Newtown School Shootings

I dont think that answered his question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I dont think that answered his question.

---

A town is a human settlement larger than a village but smaller than a city. The size definition for what constitutes a "town" varies considerably in different parts of the world, so that, for example, many "small towns" in the United States would be regarded as villages in the United Kingdom, while many British "small towns" would qualify as cities in the United States.

The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

Just to add, before I moved to my new town, actually before I was born, a classmate of my father in law murdered someone and kept the body in his basement until he was caught years later. Non gunshot homicide. The homicide rate is almost entirely within major metropolitan areas of the United States. It is largely confined to the most impoverished areas which happen to have the largest ratio of non-white to white people. Handguns are most often used, rifles to a much lower extent, semi-auto rifles to a statistically irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

---

Actually, it got me more confused, since that's city size. While it varies a lot by classification, anything above 5.000-100.000 is a city. Not a townie here, you city dweller.

Anyway, more to my point. If I get you correctly, you're living in a middle class suburban villa area with low crime rates (at least of the violent kind). Correct?

Yet you arm yourself to protect against Fallout cannibalistic raiders, since they are such a big threat.
Do you remember any local home invasions? You seem to recall most murders in the area. The urban guy living in the crime ridden areas do at least have a very clear reason for having heavy defense.

You are pretty much classified as a crazy paranoid, by default, in any other western country simply because the attitudes are so different. And the other regions that have a similar gun attitude are unstable/tribal/lacks a functional goverment/overrun by crocks. And that will colour the entire debate.

Oh incidentally the NRA are now blaming this on media and video games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GamePolitics.com

The National Rifle Association held a press conference this morning defending guns rights and pointing the finger at big media. They also called for a national program for schools that would train school officials on how to best protect educational institutions. The program would use local volunteers and participation would be up to local communities and school boards.

But the gist of what we're interested in covering, is the gun lobby's attack on "violent media." Below is the part of the press conference where Wayne LaPierre (executive vice president of the National Rifle Association) aims his guns at movies, video games, and the media conglomerates that he claims give them cover:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away."

---

---

I particularly like Penny arcade's response to it:
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i...dXBjSvG-X3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Actually, it got me more confused, since that's city size. While it varies a lot by classification, anything above 5.000-100.000 is a city. Not a townie here, you city dweller.

Anyway, more to my point. If I get you correctly, you're living in a middle class suburban villa area with low crime rates (at least of the violent kind). Correct?

Yet you arm yourself to protect against Fallout cannibalistic raiders, since they are such a big threat.
Do you remember any local home invasions? You seem to recall most murders in the area. The urban guy living in the crime ridden areas do at least have a very clear reason for having heavy defense.

You are pretty much classified as a crazy paranoid, by default, in any other western country simply because the attitudes are so different. And the other regions that have a similar gun attitude are unstable/tribal/lacks a functional goverment/overrun by crocks. And that will colour the entire debate.

---

Sure. I live in dense suburbia. It is a well-to-do area where people are extremely polite and crime is nearly non-existent. It is also urbanizing quickly. As urban people are rapidly de-armed, I believe that the idea that we should rapidly arm in the face of urbanization isnt a terrible one, especially if it is a hobby. 40 years ago, my neighborhood was farmland occupied a low tens of thousands. It has seen extraordinary population growth and people per square mile. With this has come marked increases in lawlessness, particularly in Nassau county. I look to Queens and Nassau as an example of what to expect in another 10-20 years. It would be best to render city like gun control uselss in advance of eventual bans of lawful ownership.
Again, the people of the 5 boroughs are not allowed to carry a knife in excess of 3 inches with any ability to protect their hands with a lock. The right to defend yourself in NYC to a reasonable extent is non-existant. They also abuse due process with random checks - not for terror related objects mind you - but for small amounts of marijuana.

Also, I'm not paranoid. I have discretionary income, no interest in purchasing a home or fancy car, and an interest in the military - what else am I going to do with my money?
My fear of authoritative government abusing it's power is no greater than yours. My fear of criminal activity is no greater than yours. I simply would like to arm myself to the greatest extent possible. My fear of death is no greater than yours - but I will bet I have more life insurance to protect my wife than you do.
Preparation is not a sign of fear, it's not even an expectation that something will happen. For some it might be. I'm all about dressing well, not being aggressive and having an unimaginable amount of firepower. I have a tea collection and I did nothing beyond buy 2 bottles of smart water before Hurricane Sandy. I didn't regret it.

...You're on a gaming website and youy cant think of something better to do with your money than guns.

If I spent any more money on video games and components my hands would fall off. I can only play one computer at a time, but I can fire 30 guns simultaneously.... jk, lol

The NRA copped out, not that anyone expected any less.

While I knew that "more security" would be something they said, I was a little off-put at their suggestion at volunteers (laughable) in the face of what will really pay for the added security: a large gun tax

I also found it rich that it was the fault of everything except the gun. I don't ever intend to renew my membership

And yet, the NRA's plan has been the only one offered thus far that would actually do any good in preventing such tragedies in the future. As has been highlighted several times in this thread, gun bans cannot stop these kinds of actions. Now, whether we as a society would want to go down that path is another matter entirely. As I've said before, I don't think these actions are prevalent enough to force any sort of broad policy shift in any directly.

I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. The amount of anti-Obama junk mail they sent me during the election cycle was obscene. However, I will always support them simply because the other side is even more extreme. Consider the fact that confiscation is on the table. When the chips have been down, the NRA has been the only force standing between my legally purchased possessions and the leftist authoritarians that want to use the government to take them away.

And what, pray tell, is so heinous about confistcation that you say it with a tone that assumes that we would react to it like it was a call for holcaust?

Especially considering that you do the same with far less dangerous goods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And yet, the NRA's plan has been the only one offered thus far that would actually do any good in preventing such tragedies in the future. As has been highlighted several times in this thread, gun bans cannot stop these kinds of actions. Now, whether we as a society would want to go down that path is another matter entirely. As I've said before, I don't think these actions are prevalent enough to force any sort of broad policy shift in any directly.

I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. The amount of anti-Obama junk mail they sent me during the election cycle was obscene. However, I will always support them simply because the other side is even more extreme. Consider the fact that confiscation is on the table. When the chips have been down, the NRA has been the only force standing between my legally purchased possessions and the leftist authoritarians that want to use the government to take them away.

