I am glad...

joerand posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Precisely why his grasp of statistics is pathetic!  (He was presenting this comparative list as though it were a valid statistical analysis.)

Huge posted:

joerand posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Precisely why his grasp of statistics is pathetic!  (He was presenting this comparative list as though it were a valid statistical analysis.)

Statistics are very often misused as alternate facts...... :-)

Huge posted:

joerand posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Precisely why his grasp of statistics is pathetic!  (He was presenting this comparative list as though it were a valid statistical analysis.)

Bob the Builder posted:

Huge posted:

joerand posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Precisely why his grasp of statistics is pathetic!  (He was presenting this comparative list as though it were a valid statistical analysis.)

 

Your not still arguing with Mr Florestan are you he is what my nan would have politely called a f****** wind up merchant.

Florestan,

Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?
(Irrespective of whether they would still kill the other person if a gun were not available to them - that's an entirely different argument.)

Several times, you've stated the principle that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Do you still stand by this?
(Leaving aside that it's the bullet that kills them; the intent is the most significant part of the action and that is with the person holding the weapon!)

Bob the Builder posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

Huge posted:

joerand posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Precisely why his grasp of statistics is pathetic!  (He was presenting this comparative list as though it were a valid statistical analysis.)

 

Your not still arguing with Mr Florestan are you he is what my nan would have politely called a f****** wind up merchant.

I have Terrier mentality!

I was curious about the "Scotland most violent" assertion.  Firstly, the figures were compiled from telephone interviews, and not terribly reliable.  Secondly, they exclude homicides, of which there are far more in the USA than in Scotland, many of which will be with guns.  So it is possible that whereas you might get attacked and injured in Scotland, you are more likely to be killed in the USA.

The survey found that, excluding murder, Scots were almost three times as likely to be assaulted as Americans.  But looking purely at homicides you are 10 times more likely to be killed in the USA.  

Not surprisingly, Florestan's post comes from the gun lobby - and there are just too many errors in it to start to unpick the misinformation there.  

Huge posted:

joerand posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Your grasp of statistics is pathetic.

As is your use of the term statistics. A table displaying rates or percentages is not a statistic, simply a comparison. Without knowing the sample sizes and variances within each group no statistical measures or inferences can be made.

Precisely why his grasp of statistics is pathetic!  (He was presenting this comparative list as though it were a valid statistical analysis.)

My bad. I should, of course said so-called "statistics".

Hmack posted:

Florestan posted:

a reply that was in all probability lifted straight from Breitbart!

"Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates"

I simply do not believe this. It is an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

"Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America".

Well, I really am glad that I did not read this before walking through the centre of Glasgow (the largest city in Scotland) alone after midnight, having just attended a concert. Are you seriously telling me that it is more dangerous to walk through the centre of Glasgow at night than it would be to walk through the centre of New Orleans, Chicago or LA

Here are some statistics I have just taken from the Internet. They are from the Internet, and so I can't vouch for their complete accuracy, and as we all know, statistics can 'lie', but they are quite striking.  

City                                                      Population (2016)                                    Number of homicides (2016)

Glasgow (Scotland)                           1.2 million (metro area)                            14

New Orleans                                      1.3 million (metro area)                            175

Detroit                                                 4.3 million (metro area)                            302

Chicago                                                9.5 million (metro area)                           762

There were apparently 58 homicides in Scotland as a whole in 2016. This is not something to be proud of, but hardly comparing with the number of homicides in the US.

Hmack, the first point has been shown consistently.  In fact, you can also substitute country to also include micro-areas such as states, counties or cities.  Chicago is a good example as within the US it has stringent gun controls yet dozens of people are shot every week.  More on this another day as I do not have the time to flesh this out now.

Let me say now though that everyone typically fixates on guns and differentiates them as an altogether different animal than any other weapon or for crime (murder, violence, etc.).  In theory, you can always point to something like Las Vegas to say, see how many he killed in a short time.  I do not disagree with this but should we first compare the number of bombing deaths or vehicle manslaughter deaths compared to mass gun shooting deaths between the UK and US before you conclude this about guns and stop there?

The fact is that the results of crime and violence are the same in either case.  What you all are saying is that if you were to die as a result of some tragic criminal/ideological event you would prefer to die by having your head cut off or being stabbed or by a truck mowing you down or a bomb exploding etc. rather than being shot.  How does your death get worse if someone shoots you instead of smashing in your head with a sledge hammer or killing you in some other manner?

