Printable View
'Where guns are outlawed outlaws have guns'
someone smart.
Basically, I'm with HoreTore on this, I don't really like to say "look at us", but I think Europe has solved the problem with crime in a much more efficient way.
Sweden huh, ya doing just fine :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
exactly...in a situation like a bank robbery the last thing you need is someone in there that wants to play rambo.....the money is ensured....just let the guy walk out the door with it.....call the cops the moment he walks outQuote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
Very well said. Part of the problem is the constitution allows for the right to bare arms, and woe to the politicians who attempt to remove any entitlement to the american people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I am not currently a criminal, nor was I ever a hardended criminal. However I own firearms, to much according to some. In reflection on this issue I am one of the problems with the system.
You see, inhereting my grandfathers shotgun and my fathers pistols was traditional. Yet there meaning is somewhat lost in the romantic depictions of gun violence. The minority of gun owners commit violent crimes, however there are those like me who have far to many firearms for an ordinary citizen.
Thats part of the problem, because I have had a LTC since the early 90's I am not suspected or questioned when I want to buy 3 more handguns. Are limits the answer? Well maybe. While the constitution allows me to have firearms its within the context to defend and uphold my household, my state and my country.
In essence the spirit was to keep prepared the citizenry should we have another monarchy on our hands in 1789. didnt pan out, and now I dont need 3 assault rifles, 4 hunting rifles (shotguns) and 6 pistols. I should be able to retain some, and I havent quite reasoned out whats the proper balance either.
The constant emails from the NRA arent helping either.
And where guns are allowed everyone has guns, much better. Also, for some reason, there is still less crime and less shootings in countries where guns are outlawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Oh, man... That really hurt. I think I'm going to kill myself now, I mean, that's what any Swede would do, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Seriously though, what are you talking about? We're doing OK I guess. Much to be improved of course, but at least our crime rates are rather low, even with our ridicilous immigration politic and segregation. But how is that on topic?
Giving it up when kindly asked? Well yeah, sure seems like itQuote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
edit: gah, for english speaking http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938
Crime is rampant in Sweden, crimenumbers are low because nobody bothers with going to the police anymore. Got family there, heard enough.
Well vigilantes, you need them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
'Where guns are outlawed outlaws have guns'
That seems valid for the USA, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do the reverse (making it easier to get guns) in another country because there's a different mentality concerning guns over here - few people would seriously consider buying one. If you open the gun market for everyone, those who'd be willing to use guns unlawfully would be the first ones to buy them, not the law abiding citizens.
Though not as clearly phrased as it should have been, the salient points about the robbery were:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
The robber shot 4 bank employees.
Wachovia, as with most banks, actually practices precisely the policy you suggest: try to get an alarm sent, slip dye or tracers into the loot bag if you can, but do NOT offer resistance.
Apparently, this criminal either wanted to shoot people or shot them despite their passivity.
At that point, an armed citizen used his weapon to assist police in capturing the robber. This citizen not only made the right call, but should be commended for restraint (he/she didn't execute the robber on the scene but let police make an arrest).
Furthermore, I have a basic disagreement with you. Life, Liberty, and Property are all worthy of defense as they are basic to society. Your position implicitly dismisses property as having real value (if I have misconstrued your point, please excuse).
Hmm, I remember that article, it was a lot of false stuff in it. That said, there has been some severe immigration issues since I don't know, atleast 20 years or something (although it's probably not the same people nowadays :book: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Care for an AK-47? Can get you one for 275 euro, even with a nice case and two full clips, china build. It is extremily easy to get guns. Why, exactly, shouldn't I be allowed to have one? You can be tortured to death with the police watching around not knowing who to call, why exactly shouldn't I have the right to have and use it? Banning guns is old fashioned, especially for law abiding citizens. Better to have it and don't need it the the reverse no? Got one anyway, screw them, not going to be a victim just because the police are nothing but a bunch of useless dissobedience-tax collectors. Someone breaks into my house I am going to mput holes into him, and I sure as hell am not going to call the police afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Hmm, I remember that article, it was a lot of false stuff in it
Compared to the official numbers I am sure it does.
Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .Quote:
In case anybody is interested - this seems to be the the publication on the study that CR is referring to:
Very generally established then:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Well done Seamus...he should not be commended for his restraint , the killer was leaving wasn't he , if a policeman did what the citizen did he would be hauled accross the coals for it , the citizen scared an armed man into returning to the building where there were poeple , that set off a hostage situation didn't it , hostage situations are something to be avoided aren't they .Quote:
Apparently, this criminal either wanted to shoot people or shot them despite their passivity.
At that point, an armed citizen used his weapon to assist police in capturing the robber. This citizen not only made the right call, but should be commended for restraint (he/she didn't execute the robber on the scene but let police make an arrest).