---

I agree with this, of course. Armed responsible people in places where unarmed and defenseless children are is the best answer. We must also have more of an ability to recognize real threats before the action takes place. Scan addresses with criminal databases to get an idea of which addresses with criminals or the dangerously mentally ill also have applications for a background check, even if the other applicant is not a danger. Due process is required and a reasonable and short acceptance is a must, but surely if a major concern exists it is in the interest to dig deeper. Parents should be prosecuted if they encourage violent obsessions for their mentally ill or dangerous children. Adam Lanza had a civil commitment case pending - this should have automatically crossed with a serious mental health registry (people who are criminally insane, people who have expressed serious depressive feelings and a willingness to harm others, the schizophrenic, bi-polar, borderline). Leave out people who are depressed as that is 1/4 of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.

---

Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?

And that's not a hypothetical question, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.

---

It's because the situations were a gun would be useful is quite rare and due to the different culture, if you actually are robbed, they don't use a gun either.

Avoid being alone and drunk in the center parts of the city during late weekends, avoid taking out money when followed by a youth gang and you're pretty much covered.

Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated. I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.

If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.

Only advantage to have widespread access to guns would be to fight against a Zombie Apocalypse, simply because they are powerful ranged weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated.

---

And when someone is attacking you or your family, you want a weapon that can kill them. So a tool with the purpose of killing someone is a good thing when innocent people are being attacked and need to defend themselves. They are the most effective tools of self defense available. Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?

Quote:

---

I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.

---

Making legislation based on extremely rare events is just plain stupid. The Patriot Act was wrong and any new gun ban they pass will not work. Handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected, and that's what was used in the largest school shooting spree. And even if all guns were banned, there'd still be access - even in Europe many millions of guns are unregistered:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/2...ys-bred-defian

And you're wrong - this would not prevent massacres. It would just shift the attack. It's like the TSA banning liquids; useless because it ignores the attacker and focuses on the weapon.

Quote:

---

If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.

---

Even if it did require those things, widespread civilian gun ownership would make things much easier and maybe scare the government off from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

Quote:

---

Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?

And that's not a hypothetical question, why?

---

The NRA and other gun rights groups don't want to go up against the police unions.

Now, you could argue that getting rid of other rights - like privacy and requiring the police to get warrant before searching everyone or tapping their phones, and the right to not self-incriminate - could be ended and save a lot of people.

But we don't throw away our rights - or we shouldn't, at least - because of some hysteria.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

A town is a human settlement larger than a village but smaller than a city. The size definition for what constitutes a "town" varies considerably in different parts of the world, so that, for example, many "small towns" in the United States would be regarded as villages in the United Kingdom, while many British "small towns" would qualify as cities in the United States.

The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

Just to add, before I moved to my new town, actually before I was born, a classmate of my father in law murdered someone and kept the body in his basement until he was caught years later. Non gunshot homicide. The homicide rate is almost entirely within major metropolitan areas of the United States. It is largely confined to the most impoverished areas which happen to have the largest ratio of non-white to white people. Handguns are most often used, rifles to a much lower extent, semi-auto rifles to a statistically irrelevant.

---

I live in a small city of 120,000.

A City is actually a settlement with a Civic Charter of some kind - a town is a large settlement with ammenities above those of a village. In the UK Towns are self-proclaimed Civil Parishes which are towns - unless they are Borough Towns - Cities have Royal Charters.

So Winchester, population 42,000 (ish) is a city while Basingstoke, population 140,000 (ish), is only a town.

In the US I would say a good rubric would be whether you have a City Mayor, whether you have regularly sitting upper courts, and a professional Police Dept. as opposed to a Sheriff.

In any case - you clearly aren't in the Wild West and it sounds like you don't need a gun. Or rather, if you need a gun then I need a gun - given the number of people in my city who have been raped or beaten near-to death.

So the NRA is saying the only solution is to put Armed Guards in the schools. Splendid! Fire fighters were attack as well, so I suppose the solution is to equip the fire fighters with weapons as well. I just want to see them attacking a fire with their live munitions around their belts. ..

Of course to give weapons in schools won’t stop this kind of attack (do we have figures about killing spree actually stop by men or women with weapons. Because I think, (but I am not sure) that a lot of Americans have weapons. So, how many killing were avoided? How many persons coming in a crowd and opening fire were actually prevented to do so by a casual armed Americans (Armericans: sorry, I couldn’t resist)? In the army, attacking even armed people, especially not trained ones, by surprise, is call an ambush. And amateurish fighters can do a lot of damage because they have the surprise. So, how armed guards will stop killing: well, they can’t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

What do you guys think?

Annual death statistics for Australia in 2010 with a pretty bubble graph:

http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/...228-2bz8u.html

Picture:
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/1...=1356742625991

An Aussie 15 year old boy has an 8% chance of dying by 60. A US 15 yr old boy a 14% chance by 60.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Annual death statistics for Australia in 2010 with a pretty bubble graph:

http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/...228-2bz8u.html

Picture:
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/1...=1356742625991

An Aussie 15 year old boy has an 8% chance of dying by 60. A US 15 yr old boy a 14% chance by 60.

---

Your homicide rate is 1/4 ours. Why isn't it listed in that picture?

That's a falsehood.

Edit: I think it may be a syntactic misapprehension on my part. You mean to say that the Australian homicide rate is one-fourth of the American, and not that the Australian homicide rate is 25% greater than the American - right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That's a falsehood.

Edit: I think it may be a syntactic misapprehension on my part. You mean to say that the Australian homicide rate is one-fourth of the American, and not that the Australian homicide rate is 25% greater than the American - right?

---

it is approx 25% of our rate.
Here are some stats from the UN. While we have a higher rate, our rate has been going down at a faster rate than Australia's for the past few years, in spite of expanded firearms rights following the assault weapon ban expiration in the 90's. This, coupled with our radically different demographics, our much higher concentration of large urban areas totaling 250k individuals or more, and the fact that we are much more accessible to extremely impoverished and under educated immigrants (which I welcome as they need our opportunity the most) begins to answer some of the questions regarding why we have a higher homicide rate than australia in this instance. Our ownership and protected status of firearms absolutely explains our higher gun homicide rate and the higher success rate of suicide attempts, but it has an inverted relationship with violent crime globally. Our second amendment is a unique and cherished thing in this country for self defense and as insurance against abusive government and, I believe, that the data is consistent with a pro-access argument of guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally sound Americans.

