off having a safe room to hold up in or a way to escape and notify the authorities.
quote:
3) When you're in a confrontational situation time is against you. You MUST take action, fight or flight, that's what nature has programmed us for. If you just do nothing or just wait in ambush the adrenalin that's gathering inside your body will cause a build up of lactic acid on muscle tissue (since you're not using your muscles to fight nor to flee) which in turn produces a feeling of weakness and the loss of endurance capability in the muscle. In short, the more time you wait in ambush the less effective you're going to be. Why take that risk?
If you have a plan, and practice that plan on occasion, you can be more rational about your actions, and your adrenalin rush is not nearly so great. If you know what you are supposed to do, then you lessen any risk of fear fatigue. Ideally, the time you have would be spent calling the police who would arrive before you tired yourself out waiting for the intruder to enter the bedroom door.
Finally, it seems you have not fully read the responses given to you.
quote:
"Although I can't really reject your ambush defense I still think that it isn't the best course of actionK
Rhavins position is the best course of action. Though really, this part of the debate is just becoming a distraction. Whether you decide to go Rambo or not, is a concern for me, but I think the only way you might be convinced is if it did happen to you and you find yourself regretting your actions. So, Im leaving it to you to have the last word on that portion of this debate.
quote:
And let me be perfectly clear about the following: doooonn'tKbeKsuch...aK..paaatroniisiing...diiickheeaaad.
I probably wouldn't have resorted to patronizing dickheadedness if you wouldn't act like a patronizing dickhead.
DBLevins writes:
I will need to read through the posts before I continue,...
I suggest you do.
That really wasnt necessary. It didnt move the debate forward. It just made you look like a patronizing dickhead, since I already pointed out my OWN lack of information on all the responses in the debate at that time. Of course, my reply was in response to a statement you had yet to address, and still have not. Namely:
quote:
What part of having gun control laws would make only bad guys ( words) having access to guns? Why would gun control laws stop the police from having them?
and again, the attitude is blatant:
quote:
Do you also want me to go and buy you reading glasses?
quote:
I suggest you go back and read the rest of this thread before you embarrass[sic] yourself further.
For my part, I apologize for being patronizing and if it eases your mind, Ill try to keep my replies to you more civil.
This post was written over a few days, so I apologize in advance if it might miss some point or repeat something needlessly. That and with the little time I might have I am sure I miss errors in grammar or make technical posting mistakes.
I will try to fix them as I see them or as they are pointed out to me.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 11:40 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2009 8:57 PM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 127 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 11:52 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 122 of 452 (520864)
08-24-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Legend
08-21-2009 11:40 AM


Re: If you want to solve problems get a computer, to defend yourself get a gun
In the interest of moving the debate forward, and hopefully tackling one issue at a time, I wanted to reply to you seperately from my previous reply. I'd like to continue those replies later if possible but that's frankly up to you.
You stated in Message 111 that:
Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.
I asked you how that would be true, as those governmental institutions involved with police and security would not relinquish their ability to use deadly force. Your reply here Message 113:
I'm stating that the criminalisation of gun ownership ensures that law-abiding citizens have no access to guns while it has minimal effect on criminals who still do.
is a straw-man argument, as nobody is suggesting that the guns be taken away from all law abiding citizens, as far as I understand. This also doesn't address the point that governmental institutions involved with keeping the peace would still have access to guns.
Finally, here: Message 115
I'm not talking about the ability of the State to defend itself, I'm more concerned about the (lack of) ability of citizens to defend themselves. I suggest you read some of the previous posts on this thread.
You glossed over the last part of this statement: "...the state to defend itself and it's citizens?"
You still have not shown how gun control laws would make gun ownership a crime by law abiding citizens ipso facto. Nobody is suggesting that all law abiding citizens not be allowed to have guns. It is being suggested that guns be limited, that laws be strengthened, and that more guns do not lessen crime.
Edited by DBlevins, : Fixed some technical posting errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Legend, posted 08-21-2009 11:40 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 4:10 PM DBlevins has replied
 Message 128 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 12:20 PM DBlevins has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 124 of 452 (520896)
08-24-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Hyroglyphx
08-24-2009 4:10 PM


Gun control laws and the slippery slope
First of all, nobody is suggesting that guns be banned by law. I never said it, and nobody on this thread said it, as far as I remember. Can we try not to go down that path? I am not arguing that all guns should be banned, whether or not I think it might be a good thing.
Secondly, you, like Legend, are falling into a slippery slope fallacy. You could make the same case argument about taxes. I could insert any number of controversial arguments in place of 'gun control'.
Anti-Abortion advocates get laws passed all the time and then always attempt to get more restrictions passed. To the 14th Amendment advocates it sounds as if a systematic removal of all abortions is the ultimate goal.
Back to this statement...
Gun control advocates get laws passed all the time and then always attempt to get more restrictions passed. To the 2nd Amendment advocates it sounds as if a systematic removal of gun ownership is the ultimate goal.
The point you seem to miss is that these gun control advocates are not saying, 'Get rid of all guns!'. Notice it is gun control, NOT gun removal. What happens is that you have certain groups who wish to make their case for gun rights by excluding any middle ground. That is what makes it a slippery slope argument. They believe that any control over their right to bear arms would be an affront to their basic liberties.
I'd also like to echo the sentiments expressed by Legend that by definition, criminal don't obey the law, so how is passing a law going to somehow subvert their attempts? If you pass a law banning guns altogether, resourceful and enterprising criminals still find ways to get them. So in reality the law-abiding citizens have been effectively disarmed and the criminal continues to usurp legal authority.
How is such a law going to prevent the peace keeping institutions of the country from bearing arms? You really think that the State is going to just give up their right to arm its forces? There is little merit in that argument.
Limiting the number of guns going out, strengthening and enforcing gun control legislation, and providing for the safety and security of law abiding citizens through a professional police force would be steps in the right direction toward less guns in criminal hands. And you could answer the question of how other governments have been able to enjoy less crime with less guns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 8:53 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 135 of 452 (521291)
08-26-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Legend
08-25-2009 12:20 PM


Where's the Statistics?
How else do you expect gun controls to be implemented other than by passing legislation criminalising the possession and usage of guns?
Legislation does not have to criminalize the possession of guns for ALL citizens. Even in the United Kingdom, you are allowed to have certain types of guns if you use it for sport or in the course of your job. You have a lot of hurdles to go through but not ALL citizens are refused the right to have a gun. While that might be cold comfort for the one who really desires to have a gun, the point is that it isn’t true that only criminals have guns.
Your previous hyperbolic statement that gun control laws would create a place where ONLY ‘bad guys’ have guns is false and misleading. The State has not given up that right and would not give up its right to have an armed institution to protect its citizens.
First, how are you going to limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
I don’t understand how you can seriously ask that question. It sounds like you haven’t thought it through. It’s akin to asking me how I am going to set speed limits without making it illegal for any speed.