Before you say it is easier to kill with a gun review the facts I have provided above.  Most of you should have already concluded that in the absence of guns murder and violence is still possible and does indeed continue on.

Another point to reflect on is that a murder rate and a homicide rate are not the same.  Homicide (at least in the US) includes things like suicide, and shootings that were in self-defence (by a police officer or a citizen protecting themselves).  If you remove these numbers the homicide rate in the US starts to look similar to any other Western nation.

Perhaps the point on how the UK artificially manipulates its homicide rates is appalling and deceitful allowing for continued misinformation and arrogance in pointing your fingers at the US.  I have also read that in the UK if your police catch someone committing a crime such as break & enter or robbery that they will simply let you go with a warning?  Again, this points to how comparing crime statistics between countries is very inaccurate and deceiving.  How much crime is actually unreported?  This is why I take offence to the suggestions here that the US is some cesspool of gun violence and crime and the UK is paradise.  

The fact is that this thread was started by someone who suggested the US is a country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers. Variations on this theme are typically said by various voices from other countries and even from within the US and almost certainly every time it comes from a group the identifies together politically.

I never really thought about guns and gun control much until I read this opening thread. I used to have a view about gun control like most of you, that is, a rather simplistic stereotypical view, until I started looking into the issue and the facts over the past few weeks. As we can witness here, as I questioned things the usual responses flowed in ranging from nasty to even questioning my morality. Is it so hard to separate feelings from fact though? I may agree with most of you about guns but the facts still point clearly to the conclusion that guns (any weapons) are not really the problem. I called it the shiny object that non-thinking people have transfixed their gaze on.  I would assume that most here are well educated but cannot figure out how your feeling on a subject can be valid (an opinion) yet the facts do not really justify your beliefs.

Despite the fact that I clearly stated many times that I am not a gun person nor believe that military style weapons should be available it is clear in my research of this topic that the usual stated mantras that gun control or the elimination of guns period will solve all of our problems is wrong. More specifically, to focus on the US as an example for what not to do (compared to the UK, say) is also just contemptible rhetoric likely motivated by political or cultural arrogance.  

 Using the Las Vegas event as a prop to point a finger at the US and compare to the UK (through implication) appears to be a slam dunk as well for those inclined to believe anything so long as they are emotionally hooked but again, this is so deceiving if not downright erroneous in the big picture.

I have already alluded to the fact of the breakdown of the home and families as the number one source for crime and violence.  This is a people problem and in general one can see that it is a certain group of people trapped in a socio-cultural environment and also low economic circumstances.  I will show you with numbers how this seems to be the case.

Most of you have discounted any argument that actually challenges your preconceived attitudes before you even started here and that is fine, if not expected.  Generally, for me it has become a question of how society deals with criminals rather than what tools they use.  Surely, everyone can see that banning guns typically only affects the law-abiding citizens.  Criminals will always find a way to get what they want.

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Perhaps the point on how the UK artificially manipulates its homicide rates is appalling and deceitful allowing for continued misinformation and arrogance in pointing your fingers at the US.  I have also read that in the UK if your police catch someone committing a crime such as break & enter or robbery that they will simply let you go with a warning?

<snip>

Different definitions isn't manipulation of the figures or the facts.

If the police in the UK catch you breaking and entering or carrying out an act of robbery (which requires assault to be so classified), you WILL be arrested; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Huge posted:

Florestan,

Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?
(Irrespective of whether they would still kill the other person if a gun were not available to them - that's an entirely different argument.)

Several times, you've stated the principle that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Do you still stand by this?
(Leaving aside that it's the bullet that kills them; the intent is the most significant part of the action and that is with the person holding the weapon!)

Huge, I will answer this more fully in the days to come as I do not have the time now.

Do you think it is a (fair or reasonable) argument to compare a country with the highest per capita gun ownership with a country like the UK which collected up the guns and knives of all its citizens a few decades ago.  I have already shown a relatively informative comparison above that easily demonstrates that some of the worst gun violence in the world comes from countries with a very low gun ownership rate.  By your logic, the US should certainly win this contest (most guns = most murders) and it would be a worse country to live in than El Salvador.  Smarter people here would be able to see that there is no clear relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't unless you think solely that the weapon used on someone to kill them matters.

