Political Crossfire Forums

[Blinky]

perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: That said, I don't know that the reputation the rougher parts of certain US cities have is deserved. Over here you hear, read and see a lot about how rough South Central LA is but when I was there 10 years ago, it wasn't as it has been portrayed at all. I stayed in Inglewood and spent time in Compton, Watts, and South-Central itself - all the areas the media and popular culture had led me to believe were dangerous no-go zones. I felt comfortable, and ran into no trouble.

And for the most part that's the way it is. Most murders are of people involved in crime, not of otherwise law-abiding citizens. If you weren't involved in sleeping with drug dealers, buying or selling drugs, etc., you were in little danger.

So provided you're not a criminal yourself, you have little to worry about, yes?

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Eh?
You're putting America's crime rate down to American's being "violent dumbasses", and the fact that there is a waiting peroid of a couple of days before you can get a gun from a shop?
How do you explain the fact that you are less likely to be murdered/raped/assualted in nations (like Britain) where there is much tighter gun control?

That's plain wrong. Firstly, I gave you the Switzerland thing, and they have pretty much NO gun control. While the English murder rate is lower than that in the US (similar to the rate in Switzerland), the overall violent crime rate (assault, rape, etc...) is MUCH HIGHER than even the US. s**t, I think it's something like 3X higher.

Whereas in Switzerland, with all the guns, not only is the murder rate very low, ALL violent crime is very low.

Quote:
But criminals often don't know if someone is armed or not until after they initiate their crime, if it turns out their victim is armed, doesn't it encourage the criminal to use deadly force in order to get what they want and/or not get killed themselves?

Posters here always bang on about the millions of defensive gun uses that occur every year. So obviously criminals, on millions of occassions anually, get it wrong and target an armed civilian.

I think you'll find you have far more shoot first, ask questions later crimes in the US than in countries where every third person isn't a gun owner. That way it isn't fighting anm armed opponent. Its incapacitating a victim, and getting what you want.

And? That's irrelevant. While it's true that the chances of innocent death are higher when you defend yourself with a gun, it also puts the perpetrator at risk. They will simply not do crimes due to the risk involved if there is a high chance of a person owning a gun. s**t, a study even showed that criminals feared a victim with a gun more than the cops.

The high rate of defensive gun use also shows that the user, in MANY cases, have succeeded in driving criminals away.



Now, lets see what happens if we severely restrict guns/ban them.

1) Criminal has gun off the black market. Victims are defenseless.

2) Criminal does NOT have gun, but seeing as how they are almost always physically stronger than their target, the victim will have no chance.

[Blinky]

Demonic Spoon wrote:
That's plain wrong. Firstly, I gave you the Switzerland thing, and they have pretty much NO gun control. While the English murder rate is lower than that in the US (similar to the rate in Switzerland), the overall violent crime rate (assault, rape, etc...) is MUCH HIGHER than even the US. s**t, I think it's something like 3X higher.



Thats not the case:

You have 1.01469 more chances to be assaulted in the US than in the UK.
You have 2.11939 more chances to be raped in the US than in the UK.
You have 3.043524 more chances to be murdered in the US than in the UK.


Assaults (per capita) by country
United States 7.56923 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom 7.45959 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita


Rapes (per capita) by country
United States 0.301318 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom 0.142172 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita


Murders (per capita) by country
United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita



demonicspoon wrote: And? That's irrelevant. While it's true that the chances of innocent death are higher when you defend yourself with a gun, it also puts the perpetrator at risk. They will simply not do crimes due to the risk involved if there is a high chance of a person owning a gun.

No, its not irrelevant. I already said why:

"Posters here always bang on about the millions of defensive gun uses that occur every year. So obviously criminals, on millions of occassions anually, get it wrong and target an armed civilian."

Get it?

There is a one in three chance that a victim will own a gun in the US, yet you are still more likely to be, assualted, raped, and murdered than you are in the UK. How come?





demonicspoon wrote: Now, lets see what happens if we severely restrict guns/ban them.

1) Criminal has gun off the black market. Victims are defenseless.

