I am glad...

Florestan posted:

Don Atkinson posted

 

Florestan,

Please read my post more carefully. I referred to gun related crime. Gun related crime in the USA is an order of magnitude greater than in the UK. For gun related crime please read gun related homicide since that is what this thread is all about.

I also stated, quite clearly, that if gun ownership was reduced, knife crime (and homicides) might increase.

As for more guns = more crime etc take a look at wikipedia

UK = 0.9 homicides per 100,000 = tight gun control

Canada = 1.6 homicides per 100,000 = moderate gun control

USA = 4.9 homicides per 100,000 = light gun control

From the posts in this thread, I don't see anybody desperate to believe guns are the root cause of crime and homicide. They just make crime and homicide easier and more prolific.

 

Don, so your comparison of three countries proves what?  More guns in the US means more homicides? Yes ! Those figures are total homicides, not just gun-related homicides. These homicides figures exclude self-inflicted homicides (suicides). Homicide rate in the USA is five times as great as in the UK.

 

 

So this is my point #1.  The evidence seems to contradict your posit that more guns = more gun crime (homicides).  More on this later but I will ask you first if you still believe that the more guns owned per 100 residents leads directly to more gun crime?It's not a "belief" it's a fact, assuming we are still talking about people being unlawfully killed by others using guns.

I have chosen USA and UK since the Vegas crime was in one country and most of us on this forum live in one or other country. I have avoided bringing in Africa, Central America, South America, etc etc because of the significant different cultures, but I included Canada because of it historical and cultural links with both the UK and USA.

 

 

Florestan posted:

 

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? Florestan, my figures quoted above and previously, cover ALL homicides. The USA rate is five times as great as the UK

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? This is complete boll*cks ! Nobody is saying anything of the sort.

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. I have said, quite clearly, that a reduction in guns could lead to a (disproportionately small)  increase in other means of homicide. An increase in guns leads to a disproportionately higher rate of homicide. That is what my figures above show.

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. No they don't. The figures I quoted do NOT include suicide or lawful killing, eg by a police officer.

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. The UK does not manipulate its homicide rates. Different countries define homicide differently. But our definition is clear and respected. The figures I have quoted are justifiably comparable 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? Others have put you right on this load of rubbish. 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. Homicides in the USA are five times the rate as in the UK. The UK is not Paradise, but neither is the USA, nor anywhere else on this earth.

The fact is that this thread was started by someone who suggested the US is a country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers. He didn't state the USA, although many of us consider the USA was implied. 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.I considered your proposals amounted to anarchy. I simply said that I would prefer to live with a moral code of conduct and rules ie an organised society. 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 (This is disingenuous in the extreme, all the contributors to this thread have given careful thought and time to their contributions) people have transfixed their gaze on.  I would assume that most here are well educated (rather than "assume", I consider it is a certainty and more importantly, regardless of their education, are worldly-wise and astute) 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 (again, disingenuous in the extreme).  

 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.

I'll pass on the last three paragraphs.

Florestan posted:

  This is a people problem and in general one can see that it is a certain group of people.......

 

And there it is. Inevitable.

No one argued with Cat Stevens 50 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cm2Q0zC2Hs

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Let's take for the sake of an argument one of the most vicious groups around the US, the Chicago gangs. What do you think would happen if somehow we managed to take their guns away and force them to settle accounts with each other using other means?

Two things. First, accidental deaths would go down by over 99% simply because drive by-stabbings or drive-by stranglings could never produce so many (if any) innocent victims as these getting hit by stray bullets caused by drive-by shootings. Second, the killings among gang members would also shrink drastically for the simple reason that most of them simply do not have the nerve to physically take someone out while looking at him in the eye.

Now, if you produced these arguments to an NRA member he is likely to say that he would be damned if he, a law abiding citizen, let a bunch of low life criminals dictate the laws of the land.

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

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!

A portion of my reply from page 1 or this thread:

"Just an American, Veteran, Father and Grandfather with an opinion. I completely support the rights of citizens to bear arms. I also believe there is a common sense solution, and part of the solution is banning assault rifles and large magazines. We will eventually get there........

JMHO - YMMV"

Gun control has been debated for decades in the United States and will continue for the foreseeable future. 