Aside from the semantics of whether it is the gun or bullet or the trigger finger or muscles in your body to hold up a weapon or your eyes that allow you to see which way to shoot etc. yes, based on the evidence I have seen, people are responsible for killing people, not guns or your weapon of choice. 

Are you suggesting that ordinary, law-abiding citizens start killing just because they can easily buy or own a gun?  Actually, it turns out that the largest predictor of who will murder someone else (by gun or some other tool) has little to do with the weapon but almost entirely on the social, economic, and cultural factors surrounding each individual and not the prevalence of guns alone.  For most, it starts in the home and parenting (or lack of parenting).  Again, removing guns from society only means criminals will still have guns and in the absence of guns they will always find alternative means.

In a similar question, do you actually believe that the suicide rate would drop if guns were not available?  I think it can be shown that in the absence of guns someone intent on killing themselves will not change their mind because they didn't own a gun.  I have already asked previously asked why no one wants to ban razor blades, prescription pills, bridges and high buildings if they believed banning things like guns changes the outcome.

If nothing else this thread has given those of you living in other countries a small taste of the gun control debate as practiced here in the U.S. Mistatements, false comparisons, lying, and distorted so-called statistics are all highly encouraged. 

If I had to guess and it's only a guess, I would say we here in the U.S. probably won't go for strong gun control as practiced, to one degree or another, elsewhere in the world anytime soon. I think over time it more likely that gun ownership will go the way of car nuts, electric train hobbyists and audio enthusiasts. The increasing urbanization of the country and the fact that young people are just not interested in these things will mean fewer and fewer gun enthusiasts and hunters and ultimately a vastly smaller political strength for the gun lobby. Guns will still be around in large numbers but over many many years more thoughtful legislation will be passed providing many  more restrictions than at present. Gun deaths will slowly go down even as the population grows.

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan,

Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?
(Irrespective of whether they would still kill the other person if a gun were not available to them - that's an entirely different argument.)

Several times, you've stated the principle that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Do you still stand by this?
(Leaving aside that it's the bullet that kills them; the intent is the most significant part of the action and that is with the person holding the weapon!)

Huge, I will answer this more fully in the days to come as I do not have the time now.

Do you think it is a (fair or reasonable) argument to compare a country with the highest per capita gun ownership with a country like the UK which collected up the guns and knives of all its citizens a few decades ago.  I have already shown a relatively informative comparison above that easily demonstrates that some of the worst gun violence in the world comes from countries with a very low gun ownership rate.  By your logic, the US should certainly win this contest (most guns = most murders) and it would be a worse country to live in than El Salvador.  Smarter people here would be able to see that there is no clear relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't unless you think solely that the weapon used on someone to kill them matters.

Aside from the semantics of whether it is the gun or bullet or the trigger finger or muscles in your body to hold up a weapon or your eyes that allow you to see which way to shoot etc. yes, based on the evidence I have seen, people are responsible for killing people, not guns or your weapon of choice. 

Are you suggesting that ordinary, law-abiding citizens start killing just because they can easily buy or own a gun?  Actually, it turns out that the largest predictor of who will murder someone else (by gun or some other tool) has little to do with the weapon but almost entirely on the social, economic, and cultural factors surrounding each individual and not the prevalence of guns alone.  For most, it starts in the home and parenting (or lack of parenting).  Again, removing guns from society only means criminals will still have guns and in the absence of guns they will always find alternative means.

In a similar question, do you actually believe that the suicide rate would drop if guns were not available?  I think it can be shown that in the absence of guns someone intent on killing themselves will not change their mind because they didn't own a gun.  I have already asked previously asked why no one wants to ban razor blades, prescription pills, bridges and high buildings if they believed banning things like guns changes the outcome.

Hi Florestan,

I can't see any answer to the first question.

Your second paragraph seems to answer my second question in the affirmative.

The rest is suggesting that I have stated things that I have not; and also making points and asking rhetorical questions unrelated to my original post, so not exactly relevant.

I'm also not at all happy with implication inherent in the corollary of the statement "Smarter people here would...": That isn't appropriate.

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Perhaps the point on how the UK artificially manipulates its homicide rates is appalling and deceitful allowing for continued misinformation and arrogance in pointing your fingers at the US.  I have also read that in the UK if your police catch someone committing a crime such as break & enter or robbery that they will simply let you go with a warning?

<snip>

Different definitions isn't manipulation of the figures or the facts.