So its not really a woohoo citizen with gun saves the day story is it , its more of a bloody lucky the nutter didn't kill more people when he went back into the bank kind of story , and a lucky the police managed to shoot the criminal without harming the hostage kind of story .
Wow, I've been living in Sweden (in Stockholm, and the largest cities usually attract more criminals) and I've never noticed that... If Sweden had half as much crime as the USA, then it would be rampant. Right now though, it's probably going to increase as nationalistic and even openly racist political parties are gaining votes (the result of a failed immigration and segregation yes, differencies creates crime yet again).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Stigmatasion is a terrible thing indeed, don't let your society dissapoint these kind law-abiding people to an extent that they have no other choice then robbing grannies and gangbaning native girls because then you guys would be so screwed huh. Throw them a few flatscreens, it isn't like you are paying that much taxes already and it might just stop them from being so jealous of your riches. Segregation, in sweden, the most politically correct and socially attractive country in the world? Differences create crime yes, especially the very big ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Throw flatscreens on immigrants (I suppose that is what you meant by ironically reffering to them as law-abiding citizens), is that what you're suggesting? I think the National Socialist Front would approve of throwing heavy things on immigrants...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's apparent you don't have access to all the sources (like living in Sweden, hear about the situation by non-biased sources etc), but let me tell you it's not as bad as most Americans apparently would have it. If you consider all Muslims as evil, then Sweden must appear as a pretty screwed country. I never realised other countries considered Sweden to be such a :daisy: up place, strange considering many of the outraged islamophobics (and often white-supremacists) or other upset people (however: predominantely white) come from countries with even higher crime rates and a lot more scary crimes as well (Sweden has no serial killers, no school shootings etc; a bank robbery is considered national news).
Well, I thought banks usually have armed guards, but then these guards are often iincluded in the criminal plan of the bank robber(s), making them almost useless. Now if I, being a robber, knew that there would be a lot of armed citizens in a bank, I'd either not rob it at all or make sure they all die, being the potential threats to me that they are. Given that I could get my hands on sufficient weaponry, I'd do the latter, after all I need the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I know it adds a bit more onto my list of bad deeds should I get caught, but if an armed citizen shoots me right away, I haven't will die anyway...:sweatdrop:
Yes, they have, and your gut feeling is wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
Quote:
[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero.
No, the 400,000 is merely the number of people who say that their use of a gun almost certainly saved a life.Quote:
Has the 2 million been reduced to a maimum of 400.000?
Corrected.Quote:
Gun ownership in itself might very well be related to crime, carrying a gunmakes youwould make me feel big,
Again you wade into your self inflicted morass of incorrectness.Quote:
Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .
Very generally established then
It is the best of over a dozen studies that ranged from 800k to 2.5 million DGUs a year. It is so good Marvin Wolfgang (google the name) had this to say about it:
Crazed RabbitQuote:
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
Nah, it's basically the same as over here, isn't it? Perhaps with more gang trouble, seeing as you have a few more big cities than we do? Oh, and monarch prone to speeding and killing baby seals with his boat... I'm quite sure he's the cause of much of the crime over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
But, hard crime, do we really have a lot of it? I don't follow the swedish situation(it's a third world country anyway), so I'll have to deal with Norway:
- Violent robberies causing civillian casaulties by organized crime: 1. Ever. Every robber caught, btw.
- Gang shootouts in the last 10 years: 3? Can't think of any more... There was one a few weeks ago, then there were two a couple of years ago(which was the "gang war" in Norway). Probably a couple more though. The bikers were quite active in the 90's, killing at least 3-4 people, including one civillian.
- Serial killers since 1900: 1. Oh, and a swede who killed some of his victims in Norway. Damn immigrants.
It seems impossible to me that Sweden is that much worse than us, as we are very, very similar when it comes to just about anything.
The master psychologist has spoken. Even though you're a walking angel, most people will feel big and mighty when holding a metal tool designed in the purpose of killing and very effective in doing so. When you have the opportunity to solve a situation with the help of your gun, you won't contemplate too much about other possibilites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Power, in all forms and shapes, corrupts.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Again you wade into your self inflicted morass of incorrectness.
Show one thing from that quote to be incorrect then Rabbit .......Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .
Very generally established then ....any incorrectness will do .
With one example, a place in the gutter press awaits...
In 2004, 29,569 were killed in the USA, or 10.07 per 100,000 population
The UK managed 73 in 2004, and 46 in 2005
Now, the Uk population is 60,776,238, for a figure of 0.12 per 100,000 population.
Or a ratio of deaths of 83:1, adjusted for population.
It may not prevent deaths, but we get somewhat fewer - but at least it's safer in the USA...
~:smoking:
No, but this and other cases of guncrime illustrate exactly what our chums from the US have said before: that banning guns does stop people who want them from having them. It's definitely possible, people do get killed by guns (admittedly, less than in the US), so gun control isn't necessarily the main factor keeping gun crime down. That gun possession isn't necessarily dangerous is shown quite clearly by Canada and Switserland, both countries with far lower crimerates than the US.