Australia	2010	229	1.0	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2009	263	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2008	261	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2007	255	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2006	281	1.4	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2005	259	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2004	264	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2003	302	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2002	318	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2001	310	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2000	302	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1999	343	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1998	285	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1997	321	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1996	312	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1995	326	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ

United States of America	2010	12996	4.2	National police	CJ
United States of America	2009	13636	4.4	National police	CJ
United States of America	2008	14180	4.6	National police	CJ
United States of America	2007	14831	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2006	14990	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2005	14860	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2004	14210	4.8	National police	CJ
United States of America	2003	14465	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2002	14263	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2001	14061	4.9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

it is approx 25% of our rate.
Here are some stats from the UN. While we have a higher rate, our rate has been going down at a faster rate than Australia's for the past few years, in spite of expanded firearms rights following the assault weapon ban expiration in the 90's. This, coupled with our radically different demographics, our much higher concentration of large urban areas totaling 250k individuals or more, and the fact that we are much more accessible to extremely impoverished and under educated immigrants (which I welcome as they need our opportunity the most) begins to answer some of the questions regarding why we have a higher homicide rate than australia in this instance. Our ownership and protected status of firearms absolutely explains our higher gun homicide rate and the higher success rate of suicide attempts, but it has an inverted relationship with violent crime globally. Our second amendment is a unique and cherished thing in this country for self defense and as insurance against abusive government and, I believe, that the data is consistent with a pro-access argument of guns in the hands of law abiding, mentally sound Americans.

Australia	2010	229	1.0	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2009	263	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2008	261	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2007	255	1.2	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2006	281	1.4	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2005	259	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2004	264	1.3	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2003	302	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2002	318	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2001	310	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	2000	302	1.6	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1999	343	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1998	285	1.5	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1997	321	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1996	312	1.7	CTS/NSO	CJ
Australia	1995	326	1.8	CTS/NSO	CJ

United States of America	2010	12996	4.2	National police	CJ
United States of America	2009	13636	4.4	National police	CJ
United States of America	2008	14180	4.6	National police	CJ
United States of America	2007	14831	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2006	14990	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2005	14860	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2004	14210	4.8	National police	CJ
United States of America	2003	14465	5.0	National police	CJ
United States of America	2002	14263	4.9	National police	CJ
United States of America	2001	14061	4.9

---

Australia is more urbanized then the US (89 vs 82%)

As for gun deaths Au has less per capita, and it looks like it is dropping faster

2001 -> 2010
US 4.9 to 4.2 = 9% drop
AU 1.6 to 1.0 = 48% drop

If you can supply the 1995 homicide rates for US I can calculate out the percentage change.

For the US to have a similar percentage drop it would have had to have around 6.7 /100k in 1995.

PS the chart lists only some of the potential deaths... Mainly the large or outliers... It mentions this in the bottom right corner as a partial listing.

I trust the FBI's statistics more than the UN.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl01.xls

I have already brought these figures up before. 50% reduction in such crimes since 1991. Equal or better than Australia.

I think you will find the UN sources from the local police as noted in the table.

If guns provided safety then your homicide rates would be less then Australia. The end results is an epic fail at having four times the rate. So either guns don't act as shields or it means when people get angry or snap they have better tools for the job at hand.

Stupidity evolved, a US newspaper supposedly published a list of (legal) gun owners, how dumb can you be now burglars know who probably doesn't have one. Way to go. Am I so smart or are some people so dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think you will find the UN sources from the local police as noted in the table.

If guns provided safety then your homicide rates would be less then Australia. The end results is an epic fail at having four times the rate. So either guns don't act as shields or it means when people get angry or snap they have better tools for the job at hand.

---

Never argued that guns stopped crime. Haven't thought that since I read Freakonomics and did my own looking into the question. I am merely contesting the idea that guns cause more crime. A statement which is proven false by the data provided.

Everyone who was around back in the early 1990s will probably tell you that much of the crime reduction was due to the subsidence of the crack cocaine (or was it crystal meth, I don't remember) wave that happened in the late 80s/early 90s and tougher criminal punishments for violators, especially in regards to drugs.

EDIT: Or if they really bought into the message of the book, they will tell you about the hidden miracle of prevalent abortions.

Crack is just boiled out cocaine it isn't nearly as addictive as some say. Glad the meth isn't here though, poor man's drugs, always bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Crack is just boiled out cocaine it isn't nearly as addictive as some say. Glad the meth isn't here though, poor man's drugs, always bad.

---

My understanding of it is that crack cocaine is simply the crystalline form of the pure substance as opposed to the powdered form that wall street people snort in movies. It is "more addictive" than powdered cocaine due to the difference in consumption methods from crack cocaine and powdered.

EDIT: This is just my understanding of it. Unlike many people who have taken chemistry classes, I have no interest in learning all the ins and outs of illegal and damaging drugs.

You got it right. Boiling it cleans it, it becomes a clumb of almost pure cocaine that can only be smoked, but it isn't any more harmfull.

The US violent crime rate has been plummeting. The violent crime rate in aussieworld has been increasing over the same time period - 91 to 2007 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It's a moot argument anyway. This country is flooded with guns, and criminals will always get them.

And the law abiding gun owners would raise serious hell if the government ever tried to take them away. Guns are here to stay in America.

---

We did it here.

First you make people feel safe, so they don't feel they need guns; the US really should be sliding that way given that you're averaging a mass-killing a year now. Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty. We managed it after WWII when this country was awash with weapons and paranoid about Germans.

The problem with US gun control is purely one of attitude, not logistics.

In Eastern Europe after the USSR collapsed the countries were awash with levels of unregulated weaponry rarely seen. And they also managed to restrict these without civil war.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Then you ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty.

---

Automatic weapons are essentially banned anyway. They are quite difficult to get, and legally obtained ones are rarely, if ever, used in crimes.

As I understand it, automatic weapons have no place in committing a crime as their purpose is suppressive fire which used as such would require a lot of ammo and either needs to have a proper emplacement or be mounted on a van - neither option are particularly appealing.

Semi automatic assault rifles have the accuracy to kill at range, the punch to get through body armour and outside of the military a couple of bullets is going to adequately suppress all but the most terminally enthusiastic would be heroes.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?

---

Killed? Fewer, because even the criminals would ordinarily not have a gun to protect themselves either. They wouldn't need to.
Raped? About the same. You see, rape is typically committed by a person who is implicitly or explicitly trusted by the victim. Or by someone with apparent authority who cannot be challenged. For example, a police officer raping a teacher at gun point as you pointed out in the police abuse thread IIRC. Or law enforcement abusing their position to rape sex workers in the USA (depressingly common).

Again it seems we're back at this funny place called the United States of Assault, wherein every issue is best solved with a gun. Until you realise that yes, the bad guys carry guns and will use them too. So it solves exactly nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Your country is smaller than several of our states, and we probably have more modern firearms just in Texas than were ever in the hands of British citizens.

---

Are you talking about population or land area?

UK has twice the population of California which is the most populous state.

London is 50% more populated then New York City which is the USAs largest city.
London is about the same population as LA + NYC.

Lethality of violent crime in the U.S. is clearly greater, most likely as a direct result of our Second Amendment and less strenuous gun laws. Our rates of violent crime are some of the lowest in the OECD, however and absolutely low when compared globally.