If the police in the UK catch you breaking and entering or carrying out an act of robbery (which requires assault to be so classified), you WILL be arrested; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Sure, "IF THE POLICE IN THE UK CATCH YOU...."

The law would presume that they want to catch the bad guys but what is the general attitude of lawmakers in the UK these days?  I would argue that the police usually know where and who are the bad characters.  So if there was a will and way they could easily round up most of the offenders off the street but the problem may be that to do this means you would have to have more judges and lawyers and build more jails.  Perhaps your country picks and chooses who to focus on and what to focus on rather than to clean up crime period.  Maybe due to resources they put most of their effort into giving speeding and parking tickets and go after those who offend visible minorities.  This seems natural for an unarmed police force to focus more on paper crimes than challenging violent criminals?

It happens where I live so I am not speaking out of line here with only conjecture.  I know someone who lives in the country who experienced an early morning break in.  The police arrived just as the offenders were driving away.  They asked why they (the police) were not going after the suspects they said it is too dangerous (a high speed chase).  Criminals know that the odds of getting caught are low for various reasons like this as well as the fact that most police forces have limited number of staff due to budget limitations.  Easier to just hand out speeding tickets under these conditions.

I am suggesting that police forces (and especially unarmed police forces) with likely pick and choose what they can actually focus on.  I say that it may be quite straightforward to round up the bad guys in society and reduce crime dramatically  by getting that worst offenders off the street.  Backlogs in courts and lack of jail space and the 'rights' of criminals is probably what limits any country to clean up on this problem?

Florestan,

Your posts are singularly the most exasperating in this forum, but I have finally twigged. 

You aren't really American at all, and you have no interest whatsoever in the gun control debate. It is now absolutely crystal clear. You are obviously a Russian agent tasked with spreading disinformation and sowing the seeds of disharmony between the traditional allies of the US and the UK.

Now every one of your posts make absolute sense. It's such a relief!

I have a simple question for Florestan and the other US contributors on here and please take this as honest and not an attempt to troublemake.

In the light of recent events if a referendum was put to the US people with the question ‘Should stringent gun controls be introduced in the US’ what do you think the response would be?

NB Please don’t think that this means I think referenda are a good idea. We had one and it dropped us right in it!

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan,

Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?
(Irrespective of whether they would still kill the other person if a gun were not available to them - that's an entirely different argument.)

Several times, you've stated the principle that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Do you still stand by this?
(Leaving aside that it's the bullet that kills them; the intent is the most significant part of the action and that is with the person holding the weapon!)

Huge, I will answer this more fully in the days to come as I do not have the time now.

Do you think it is a (fair or reasonable) argument to compare a country with the highest per capita gun ownership with a country like the UK which collected up the guns and knives of all its citizens a few decades ago.  I have already shown a relatively informative comparison above that easily demonstrates that some of the worst gun violence in the world comes from countries with a very low gun ownership rate.  By your logic, the US should certainly win this contest (most guns = most murders) and it would be a worse country to live in than El Salvador.  Smarter people here would be able to see that there is no clear relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't unless you think solely that the weapon used on someone to kill them matters.

Aside from the semantics of whether it is the gun or bullet or the trigger finger or muscles in your body to hold up a weapon or your eyes that allow you to see which way to shoot etc. yes, based on the evidence I have seen, people are responsible for killing people, not guns or your weapon of choice. 

Are you suggesting that ordinary, law-abiding citizens start killing just because they can easily buy or own a gun?  Actually, it turns out that the largest predictor of who will murder someone else (by gun or some other tool) has little to do with the weapon but almost entirely on the social, economic, and cultural factors surrounding each individual and not the prevalence of guns alone.  For most, it starts in the home and parenting (or lack of parenting).  Again, removing guns from society only means criminals will still have guns and in the absence of guns they will always find alternative means.

In a similar question, do you actually believe that the suicide rate would drop if guns were not available?  I think it can be shown that in the absence of guns someone intent on killing themselves will not change their mind because they didn't own a gun.  I have already asked previously asked why no one wants to ban razor blades, prescription pills, bridges and high buildings if they believed banning things like guns changes the outcome.

Hi Florestan,

I can't see any answer to the first question.

Your second paragraph seems to answer my second question in the affirmative.

 

The rest is suggesting that I have stated things that I have not; and also making points and asking rhetorical questions unrelated to my original post, so not exactly relevant.

I'm also not at all happy with implication inherent in the corollary of the statement "Smarter people here would...": That isn't appropriate.

