President Bush overturns Habeas Corpus?
- Thread starter Horus
- Start date
The Devil's Steed
Member
You're using a few isolated cases to make a ridiculous claim about gun ownership as a whole.
In virtually every country where guns were banned violent crime rates shot through the roof upon banning. They never level out to the low they were at pre-banning. It's rather easy to commit crimes when criminals know they're the only people that have access to weapons and the worst they'll have to deal with is -- if they're VERY unfortunate -- a guy with a pocket knife or one that knows martial arts.
Thus spoke reality.
Also, where the hell did you get 'anyone 16 or over' from? It doesn't help when you pull numbers out of your ass. You have to be 18 to legally purchase a rifle or shotgun and 21 to purchase a pistol. You then have to jump through several more hoops if you wish to carry that pistol.
In virtually every country where guns were banned violent crime rates shot through the roof upon banning. They never level out to the low they were at pre-banning. It's rather easy to commit crimes when criminals know they're the only people that have access to weapons and the worst they'll have to deal with is -- if they're VERY unfortunate -- a guy with a pocket knife or one that knows martial arts.
Thus spoke reality.
Also, where the hell did you get 'anyone 16 or over' from? It doesn't help when you pull numbers out of your ass. You have to be 18 to legally purchase a rifle or shotgun and 21 to purchase a pistol. You then have to jump through several more hoops if you wish to carry that pistol.
The Devil's Steed
Member
...jan
One among several billion
Actually, that article did provide some statistics of some sorts after the story was told. It was not just one isolated case.
According to an American friend of mine, he can legally get a rifle at the age of 16.
Again, guns do not do the killing people do the killing. In this era of road rage, is a vehicle ban being discussed? No, because it is preposterous (sp?). If someone used a car to run me down, I would not look to sue the manufacturer or ban the product.
You can site all of the incidents you want. The bottom line is, someone committed a crime using a gun. If the gun wasn't there, they would find another weapon.
When I was a teen, I was attacked by a guy with a baseball bat. I felt no animosity to the bat. It was the jerk-off wielding the bat that needed to be punished. After I had my skull fractured, should I have pushed for legislation to ban the use of baseball bats?
I know a guy who someone tried to rob at knifepoint. The "victim" was brushing his car off at the time, as it was snowing. He proceeded to beat the ever livin' shit outta the guy with the knife. Now, should just snow brushes be outlawed or should knives too?
Archie Bunker once said in response to a comment made about gun violence "Would ya rather they was pushed out windows?"
You can site all of the incidents you want. The bottom line is, someone committed a crime using a gun. If the gun wasn't there, they would find another weapon.
When I was a teen, I was attacked by a guy with a baseball bat. I felt no animosity to the bat. It was the jerk-off wielding the bat that needed to be punished. After I had my skull fractured, should I have pushed for legislation to ban the use of baseball bats?
I know a guy who someone tried to rob at knifepoint. The "victim" was brushing his car off at the time, as it was snowing. He proceeded to beat the ever livin' shit outta the guy with the knife. Now, should just snow brushes be outlawed or should knives too?
Archie Bunker once said in response to a comment made about gun violence "Would ya rather they was pushed out windows?"
The Devil's Steed
Member
Your American friend is full of shit. You must be 18, national law. That said, rifles are hardly ever used in crimes so this doesn't apply to your theory since it tends to revolve around the use of pistols and high crime rates.
That said, accidental shootings of that nature are still isolated cases, even if it wasn't just one particular case. They're quite rare.
You are missing the central point as to why studies like this are misleading. Guns are not illegal in the USA, they are in Canada. Therefore, 100% of the guns used to commit crime in Canada are illegal guns. The study does not indicate the % of guns used in the USA to commit crime vs the sum total in the study.
It is a fact that home invasions in Canada, Australia and England increased sharply after guns were banned.
A ban on guns means only persons willing to break the law and harm you will possess and use them. That does not make me safer.
...jan
One among several billion
Country %households wi/guns gun deaths/100k (suicide+
homocide)
Great Br 4 0.4
Sweden 20 2.27
Canada 26 3.95
Norway 32 4.23
Switzerland 27 6.2
Finland 50 6.65
US 41 13.47
Source...guncontrol.ca
Comparison of Canada, Switzerland, USA and a bunch of other countries, showing that USA is in the lead (go US).
Apparently, you can buy a gun without even showing a permit in two states.
And fine, my friend was wrong. Sorry for basing my text on misinformation.
Still, you can buy a shotgun at the age of 18, but you're not allowed to have a beer until you've turned 21. Guns aren't more dangerous than alcohol (?).
Quote from the article I previously posted:
According to the latest statistics, almost 1000
children under 19 are shot dead every year.
Another 800 use guns to commit suicide, and
more than 160 die in firearm accidents.