Haim Ronen posted:

Let's take for the sake of an argument one of the most vicious groups around the US, the Chicago gangs. What do you think would happen if somehow we managed to take their guns away and force them to settle accounts with each other using other means?

Two things. First, accidental deaths would go down by over 99% simply because drive by-stabbings or drive-by stranglings could never produce so many (if any) innocent victims as these getting hit by stray bullets caused by drive-by shootings. Second, the killings among gang members would also shrink drastically for the simple reason that most of them simply do not have the nerve to physically take someone out while looking at him in the eye.

Now, if you produced these arguments to an NRA member he is likely to say that he would be damned if he, a law abiding citizen, let a bunch of low life criminals dictate the laws of the land.

Haim

The model for this has already been played out in Northern Ireland.  Albeit guns were never legally available to the paramilitary organisations, that didn't stop armaments being shipped in from sympathisers in USA, Libya, etc.  When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, the paramilitaries declared a cease fire and agreed to put munitions beyond use.  This happened to many weapons.  But not all.  Certain proportions of the paramilitary organisations reverted to criminal gang activities and to this day they continue to apply their trade.  Nevertheless, the scale is greatly reduced.  It generally does not spill out into the general wider community.  The presence of army is virtually zero and police visibility is much more in line with mainland UK.  Things have improved beyond my imagination.

I'm not for one minute saying it is the same as or a model for the USA.  The paramilitary organisations and their change to politics was central to allowing this to happen.  However, it clearly demonstrates one element of what happens in a society when the quantity of weapons are dramatically reduced.  Pretty much aligned to your theory and already played out in NI.

Peter

Florestan posted:

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?

Camlan has responded to other aspects of this post, but in respect of the highlighted one I would observe that the "too dangerous" means too dangerous to innocent civilians, not danger to the police. And I do not think there is evidence to support the suggestion that because they are not armed British police prefer to deal with "paper crime" than more serious crime, which whilst it might seem natural to you I am sure is insulting to the vast majority of British police. You may be unaware that when there is gun crime, armed police are drafted in.

However, I do believe that with more limited resources than they used to have, the police in Britain do tend to focus more on either easy to solve crimes or high profile crimes, and so a lot more crimes go unresolved than was the case some years ago, and undoubtedly it is a challenge for them to get the right balance of focus.

Haim Ronen posted:

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

I'd agree were Florestan capable of rational debate or discussion. As he is patently incapable of either, to resort to gentle sarcasm is perfectly excusable, and at least gives some of us light relief after ploughing through the excrement of Florestan's 'arguments'.

I think he has withdrawn, having realised that other people are :-

Rational

Realistic

Reasonable

Right

 But I might be (w)rong.

Perhaps he's realised the implications of...

1  His admissions that in the US, when one person intends to kill another, a gun is frequently their weapon of choice.
2  His acceptance that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

...which, when taken together, in essence support the OPs position!

Haim Ronen posted:

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

...and yet you presumably think it acceptable for Florestan to roundly insult us all at every turn because we choose to disagree with his (admittedly elusive) arguments?

tonym posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

tonym posted:

Damn. If only we were as intelligent as Floristan and understood his posts, we'd get on board with his point of view. How can we all be so stupid? Maybe, if he was a bit more patronising, we'd finally grasp his perspective on things, but, alas, we're all doomed to fail on that score.

Tony, these are unnecessary insults that have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion.

...and yet you presumably think it acceptable for Florestan to roundly insult us all at every turn because we choose to disagree with his (admittedly elusive) arguments?

...and regularly accusing those who disagree with him of being anti-American.

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Well if you can't forgive, what happens, well, things just escalate and then what happens... You end up shooting someone!

Oh, you're in the UK, you probably don't have easy access to a gun!

Huge posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Well if you can't forgive, what happens, well, things just escalate and then what happens... You end up shooting someone!

Oh, you're in the UK, you probably don't have easy access to a gun!

No worries, pen is mightier etc....!

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

When challenged on insults given, Florestan has been prepared to apologise, and that deserves respect.

I wish I could be as magnanimous as you, Huge. Grateful for the balance you provide.

Well if you can't forgive, what happens, well, things just escalate and then what happens... You end up shooting someone!

Oh, you're in the UK, you probably don't have easy access to a gun!

No worries, pen is mightier etc....!

Mightier, and not deadly!

(Maybe gun ownership supporters think the word 'and' should be 'but'.)