Huge, I cannot answer your first question until you answer my question to your assumption.    (Do you think it is a fair or reasonable argument to compare countries with different viewpoints (if not constitutional rights)....)

Withdraw my unfortunate "Smarter people here" comment and instead please confirm whether you have any other evidence that disputes the relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't as I have shown.  In other words, there is no correlation here.  You seem to be saying there is one despite the fact that the country with the most guns is not even close to be the homicide king of the world.  Not even close.

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Perhaps the point on how the UK artificially manipulates its homicide rates is appalling and deceitful allowing for continued misinformation and arrogance in pointing your fingers at the US.  I have also read that in the UK if your police catch someone committing a crime such as break & enter or robbery that they will simply let you go with a warning?

<snip>

Different definitions isn't manipulation of the figures or the facts.

If the police in the UK catch you breaking and entering or carrying out an act of robbery (which requires assault to be so classified), you WILL be arrested; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Sure, "IF THE POLICE IN THE UK CATCH YOU...."

The law would presume that they want to catch the bad guys but what is the general attitude of lawmakers in the UK these days?  I would argue that the police usually know where and who are the bad characters.  So if there was a will and way they could easily round up most of the offenders off the street but the problem may be that to do this means you would have to have more judges and lawyers and build more jails.  Perhaps your country picks and chooses who to focus on and what to focus on rather than to clean up crime period.  Maybe due to resources they put most of their effort into giving speeding and parking tickets and go after those who offend visible minorities.  This seems natural for an unarmed police force to focus more on paper crimes than challenging violent criminals?

It happens where I live so I am not speaking out of line here with only conjecture.  I know someone who lives in the country who experienced an early morning break in.  The police arrived just as the offenders were driving away.  They asked why they (the police) were not going after the suspects they said it is too dangerous (a high speed chase).  Criminals know that the odds of getting caught are low for various reasons like this as well as the fact that most police forces have limited number of staff due to budget limitations.  Easier to just hand out speeding tickets under these conditions.

I am suggesting that police forces (and especially unarmed police forces) with likely pick and choose what they can actually focus on.  I say that it may be quite straightforward to round up the bad guys in society and reduce crime dramatically  by getting that worst offenders off the street.  Backlogs in courts and lack of jail space and the 'rights' of criminals is probably what limits any country to clean up on this problem?

Ok forget my last post it’s a waste of time. Have you never heard of Habeas Corpus or innocent until proved guilty? In the UK it is generally not permissible for the Police to ‘round up’ the ‘bad guys’ without that annoying little thing called evidence least of all shoot them.

Camlan posted:

I have a simple question for Florestan and the other US contributors on here and please take this as honest and not an attempt to troublemake.

In the light of recent events if a referendum was put to the US people with the question ‘Should stringent gun controls be introduced in the US’ what do you think the response would be?

NB Please don’t think that this means I think referenda are a good idea. We had one and it dropped us right in it!

Camlan, I think there is a chance that most people might support some small changes to curb some items or things like bump stocks that allow military style outputs.  Otherwise, the majority of law-abiding citizens would never consider limiting hand guns or long guns used by farmers, ranchers, hunters and those wishing to protect themselves, families or someone in need.  Again, it is this majority that are not the problem or doing the killing.  From my understanding the above what I suggest is a reasonable effort to limit the Second Amendment.  Going further though isn't reasonable and so you could see that it would never get that far.

Camlan posted:

I have a simple question for Florestan and the other US contributors on here and please take this as honest and not an attempt to troublemake.

In the light of recent events if a referendum was put to the US people with the question ‘Should stringent gun controls be introduced in the US’ what do you think the response would be?

NB Please don’t think that this means I think referenda are a good idea. We had one and it dropped us right in it!

Camlan

As you suggest, there is no referendum process at our Federal level such as was used in your Brexit vote. But, to answer your question, push come to shove, I think the vote would be much closer to 50/50 than you might think reading polls on the question or listening to American news pundits. Guns are complicated in the U.S. Just like everywhere in the world, what we think results from a very particular national history and a very particular self and world view. 

Camlan posted:

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Perhaps the point on how the UK artificially manipulates its homicide rates is appalling and deceitful allowing for continued misinformation and arrogance in pointing your fingers at the US.  I have also read that in the UK if your police catch someone committing a crime such as break & enter or robbery that they will simply let you go with a warning?

<snip>

Different definitions isn't manipulation of the figures or the facts.

