Bush so pathetic that even his own party dumped on him

[Kohburn]

Paranoia is never a justification for militarization. Fact of the matter is that guns in the US are rarely used for protection. If they were, you'd see a significant statistical drop in crimes per 100k... Reality is that the US is up there for some of the worst crime rates--significantly higher than many countries that prohibit CCW weapons. Even better (for my argument at least) is that crime has been on a steady decline for the past 50 years--despite toughening gun laws.

How do you explain that off?

actually gun laws have only been getting tighter in the areas that the crime has been rising - in most of the use crime has been droping as more states adopt the "shall issue" policy

every place int he use that has loosened gun restrictions on legally carrying citizens has had a drop in crime and every place that makes it harder for people to arm themselves gets it worse.

baltimore and DC have some of the worste crime in the country and also the toughest gun control laws, yet are they more urban than NY?

[Kohburn]

I agree--but the backwards thinking rests pretty much on the vocal majority of pro-gun activists.

All the "reasoning" that comes from pro-gunners is outdated, medieval thinking that lost it's relevancy when the US became a thriving urban society--not a frontier of wilderness pioneering.

At the end of the day, though, my concern is the same: Gun control gets far more "airtime" than it legitimately deserves. There are far, FAR greater problems in the US that urgently need attention.

lol - hardly, but i take it you are anti-gun? there are hard core left and right people that make both sides of the argument seem rediculous.

But there are a lot of very valid arguments. you can't compare america to a lot of other coutries because they don't have the same borders we do, we already have a heavily armed criminal populace. taking away arms from citizens that only wish to use them legally is just asinine. putting signs on stores that people legally carrying guns are not allowed in the store is just advertising to would be criminals that its a safer hit than the next place.

what purpose does taking the guns away from people that would legally register for them serve? the criminals aren't getting their guns legally anyways so it won't stop them.

There are less than 12,000 registered CCW carriers in MD due to really resitrictive gun laws. yet virginia has something around 200,000 ccw's plus in virginia you are allowed to open carry. both border DC which untill recently had a complete handgun ban.

lots of guns in virginia but where is the crime? its in DC and maryland where the criminals have free reign for the 5-30 minutes it takes for cops to show up.

the statistics prove that overly restrictive gun laws only help criminals. and interviews with a couple thousand prisoners shows that they agree.

[The Dark Side of Will]

"An armed society is a polite society". - Heinlein

Guns don't have to be USED to prevent crime. If you had an illegal gun and you knew there wasn't a legal gun in a house, how would you feel about robbing that house? What if there was a good chance there was a legal gun in the house? Would your feelings change?

Our nuclear arsenal prevented nuclear war with the Soviets, yet we never USED a nuke on them.

I think Heinlein would have liked Ron Paul.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... nlein.html

[Mach10]

actually gun laws have only been getting tighter in the areas that the crime has been rising - in most of the use crime has been droping as more states adopt the "shall issue" policy

every place int he use that has loosened gun restrictions on legally carrying citizens has had a drop in crime and every place that makes it harder for people to arm themselves gets it worse.

I've only ever seen statistics over a larger segment of population... Care to show any numbers backing that up?

baltimore and DC have some of the worste crime in the country and also the toughest gun control laws, yet are they more urban than NY?

Cause and effect; many jurisdictions clamp down on gun ownership in an effort to curb gun crime.

[Mach10]

lol - hardly, but i take it you are anti-gun?

Yes and no. I support stringent controls on gun ownership... But I also own a longarm that I take shooting as often as I can get out.

there are hard core left and right people that make both sides of the argument seem rediculous.

Amen! Testify! (etc!)

But there are a lot of very valid arguments. you can't compare america to a lot of other coutries because they don't have the same borders we do, we already have a heavily armed criminal populace. taking away arms from citizens that only wish to use them legally is just asinine. putting signs on stores that people legally carrying guns are not allowed in the store is just advertising to would be criminals that its a safer hit than the next place.

The subject of America is complicated. I would argue that the reason your criminals are well armed is a factor of the availability of guns to the rest of the population.