This argument needs to be framed in a different way. There are arguments for and against easy access to lethal firearms. In the United States, we have the benefit of the 2nd amendment and related jurisprudence which most nations on earth do not have. This gives us the upper hand, but if we aren't careful, even the protected status could be compromised. The proposed AWB effectively illegalizes most handguns in common use. The fact that they have removable magazines with conspicuous pistol grips below the action makes them assault weapons. Even though the mini-14 ranch rifle bypasses the "evil features" list as it has a traditional rifle stock, they specifically mention it for a ban, making sure that any common use semi-automatic is eliminated unless it is specifically a hunting rifle. On the one hand, reliance on only allowing hunting weapons puts them within the target of being overturned as the 2nd amendment has history in self defense from human beings and not just bears and rabid squirrels. The more they rely on "the rights of hunters" the more tenuous their position will be, but the more in danger our actual rights will be or radical elimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm saying the UK is tiny, and the USA is large. Our population dwarfs it, the amount of firearms is incomparable, and so saying "well, it worked for them" is not a convincing argument.

And never mind the cultural differences. :sly:

---

Yet none of your cities dwarf London. Your largest state population is half the size of UK. So size shouldn't be an issue.

If you are saying the US is too large for change then that is far more dangerous then more or less guns.

Cultures that are living change and adapt. If you don't you lose momentum until either a systemic shock or replacement.

For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.

I posted:
this in facebook.

Friend A replied:

Quote:

---

doogie howser should stick to medicine. this dude is sort of ridiculous -- he makes a big deal out of "the media" cherry-picking its statistics, then does the exact same thing himself, noting that the violent crime rate in the UK is 3.5 times that of the US (!!!!!) while totally downplaying the fact that the murder rate in the US is three times that of the UK.

the post-newtown conversation is about preventing mass shootings, and i think it's pretty clear that, in this case, murder rate is a more relevant statistic to look at than overall violent crime rate. (it should go without saying that making an apples-to-apples comparison between violent crime statistics collected by two different agencies in two different countries is going to be difficult.)

i also don't see the relevance of his point that crime is concentrated in cities. this, of course, isn't news. but it's also the case that these mass shootings don't seem to go on in cities nearly as often as they go on in suburban/rural areas -- newtown, virginia tech, columbine. violent crime in cities is a problem, but it's a separate issue.

in particular, though, the thing that leads me to believe that this dude is retarded is him making a big deal out of the US having "six times the number of large metropolitan areas!" as the UK. well, we also have five times the population of the UK. if he wanted to make some meaningful comparison, he'd look at the fraction of the US and UK populations that live in cities.

some other statistics are probably helpful. in england and wales, 9.3% of homicides are committed with a firearm, and in scotland it's 2.2%:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

in the US it's in the neighborhood of 66%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us...esbyweapon.svg

this, to me, says a lot about why the murder rate is so much lower in the UK. -- the non-firearm-related murder rates are actually pretty similar. it seems like guns play a significant role here.

he's right that banning the AR-15 (or any other assault rifle) isn't going to eliminate violent crime. but saying that they account for only a small portion of gun-related crime is like saying that no one was killed by nuclear weapons last year. it's true, sure, but it doesn't mean that there's a compelling reason why people should have them

---

Friend B replied:

Quote:

---

While in Oklahoma, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with some locals. Consensus is that there is no purpose for the AR-15 or related weapons in civilian life other than to make dudes (or chicks) feel like they got bigger wangs

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

The fact that rifles of any type are involved in approximately 400 homicides on average per year is a foolish thing to bring up? Or that 3x as many people died from automobile accidents as they did from ALL gun related homicides in the U.S. over the past 3 years? I think that perspective is an important thing to bring up in a discussion about radically diminishing the right of individuals to defend themselves in an effective way.

The "choose your own crime stats" title clued me in to the idea that he might choose his own crime stats. I think that violent crime is an important metric and appreciate that you think it goes without saying that comparing one set of data between the FBI and Home Office might not be as congruous as we'd like it to be. Also, you are discussing the "murder rate", but I haven't read that rate anywhere. I've read "homicide rate" as 4.2 in the U.S. and 1.7 in the U.K. for 2011. As you know, homicide is the killing of another person, whereas murder is the unlawful killing of another person, with malice aforethought; a subset of homicide.

Without question, violence in the United States appears to be more lethal than in most other OECD countries, but in many cases violence tends to occur with more regularity in those other countries than you'd expect and, I believe that the availability of firearms in civil society does not increase rates of violence which is important to consider when defending or attacking fundamental and Constitutionally protected rights.

Thank you for answering my request without bringing up wangs, even though you used the words ridiculous and retarded to describe someone who was arguing opposing points. Although, Doob did discuss the issue of gun rights with a viable sample-sized group, I'm sure.

---

Friend B replied:

Quote:

---

Again owning an AR-15, any "assault weapon" or stockpiling guns and ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with the "right of individuals to defend themselves in an effective way". And if more people die by accident or improper use of firearms than in homicides perhaps that is even more of a reason to impose limitations. yes, the sample size in question was men and women with above average sized wangs.

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

That depends on who or what we are defending ourselves from. There can be limits to gun ownership, as the NFA and background check laws show. A convincing argument can be made in the use of the word "Infringe" rather than "Abridge" in the clause, although this has been believed to be a difference of inches rather than miles. Sensible, arguably constitutional limits might include high capacity magazine bans which I don't like but might make sense or the idea that people must pass checks at gun shows which I am in favor of as this is clearly an unnecessary risk when easy internet access is available at the shows (as they weren't in the 80's). If you believe that the right to bear arms on an individual basis extends only to hunters and those practicing to hunt, then you would disagree, but I don't believe that this approaches the core of the reasoning behind founding or modern Constitutional jurisprudence, except in minority dissent.

---

Friend B replied:

Quote:

---

Ok. What type of nonhuman that exists in reality do you need an AR-15 to protect yourself from?

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

No, AR-15's are primarily designed to kill/stop human beings. I'm not suggesting that most people use them for any other purpose (other than the most common "preparing to use them for this purpose"). I maintain that we have a right to kill/stop humans to an extent in special circumstances around the protection of our own life/liberty or that of those immediately around us. This right has been limited with regards to indiscriminate spraying using select-fire automatic weapons, but the death rate using these weapons - which are now in common use - is exceptionally low. These weapons are effective for this purpose and this purpose is viable, to a reduced extent, for civilians in a Democratic Republic with a right to arm themselves with an eye on government. It's important to try to show that these policies and concerns are reasonable and that they resonate without using Constitutional protection in and of itself as an argument. That is a legal, historical and possibly a moral argument, but to leave it aside allows people to discuss ideas without undue merit, other than in a circular argument.