If the police in the UK catch you breaking and entering or carrying out an act of robbery (which requires assault to be so classified), you WILL be arrested; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Sure, "IF THE POLICE IN THE UK CATCH YOU...."

The law would presume that they want to catch the bad guys but what is the general attitude of lawmakers in the UK these days?  I would argue that the police usually know where and who are the bad characters.  So if there was a will and way they could easily round up most of the offenders off the street but the problem may be that to do this means you would have to have more judges and lawyers and build more jails.  Perhaps your country picks and chooses who to focus on and what to focus on rather than to clean up crime period.  Maybe due to resources they put most of their effort into giving speeding and parking tickets and go after those who offend visible minorities.  This seems natural for an unarmed police force to focus more on paper crimes than challenging violent criminals?

It happens where I live so I am not speaking out of line here with only conjecture.  I know someone who lives in the country who experienced an early morning break in.  The police arrived just as the offenders were driving away.  They asked why they (the police) were not going after the suspects they said it is too dangerous (a high speed chase).  Criminals know that the odds of getting caught are low for various reasons like this as well as the fact that most police forces have limited number of staff due to budget limitations.  Easier to just hand out speeding tickets under these conditions.

I am suggesting that police forces (and especially unarmed police forces) with likely pick and choose what they can actually focus on.  I say that it may be quite straightforward to round up the bad guys in society and reduce crime dramatically  by getting that worst offenders off the street.  Backlogs in courts and lack of jail space and the 'rights' of criminals is probably what limits any country to clean up on this problem?

Ok forget my last post it’s a waste of time. Have you never heard of Habeas Corpus or innocent until proved guilty? In the UK it is generally not permissible for the Police to ‘round up’ the ‘bad guys’ without that annoying little thing called evidence least of all shoot them.

Camlan, I know this.  I am strictly speaking in hypothetical.  I am saying that if you could imagine that if police had the resources they certainly know where and who the bad guys are.  It is a fact that most people involved in gangs and drugs etc. have some sort of record and by the time they kill someone there is a long trail and pattern that follows them.  Most gang members are young males in fact.  It is not hard to imagine that if we could somehow snap our fingers and these types of people caught up in this were removed from the streets that crime would fall immediately.  No one dares say these terrible ideas these days as like I said, criminals have their rights too and people will die needlessly because of this.

Clay Bingham posted:

Camlan posted:

I have a simple question for Florestan and the other US contributors on here and please take this as honest and not an attempt to troublemake.

In the light of recent events if a referendum was put to the US people with the question ‘Should stringent gun controls be introduced in the US’ what do you think the response would be?

NB Please don’t think that this means I think referenda are a good idea. We had one and it dropped us right in it!

Camlan

As you suggest, there is no referendum process at our Federal level such as was used in your Brexit vote. But, to answer your question, push come to shove, I think the vote would be much closer to 50/50 than you might think reading polls on the question or listening to American news pundits. Guns are complicated in the U.S. Just like everywhere in the world, what we think results from a very particular national history and a very particular self and world view. 

Yes, understood, thanks. I think this points up the difference in cultures. In the UK, as somebody has already said, it would be a landslide in favour of what is effectively the status quo.

At the end of day, your country, your choice.

Florestan posted:

Camlan posted:

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Perhaps the point on how the UK artificially manipulates its homicide rates is appalling and deceitful allowing for continued misinformation and arrogance in pointing your fingers at the US.  I have also read that in the UK if your police catch someone committing a crime such as break & enter or robbery that they will simply let you go with a warning?

<snip>

Different definitions isn't manipulation of the figures or the facts.

If the police in the UK catch you breaking and entering or carrying out an act of robbery (which requires assault to be so classified), you WILL be arrested; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Sure, "IF THE POLICE IN THE UK CATCH YOU...."

The law would presume that they want to catch the bad guys but what is the general attitude of lawmakers in the UK these days?  I would argue that the police usually know where and who are the bad characters.  So if there was a will and way they could easily round up most of the offenders off the street but the problem may be that to do this means you would have to have more judges and lawyers and build more jails.  Perhaps your country picks and chooses who to focus on and what to focus on rather than to clean up crime period.  Maybe due to resources they put most of their effort into giving speeding and parking tickets and go after those who offend visible minorities.  This seems natural for an unarmed police force to focus more on paper crimes than challenging violent criminals?