Second, I've already showed many times in this thread that in the UK where laws have been strengthened to the max, gun crime is steadily rising.
And you have been shown many times that it is an abuse of the statistics to make the leap that gun laws make for more gun crime. What is the per capita ratio? Is it statistically significant?
Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 42 per cent, representing over eight
million fewer crimes, with domestic burglary and all vehicle thefts falling by over a half
(59% and 61% respectively) and violent crime falling by 41 per cent during this period.
Property crime has fallen considerably since 1995. Overall household acquisitive crime,
as measured by the BCS, has fallen by more than half (55%) between 1995 and
2006/07 interviews, although there was no statistically significant change in acquisitive
crime between 2005/06 and 2006/07
For both burglary and vehicle-related thefts, having security measures in place was
strongly associated with lower levels of victimisation.
The number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales as measured by the BCS
showed no statistically significant change between 2005/06 and 2006/07. Since 1995 the number of domestic burglaries estimated by the BCS has fallen by 59 per cent from
1,770,000 to 726,000 in the 2006/07 BCS
BCS Survey
If you are going to make the argument that gun control laws make burglaries more likely, then how do you explain the 59% decline in domestic burglaries from 1995 to 2006/2007?
While I couldn’t find a resource where I could read the reference you provided, I did find this overview provided by Barnes and Noble.
The authors, two criminologists and a social ecologist, contextualize the behavior within the street culture and conclude that most burglars burgle in order to support drugs or alcohol and rarely consider the risk or threat of sanctions.
This would seem to suggest that your reference concludes that burglars rarely consider the risk to themselves. Eg. Overall, guns do not deter them.
I’ll take the overview with a grain of salt but it does suggest you are mistaken, unless you can provide me with a more substantial reference?
The following is from this reference: Burglary of Single-Family Houses, Guide No. 18 (2002), Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Deborah Lamm Weisel
In the United States, most residential burglariesabout 60 percent of reported offensesoccur in the daytime, when houses are unoccupied.(11)
Occupancy. Most burglars do not target occupied houses, taking great care to avoid them. Some studies suggest burglars routinely ring doorbells to confirm residents' absence. How long residents are away from home is a strong predictor of the risk of burglary...(26)
Burglarized houses often have unlocked or open windows or doors.(40)
Studies show that alarms, combined with other security devices, reduce burglaries. Burglars are less likely to gain entry when a house has two or more security devices (including window locks, dead bolts, security lights, and alarms).(42) Studies of offenders show that burglars may avoid houses with good locks, burglar bars or other security devices.
Burglars often know their victims,(74) who may include casual acquaintances, neighborhood residents, people for whom they have provided a service (such as moving or gardening), or friends or relatives of close friends. Thus, offenders have some knowledge of their victims, such as of their daily routine.(75)
(11)Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000).
(26)Residential Burglary: the limits of prevention, by Stuart Winchester and Hilary Jackson,HOME OFFICE RESEARCH STUDY NO. 74, First published 1982
(40)Waller and Okihiro (1978); Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(42)Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(75)(Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins)?,Wright and Decker (1994).
Hopefully this is not too long, but it is relevant to the discussion
Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs.
Crime victims may incur other costs if they rely on violence or its threat to deter offenders. Game theory research indicates that relying on individuals to prevent and respond to crime can discourage police activity, thereby creating greater opportunities for offending (Cressman, Morrison, and Wen 1998).
Mead's (1918) discussion of punitive justice points to further, macro-level consequences of punishments based on an "attitude of hostility" that may underlie individual violent responses to crime. These effects include support for the narrow beliefs that crime is caused exclusively by individual characteristics and a corresponding decrease in concerns for the social conditions that contribute to it. Sanctions communicate a society's views on crime and punishment, but they also convey assumptions about individual rights and citizenship (Duff 1996). Treating people as citizens requires that punishment create prudential incentives to obey the law, but it must supplement and not replace rational, moral persuasion. As Bentham reminds us (in the gender-specific language of the time), "it has been too frequently forgotten, that the delinquent is a member of the community, as well as any other individual. . . His welfare is proportionately the welfare of the community-his suffering the suffering of the community" (quoted in Zimring and Hawkins 1973:42). Thus, although perceptions about danger may inform the decision to offend, a sanction system that resorts to fear of pain is not a panacea for crime.
Danger and the Decision to Offend, Bill McCarthy, John Hagan, Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2005. Vol. 83, Iss. 3; pg. 1065, 32 pgs
The above, found on ProQuest.
Third, the evidence so far by looking at the Uk vs US (similar cultures and socio-political structures) points to the conclusion that more guns *do* lessen certain kinds of crime.
A Couple of things wrong with this statement.
One, you’re refusal to look at other countries which just makes you look like you are cherry-picking the data. Why not include Australia? After Australia adopted a gun buyback program, overall homicide rate declined. Not only that but household victimization has also declined.
An estimated 259,800 households were victims of at least one break-in during the 2005 reference period, down from 354,500 in 2002.
From this site
If we followed your logic should not household crime increase?
Second, the evidence does not suggest what you imply. You haven’t taken into account other factors that might effect the statistics, such as population size, or incidence size. For instance, if in a population of millions, the instances of gun crime was 10 last year and this year it is 12, I would not be wrong in claiming crime rose by 20% over one year, but statistically that would be insignificant. I would expect there to be some fluctuations in the amount over time.
That, and as population increases, you should expect that the number of crimes might increase while the crime rate decrease.
Edited by DBlevins, : Fixed error in nesting
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by DBlevins, : Fixed url links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Legend, posted 08-25-2009 12:20 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Legend, posted 08-28-2009 6:14 AM DBlevins has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 163 of 452 (521539)
08-27-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Blue Jay
08-27-2009 5:12 PM


Re: Rant
Bluejay writes:
If the people are the deciding factor, then shouldn't the people be the targets of the laws, rather than the guns? I think our society would benefit more from teaching people to be responsible about things than from trying to control or keep tabs on what they're doing.
Perhaps you could look at it like a pharmacy? Because of the inherent risk of some drugs, we don't allow just anyone to get them. You need a prescription. Imagine, if you would the danger of allowing any drug to be available for any schlub to pick up at the corner 7-11. People make mistakes, they can not be reasonably expected to know which drugs might react with others. People can use drugs to do bad things to themselves or to others. Because of this, we regulate access to those drugs that are considered dangerous. Guns are inherently dangerous. As an officer you're trained on how and when they could or should be used. The common citizen hasn't, and the danger of 'collateral' damage is high if and when a citizen decides to use his weapon. They aren't a doctor, or pharmacist.
At least in the United States, we have decided to keep a precarious balance between your right to bear arms and the protection of the citizens from those who might harm them, whether indirectly or on purpose. In order to minimize the danger of abuse and human mistakes, doesn't it seem reasonable that, like those drugs at the local pharmacy, we regulate those things deemed inherently dangerous, such as a gun?