2) Criminal does NOT have gun, but seeing as how they are almost always physically stronger than their target, the victim will have no chance.


What happens when something is banned generally? Thats right - the black market cost skyrockets.
Once this happens guns only become available to the upper-tier of the criminal foodchain as they are a rare and expensive commodity. These sort of criminal pose little or no threat to the average person on the street as they are not interested in burglary, muggings etc.
If this were coupled with severe penalties for possession of an illegal weapon, the number of criminals with them would be reduced even further.

[perdidochas]

Blinky wrote: perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: That said, I don't know that the reputation the rougher parts of certain US cities have is deserved. Over here you hear, read and see a lot about how rough South Central LA is but when I was there 10 years ago, it wasn't as it has been portrayed at all. I stayed in Inglewood and spent time in Compton, Watts, and South-Central itself - all the areas the media and popular culture had led me to believe were dangerous no-go zones. I felt comfortable, and ran into no trouble.

And for the most part that's the way it is. Most murders are of people involved in crime, not of otherwise law-abiding citizens. If you weren't involved in sleeping with drug dealers, buying or selling drugs, etc., you were in little danger.

So provided you're not a criminal yourself, you have little to worry about, yes?

True, except for in the more extreme circumstances, yes. However, those extreme circumstances occasionally happen. I live in a part of the country that experiences hurricanes. In the near future, it is not far-fetched that I will be without power and phone (including cell phone) for a week at a time. After hurricane Ivan, I was in such a situation. In a neighborhood that had looters coming through, I felt much safer since I had a gun (and most of the neighbors also had guns).

Anyway, why ban guns since they only effect the crime-ridden parts of society?

[evil muppet]

EEEND DRUG PROHIBITION. The high murder rate in the United States is a result of the War on Drugs. End drug prohibition right now and you will soon see a significant drop in the murder rate. If you end the war on drugs the US crime rates will drop to close to Western European levels.

[Onevote]

evil muppet wrote: EEEND DRUG PROHIBITION. The high murder rate in the United States is a result of the War on Drugs. End drug prohibition right now and you will soon see a significant drop in the murder rate. If you end the war on drugs the US crime rates will drop to close to Western European levels. I have to agree with this statement. Most of our street crime is directly related to the drug trade. No illegal drug trade= less street crime!

[Lucky Luke]

MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Show this to your brother and tell him to get rid of his handguns:

Quote: MEMORANDUM TO ALL UNITED STATES' ATTORNEYS

FROM:The Attorney General /s/ John Ashcroft

RE:United States v. Emerson

On October 16, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Emerson. I am pleased that the decision upholds the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) - which prohibits violent persons who are under domestic restraining orders from possessing firearms. By taking guns out of the hands of persons whose propensity to violence is sufficient to warrant a specific restraining order, this statute helps avoid tragic episodes of domestic violence. As I have stated many times, reducing gun crime is a top priority for the Department. We will vigorously enforce and defend existing firearms laws in order to accomplish that goal.

Emerson is also noteworthy because, in upholding this statute, the Fifth Circuit undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials and specifically affirmed that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms. . . ." The Court's opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8272.resp.html

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Switzerland has an ASTOUNDINGLY low crime rate..I believe in 2002, the murder rate was 1.4 per 100,000 people. Switzerland also is known for it's complete lack of an army. Pretty much every house in that nation has an assault rifle. Hunting is a national sport. To put it simply, that country is armed to the teeth.

I think our crime rate is due to two factors.

1) Dumbasses. While dumbasses exist everywhere, American dumbasses tend to be more violent.

2) Gun control. It makes it difficult for an honest, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves, but it is still piss-easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun, because where an honest citizen will not go through all the trouble to get a gun, a criminal will. This is not to mention the black market which is certainly a factor.


When a criminal thinks there's a good chance of their victim being armed, they will not go through. After all, they're looking for easy, low-risk benefit. Fighting an armed opponent is neither.



While I think lowering gun control could go a long way to curbing crime, it wont really be significantly lower until people start pulling their heads out of their asses.