It happens where I live so I am not speaking out of line here with only conjecture.  I know someone who lives in the country who experienced an early morning break in.  The police arrived just as the offenders were driving away.  They asked why they (the police) were not going after the suspects they said it is too dangerous (a high speed chase).  Criminals know that the odds of getting caught are low for various reasons like this as well as the fact that most police forces have limited number of staff due to budget limitations.  Easier to just hand out speeding tickets under these conditions.

I am suggesting that police forces (and especially unarmed police forces) with likely pick and choose what they can actually focus on.  I say that it may be quite straightforward to round up the bad guys in society and reduce crime dramatically  by getting that worst offenders off the street.  Backlogs in courts and lack of jail space and the 'rights' of criminals is probably what limits any country to clean up on this problem?

Ok forget my last post it’s a waste of time. Have you never heard of Habeas Corpus or innocent until proved guilty? In the UK it is generally not permissible for the Police to ‘round up’ the ‘bad guys’ without that annoying little thing called evidence least of all shoot them.

Camlan, I know this.  I am strictly speaking in hypothetical.  I am saying that if you could imagine that if police had the resources they certainly know where and who the bad guys are.  It is a fact that most people involved in gangs and drugs etc. have some sort of record and by the time they kill someone there is a long trail and pattern that follows them.  Most gang members are young males in fact.  It is not hard to imagine that if we could somehow snap our fingers and these types of people caught up in this were removed from the streets that crime would fall immediately.  No one dares say these terrible ideas these days as like I said, criminals have their rights too.

You must see the very fine line you are walking there? The minute you say that the ‘authorities’ Police or otherwise can round up who they like without trial or evidence you are opening an absolute can of worms. See that German chap starting around 1933 for confirmation.

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan,

Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?
(Irrespective of whether they would still kill the other person if a gun were not available to them - that's an entirely different argument.)

Several times, you've stated the principle that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Do you still stand by this?
(Leaving aside that it's the bullet that kills them; the intent is the most significant part of the action and that is with the person holding the weapon!)

Huge, I will answer this more fully in the days to come as I do not have the time now.

Do you think it is a (fair or reasonable) argument to compare a country with the highest per capita gun ownership with a country like the UK which collected up the guns and knives of all its citizens a few decades ago.  I have already shown a relatively informative comparison above that easily demonstrates that some of the worst gun violence in the world comes from countries with a very low gun ownership rate.  By your logic, the US should certainly win this contest (most guns = most murders) and it would be a worse country to live in than El Salvador.  Smarter people here would be able to see that there is no clear relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't unless you think solely that the weapon used on someone to kill them matters.

Aside from the semantics of whether it is the gun or bullet or the trigger finger or muscles in your body to hold up a weapon or your eyes that allow you to see which way to shoot etc. yes, based on the evidence I have seen, people are responsible for killing people, not guns or your weapon of choice. 

Are you suggesting that ordinary, law-abiding citizens start killing just because they can easily buy or own a gun?  Actually, it turns out that the largest predictor of who will murder someone else (by gun or some other tool) has little to do with the weapon but almost entirely on the social, economic, and cultural factors surrounding each individual and not the prevalence of guns alone.  For most, it starts in the home and parenting (or lack of parenting).  Again, removing guns from society only means criminals will still have guns and in the absence of guns they will always find alternative means.

In a similar question, do you actually believe that the suicide rate would drop if guns were not available?  I think it can be shown that in the absence of guns someone intent on killing themselves will not change their mind because they didn't own a gun.  I have already asked previously asked why no one wants to ban razor blades, prescription pills, bridges and high buildings if they believed banning things like guns changes the outcome.

Hi Florestan,

I can't see any answer to the first question.

Your second paragraph seems to answer my second question in the affirmative.

 

The rest is suggesting that I have stated things that I have not; and also making points and asking rhetorical questions unrelated to my original post, so not exactly relevant.

I'm also not at all happy with implication inherent in the corollary of the statement "Smarter people here would...": That isn't appropriate.

Huge, I cannot answer your first question until you answer my question to your assumption.    (Do you think it is a fair or reasonable argument to compare countries with different viewpoints (if not constitutional rights)....)

Withdraw my unfortunate "Smarter people here" comment and instead please confirm whether you have any other evidence that disputes the relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't as I have shown.  In other words, there is no correlation here.  You seem to be saying there is one despite the fact that the country with the most guns is not even close to be the homicide king of the world.  Not even close.