As far as I recall, there have been restrictions placed on drugs like Pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, that could be used to make meth. Those drugs by themselves are not inherently dangerous but when cooked in a home lab they can produce a highly addictive, killer drug. Why do we not see the degree of outrage over the restrictions placed on these seemingly harmless drugs? Because many people, while inconvenienced to some degree, see the benefit provided to society by placing restrictions on them.
Edited by DBlevins, : Added an example I suddenly recalled
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2009 5:12 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 327 of 452 (522360)
09-02-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Legend
08-28-2009 6:14 AM


Re: Where's the Statistics?
Legend writes:
Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
What? Are you telling me that you can’t think of [italics]any[/italics] way to limit guns without criminalizing their possession? You seriously can’t be honest with yourself and answer your own question?
The sad thing is that I laid out a clue for how you could do so and you couldn’t even take the time to comprehend what I wrote. You’re obviously being deliberately obtuse.
But, ok. Here is my quote regarding how a State might limit guns without criminalizing their possession that you couldn’t understand:
It’s akin to asking me how I am going to set speed limits without making it illegal for any speed.
Taking guns off the street, with buy-back programs such as Australia’s program; regulation of gun possession (which can run the gamut of criminalizing possession of automatic weapons or seriously restricting their possession to collectors who would submit to extensive background checks, to waiting periods and instructional requirements for those who desire to buy a gun), strong enforcement of laws regarding gun use and possession, etc.
There are laws and regulations on who can drive as well as how fast you can drive. Is it such a leap of the imagination to imagine a similar scenario for gun control? Give me a break!
Legend writes:
I'm claiming that gun laws, at least in the UK, haven't achieved their objective, which was to reduce gun crime. Even accounting for an increasing population, gun crime's still going up. Gun control laws have demonstrably failed.
Gun control laws only purpose isn’t to decrease gun crime. It is also designed to keep such crimes to a lower level, because it is harder for those types of crimes to be enacted. There is a reason that murders involving firearms in the United Kingdom is significantly lower than those States who don’t have such laws.
You also claimed that Gun control laws would increase the number of burglaries and by extension all crime:
Legend writes:
Most crime is opportunistic and the probability of resistance, especially armed, will deter most burglars or muggers.
If that was true, then why have burglaries decreased? If your argument was true then such crimes would keep rising over time and that plainly hasn’t happened. And yet I and possibly others have shown you statistics that crime has declined in States who have strong gun control laws. At least be honest about it.
Legend writes:
I'm attributing this to a number of other factors that affect burglary, like the drop in unemployment (last year excepted) and the rise in house alarms sales. The thing is you can't really make much of looking at any one's country's burglary rates, unless you take those other factors into consideration.
Factors such as employment are included. It makes sense that an increase in employment would decrease the crime rate and vice versa. Low employment is definitely factored into why crime increases. Do you actually READ the reports?
You are the one that is making the argument that burglaries would increase with strengthened gun control laws. So it seems you agree that there are other factors besides gun control laws that might effect burglary rates?
Legend writes:
I'm looking at two countries (Uk/Us) that have similar cultural values and socio-political structure and I see that in the US -where many people carry guns and have the right to use them in defense- there are proportionatelly much fewer burglaries than in the UK.
Why don’t you include Scotland? Australia? Canada?
BCS Survey writes:
The number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales as measured by the BCS showed no statistically significant change between 2005/06 and 2006/07. Since 1995 the number of domestic burglaries estimated by the BCS has fallen by 59 per cent from 1,770,000 to 726,000 in the 2006/07.
Why do you exclude Scotland? I would consider Scotland a much closer ‘fit’ to the United States as concerns your ‘Socio-political’ argument. And yet, even though they strengthened their gun control laws we see that gun crime decreased. Hmmm.
This was the first year since 1998 that a steep four-year increase in ‘gun crime’ in England and Wales came to an end (by contrast, in the same four-year period, Scotland saw a marked decline in ‘gun crime’).
Contrasting with trends in England and Wales, Scotland (Figure 2) saw a marked decline (of almost 80 per cent) in crime involving handguns in the five years after the Dunblane shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) No. 1 and No. 2 Acts of 1997. Crime involving shotguns fell sharply after 1994. Overall, there was a sustained fall in ‘gun crime’ in the ten years to 2001.
When you present your argument, do you ask yourself how the statistics were compiled? What effect does including ‘imitation handguns’ have on the statistics? Hmm.
The number of police recorded offences involving firearms fell by 17%
between 2007/08 and 2008/09. Firearm offences resulting in injury also fell
(down by 46% in 2008/09) due to a large reduction in the use of imitation
weapons (down 41%) and a corresponding fall in slight injuries. There was a
small rise in the use of shotguns and handguns (both up 2%).
BCS survey 2008/9
In 1988 handgun offences climbed steeply for five years, a trend coinciding with the appearance on the UK market of a number of realistic (often plastic) imitation handguns (Taylor and Hornsby, 2000; Squires, 2000). Handgun offences peaked in 1993 at around 4,200, falling back by almost a third over the next three years. In the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane shooting tragedy (13 March 1996), and while the British gun control debate raged, crime involving handguns fell further to 1998 (when the post-Dunblane handgun ban became law) before rising sharply in England and Wales (but not Scotland) for the next four years (see Figure 1).
the contribution of a wide range of ‘unorthodox’ firearms types (imitation handguns, converted imitation handguns, reactivated firearms, converted air pistols, BB gun/airsoft weapons, deactivated firearms, blank firers, converted and unconverted blank-firing starting pistols, CS gas and pepper sprays) to the ‘gun crime’ statistics has become increasingly apparent. For example, in 2006—2007, handguns, shotguns and rifles comprised 26 per cent of the firearms offences recorded by the police, suggesting that the remaining 74 per cent was comprised of the complex array of types mentioned above (Kaiza, 2008: 48). In one sense, this suggests a form of ‘weapon displacement’ occurring. None of the ‘alternative weapons’ mentioned were affected by the Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1997, some remaining largely unregulated until the 2006 VCRA.
'Gun crime' A review of evidence and policy, Professor Peter Squires with Dr Roger Grimshaw and Enver Solomon (June 2008), Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
Holy imitation weapons batman! All our opponent has is hyperbole!
We also see that because of changes in reporting procedures and standards, this can impact the number of crimes recorded and create statistical ‘increases’.
More specifically, the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) by police forces on 1 April 2002 increased the number of crimes recorded in 2002—2003, and further ‘improvements’ in recording practices resulted in statistical increases in the following two years also. The Home Office states that it has not been possible to assess accurately the effect of this change on recorded firearms crimes but notes: (a) the change inflated the overall number of violence against the person and criminal damage offences (while having less effect on the number of robberies); and (b) many firearm offences are amongst the categories, such as criminal damage involving an airgun, that are most likely to have been affected by the NCRS (Coleman et al., 2007: 32).
If we dig deeper we see another ‘subtle’ reason for having strong gun control laws.
only 3 per cent of recorded gun crimes result in serious (or fatal) injuries.