Forty per cent of households own guns, but
those guns are 22 times more likely to be
involved in an accidental shooting, or 11
times more likely to be used in a suicide,
than in self-defence. On average, more than
80 Americans are killed by gunfire every day.
homocide)
Great Br 4 0.4
Sweden 20 2.27
Canada 26 3.95
Norway 32 4.23
Switzerland 27 6.2
Finland 50 6.65
US 41 13.47
Source...guncontrol.ca
Comparison of Canada, Switzerland, USA and a bunch of other countries, showing that USA is in the lead (go US).
Apparently, you can buy a gun without even showing a permit in two states.
And fine, my friend was wrong. Sorry for basing my text on misinformation.
Still, you can buy a shotgun at the age of 18, but you're not allowed to have a beer until you've turned 21. Guns aren't more dangerous than alcohol (?).
Quote from the article I previously posted:
According to the latest statistics, almost 1000
children under 19 are shot dead every year.
Another 800 use guns to commit suicide, and
more than 160 die in firearm accidents.
Forty per cent of households own guns, but
those guns are 22 times more likely to be
involved in an accidental shooting, or 11
times more likely to be used in a suicide,
than in self-defence. On average, more than
80 Americans are killed by gunfire every day.
To play devils advocate, putting a weapon and technology that is really quite biased (it's only function is really to kill or practice killing via target practice) in the hands of the population, is encouraging violence on some level.
"If your neighbour won't give you back your lawnmower .. just wave me around and watch him move." -- Your Gun.
Unfortunately, I think introducing a gun in this way will almost certainly lead to a frontyard gunfight. The bottomline is, getting out your gun as a means to control a situation is just too easy ..and things are probably more likely to get even more out of control.
There are of course many factors involved, but there's something to be said about having a deadly weapon so readily accessible and knowing everyone around you has one; this in itself could create a lot of unnecessary tension.
As far as Canada and the USA goes .. we're not (Canadians) any less stressed than you guys. There has to be some underlying issue and I think the accessibility of arms may well be a big contributing piece.
"If your neighbour won't give you back your lawnmower .. just wave me around and watch him move." -- Your Gun.
Unfortunately, I think introducing a gun in this way will almost certainly lead to a frontyard gunfight. The bottomline is, getting out your gun as a means to control a situation is just too easy ..and things are probably more likely to get even more out of control.
There are of course many factors involved, but there's something to be said about having a deadly weapon so readily accessible and knowing everyone around you has one; this in itself could create a lot of unnecessary tension.
As far as Canada and the USA goes .. we're not (Canadians) any less stressed than you guys. There has to be some underlying issue and I think the accessibility of arms may well be a big contributing piece.
Jan, I again point out that your statistics are tainted. You cannot compare countries that have a gun ban against one that doesn't.
Additionally, increased rates of suicide are a social issue, not a gun issue. More kill themselves via an overdose of pills each year than 10 years worth of gun related suicides. Shall we ban prescription medication?
The stats you bring forward are typical of the anti-gun lobby. They never point out the fact that the guns being used to commit crimes are almost always possessed illegally.
You are delusional if you think that criminals will stop carrying guns just because they are against the law.
Additionally, increased rates of suicide are a social issue, not a gun issue. More kill themselves via an overdose of pills each year than 10 years worth of gun related suicides. Shall we ban prescription medication?
The stats you bring forward are typical of the anti-gun lobby. They never point out the fact that the guns being used to commit crimes are almost always possessed illegally.
You are delusional if you think that criminals will stop carrying guns just because they are against the law.
...jan
One among several billion
Why not? Gun banning or no gun banning, the fact that the guns aren't banned in the US, only shows that this lack of banning just heightens the percentage of deaths by the hands of someone with a gun in that country. One might say that if guns were legal in say, Finland, then the percentage of deaths might rise to a size proportionate to that of the US.
Guns are legal in the US alone (in this case anyways). USA is in the supreme lead when it comes to deaths by guns, which is quite a coincidence. You say the statistics rather show that the US has a higher rate of usage of illegal guns. I say it means that as people have more access to guns, and as more guns are being circulated, the easier they are to find (hell, you can find a gun in 40% of all American homes), and thus more criminal activity involving guns will happen.
It speaks for itself, really. If 40% of all households own at least one gun, then wouldn't it be a lot easier for someone to actually find a gun and use it, than it would be for someone who had to find "connections" to find one?
If nobody had the rights to own a gun (except for hunting and other sports activities), then a lot fewer guns would be circulated in the system. Less guns means less opportunities for someone to aquire a gun, which again means less crime involving guns.
The fact that people (in addition to this) coincidentally shoot others (be it by mistake, anger or fanaticism), just adds icing to the cake of death. Not only are guns easier to find (and thus sell illegally later, circulating them into the crime system), irresponsible people will kill others by mistake, simply because they are not mature enough to own a gun.