The first question was "Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?".  The only assumption in that question is that in the US guns are quite easily available (note not necessarily freely available) to people whose intent is to kill another.  So the question is simply, if firearms are frequently the chosen weapon in the current circumstances?  I made no attempt to draw parallels or make any comparison to any other country.

Thanks for the withdrawal of the comment, that's acknowledged.

Lastly, I deliberately made no attempt to draw parallels or make any comparison between any countries in this question; as to do so would detract from the simple nature of the question.

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

Huge posted:

Florestan,

Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?
(Irrespective of whether they would still kill the other person if a gun were not available to them - that's an entirely different argument.)

Several times, you've stated the principle that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Do you still stand by this?
(Leaving aside that it's the bullet that kills them; the intent is the most significant part of the action and that is with the person holding the weapon!)

Huge, I will answer this more fully in the days to come as I do not have the time now.

Do you think it is a (fair or reasonable) argument to compare a country with the highest per capita gun ownership with a country like the UK which collected up the guns and knives of all its citizens a few decades ago.  I have already shown a relatively informative comparison above that easily demonstrates that some of the worst gun violence in the world comes from countries with a very low gun ownership rate.  By your logic, the US should certainly win this contest (most guns = most murders) and it would be a worse country to live in than El Salvador.  Smarter people here would be able to see that there is no clear relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't unless you think solely that the weapon used on someone to kill them matters.

Aside from the semantics of whether it is the gun or bullet or the trigger finger or muscles in your body to hold up a weapon or your eyes that allow you to see which way to shoot etc. yes, based on the evidence I have seen, people are responsible for killing people, not guns or your weapon of choice. 

Are you suggesting that ordinary, law-abiding citizens start killing just because they can easily buy or own a gun?  Actually, it turns out that the largest predictor of who will murder someone else (by gun or some other tool) has little to do with the weapon but almost entirely on the social, economic, and cultural factors surrounding each individual and not the prevalence of guns alone.  For most, it starts in the home and parenting (or lack of parenting).  Again, removing guns from society only means criminals will still have guns and in the absence of guns they will always find alternative means.

In a similar question, do you actually believe that the suicide rate would drop if guns were not available?  I think it can be shown that in the absence of guns someone intent on killing themselves will not change their mind because they didn't own a gun.  I have already asked previously asked why no one wants to ban razor blades, prescription pills, bridges and high buildings if they believed banning things like guns changes the outcome.

Hi Florestan,

I can't see any answer to the first question.

Your second paragraph seems to answer my second question in the affirmative.

 

The rest is suggesting that I have stated things that I have not; and also making points and asking rhetorical questions unrelated to my original post, so not exactly relevant.

I'm also not at all happy with implication inherent in the corollary of the statement "Smarter people here would...": That isn't appropriate.

Huge, I cannot answer your first question until you answer my question to your assumption.    (Do you think it is a fair or reasonable argument to compare countries with different viewpoints (if not constitutional rights)....)

Withdraw my unfortunate "Smarter people here" comment and instead please confirm whether you have any other evidence that disputes the relationship between number of guns owned and homicides or whether a country has gun control or doesn't as I have shown.  In other words, there is no correlation here.  You seem to be saying there is one despite the fact that the country with the most guns is not even close to be the homicide king of the world.  Not even close.

The first question was "Do you accept that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice?".  The only assumption in that question is that in the US guns are quite easily available (note not necessarily freely available) to people whose intent is to kill another.  So the question is simply, if firearms are frequently the chosen weapon in the current circumstances?  I made no attempt to draw parallels or make any comparison to any other country.

Thanks for the withdrawal of the comment, that's acknowledged.

Lastly, I deliberately made no attempt to draw parallels or make any comparison between any countries in this question; as to do so would detract from the simple nature of the question.

In regards to the bolded question above I do accept that in the US a gun is frequently the choice of weapon in murders.  It is not the weapon of choice for all crime in total.  And murder is just a small chunk of all crime in total.

At the same time, I find this question and the obvious answer to be pointless and will lead nowhere (especially to counter the blatantly false statement that started this thread - the US is a country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers).

One should not assume that it is better to die from any other weapon over a gun.  My concerns are only focused on the truth.  Why focus on a weapon when crime is out of control, period.  Who are the criminals and how did they become part of this lifestyle?

These are far more important questions to ask that may lead to better understanding on how we might reduce crime and making us all safer.