Interesting first post. Welcome to PCF. :-D

Switzerland is a great example for a country with guns that believes that gun control laws are needed despite a low murder rate. The Swiss think it is too high and are introducing stricter gun control laws, the militia is being reformed as a result.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

Well, it's been done for the last ten years or so. The CDC (which is an anti-gun organization) has concluded that it can find no evidence that gun control works (or doesnt' work).

We went through that before Perdidochas and you know that it was not what the CDC study concluded. They never stated that gun control does not work.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Onevote wrote: evil muppet wrote: EEEND DRUG PROHIBITION. The high murder rate in the United States is a result of the War on Drugs. End drug prohibition right now and you will soon see a significant drop in the murder rate. If you end the war on drugs the US crime rates will drop to close to Western European levels. I have to agree with this statement. Most of our street crime is directly related to the drug trade. No illegal drug trade= less street crime!

We have the same drug problem than you have, try again.

:-D
:-D

[micfranklin]

Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: evil muppet wrote: EEEND DRUG PROHIBITION. The high murder rate in the United States is a result of the War on Drugs. End drug prohibition right now and you will soon see a significant drop in the murder rate. If you end the war on drugs the US crime rates will drop to close to Western European levels. I have to agree with this statement. Most of our street crime is directly related to the drug trade. No illegal drug trade= less street crime!

We have the same drug problem than you have, try again.

:-D
:-D

The thing is that the "War on Drugs" is pretty much the same as the Prohibition of the 1920's.

[evil muppet]

Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: evil muppet wrote: EEEND DRUG PROHIBITION. The high murder rate in the United States is a result of the War on Drugs. End drug prohibition right now and you will soon see a significant drop in the murder rate. If you end the war on drugs the US crime rates will drop to close to Western European levels. I have to agree with this statement. Most of our street crime is directly related to the drug trade. No illegal drug trade= less street crime!

We have the same drug problem than you have, try again.

:-D
:-D

No, your drug problem is that your doctor has been telling you to take your meds and your not.

[Lucky Luke]

micfranklin wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Onevote wrote: evil muppet wrote: EEEND DRUG PROHIBITION. The high murder rate in the United States is a result of the War on Drugs. End drug prohibition right now and you will soon see a significant drop in the murder rate. If you end the war on drugs the US crime rates will drop to close to Western European levels. I have to agree with this statement. Most of our street crime is directly related to the drug trade. No illegal drug trade= less street crime!

We have the same drug problem than you have, try again.

:-D
:-D

The thing is that the "War on Drugs" is pretty much the same as the Prohibition of the 1920's.

The fact is that we have the same problem than you have.

:-D
:-D

[MindlessSheep]

Wow I never expected so much good discussion over this question. So let add another question on top of my original one. It looks like the crime rate might be tied more closely to other factors not related to guns. The big one that always seems to come up is the drug problem. Now I know there are plenty of people in favor of legalizing drugs under the theory of if it's not forbidden, people are less likely to create criminal organizations to supply it. So how do you prevent a generation from becoming hooked on narcotics? The problem is, unlike alcohol, drugs have people addicted pretty much from the get go. I'm not an expert in this area, so if someone could shine some light .... :-D

[Onevote]

MindlessSheep wrote: Wow I never expected so much good discussion over this question. So let add another question on top of my original one. It looks like the crime rate might be tied more closely to other factors not related to guns. The big one that always seems to come up is the drug problem. Now I know there are plenty of people in favor of legalizing drugs under the theory of if it's not forbidden, people are less likely to create criminal organizations to supply it. So how do you prevent a generation from becoming hooked on narcotics? The problem is, unlike alcohol, drugs have people addicted pretty much from the get go. I'm not an expert in this area, so if someone could shine some light .... :-D I don't know if it will make that much difference, let's be honest, drugs are very easy to get. Kids can get pot easier than they can get booze.

[Red Flag]

The problem is that many of the "Wrong" people own guns, criminals, maniacs, hoodlums etc. People need to own guns to protect themselves from these criminals. It just goes to show you that without a gun you are more or less defenseless in a world as technologically advanced as this one. These days almost every criminal has a gun.