However, the overall downward trend [of serious injuries from the use of firearms] may suggest a number of things, including, given that the majority of these injuries represent only slight injuries, the diminishing relative lethality of the illegal firearm stock in England and Wales or, for whatever reason, a growing reluctance of those using them to risk causing serious injuries or death.
It is worth noting at this point that firearm homicides only represent around half of all deaths caused by firearms. Home Office statistics show that there were 1872 deaths from firearms injuries in the UK in 2003 compared to only 81 firearms homicides in England and Wales in 2002—2003. In England and Wales in 2001, there were 111 suicides by firearms compared with 97 homicides in 2001—2002. Cukier and Sidel (2006) provide some international comparative data on firearms and suicide revealing that, in all
countries with reasonably reliable data, firearm suicides exceed firearm homicides
(Figure 6). They show that this strengthens the gun controllers’ argument that countries where firearms are more readily available to civilian populations have significantly higher rates of overall firearm-involved homicide (a pattern which is perhaps less obvious when suicides are excluded).
Figure 6: International firearm homicides and suicides Source: Cukier and Sidel, 2006
Deaths per 100,000 Homicide Suicide Accident
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002)0.15 0.2 0.03
Gun control laws might be able to decrease the number of crimes committed with guns but there are other influences to those statistics. Unemployment and other social ills impact the crime rate. If people feel they have no other avenue to financial stability, one approach might be a criminal one.
The Jill Dando Institute review of research found that ‘gun crime appears highest in areas with far higher than average levels of deprivation and unemployment’ (Marshall, Webb and Tilley, 2005: 13).
In this context, the evidence of the Trident unit noted: ‘Much of Trident gun crime is,
unsurprisingly, linked to the poorer London Boroughs, areas of deprivation, high ethnic
minority population and high unemployment’ (HAC, 2007).
The researchers comment that the underlying explanation for this relationship is that
participants in illegal drug markets have no recourse to conventional risk management
strategies such as legally enforceable contracts, calling the police or purchasing insurance (ibid: 65)
'Gun crime' A review of evidence and policy, Professor Peter Squires with Dr Roger Grimshaw and Enver Solomon (June 2008), Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
Legend writes:
without seeing the full report is difficult to judge this comment. Are they talking about burglaries committed under the influence? If yes, it's natural that the perpetrators wouldn't consider risk to themselves, as they wouldn't in any other aspect of their life if they're drunk or drugged up.
I fixed the links and provided references. Perhaps you could take the time to read them?
Legend writes:
However, these kind of burglaries only account for some of the figures. Rationally thinking burglars would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance and Wright and Decker (1994) support this view.
Without being able to read their report your statement is plainly suspect, though I did provide YOU with an overview of the book by Amazon here:
DBlevins writes:
The authors, two criminologists and a social ecologist, contextualize the behavior within the street culture and conclude that most burglars burgle in order to support drugs or alcohol and rarely consider the risk or threat of sanctions.
While I can surely agree that without providing a link to the report you can’t provide it as evidence, I think you’re conclusion is suspect based on this overview. It says, ..most burglars burgle to support drugs or alcohol and RARELY CONSIDER THE RISK
DBlevins writes:
Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs.
Legend writes:
Again, without knowing the context of this quote it's difficult to comment. I presume that they're talking about crime in general not burglary specifically. If they're talking about burglary specifically then I seriously dispute the last sentence.
How can you dispute something you haven’t even taken the time to read! You’re being seriously disingenuous. You don’t know the context? I provided you with the reference and the tool I used to find it and you still can’t figure it out? My opinion of your reading comprehension is rapidly declining.
Let me help you out Danger and the Decision to Offend, Bill McCarthy, John Hagan, Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2005. Vol. 83, Iss. 3; pg. 1065, 32 pgs
Found using ProQuest.
Legend writes:
Police activity is already discouraged in Britain, so this is a moot point.
You’re projecting. Where is the reference to back that up besides your say-so?
Legend writes:
Gun crime in the UK has increased from approx 5.2 (thousands) in 1998 to approx 9.4 in 2006. That's a nearly 80% rise! Population in the same interval has risen from 58.5 milion to 60.5, a rise of 3.4%. So it's fair to say that the rise in gun crime is statistically significant. And that's despite continuous tightening of gun legislation to the point where ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning any type of firearm.
Did you just pick out what you thought would support your argument and disregard all else? The sad thing is that even doing that you failed to actually look into why gun crime statistics might have increased.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Legend, posted 08-28-2009 6:14 AM Legend has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 421 of 452 (522953)
09-06-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Legend
09-04-2009 6:51 AM


Re: The usage of statistics.
Legend writes:
Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
What? Are you telling me that you can’t think of [italics]any[/italics] way to limit guns without criminalizing their possession? You seriously can’t be honest with yourself and answer your own question?
The sad thing is that I laid out a clue for how you could do so and you couldn’t even take the time to comprehend what I wrote. You’re obviously being deliberately obtuse.
But, ok. Here is my quote regarding how a State might limit guns without criminalizing their possession that you couldn’t understand:
It’s akin to asking me how I am going to set speed limits without making it illegal for any speed.
Taking guns off the street, with buy-back programs such as Australia’s program; regulation of gun possession (which can run the gamut of criminalizing possession of automatic weapons or seriously restricting their possession to collectors who would submit to extensive background checks, to waiting periods and instructional requirements for those who desire to buy a gun), strong enforcement of laws regarding gun use and possession, etc.
There are laws and regulations on who can drive as well as how fast you can drive. Is it such a leap of the imagination to imagine a similar scenario for gun control? Give me a break!
Legend writes:
I'm claiming that gun laws, at least in the UK, haven't achieved their objective, which was to reduce gun crime. Even accounting for an increasing population, gun crime's still going up. Gun control laws have demonstrably failed.
Gun control laws only purpose isn’t to decrease gun crime. It is also designed to keep such crimes to a lower level, because it is harder for those types of crimes to be enacted. There is a reason that murders involving firearms in the United Kingdom is significantly lower than those States who don’t have such laws.
You also claimed that Gun control laws would increase the number of burglaries and by extension all crime:
Legend writes:
Most crime is opportunistic and the probability of resistance, especially armed, will deter most burglars or muggers.
If that was true, then why have burglaries decreased? If your argument was true then such crimes would keep rising over time and that plainly hasn’t happened. And yet I and possibly others have shown you statistics that crime has declined in States who have strong gun control laws. At least be honest about it.
Legend writes:
I'm attributing this to a number of other factors that affect burglary, like the drop in unemployment (last year excepted) and the rise in house alarms sales. The thing is you can't really make much of looking at any one's country's burglary rates, unless you take those other factors into consideration.
Factors such as employment are included. It makes sense that an increase in employment would decrease the crime rate and vice versa. Low employment is definitely factored into why crime increases. Do you actually READ the reports?
You are the one that is making the argument that burglaries would increase with strengthened gun control laws. So it seems you agree that there are other factors besides gun control laws that might effect burglary rates?