The mistake of pro-gun activists is assuming that they are somehow separate from the "criminal element." Fact of the matter is that criminals form a portion of the general population--there's nothing differentiating them from "honest" citizens except for looser definitions of the terms "morality," and "impulse control."

what purpose does taking the guns away from people that would legally register for them serve? the criminals aren't getting their guns legally anyways so it won't stop them.

Actually, I don't support taking guns away--just regulating the possesion and aqcuisition of them.

There are less than 12,000 registered CCW carriers in MD due to really resitrictive gun laws. yet virginia has something around 200,000 ccw's plus in virginia you are allowed to open carry. both border DC which untill recently had a complete handgun ban.

lots of guns in virginia but where is the crime? its in DC and maryland where the criminals have free reign for the 5-30 minutes it takes for cops to show up.

Sorry, but your statistics don't add up. Apples to Apples. Washington DC is what, 95% urban? Comparing DC as a state to VA which includes a fair amount of more rural communities is not valid. Comparing Washington DC to (say) Richmond VA is more reasonable.

According to 2003 FBI stats, both DC and Richmond are consistantly ahead of the curve in terms of VIOLENT crime (2.63, 2.07 times national avg respectively). Richmond edges in 0.64 times national average when considering property crimes, with DC sitting at 1.34 times.

the statistics prove that overly restrictive gun laws only help criminals. and interviews with a couple thousand prisoners shows that they agree.

No, the statistics don't prove anything except that assumptions are made. *shrug*

[Mach10]

"An armed society is a polite society". - Heinlein

Great writer, but predisposed to writing about fictional distopia... If you read a good number of his books, you come to the realization that more than anything, he's a cast-iron cynic

Guns don't have to be USED to prevent crime. If you had an illegal gun and you knew there wasn't a legal gun in a house, how would you feel about robbing that house? What if there was a good chance there was a legal gun in the house? Would your feelings change?

This is the same argument used for capital punishment, and it's as flawed for both cases.

It makes a few poor assumptions: First and foremost that your common criminal sits down and thinks rationally about consequences before committing a crime.

Most so-called blue-collar crime is opportunistic or aggravated. If people actually sat down and THOUGHT about crime, you'd have a lot more stuff going missing, and a whole lot less people in jail for it.

Given your example, and given those circumstances, if I was the robber, I would be targetting that particular house because of a percieved payoff, and I would go in guns blazing. After all, if there's something worth taking, I'm not going to risk my own skin by taking the "soft" approach.

Would I succeed? Probably not; I'd have the element of surprise, but I'm a crap shot.

[The Dark Side of Will]

baltimore and DC have some of the worste crime in the country and also the toughest gun control laws, yet are they more urban than NY?

Cause and effect; many jurisdictions clamp down on gun ownership in an effort to curb gun crime.

But that's an ineffective and thoroughly misguided effort. Legal gun owners almost never commit gun crimes. The establishment barks up the wrong tree.

Given your example, and given those circumstances, if I was the robber, I would be targetting that particular house because of a percieved payoff, and I would go in guns blazing. After all, if there's something worth taking, I'm not going to risk my own skin by taking the "soft" approach.

And you're thinking about it before hand... How often does that happen?

I don't claim to be a criminal, but I would think that in the mind of joe average, "There could be a gun in that house" carries a lot more immediate weight than "I could get caught at some indefinite point in the future".

[Kohburn]

baltimore and DC have some of the worste crime in the country and also the toughest gun control laws, yet are they more urban than NY?

Cause and effect; many jurisdictions clamp down on gun ownership in an effort to curb gun crime.

But that's an ineffective and thoroughly misguided effort. Legal gun owners almost never commit gun crimes. The establishment barks up the wrong tree.

yes, the fact that areas that losened up their gun laws allowing citizens to protect themselves and their property resulted in a steady drop in crime shows which was the cause and which was the effect.

Given your example, and given those circumstances, if I was the robber, I would be targetting that particular house because of a percieved payoff, and I would go in guns blazing. After all, if there's something worth taking, I'm not going to risk my own skin by taking the "soft" approach.