To decry the 2nd amendment as an archaic policy against an abusive government because of the perception that we are living at the "end of history" is foolish when discussing these issues, as it is when discussing opposition to the Patriot Act, or "stop and frisk", or eliminating due process for non-citizen individuals in areas controlled by the U.S. government, or extra-judicial killings of U.S. citizens abroad. I'm sure that I don't like government making these decisions and these decisions are ominous.

---

Friend A replied:

Quote:

---

comparing raw numbers of automobile accidents and gun homicides is totally pointless; how many people get in a car every day and how many people handle a gun? and the number of deaths from one says absolutely nothing about the number of deaths we should tolerate via the other. and the discussion is about mass shootings, not overall violent crime, so bringing in violent crime stats doesn't add anything.

anyone who sincerely believes that the AR-15 is what's standing between democracy and tyranny is vastly out of touch with reality.

maybe it's cute to split hairs over the exact wording of the second amendment, but real people are really dying. if you think that's acceptable, great, but i don't. banning assault rifles would help stop at least some of these shootings, without taking away other effective means of defending your home -- how about a shotgun?

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

Real people are really dying. Everyday. The question of cost vs benefit should be at the heart of every serious policy decision, not just emotional pandering, even though that isn't going anywhere soon. Things can be done, but what is being floated is not acceptable. I place a high value on the Second amendment as it is currently understood. You claim that the AR-15 is not what is "standing between democracy and tyranny". What is? I believe that there are quite a few things occupying that space. Bloomberg says that stop/frisk/confiscate without probable cause isn't isn't a breach of the search and seizure restrictions in the 4th amendment. You say semi-automatic guns are not part of the right of citizens to be armed, and their reasoning is anachronistic in the first place. Anwar alAwlaki, a U.S. citizen, shouldn't have been convicted prior to his execution, and he didn't actually need his 5th amendment right of due process because of reasons. In fact, lets just scrap that stuff. Those things arn't what is holding our nation of laws together, but rather details which have no bearing on the future of expansive freedom. Lets just use the LCD of exactly what the framers meant when they said "free speech", start prosecuting "pornography" and leave protected speech to cover only what is "informative". Good people say good things, pornography or music with curses in it isn't what is holding our country together anyway.

---

I re-replied:

Quote:

---

and, technically, there are more civilian owned guns (approx 270mil ) in the U.S. than there are registered private passenger vehicles (approx 254mil). If there are approx 200mil licensed drivers and the average round trip commute is 46 minutes, that is about 153 mil hours spent in a car per day all together. If there are approx 9 million CCW holders in the U.S., they carry approx 8 hours per day maybe - about 72 million hours spent with concealed weapons. tee hee hee

---

Friend A replied:

Quote:

---

the people driving their cars are operating them; someone carrying a firearm isn't operating it the whole time, or else something has gone very wrong. you're also completely missing the larger point that the two have nothing to do with each other, so you bringing up car accidents accomplishes nothing.

and i agree that costs and benefits should be weighed -- that's completely obvious. we're never going to prevent all bad things from happening, but there's certain low-hanging fruit that should be taken care of. among that is the ban of assault rifles. i'm saying that doing so would provide a clear benefit at pretty much no cost.

and i don't know, dude, but it looks to me like there are a whole lot of democracies around the world featuing citizens that stave off tyranny without access to the AR-15. you can fear-monger all you'd like, but it's never going to be a compelling argument.

and, back to the original post, i still think that this dude is a tard. there are a lot of people who want to Act Serious and talk about Data but either have no ability to understand what they're looking at or else use this Seriousness as a mask. this dude is among them

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

I disagree that the guy is retarded and I think that he makes good points about our purportedly violent culture when compared with actual rates of violence elsewhere. It is convenient to disregard points that don't contribute to your larger argument, but I try to recognize legitimacy in the arguments of others where it exists. His point is that we are a much less violent culture than is currently believed and, because gun rights are important, this point directly reduces the cost side of my cost benefit understanding. Your point that shootings are higher as a result of our gun rights is legitimate aNd increases the cost side of my understanding. Are there things that can be done to help lower the cost side without substantially reducing the benefit side? Sure. Without question, the weight that I give the benefit site is greater than the weight you give it

---

Friend C:

Quote:

---

I just listened to something on the public radio today about gun violence and that hand guns are the main cause of these kinds of deaths as opposed to rifles. I don't have time to read what all you guys think, but Chris, my thoughts are that rifles aren't the problem, nor hand guns, or rules around them -- but the issue really lies with individuals believing that someone else's life isn't important or valuable.

---

I replied:

Quote:

---

That sums up the cause of just about every problem that we have. Hit the nail on the head.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You're making a conscious effort to misunderstand me!

---

No - he isn't.

Quote:

---

The American idea contains the notion that some day the people might have to overthrow the government.

---

This is a European idea - you imported your variant from Britain after we chopped the head off our Divinely Ordained King. People forget that now, but that's what Cromwell and the others believed they were doing. Without the English Civil War your rebellion would have been inconceivable.

Quote:

---

It is part of our psyche, and a vital part of our collective morality over the ages.

---

And ours.

Quote:

---

Take away the guns, and we enter into a new chapter of total submission to the government, and most Americans are not keen on that.

---

The government is elected by the people - the people submit to the rule of Law when they are governed, not to the government itself. QED - the British are no more submissive than the Americans. We chose to ban most firearms, and there is little support for lifting the ban.

Far more dangerous is the American tendency to see "the Government" as something remote. That discourse has crossed the Atlantic and infected my country. Something I am not grateful more.

Newsflash people - politicians are human beings. Don't like them? Stand for election or shut up.

Secondly, London is a unique city that doesn't really compare to anything we have here. Sure, it's big. We have many, many large cities that don't have the benefit of london's suffocating surveillance. Good luck going into LA, or Dallas, or St. Louis, or Detroit with the intention of confiscating all the guns![/QUOTE]

And yet - we did. There are some guns in London - not many. We got most people to give theirs up before there was any surveillance.

Nor is the size issue what Americans make it out to be - your population is about 5-6 times that of the UK, the population of Texas is about half that of England. The US is governable at the state level to the same extent as the UK or any European country.

Bottom line - America isn't really special. It's the UK circa 1950 - corrupt antiquated law enforcement, awash with weapons, and no healthcare unless you're rich.

I'm sorry GC, but that is literally the way your country looks to me - not all of that's a bad thing - but you have some serious problems that everyone over here has already dealt with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.

---

It's something like 8 million New Yorkers to 7 million Londoners - logistically that's not a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."

That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.