Legend writes:
I'm looking at two countries (Uk/Us) that have similar cultural values and socio-political structure and I see that in the US -where many people carry guns and have the right to use them in defense- there are proportionatelly much fewer burglaries than in the UK.
Why don’t you include Scotland? Australia? Canada?
BCS Survey writes:
The number of domestic burglaries in England and Wales as measured by the BCS showed no statistically significant change between 2005/06 and 2006/07. Since 1995 the number of domestic burglaries estimated by the BCS has fallen by 59 per cent from 1,770,000 to 726,000 in the 2006/07.
Why do you exclude Scotland? I would consider Scotland a much closer ‘fit’ to the United States as concerns your ‘Socio-political’ argument. And yet, even though they strengthened their gun control laws we see that gun crime decreased. Hmmm.
This was the first year since 1998 that a steep four-year increase in ‘gun crime’ in England and Wales came to an end (by contrast, in the same four-year period, Scotland saw a marked decline in ‘gun crime’).
Contrasting with trends in England and Wales, Scotland (Figure 2) saw a marked decline (of almost 80 per cent) in crime involving handguns in the five years after the Dunblane shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) No. 1 and No. 2 Acts of 1997. Crime involving shotguns fell sharply after 1994. Overall, there was a sustained fall in ‘gun crime’ in the ten years to 2001.
When you present your argument, do you ask yourself how the statistics were compiled? What effect does including ‘imitation handguns’ have on the statistics? Hmm.
The number of police recorded offences involving firearms fell by 17%
between 2007/08 and 2008/09. Firearm offences resulting in injury also fell
(down by 46% in 2008/09) due to a large reduction in the use of imitation
weapons (down 41%) and a corresponding fall in slight injuries. There was a
small rise in the use of shotguns and handguns (both up 2%).
BCS survey 2008/9
In 1988 handgun offences climbed steeply for five years, a trend coinciding with the appearance on the UK market of a number of realistic (often plastic) imitation handguns (Taylor and Hornsby, 2000; Squires, 2000). Handgun offences peaked in 1993 at around 4,200, falling back by almost a third over the next three years. In the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane shooting tragedy (13 March 1996), and while the British gun control debate raged, crime involving handguns fell further to 1998 (when the post-Dunblane handgun ban became law) before rising sharply in England and Wales (but not Scotland) for the next four years (see Figure 1).
the contribution of a wide range of ‘unorthodox’ firearms types (imitation handguns, converted imitation handguns, reactivated firearms, converted air pistols, BB gun/airsoft weapons, deactivated firearms, blank firers, converted and unconverted blank-firing starting pistols, CS gas and pepper sprays) to the ‘gun crime’ statistics has become increasingly apparent. For example, in 2006—2007, handguns, shotguns and rifles comprised 26 per cent of the firearms offences recorded by the police, suggesting that the remaining 74 per cent was comprised of the complex array of types mentioned above (Kaiza, 2008: 48). In one sense, this suggests a form of ‘weapon displacement’ occurring. None of the ‘alternative weapons’ mentioned were affected by the Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1997, some remaining largely unregulated until the 2006 VCRA.
'Gun crime' A review of evidence and policy, Professor Peter Squires with Dr Roger Grimshaw and Enver Solomon (June 2008), Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
Holy imitation weapons batman! All our opponent has is hyperbole!
We also see that because of changes in reporting procedures and standards, this can impact the number of crimes recorded and create statistical ‘increases’.
More specifically, the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) by police forces on 1 April 2002 increased the number of crimes recorded in 2002—2003, and further ‘improvements’ in recording practices resulted in statistical increases in the following two years also. The Home Office states that it has not been possible to assess accurately the effect of this change on recorded firearms crimes but notes: (a) the change inflated the overall number of violence against the person and criminal damage offences (while having less effect on the number of robberies); and (b) many firearm offences are amongst the categories, such as criminal damage involving an airgun, that are most likely to have been affected by the NCRS (Coleman et al., 2007: 32).
If we dig deeper we see another ‘subtle’ reason for having strong gun control laws.
only 3 per cent of recorded gun crimes result in serious (or fatal) injuries.
However, the overall downward trend [of serious injuries from the use of firearms] may suggest a number of things, including, given that the majority of these injuries represent only slight injuries, the diminishing relative lethality of the illegal firearm stock in England and Wales or, for whatever reason, a growing reluctance of those using them to risk causing serious injuries or death.
It is worth noting at this point that firearm homicides only represent around half of all deaths caused by firearms. Home Office statistics show that there were 1872 deaths from firearms injuries in the UK in 2003 compared to only 81 firearms homicides in England and Wales in 2002—2003. In England and Wales in 2001, there were 111 suicides by firearms compared with 97 homicides in 2001—2002. Cukier and Sidel (2006) provide some international comparative data on firearms and suicide revealing that, in all
countries with reasonably reliable data, firearm suicides exceed firearm homicides
(Figure 6). They show that this strengthens the gun controllers’ argument that countries where firearms are more readily available to civilian populations have significantly higher rates of overall firearm-involved homicide (a pattern which is perhaps less obvious when suicides are excluded).
Figure 6: International firearm homicides and suicides Source: Cukier and Sidel, 2006
Deaths per 100,000 Homicide Suicide Accident
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002)0.15 0.2 0.03
Gun control laws might be able to decrease the number of crimes committed with guns but there are other influences to those statistics. Unemployment and other social ills impact the crime rate. If people feel they have no other avenue to financial stability, one approach might be a criminal one.
The Jill Dando Institute review of research found that ‘gun crime appears highest in areas with far higher than average levels of deprivation and unemployment’ (Marshall, Webb and Tilley, 2005: 13).
In this context, the evidence of the Trident unit noted: ‘Much of Trident gun crime is,
unsurprisingly, linked to the poorer London Boroughs, areas of deprivation, high ethnic
minority population and high unemployment’ (HAC, 2007).
The researchers comment that the underlying explanation for this relationship is that
participants in illegal drug markets have no recourse to conventional risk management
strategies such as legally enforceable contracts, calling the police or purchasing insurance (ibid: 65)
'Gun crime' A review of evidence and policy, Professor Peter Squires with Dr Roger Grimshaw and Enver Solomon (June 2008), Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
Legend writes:
without seeing the full report is difficult to judge this comment. Are they talking about burglaries committed under the influence? If yes, it's natural that the perpetrators wouldn't consider risk to themselves, as they wouldn't in any other aspect of their life if they're drunk or drugged up.
I fixed the links and provided references. Perhaps you could take the time to read them?
Legend writes:
However, these kind of burglaries only account for some of the figures. Rationally thinking burglars would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance and Wright and Decker (1994) support this view.
Without being able to read their report your statement is plainly suspect, though I did provide YOU with an overview of the book by Amazon here:
DBlevins writes:
The authors, two criminologists and a social ecologist, contextualize the behavior within the street culture and conclude that most burglars burgle in order to support drugs or alcohol and rarely consider the risk or threat of sanctions.