My point being, it's time to look at the real factors behind the US having a high (gun)crime record rather than pointing the finger at the lack of gun control. That side of the debate is often missed in Europe.
rory, your link leads to a file called broker.exe and I'm not at all sure that Windows users want to get directed straight to a executable they know nothing about.
I have removed it for now - please feel free to link to a html page with the data.
Uhm.... If that's not a contradiction, then I don't know what is. Keeping gun crime down doesn't mean eliminating it, and that's just what the UK has done, isn't it? They've kept it way, way down. They haven't eliminated it, but that's not why the ban is there, it's there to lessen gun crime. And like it or not, it does exactly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Your general implication that the study I cited was but one of many surveys and therefore no better than any other, instead of the acknowledged best, as I pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Rory, you know what they say - lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have just illustrated why.
The figure of almost 30,000 includes suicides with firearms, which are a majority of those deaths. If we take all firearm homicides from 2005 ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...weaponstab.htm ) the total is 11,346 - less than it was 30 years ago. That's a rate of .11 per 100,000.
But your comparison is flawed fundamentally; all violent crime must be compared, and in that context crime in Britain is rising while crime in the USA falls.
CR
And that hits the nail I think - although I do not think that Europe is alone in missing that side of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Searching for the real factors and trying to improve along multiple and often more complex dimensions unfortunately does not make for as catchy a slogan as "ban guns".
For e.g., politicians or media it is much more convenient to reduce "solutions" to problems to simple phrases:
- too much crime? Ban guns! (oe "have more guns!" - depends which camp you belong to ~;))
- a dog maimed a child? Ban certain types of dogs or have all dogs wear muzzles!
- a teenager who played Counterstrike went on a killing spree? Ban "killer games"!
Can't go wrong with demanding the obvious solution, heh?
I used to also share the view that more restrictive gun laws in the US would reduce the crime rate - reading (and participating in) discussions here partly led to a more differentiated view on the issue.
I still don't think that easily allowing people to carry guns e.g., here in Germany will lead to more security or to lower crime rates (and I'd certainly rather not have everybody run around with a gun here) - but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that what might be the right thing here will also be the right thing in the US - as has been pointed out often enough, with guns being an integral part of American life and culture since the US have been founded, a ban of guns has a good chance of having rather adverse effects on security (doesn't mean that I put too much trust in the Kleck/Gertz numbers either).
Of course the way many Americans think about guns is somewhat alien to me (and most Europeans) - but that does not automatically mean that "they" are wrong - it just shows that there are some cultural differences (there are things in other cultures that are alien to me as well - just as there are probably parts of German/European culture that are alien to Americans or Asians - does not make them right or wrong).
I think the whole discussion in the US (and here) would benefit quite a lot from a less emotional approach on the issue ... but that's true (and probably obvious) for a lot of issues, in the US and here in Europe, so I won't hold my breath ~;)
Incorrect :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Your general implication that the study I cited was but one of many surveys and therefore no better than any other, instead of the acknowledged best, as I pointed out.
You said it was a generally established figure , it isn't is it , it is an estimate .
Now then , the methodology of that estimate that you put forth as established ( Which is funny given your statement to rory about statistics) .....
A question I asked earlier regarding the estimated figure , the crazy old git who shot the kid for walking on the grass , if he was on the phone list used for the survey would he be counted ?
Probably depends how well he told his story ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well inclusion might also depend on if the peopledoing the survey had a fetish about g...rass , some people do have an obsesive fixation with the right to have a well manicured lawn you know:laugh4:Quote:
Probably depends how well he told his story
You're missing the point. Clearly people can get guns in Europe if they want to despite laws forbidding it, and I can't imagine it taking too much effort. There are other reasons for low guncrime in Europe than laws, and there are other reasons for high guncrime in the US than a lack of strict gun control. Ignoring that is harmful to either side of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Criminals can get firearms should they want them, and certainly nobody is implying that normally lawabiding have a higher chance of becoming a criminal by virtue of having firearms?
1. It's both hard and expensive to get firearms here. The robbers we have here usually have to break into military arms depots to get at them. That's a lot harder than buying one in a store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
2. There are a LOT of cases where a normally law-abiding citizen has completely lost his temper, grabbed his gun and killed somebody. A major part of the gun-related deaths we have here are like that, a few years ago there were a few family tragedies where the husbands were in the national guard and so had his army rifle and pistol in his house, killed off family members(or in at least one case, his entire family) in a rage sparked by jealousy. A completely normal citizen suddenly turned into a murderer. And no, he would probably not have killed them if he didn't have access to a gun, he would probably "just" beaten them hard.
All military weaponry owned by people in reserve have now been "plumbed"(not sure if that's the english term, the barrels have been closed), btw.