---

This is a good point. We live in a nation that is expansive enough that Washington D.C. is further from me than London is from Brussels. They understand that reference and have been reluctant to give up their own sovereignty to the E.U. as they should be. I live in the Northeast, in "close" proximity to D.C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."

That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.

---

311,000,000 people in the US, 62,000 in the UK - we are not "such a small country". The population of England is 50,000,000 or there about - there is no state government - I share parliament with 62,600,000 other Britons.

I'd say my government should be just as remote as yours. We're also not under "tight control" - I'm lucky if I see a cop a week and I live in the "County Town" which is also one of the wealthiest and best resourced town in two or three counties. You can forget about CCTV, half of the cameras have no tape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm father from DC than London is from Istanbul. This is a very big country.

---

But we know space means less in the US - less than a hundred miles from me in a land where the people did not speak English until 50 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

311,000,000 people in the US, 62,000 in the UK - we are not "such a small country". The population of England is 50,000,000 or there about - there is no state government - I share parliament with 62,600,000 other Britons.

I'd say my government should be just as remote as yours. We're also not under "tight control" - I'm lucky if I see a cop a week and I live in the "County Town" which is also one of the wealthiest and best resourced town in two or three counties. You can forget about CCTV, half of the cameras have no tape.

---

and yet you have higher violent crime rates per 100k? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

For the record, NYC is definitely bigger than London.

---

The state of New York has 19 million, NYC 8.2 million

London Metro is 13.7 million, Urban is 11.9M and with Greater London ~ 8.2M so it is the same size or larger depending on which urban planning metric one wishes to use... I for one don't think the medieval definition is the most apt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think being such a small country under Such tight control, you are simply unable to relate to the "remoteness of the government."

That doesn't mean it isn't so, though.

---

Australia is only slightly smaller then the US 48 states. We are remote from each other with the average state size larger then Texas... So I'm not buying the geographic remoteness from government.

Quote:

---

The state of New York has 19 million, NYC 8.2 million

---

To head off any potential ongoing equivocation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki (NYC)

Population [8]
• Estimate (2011) 8,244,910
• Metro 18,897,109 (1st)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki (London)

Population [2]
• London 8,173,194
• Metro 13,709,000

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Australia is only slightly smaller then the US 48 states. We are remote from each other with the average state size larger then Texas... So I'm not buying the geographic remoteness from government.

---

You don't have enough people with different ideas yet. Congratulations on your Independence from the the UK in 1942. Good luck with your troubles over the next hundred years of sovereignty as your population balloons from 23 mil to 315 million and the only common ground you have is someone else s illegitimate monarch and alcohol. Let us know if you need any ideas; if we don't implode in the next 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Culture is the crux of my argument anyway.

---

Yes, that's fine, the real problem is that you're unwilling to improve your culture.
It's almost like you say your culture is a problem but you're too proud of it to do anything about it.
I can understand the argument that we keep e.g. capitalism because we know no better alternative but to say that a problem shouldn't be solved because you're proud to have it seems really weird. And I mean you as in most Americans.
Submissive is also a relative term. To me Americans are so submissive to their gun culture that they're willing to watch their children get shot or even train them to do that to others in order to keep the pipe dream of being special and being able to overthrow the government. Europeans are not nearly that submissive to crazy ideas. ~;)

Fairly good discussion you had there ICaSpeDa. I'm gonna requote one good data point there, since it's very relevant to the discussion, even if I won't comment on it this time.

Quote:

---

in particular, though, the thing that leads me to believe that this dude is retarded is him making a big deal out of the US having "six times the number of large metropolitan areas!" as the UK. well, we also have five times the population of the UK. if he wanted to make some meaningful comparison, he'd look at the fraction of the US and UK populations that live in cities.

some other statistics are probably helpful. in england and wales, 9.3% of homicides are committed with a firearm, and in scotland it's 2.2%:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

in the US it's in the neighborhood of 66%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us...esbyweapon.svg

this, to me, says a lot about why the murder rate is so much lower in the UK. -- the non-firearm-related murder rates are actually pretty similar. it seems like guns play a significant role here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

and yet you have higher violent crime rates per 100k? Interesting.

---

I did occur to me that you probably have a larger underreporting of violent crime than, say the UK. You have a large population that mistrusts the police and a more "manly" attitude, so I suspect that smaller violent crimes doesn't get reported as much. Does that explain the whole difference? No idea (but probably not), but it's worth to remember.

can you name your source for the claim the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US - the only sources I can find was an article in the Mail in 2009 and a corresponding article in the Telegraph - hardly a reliable source since they were Anti Labour at the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Your population is a lot smaller than ours. I would liken Australia to a super Canada. And culturally we are quite different.

Culture is the crux of my argument anyway.

---

(As long as Antarctic regions aren't counted). Canada is about 20% larger land area and about 50% more population then Au.

Canada is more like a super Australia with naughtier neighbors then the Kiwis.

As far as culture is concerned it is definitely a crux in this situation.

I don't think that middle class white America is as cultural diverse from Canada, Australia, UK and NZ as say Sweden is to Spain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Far more dangerous is the American tendency to see "the Government" as something remote. That discourse has crossed the Atlantic and infected my country. Something I am not grateful more.

---

Not sure how goegraphy got involved with the "remoteness" of American gov't. Please stop it.

We the people do in fact get to elect 537 people to go to Washington, D.C. and represent us to the best of their ability. Yet those 537 cater to the countless lobbyists that represent everybody with enough money to pay for their services. It's not just Gun owners, old people, and foriegn nationals. Even Americas own cities recognize that to have a voice in Washington, you must have substantial lobbyists. It makes no difference that you have the vote, because you have no real influence.

Sorry, I know nothing of GB gov't. Is your gov't remote in that respect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

Not sure how goegraphy got involved with the "remoteness" of American gov't. Please stop it.

We the people do in fact get to elect 537 people to go to Washington, D.C. and represent us to the best of their ability. Yet those 537 cater to the countless lobbyists that represent everybody with enough money to pay for their services. It's not just Gun owners, old people, and foriegn nationals. Even Americas own cities recognize that to have a voice in Washington, you must have substantial lobbyists. It makes no difference that you have the vote, because you have no real influence.

Sorry, I know nothing of GB gov't. Is your gov't remote in that respect?

---

Many things which are legal in the US are illegal in the UK. All UK politicians must declare outside interests and favours received - failure to do so, particularly for government ministers, breaches codes of conduct and can result is suspension or expulsion from the party.

Overall though - we don't have the problems you have at the moment, we have different ones.

I'll tell you where the US is different though - to have the same proportion of Representatives to electors as the UK, Canada, or Australia you would need around 3,000 sets in your Lower House.