While I can surely agree that without providing a link to the report you can’t provide it as evidence, I think you’re conclusion is suspect based on this overview. It says, ..most burglars burgle to support drugs or alcohol and RARELY CONSIDER THE RISK
DBlevins writes:
Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs.
Legend writes:
Again, without knowing the context of this quote it's difficult to comment. I presume that they're talking about crime in general not burglary specifically. If they're talking about burglary specifically then I seriously dispute the last sentence.
How can you dispute something you haven’t even taken the time to read! You’re being seriously disingenuous. You don’t know the context? I provided you with the reference and the tool I used to find it and you still can’t figure it out? My opinion of your reading comprehension is rapidly declining.
Let me help you out Danger and the Decision to Offend, Bill McCarthy, John Hagan, Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2005. Vol. 83, Iss. 3; pg. 1065, 32 pgs
Found using ProQuest.
Legend writes:
Police activity is already discouraged in Britain, so this is a moot point.
You’re projecting. Where is the reference to back that up besides your say-so?
Legend writes:
Gun crime in the UK has increased from approx 5.2 (thousands) in 1998 to approx 9.4 in 2006. That's a nearly 80% rise! Population in the same interval has risen from 58.5 milion to 60.5, a rise of 3.4%. So it's fair to say that the rise in gun crime is statistically significant. And that's despite continuous tightening of gun legislation to the point where ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning any type of firearm.
Did you just pick out what you thought would support your argument and disregard all else? The sad thing is that even doing that you failed to actually look into why gun crime statistics might have increased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Legend, posted 09-04-2009 6:51 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by LudoRephaim, posted 09-07-2009 11:50 AM DBlevins has replied
 Message 441 by Legend, posted 09-09-2009 6:19 PM DBlevins has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 422 of 452 (522954)
09-06-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Aluminium Helmets
If it were to happen it would happen through by way of the military acting on behalf of the government, or against, depending on the circumstances (i.e. coup).
Exactly. Which is the point that has been put out there for you. The military acting for or against you is what would decide the matter.
No modern coup that I can recall has been fomented without the aid of the military.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2009 9:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 423 of 452 (522957)
09-06-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 1:47 AM


Re: A summation
... or why Australia's gun rate versus homicide increased when they disarmed their citizens?
Don't want to pile on, but I had to question where you get those statistics? According to Snopes the crime rate in Australia has declined since the gun buy-back law went into place. Secondly and slightly off topic but Australians do not have a constitutional right to bear arms anyways.
Lastly, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology they have tracked a declining homicide rate since 1996, from 354 homicides in 1996 to 282 in 2007.
If the argument is that strong gun control laws make crime more likely, then why the decline in crime rates in Australia as well as Scotland, as well as the United Kingdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 1:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 425 of 452 (523007)
09-07-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by LudoRephaim
09-07-2009 11:50 AM


Re: The usage of statistics.
Scotland is a part of the UK/United Kingdom.
Yes, I am aware of the connection . Statistics for crime in the two is seperated though, because of differences in the legal system among other reasons. I made the post to show the difference between the two, because of the report of crime statistics between the two and because they share some important policies that shouldn't be seperated afaic. That was partly the point of my post. How could you make the argument about crime statistics in the United Kingdom without pointing out Scotland's crime statistics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by LudoRephaim, posted 09-07-2009 11:50 AM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by LudoRephaim, posted 09-07-2009 5:40 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 451 of 452 (523658)
09-11-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Legend
09-09-2009 6:19 PM


Re: The usage of statistics.
Before I begin this post I wanted to be sure I cleared up a misconception that you, Legend, seem to have about the debate process.
It is up to you, Legend, to provide the evidence to support your assertions, not ours.
As in this statement here:
Legend writes:
There are actually many reasons why that may be.
If you can’t provide the many reasons then your not debating, you’re just obfuscating.
It is not my job to make up for your apparent intellectual lapses. Your continued strategy to obfuscate, deny, distort, dissemble, and evade is transparent and frankly tiresome.
I thought I would be speaking with an adult, not having to hold your hand like a child through this whole process. Why you lack the intestinal fortitude to admit that the evidence does not support your claims is beyond me. To wit:
Legend writes:
My evidence is the well-founded principle of armed deterrence.
and
Legend writes:
My evidence is the lower percentage of burglary and property crime in the US.
Both assertions have been shown to be false, most recently by RAZD, who presented you with evidence that armed deterrence is not a fundamental truth.
Your conclusion is further shown to be false, when you look at the statistics. If armed deterrence, as a fundamental principle, is responsible for the lower U.S. burglary rate then that rate should have been lower for the U.S. at the very least from 1946 [when self-defense was not considered an acceptable reason in the U.K. to have a gun] and on. Since the statistics show that for a period of time, even when the U.K. had much stricter gun laws than the U.S., the burglary rate for the U.S. was HIGHER (by double the amount), your argument has been shown to be false.
From here
the U.S. burglary rate as measured in the victim survey was more than double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English burglary rate was nearly double America's
Now, if you want to delve into the reasons for this shift, you’re welcome to it. It isn’t because of gun control laws. (hint: it might be due to a shift in incarceration rates and prosecution rates within both the U.S. and U.K.)
Again with the debunking of this assertion of yours.
Legend writes:
I just said that it's been rising despite stringent gun control laws.
You conveniently overlook the fact that in the BCS report on gun crime they state that:
Contrasting with trends in England and Wales, Scotland (Figure 2) saw a marked decline (of almost 80 per cent) in crime involving handguns in the five years after the Dunblane shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) No. 1 and No. 2 Acts of 1997. Crime involving shotguns fell sharply after 1994. Overall, there was a sustained fall in ‘gun crime’ in the ten years to 2001.
This [2003] was the first year since 1998 that a steep four-year increase in ‘gun crime’ in England and Wales came to an end (by contrast, in the same four-year period, Scotland saw a marked decline in ‘gun crime’).
From your later reply:
Legend writes:
LOL! You do realise that the Firearms Acts of 1997 is a UK parliament Act and not a Scottish one, don't you? You do realise that it applies equally to Scotland, England and Wales, don't you? I don't think you did now, didn't you? YOU thought that it was just stricter gun controls for Scotland that caused gun crime to temporarily decrease there, while in reality it was the same laws throughout the UK (except NI). Ooops, there goes your argument!!
[Bolded to better show where your point fell apart].
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad that you failed to grasp the contrast I was making. The best I could manage at this point would be a weak chuckle, and a sad shake of my head. The fact that you just happily (might I even say with Gusto!) tore a wide, gaping, cornhole through your own argument, goes to show how little thought you put into your replies.
Look. You continue to make the argument that gun laws do NOT decrease gun crime, and yet when presented with facts that show a decrease in gun crime even AFTER more strict gun laws are enacted, you come up with some lame reply like that? You’re wrong. It’s ok. We can move past that. We could posit some ideas and explore why Scotland and England/Wales would have such differing rates of gun crime? Or not.