And if you say that it's all a social issue, then why is this social issue a matter in the one country in which guns are legal? Could it be because the legalisation of guns indirectly promotes a more violent attitude? USA isn't the only country in the world to get violence on TV, but it's still in the lead when it comes to deaths by the usage of guns. As gun use is legal, the two seem to be linked. I mean, is the average American that retard when it comes to maturity and responsibility, compared to an average European? If so, guns shouldn't be legal in that country at all.
You are a hoplophobe.
Better than 88% of all gun related deaths in the United States occur with ILLEGAL firearms. Have you maybe considered going after the 88% (criminals) rather than punishing all of law abiding citizens.
Over and over I have stated that you should punish the offender, not the tool. The quotes you are pulling from the various anti-gun websites tells me that you have no real world experience with guns. It also tells me that you fear guns. Fear should never enter into the equation when deciding something should be banned.
There is no simple statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes. In the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold.
Subsequently, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent.
In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year)
During a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods and shop owners publicly armed themselves; felonies dropped significantly.
In March 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring householders to keep a gun at home; house burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year.
Hoplophobes like yourself, will note that only 2 burglars in 1,000 are driven off by armed homeowners. However, since a huge preponderance of burglaries take place when no one is home, the statistical citation is misleading.
It is evident that New York City's almost complete prohibition is not voluntarily obeyed; estimates of the number of illegal handguns in the city range from one million to two million.
The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400, that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600.
Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminal supply would continue with barely an interruption. Even if 90 percent of American handguns disappeared, there would still be 40 left for every handgun criminal. In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.
Even if the entire American gun stock magically vanished, resupply for criminals would be easy. If small handguns were imported in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million would enter the country annually.
Apparently, illegal gun production is already common. A 1986 federal government study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington, D.C., were homemade.
Most police officers concur that gun control laws are ineffective. A 1986 questionnaire sent to every major police official in the country produced the following results: 97 percent believed that a firearms ownership ban would not reduce crime or keep criminals from using guns; 89 percent believed that gun control laws such as those in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City had no effect on criminals; and 90 percent believed that if firearms ownership was banned, ordinary citizens would be more likely to be targets of armed violence
Better than 88% of all gun related deaths in the United States occur with ILLEGAL firearms. Have you maybe considered going after the 88% (criminals) rather than punishing all of law abiding citizens.
Over and over I have stated that you should punish the offender, not the tool. The quotes you are pulling from the various anti-gun websites tells me that you have no real world experience with guns. It also tells me that you fear guns. Fear should never enter into the equation when deciding something should be banned.
There is no simple statistical correlation between gun ownership and homicide or other violent crimes. In the first 30 years of this century, U.S. per capita handgun ownership remained stable, but the homicide rate rose tenfold.
Subsequently, between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent.
In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year)
During a 1974 police strike in Albuquerque armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods and shop owners publicly armed themselves; felonies dropped significantly.
In March 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring householders to keep a gun at home; house burglaries fell from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year.
Hoplophobes like yourself, will note that only 2 burglars in 1,000 are driven off by armed homeowners. However, since a huge preponderance of burglaries take place when no one is home, the statistical citation is misleading.
It is evident that New York City's almost complete prohibition is not voluntarily obeyed; estimates of the number of illegal handguns in the city range from one million to two million.
The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400, that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600.
Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminal supply would continue with barely an interruption. Even if 90 percent of American handguns disappeared, there would still be 40 left for every handgun criminal. In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.
Even if the entire American gun stock magically vanished, resupply for criminals would be easy. If small handguns were imported in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million would enter the country annually.
Apparently, illegal gun production is already common. A 1986 federal government study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington, D.C., were homemade.
Most police officers concur that gun control laws are ineffective. A 1986 questionnaire sent to every major police official in the country produced the following results: 97 percent believed that a firearms ownership ban would not reduce crime or keep criminals from using guns; 89 percent believed that gun control laws such as those in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City had no effect on criminals; and 90 percent believed that if firearms ownership was banned, ordinary citizens would be more likely to be targets of armed violence
The Devil's Steed
Member
Guns are legal in the US alone in this study? False. Switzerland has a relatively low crime rate (as you showed) and they are armed to the teeth. Apparently every man in Switzerland is required own an assault rifle. That country is more pro-gun than the US and contains a much lower crime rate.
In every country where guns are banned the crime rate goes through the roof upon banning. Explain why the US would be different, and why guns are the ultimate evil causing all of this violence when Switzerland has a low crime rate and you'll have a case.
In every country where guns are banned the crime rate goes through the roof upon banning. Explain why the US would be different, and why guns are the ultimate evil causing all of this violence when Switzerland has a low crime rate and you'll have a case.