The remoteness of government argument is interesting. In terms of geography, USA is much like Australia: there's a few fringes of population centers and most a whole big, void, nothingness. In terms of percentages, USA has more actual wilderness than the African continent, which says something.

So it stands to reason that remoteness is similar to that of Australia, but less pronounced than in Russia or Canada -- both of which "dwarf" the USA.

On the other hand when it comes to managing people, crime especially, what matters more tends to be the population centers. In that respect comparisons with the UK are not at all unfair. You say well, the USA "dwarfs" the UK, because it has about 5-6 times the population. Well, then, take the EU as a whole. Roughly double the population, over 70 official languages to contend with and more problems and conflicting interests than we care to mention. Still the old "where there is a will, there is a way" continues to ring true.

Simply put: I don't think there is any logical explanation that can point at empirical fact backing up the assertion that the USA cannot change its gun laws. The only thing preventing it is located between your collective ears.

We're all wrong, it's the lead!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I did occur to me that you probably have a larger underreporting of violent crime than, say the UK. You have a large population that mistrusts the police and a more "manly" attitude, so I suspect that smaller violent crimes doesn't get reported as much. Does that explain the whole difference? No idea (but probably not), but it's worth to remember.

---

I do appreciate that you recognize significant demographic differences between the two countries that may affect rates. I agree that under-reporting could be a larger chunk if you agree that the same population might have much higher rates of homicide and cannot reasonably be compared with the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

can you name your source for the claim the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US - the only sources I can find was an article in the Mail in 2009 and a corresponding article in the Telegraph - hardly a reliable source since they were Anti Labour at the time

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vi...81-to-2007.png

It was a comparison between the FBI rates and Home Office. The data was presented in this video which I have been posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I do appreciate that you recognize significant demographic differences between the two countries that may affect rates. I agree that under-reporting could be a larger chunk if you agree that the same population might have much higher rates of homicide and cannot reasonably be compared with the UK.

---

I agree on that you have an entirely different gun culture that would be very hard to change, for better or worse.

It's just weird that your crime areas are very polite until they shoot eachother to death. UK got very high violent crime statistics, while yours is very low. In part it's different definitions (for example, in the UK any sexual assult is an assult, in the US only forcible rape counts as an assult), but it's one area that it would be very good with an excellent summary report. Really needed to properly compare the data.

Murder is popular in crime statistics since it's hard to not notice the body, so it's suffering least from underreporting and classifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vi...81-to-2007.png

It was a comparison between the FBI rates and Home Office. The data was presented in this video which I have been posting.

---

yes but what was the source? that is just an info graphic with no links to the source data so it cant be fact checked

I am not fundamentally doubting (we do have a problem with drunk violence over here) but I take any claims on statistics with a BIG pinch of salt unless they provide the links to the original data (wiki and youtube don't count)

It is entirely possible that the Home office counts offences the FBI doesn't consider violent crime - which would immediately invalidate any comparison

this is usually why we compare homicide rates - its one of the few crimes we universally recognize

My guess is that these stats compare violent crime but remove actual murders. Which provides a meaningless comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

My guess is that these stats compare violent crime but remove actual murders. Which provides a meaningless comparison.

---

The only meaningful comparison is the one with atmospheric lead levels.

I just looked it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FBI website

Definition

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Data collection

The data presented in Crime in the United States reflect the Hierarchy Rule, which requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident be counted. The descending order of UCR violent crimes are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, followed by the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although arson is also a property crime, the Hierarchy Rule does not apply to the offense of arson. In cases in which an arson occurs in conjunction with another violent or property crime, both crimes are reported, the arson and the additional crime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK website

5.1 VIOLENT CRIME
Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed,
jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.
In published crime statistics, violent crime – both as measured by the British Crime Survey
(BCS) and by recorded crime – is grouped into two broad, high-level categories of violence
with injury and violence without injury. However, these categories are not directly comparable
between the BCS and recorded crime: e.g. the BCS violence categories include robbery, but
the police recorded crime violence categories do not (recorded robbery figures are shown
separately).
Just over half of all BCS violent incidents and just under half of all police recorded violence
against the person, resulted in injury to the victim.
• Violence with injury includes all incidents of wounding, assault with injury and (BCS
only) robbery which resulted in injury. Homicide is only included for police recorded
crime. Police recorded crime also includes attempts at inflicting injury, although the
BCS would not include these if no actual injury occurred.
• Violence without injury includes all incidents of assault without injury and (BCS only)
incidents of robbery which did not result in injury. Police recorded crime also includes
possession of weapons offences and a number of public order offences, such as
harassment.

---

so there we have it

FBI only includes actual violence

UK includes THREATS of violence - in fact only HALF the reported claims are actual violence - which funnily enough the Info graphic does show - the largest "sub" section (the blue line) is violent crime which had no injuries

you cant compare the data without filtering out that

FBI reports 386.3 per 100k for 2011

Filtering out the crimes the UK counts and FBI doesn't the UK reported 360259 crimes (total divided by half) I am getting 570.19 per 100k for 2011

so we are still higher however I am not sure on the US criteria for aggravated assault and the UK assault - as the UK website clearly states we count pushing and "jostling" (... Jostling? seriously...)

this does show the problem with comparing statistics between different countries - we all count different things

well I am finally at home so can watch that video

as I suspected he fell into the immediate trap of think we were tracking the same thing - Violent Crime as reported by the FBI is not the same as Violent Crime reported by the UK

Murder rate on the other hand is the same across both

this of course doesn't mean he is wrong - just that he was working off non-comparable data

and doesn't even bring in the fact it only tracks recorded crime or approach the topic of unreported crime

that said I do agree somewhat with his overall message - less guns /= less violence - societies can still be massively violent without guns

however with the data he used you could say less guns = less murders (maybe because its harder to actually kill someone without a gun :2thumbsup:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

"Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force" -

---

Am I missing something? This is in the first description. The FBI uses both offenses which involve force or threat of force.

I think he's right on that point. That said, saying disparity is because of guns, or anything else for that matter, is a dubious claim considering that there are a multitude of differences between the two systems other than the presence of guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Am I missing something? This is in the first description. The FBI uses both offenses which involve force or threat of force.

---

ack I missed that one... touche :yes:

still we cannot know without considerable more info how close what the FBI considers a violent crime and what the UK considers a violent crime actually are - primarily in what the definition of Aggrivated assault includes

on a side note... I am seriously impressed by the FBI's website... it is considerable better designed when compared to the Home Office...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I think he's right on that point. That said, saying disparity is because of guns, or anything else for that matter, is a dubious claim considering that there are a multitude of differences between the two systems other than the presence of guns.