And perhaps, finally, we have this bit of information regarding gun crime reporting in the U.K.
From the BCS Survey you will note, that a large percentage of gun crimes involve the use of IMITATION weapons. Because criminals can not get ‘real’ firearms, due to the gun laws, they have to resort to fake ones or imitation ones. That is one reason deaths and injuries due to firearms are lower in the U.K. versus the U.S. by a significant degree.
The number of police recorded offences involving firearms fell by 17%
between 2007/08 and 2008/09. Firearm offences resulting in injury also fell
(down by 46% in 2008/09) due to a large reduction in the use of imitation
weapons (down 41%) and a corresponding fall in slight injuries. There was a
small rise in the use of shotguns and handguns (both up 2%).
And finally, from 'Gun crime' A review of evidence and policy, Professor Peter Squires with Dr Roger Grimshaw and Enver Solomon (June 2008), Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College London
In 1988 handgun offences climbed steeply for five years, a trend coinciding with the appearance on the UK market of a number of realistic (often plastic) imitation handguns (Taylor and Hornsby, 2000; Squires, 2000). Handgun offences peaked in 1993 at around 4,200, falling back by almost a third over the next three years. In the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane shooting tragedy (13 March 1996), and while the British gun control debate raged, crime involving handguns fell further to 1998 (when the post-Dunblane handgun ban became law) before rising sharply in England and Wales (but not Scotland) for the next four years (see Figure 1).
the contribution of a wide range of ‘unorthodox’ firearms types (imitation handguns, converted imitation handguns, reactivated firearms, converted air pistols, BB gun/airsoft weapons, deactivated firearms, blank firers, converted and unconverted blank-firing starting pistols, CS gas and pepper sprays) to the ‘gun crime’ statistics has become increasingly apparent. For example, in 2006—2007, handguns, shotguns and rifles comprised 26 per cent of the firearms offences recorded by the police, suggesting that the remaining 74 per cent was comprised of the complex array of types mentioned above (Kaiza, 2008: 48). In one sense, this suggests a form of ‘weapon displacement’ occurring. None of the ‘alternative weapons’ mentioned were affected by the Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1997, some remaining largely unregulated until the 2006 VCRA.
So, one reason why gun crime rates have shown a statistical increase is that imitation guns are being used preferentially, because criminals are unable to get a hold of ‘real’ guns. Which, unremarkably, has kept deaths due to firearms to the low level that U.K. citizens seem to prefer. Seems like a pretty substantial reason to have gun control laws to me.
Anyways, we move on
Legend writes:
My evidence is the significant percentage of criminals admitting that they are deterred by armed victims.
The only ‘evidence’ you have shown, is a book that afaik, you haven’t even read. You give no relevant passages and pages numbers, just your assertion that that is what the book states. When I find a quote from a book selling website that gives an overview of the book, you ignore it and conveniently continue with your assertion. Until you can back up this statement with evidence, its baseless.
By the way, this is what the overview states is the conclusion of the authors of the book:
The authors, two criminologists and a social ecologist, contextualize the behavior within the street culture and conclude that most burglars burgle in order to support drugs or alcohol and rarely consider the risk or threat of sanctions.
They conclude that burglars RARELY consider the risk or threat of sanctions.
And we continue
Legend writes:
Even if the rise in gun crime corresponded with a rise in population (which I doubt), the fact would still remain that gun laws haven't reduced, let alone stopped, proliferation of gun violence like you, RAZD and other seem to think.
If you don’t think the difference between 14 and 9,369 murders by firearms is due to the difference in gun laws between the U.K and U.S, then I would have to respond with a reply that one of our Congressman gave recently to a ‘nutter’ comparing Obama to Hitler:
What planet are you from?
I suppose I’ll continue
Legend writes:
This isn't the Crystal Maze, this is a debating board. If you have a point, make it. If you have an answer, state it. If you want to play Cluedo, go somewhere else.
If you want to go pick up your toys and complain to your momma that the big kids aren’t playing fair, then feel free to leave, just don’t let the door hit you in the arse. Obviously the intellectual gymnastics you would have to perform to figure this out is above and beyond your grade level. I was being generous in expecting that you could grasp a simple concept, but again I’m forced to reassess that assumption.
I’ll try to make it easier for you to understand.
DBlevins writes:
It’s akin to asking me how I am going to set speed limits without making it illegal for any speed.
in response to:
Legend writes:
Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?
The U.K has speed limits, yes? Right.
Those same speed laws don’t penalize you if you stay within a reasonable approximation of the posted speed limit, yes? Right.
Because you have speed laws, it means people can not drive at any speed anywhere, yes? Right.
Speed laws = Gun laws. Or how about, Drivers license = gun license.
If you weren’t so ideologically wedded to your argument, you’d probably notice that gun control laws in England already limit guns WITHOUT criminalizing the possession of those guns allowed under the law. Which leads me to question, what kind of screwed up system of gun control laws would require firearms be licensed, yet criminalize their possession? Can you imagine the conversation that would take place in such a system?
Hmmmmlet’s imagine a hypothetical conversation held at a local police station:
You need to license those shotguns you have in your possession. Give me a good reason why you should have them, and I’ll give you a license to possess it. When your through with that form, in triplicate mind you, I’ll need to then kindly dispossess you of your firearms, which then you’ll need to verify, in triplicate and have witnessed. The license I’ll let you keep as a memento of this fabulous deal.
Legend writes:
Buy-backs: are like amnesties for profit. Amnesties are demonstrably not working
It would be more accurate to state that buy-back programs have been shown to have mixed success. While amnesties are not the ‘be all and end all’ of gun control legislation, they likely have a positive impact on the proliferation of guns and resultant gun crime.
Australia’s buy-back program, instituted in 1997 had an inconclusive impact on homicides commited with firearms, though it is notable that such homicides are still declining even after the buy-back program. They have been declining since the early 1980’s.
From the AIC
Since 1992-93, firearm homicide as a proportion of all homicides has halved (Figure 1), continuing a general downward trend in firearm homicide that began in the early 1980s.
We could look at other States, which have instituted buy-back programs, such as Brazil
Results from a recently released study that measured population growth and homicides in Brazil between 1996 and 2006 revealed that homicides dropped by eight percent between 2003 and 2006, a time period that overlaps with a nationwide gun buy-back program during which nearly 500,000 firearms were removed from circulation.
continuing from the article writes:
Yet even in Rio, where violence is constant in limited sections of the city, the murder rate between 2003 and 2006 during the gun buy-back program fell by 12 percent. This drop is in part due to the fervent work of local NGOs that were instrumental in pushing through the disarmament statute in 2004 and the buy-back program.
So, it would be false for you to claim that gun amnesty laws do not work.