Population comparisons are pointless until you break it down by race or ethnicity. America's problem isn't the number of guns but the number of non-whites. It really is as simple as that. Canada, with a total "minority" population of around 13% cannot compare fairly to America with an almost 35% or three times the minority rate in the population. When considering the per-capita percentage of crime involving firearms when broken down by race the problem becomes brutally obvious.
When you move beyond the large urban areas of America(places ironically possessed of the strictest gun-laws)such as Detroit, Baltimore, Trenton, New York, Los Angeles, the country is every bit as statistically "safe" as Norway, Switzerland, etc. The simple fact is, no public official(who wishes to keep their job) speaking on so-called gun-crime, dares to admit the demographic breakdown of criminal activity(committed almost exclusively with illegal or stolen firearms) as the cry of "racism" will be sounded loudly and immediately. But this is the reality of the situation. Compare the crime rate to Bazil and then you have something to talk about - not a country like Norway that is likely well over 90% White.
No one likes to talk of these racial-cultural/demographic issues - but its like discussing lung-cancer without mentioning cigarettes. There is nothing in the US so forbidden to discuss openly as race. Thus, this warped perspective of how dagerous the US is remains prevalent worldwide - but it is a terribly misleading, if not altogether fraudulent view, specifically as it applies to the bulk of the populace.
I have been a competitive shooter for years. Most all of my friends are shooters, hunters and a number are in law-enforcement including SWAT officers. I myself have owned firearms since I was perhaps 13(I'm nearly 38). Growing up in a rural area, everyone I knew owned guns. NO ONE I know has ever shot a family member, committed a "gun-crime" or what have you. This idea that one is highly likely to shoot a family member is pure hogwash.
Jan, all I can say is be very wary of statistics you read regarding "gun-crime" in the US. A (in)famous stat. of "child-fatalities" from firearms continues to be bandied about in the US, though it was long ago discovered that the "children" comprising the overwhelming majority of the deaths were 18-19 years old gang members - including those shot by Police during the commission of crimes, etc. That notwithstanding, roughly nine times as many children drown in swimming pools in the US than are firearm casualties...it's all how one looks at the numbers.
When you move beyond the large urban areas of America(places ironically possessed of the strictest gun-laws)such as Detroit, Baltimore, Trenton, New York, Los Angeles, the country is every bit as statistically "safe" as Norway, Switzerland, etc. The simple fact is, no public official(who wishes to keep their job) speaking on so-called gun-crime, dares to admit the demographic breakdown of criminal activity(committed almost exclusively with illegal or stolen firearms) as the cry of "racism" will be sounded loudly and immediately. But this is the reality of the situation. Compare the crime rate to Bazil and then you have something to talk about - not a country like Norway that is likely well over 90% White.
No one likes to talk of these racial-cultural/demographic issues - but its like discussing lung-cancer without mentioning cigarettes. There is nothing in the US so forbidden to discuss openly as race. Thus, this warped perspective of how dagerous the US is remains prevalent worldwide - but it is a terribly misleading, if not altogether fraudulent view, specifically as it applies to the bulk of the populace.
I have been a competitive shooter for years. Most all of my friends are shooters, hunters and a number are in law-enforcement including SWAT officers. I myself have owned firearms since I was perhaps 13(I'm nearly 38). Growing up in a rural area, everyone I knew owned guns. NO ONE I know has ever shot a family member, committed a "gun-crime" or what have you. This idea that one is highly likely to shoot a family member is pure hogwash.
Jan, all I can say is be very wary of statistics you read regarding "gun-crime" in the US. A (in)famous stat. of "child-fatalities" from firearms continues to be bandied about in the US, though it was long ago discovered that the "children" comprising the overwhelming majority of the deaths were 18-19 years old gang members - including those shot by Police during the commission of crimes, etc. That notwithstanding, roughly nine times as many children drown in swimming pools in the US than are firearm casualties...it's all how one looks at the numbers.
I live pretty close to Toronto Ontario, and being one of the worlds most multicultural cities, it has significantly lower crime rates than many major US cities.
http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm
That's not to say there is no racial connection because clearly there is ..but again, I think there are a lot of factors, and the accessibility of weapons is surely one.
http://www.toronto.ca/quality_of_life/safety.htm
That's not to say there is no racial connection because clearly there is ..but again, I think there are a lot of factors, and the accessibility of weapons is surely one.
The Devil's Steed
Member
If 'accessibility' was a factor then banning drugs would heavily cut down on drug use. If someone wants to get something illegally it's not going to be that difficult to access. The only difference in accessibility is going to be between those who would use guns for legitimate purposes (target shooting, self defense, etc.) and those who would use them for illegal purposes.