---

That's why I requoted the data on what weapon that were used in murders. In the US, the weapon of choise for a murderer is a gun, on average. That's not the case in the rest of the west.

For the this far unspoken (but hinted by putting 2 and 2 together) idea that the lower assult rates in the US is because of the deterrent effect of guns, more data is needed, or rather studies so you can properly compare the data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

For the this far unspoken (but hinted by putting 2 and 2 together) idea that the lower assult rates in the US is because of the deterrent effect of guns, more data is needed, or rather studies so you can properly compare the data.

---

I don't know why the rate is lower. It could be the deterrent effect that people are more likely to face an on-the-spot death penalty for violent crimes committed. This likelyhood is lower in areas where high crime rates exist. In those areas, people committing crimes are more likely to have firearms while law abiding citizens are less likely to be able to threaten effective use of deadly force.

Personally, If my home were burglarized while I was in it, I have fallback plans. It is unlikely that I would venture out of the master bedroom as I do not have dependents that live in seperate bedrooms. I do, however keep most of my valuables in the bedroom. In the event that someone entered my bedroom during a burglary they would have a high likelihood of being killed or seriously injured. In city areas an assailant has the benefit of suprise and overwhelming effective deadly force.

In the event of multiple assailants (more than 1 or 2) my likelyhood of survival is considerably lower. It usually takes 3 or more shots of 9mm ammo to stop someone from what I read. In NY our magazine limits are 10 rounds. My ability to gain access to my locked firearm, coupled with their benefit of suprise, my imperfect aim in a dark environment would be a concern. My plan is to have firearms of multiple type and caliber strategically placed throughout my room behind planned cover. Eventually these strategic locations will be increased rthroughout the house, followed by all-weather wireless cameras and motion sensors which I will set to beep near my bed only.

My neigborhood is pretty safe due to the people who live there, so I'm not actually afraid of anything. This hobby is fun anyway. I think that most people misconstrue interest in weaponry with fear of some kind. I don't think this is fair. People don't plan footbal defense because they are afraid of people breaking into their homes and rushing their quarterback. They do it because they like football.

This says it all to me...

http://youtu.be/V-oNMHNrS-8

As per Suffolk County:

Quote:

---

The following safety measures will be accepted as standard practice for the safeguarding of firearms:
UNLOADED and locked in a box or metal container.
UNLOADED and secured in a safe.
UNLOADED with a locking device attached and hidden in a secure location.

---

Keeping a loaded firearm, inside or outside of a safe would not be standard. Nowhere in the guide does it say that this is illegal or out of code. Carrying 24/7 with a "sportsman's" permit is not against the law, but it is against code in Suffolk and Nassau county and, although it will not result in prosecution, it will almost certainly result in a loss of your license by the granting authority. I'm pushing for concealed carry without amendment, but it is extremely difficult to attain, unless you are wealthy. Only people with tons of money are authorized, or some people with orders of protection in their favor. Equal protections? What do you expect from a "may-issue" state?

If the situation is other than standard it would stand to reason that other than standard storage was appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Wooow, that's insane. I literally went to a gun store/range and had my .38 in a half hour. Great place, good prices. If i wanted to get a concealed carry permit it would cost less than 200 bucks and would be very easy.

Oregon is great for gun enthusiasts, yet we have very little crime in general. Little crazy lately, but usually we're a very boring state, despite our evil lax gun laws.

---

Get the CCW asap. You don't have to carry, but it would be great to have if you ever need to. I had my Sportsman's license for almost a year before I bought a pistol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dol Guldur

This says it all to me...

http://youtu.be/V-oNMHNrS-8

---

The problem being - if the madman had not had access to firearms then the lady wouldn't have needed the gun that was in her car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The problem being - if the madman had not had access to firearms then the lady wouldn't have needed the gun that was in her car.

---

I've never known or met anyone who has suffered from gun-related violence, other than self-inflicted. I've lived in Illinois, Texas, Michigan, and New York. Gun violence is, no joke, a problem for urban minorities. For everyone else, guns are a hobby and a good idea to protect ourselves in the event that minorities leave urban areas, or that shtf with the government. Gun crime is statistical noise for everyone else. It's not even everyone else who is affected, but mostly minority victims. Sound racist? It is, but so are the stats. I like people who are different from me. I'm sorry that the stats are what they are. I don't mind that the United States is getting darker. I encourage more immigration and can't wait to make friends with people who have unique perspectives on life, cooking, politics. But gun crime is a problem for them. They need education, opportunity and will power to get out of it.

School shootings are a problem for young, anti-social, mostly white or affluent males. But the numbers are akin to school buses exploding.

1. What has race got to do with what's been said?
2. That you havent known or met anyone who has suffered from gun related violence is kinda irrelevent, I havent met someone who has malaria, it still happens. It's especially unsurprising as the whole point is that gun related violence is so deadly that finding someone who's suffered it and survived is unusual.

Quote:

---

This says it all to me...

---

I'd say the problem there is that the texan gun control should have been tougher so a lunatic wouldnt be able to get his hands on guns in the first place, they cant be so half assed about gun control if they want to stop such an occurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

1. What has race got to do with what's been said?
2. That you havent known or met anyone who has suffered from gun related violence is kinda irrelevent, I havent met someone who has malaria, it still happens. It's especially unsurprising as the whole point is that gun related violence is so deadly that finding someone who's suffered it and survived is unusual.
I'd say the problem there is that the texan gun control should have been tougher so a lunatic wouldnt be able to get his hands on guns in the first place, they cant be so half assed about gun control if they want to stop such an occurance.

---

Race/Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	3,669	3.7	(3.6--3.8)	1,843	1.8	(1.7--1.9)	5,512	2.7	(2.7--2.8)
Black, non-Hispanic	7,477	41.4	(40.4--42.3)	1,269	6.4	(6.0--6.8)	8,746	23.1	(22.6--23.6)
American Indian/Alaska Native	147	11.8	(9.9--13.6)	52	4.0	(3.0--5.3)	199	7.8	(6.7--8.9)
Asian/Pacific Islander	236	3.4	(3.0--3.9)	105	1.5	(1.2--1.7)	341	2.4	(2.2--2.7)
Hispanic	2,926	12.5	(12.0--12.9)	540	2.5	(2.2--2.7)	3,466	7.6	(7.4--7.9)
Total§	14,538	9.8	(9.6--10.0)	3,823	2.5	(2.4--2.6)	18,361	6.1	(6.0--6.2)

Race definitely has a place in discussions about Homicide. So does poverty and education.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

This chart illustrates that even if we compare White Homicide rates it is still about a point higher than other like communities, so I cede some ground there.

I'm confused, what exactly are you trying to prove/say with racial statistics?