This took me longer to write up than I wished but with work I have a limited time to do the research necessary. Part two should be coming up soon, hopefully later today as it is almost complete. Thank you for your patience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Legend, posted 09-09-2009 6:19 PM Legend has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 452 of 452 (524188)
09-14-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Legend
09-09-2009 6:19 PM


Re: The usage of statistics.
Legend writes:
- Regulation of gun possession: We had this to the extreme in the UK yet gun crime's going up.
Not to belabor this point, but this is due in a large part by the increase in the use of imitation weapons by criminals. Another issue is the fact that firearm related homicides are so significantly lower than in the U.S., I would think that in the interest of that alone, I wouldn’t want to increase the amount of ‘real’ guns. US DoJ
Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies.
Another point is that while gun crime had increased it appears to have leveled off and while not statistically significant, 2008 saw a 4% decline in gun crime. Additionally, we see that gun crime has been decreasing in Scotland which has similar levels of gun regulation. If your premise is that gun regulation has no effect and even a detrimental effect (as per your posts) on gun crime then you need to explain why you don’t include Scotland in your evidence. That is where cherry-picking comes into play.
And finally, it has been documented that this disparity between the U.S. and the U.K. for crime rates was reversed not but 25 years ago, or so. US DoJ
the U.S. burglary rate as measured in the victim survey was more than double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English burglary rate was nearly double America's.
Your argument that the rate of burglaries (among other crimes) is higher in England than the U.S. is because burglars fear gun wielding homeowners is false. If that premise was correct then you would need to explain why the U.S. burglary rate was double the U.K. rate in 1981. It isn’t just burglaries that were higher in the U.S., but robberies and assault among other crimes. US DoJ
the U.S. robbery rate as measured in the victim survey was nearly double England's in 1981, but in 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times America's
the U.S. assault rate as measured in police statistics was 1.5 times England's in 1981, but in 1996 the English assault rate was slightly higher than America's.
While, there may certainly be other reasons for this reverse in the rates between these two countries, one argument that has been put forth is that their have been changes in crime reporting, catching of criminals, and incarceration rates. US DoJ
an offender's risk of being caught, convicted, and incarcerated has been rising in the United States but falling in England.
for all offenses (murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft), the length of time in confinement before being released is longer for incarcerated offenders in the United States than in England.
In theory, raising the risk or severity of punishment might lead to crime decreases, and lowering the risk or severity of punishment might lead to crime increases. Negative correlations (for example, a falling conviction rate and a rising crime rate) were interpreted as possible support for the theory.
Major findings were: Negative correlations in England between trends in punishment risk and crime trends offer the strongest support for the theory that links falling risk of punishment to rising crime (table 2). Specifically, since 1981 the conviction rate fell in England, and English crime rates (both police-recorded crime rates and crime rates from victim surveys) rose (figures 1-10 and figures 25-30). Likewise, the incarceration rate fell, and English crime rates (both police-recorded rates and victim survey rates) rose (figures 1-10 and figures 43-48).
Notably consistent was the close association in England, across the different crime types, between falling risk of punishment (however measured) and rising crime rates (however measured). http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm
Now we get to the semantic games.
Legend writes:
I claimed that gun ownership for ordinary citizens will reduce the number of burglaries and liely some assaults and home invasions. But don't let that stop you.
Your claim was that gun laws would allow only criminals to have guns
Legend writes:
Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.
and the higher burglary rate in the U.K., versus the U.S., was due to the strict gun control laws of the U.K. On a side note you claimed that:
Legend writes:
In Britain, only bad guys and the police have guns.
which is hyperbolic. It’s just plainly false!
So when I state
DBlevins writes:
You also claimed that Gun control laws would increase the number of burglaries and by extension all crime.
I don’t think I am misstating your position.
DBLevins writes:
If that was true, then why have burglaries decreased?
Legend writes:
I don't know... low unemployment? social reform programs finally worked? more burglars getting shot?
Your point being...?
Your position is that the higher rate of burglaries in the U.K. versus the U.S. is due to the stricter gun laws, so when I point out that Scotland, which has the same or very similar gun laws, has been decreasing, that clearly falsifies your premise. It is not MY job to find out WHY there might be a decrease. If I find evidence that YOUR hypothesis is false, then it is up to YOU to update it, throw it out, or tell me WHY my evidence is irrelevant or wrong. Hand waving away the evidence is just you being lazy, to put it mildly. Finally, according to the 2008/2009 BCS survey gun violence has decreased (and as I recall the 2007 report showed a decrease from 2006)
The number of police recorded offences involving firearms fell by 17% between 2007/08 and 2008/09. Firearm offences resulting in injury also fell (down by 46% in 2008/09) due to a large reduction in the use of imitation weapons (down 41%) and a corresponding fall in slight injuries.
Legend writes:
Factors such as employment are included in the BCS / HomeOffice reports?!? Or are they factored in the crime figures presented in the
BCS / HomeOffice reports ? Please explain and show me.
Here is what the BCS says about ‘employment’ and it’s impact on crime. (The level of ‘deprivation’ of geographic areas impact the risk of victim-hood)
Crime tends to be geographically concentrated. The national picture may not therefore reflect people’s experiences in their own local area. This is particularly the case for robberies and knife-related offences.
The type of area that people live in can also be a factor.
The risk of being a victim of these household crimes was lower for households in the least deprived areas compared with the most deprived areas in England (16% compared with 22% for BCS household crime).
DBlevins writes:
So it seems you agree that there are other factors besides gun control laws that might effect burglary rates?
Legend writes:
Why yes I do! Your point being...?
Just to be clear here.
You agree that the level of deprivation of a geographic area can impact the crime rate?
Legend writes:
Because I don't have infinite time and resources. I initially compared US to the UK but you accused me of cherry picking the statistics. So I brought in Switzerland. You didn't like that. Now you want me to bring in other countries too? Sorry I'm not playing, thanks for asking.
If you’re choosing these two countries because YOU don’t have the time or resources to do the background research on other ones, then you are in effect, cherry-picking the data. Give me a break! You want to cry now that you don’t have time to look at data that might disagree with your premise because you don’t have the time?! What a crock of shit. Sounds to me like you’re just getting all wobbly and whiney.
Legend writes:
Really? ...is it the accent?
Or is it that when you thought you had some supportive evidence you suddently remembered how similar Scotland is to the US?
Pathetic really.
The rest of your post is too long, mostly pointless, irrelevant and in the same disingenuous spirit as the first part, so I'm not going to bother. If and when you have something original or persuasive, bring it to the table and we'll see.
To the first point. See my previous reply to you as well as the top of this post.
The second part is just drivel, twaddle, childish, silly. This isn’t a race. If you need more time to review any points or make your argument, feel free to take what time you need. In the case that you weren’t feeling rushed to answer, your dismissal of mine and other’s pertinent points makes you look childish and shows the weakness of your position.
I’ll stop by and see if you bring something substantial and supportive to your argument, but until then I won’t hold my breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Legend, posted 09-09-2009 6:19 PM Legend has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024