[airo]

perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: That said, I don't know that the reputation the rougher parts of certain US cities have is deserved. Over here you hear, read and see a lot about how rough South Central LA is but when I was there 10 years ago, it wasn't as it has been portrayed at all. I stayed in Inglewood and spent time in Compton, Watts, and South-Central itself - all the areas the media and popular culture had led me to believe were dangerous no-go zones. I felt comfortable, and ran into no trouble.

And for the most part that's the way it is. Most murders are of people involved in crime, not of otherwise law-abiding citizens. If you weren't involved in sleeping with drug dealers, buying or selling drugs, etc., you were in little danger.

So provided you're not a criminal yourself, you have little to worry about, yes?

True, except for in the more extreme circumstances, yes. However, those extreme circumstances occasionally happen. I live in a part of the country that experiences hurricanes. In the near future, it is not far-fetched that I will be without power and phone (including cell phone) for a week at a time. After hurricane Ivan, I was in such a situation. In a neighborhood that had looters coming through, I felt much safer since I had a gun (and most of the neighbors also had guns).

Anyway, why ban guns since they only effect the crime-ridden parts of society?

But preparing for a situation that has only a small percentage of happening, despite the fact that if it does happen it would leave you dead and your family victimized, is living in fear!!!!!!11!!1!!1!1one

[Lucky Luke]

Red Flag wrote: The problem is that many of the "Wrong" people own guns, criminals, maniacs, hoodlums etc. People need to own guns to protect themselves from these criminals. It just goes to show you that without a gun you are more or less defenseless in a world as technologically advanced as this one. These days almost every criminal has a gun.

Not in my world Red Flag, please think outside the box you put yourself in, think again.

:-D
:-D

[wyldejackyl]

The box you put yourself in is tying the acts of people to inanimate objects.

Luke, wouldn't you say banning MONEY would reduce the murder rate? Why..if there was no greed, no one would have to steal anything!

That's it, I hope the government takes my money away (oops, they already do), because that way I'll feel more secure. Europeans are more laid back than Americans, and it isn't because of guns or lack thereof. Please look elsewhere to push your arguments for social reform other than gun banning.

[TNBiologist]

MindlessSheep wrote: This is a question that my brother and I argue back and forth over quite a bit. He's against gun control and owns quite a few hand guns, I'm not a big fan of guns. So here is my question. Is it possible to reduce the murders committed in the US without necessarily hinder the "right to bare arms"? I don't see a way to do it, but maybe I'm not thinking outside of the box enough.

I don't think that banning guns /restricting guns would have any significant effect on the murder rate. Guns are just a tool. They can be used for evil purposes or for good purposes depending on teh person using the tool. It is no different than a hammer. I can use a hammer to repair something or I can bash in my neighbors head with it.

Here is a link to the CDC study that found Quote: The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes : http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Here is a link to a published paper discussing the validity of gun control compared to drops in crime rates between the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf
By the way, the Frazer institute is based in Canada and has no allifiation with any pro or anti gun groups.

Things that I believe would have an effect on the crime rate:
1) Enforce the existing guns laws.
2) Legalize most of the common street drugs. The illegal sale, transport and manufacture of these leads directly to gangs fighting for control of areas to sell drugs in. This harms gang members and inocents. If most street drugs are legalized and then sold just as alcohol or tabacco you eleminate the stigma associated with drugs as well as the drug gangs need of violence to protect their selling area. Once most street drugs are made legal make it a crime to sell them unless out of a store similar to alcohol/tabacco thus focusing police pressure on illegal dealers which use violence to enforce/control their selling area.
3) Teach gun safety on a more open basis. Almost no schools actually teach gun safety. They teach guns are bad and don't touch, which is good for young children but by the time a person is 17, they need a little more detailed leason. Bring in gun safety instructors to teach high school students how to properly handle a gun if they find one and how to properly make a gun safe. This would help decrease the number of accidental gun deaths. Part of the problem is that children are taught by schools that guns should be left alone, this only makes a child want to see/play with this prohibited item. Reinstate school sponcered marksmanship teams (most use pellet rifles), this will allow those interested in gun a chance to learn about them without getting trouble.