And you're thinking about it before hand... How often does that happen?

I don't claim to be a criminal, but I would think that in the mind of joe average, "There could be a gun in that house" carries a lot more immediate weight than "I could get caught at some indefinite point in the future".[/quote]

and the case studies involving interviews with people in jail show that they tend to think twice when they think a home or person may be armed. and they also tend to think twice when the potential punishment is death. both are deterrents, they reduce the rates, they don't stop it all together, thats why criminals still get shot when breaking and entering.

[Mach10]

yes, the fact that areas that losened up their gun laws allowing citizens to protect themselves and their property resulted in a steady drop in crime shows which was the cause and which was the effect.

Didn't we just go over this? There never was a "steady crime drop" that wasn't already happening both in the US *AND* Canada. You can't blame that on gun control/liberty.

and the case studies involving interviews with people in jail show that they tend to think twice when they think a home or person may be armed. and they also tend to think twice when the potential punishment is death. both are deterrents, they reduce the rates, they don't stop it all together, thats why criminals still get shot when breaking and entering.

Hindsight = 20/20. You can't make any legitimate inference about criminal behavior based on interviews with institutionalized individuals. If they "thought twice" about anything while on the loose, do you honestly think they'd be in jail? It's like going to the oncology ward, rounding up a bunch of people dying of colorectal cancer, and asking them how they feel about vegetarianism.

In any case, I have yet to see these magic numbers that even hint at the idea that widespread gun ownership in any way lowers crime stats.

[Kohburn]

Didn't we just go over this? There never was a "steady crime drop" that wasn't already happening both in the US *AND* Canada. You can't blame that on gun control/liberty.

localized crime increases and drops that happen in US areas don't correspond to canada in any way nor do they correspond to other non local US cities.

you can't look at crime increases and drops on a global scale and say "oh people are just being less violent this year" you have to look at all the changes tha have been implemented.

i've looked at a lot of the "statistics" put out by the anti gun people and the ones put out by pro gun people. the anti gunners leave out all the extra details and make as broad of blanket statements as possible to make it serve their purpose, the pro gunners include as much detail as possible about the laws changed in the specific areas that crime rose or fell to show the correllation.

beleive it or not you won't be changing my mind on the topic.

Hindsight = 20/20. You can't make any legitimate inference about criminal behavior based on interviews with institutionalized individuals. If they "thought twice" about anything while on the loose, do you honestly think they'd be in jail? It's like going to the oncology ward, rounding up a bunch of people dying of colorectal cancer, and asking them how they feel about vegetarianism.

lol - so because they still commited crimes it doesn't mean that they didn't pick their targets based on risk of the victim being armed, or that they didn't commit more serious crimes for fear of being put to death for it?

they broke the law, they aren't brain damaged.

In any case, I have yet to see these magic numbers that even hint at the idea that widespread gun ownership in any way lowers crime stats.

funny haven't scene yours either :la:

[Mach10]

localized crime increases and drops that happen in US areas don't correspond to canada in any way nor do they correspond to other non local US cities.

I agree--but I think you misunderstood me. What I said was that these localized drops in crime rate (which have been steady since the late 70s, BTW) correspond to similar drops in Canada--as well as drops nationwide in the US.

Since Gun-Control isn't an issue in Canada (no ccw), if the numbers are behaving the same, then you can't realistically suggest that crime drops as more people carry.

you can't look at crime increases and drops on a global scale and say "oh people are just being less violent this year" you have to look at all the changes tha have been implemented.

BUT if the drops are consistent across the board, you can't reasonably suggest that this is due to local pressures.

i've looked at a lot of the "statistics" put out by the anti gun people and the ones put out by pro gun people. the anti gunners leave out all the extra details and make as broad of blanket statements as possible to make it serve their purpose, the pro gunners include as much detail as possible about the laws changed in the specific areas that crime rose or fell to show the correllation.

ALL of the stats I've quoted come from studies that would be considered "neutral" in the discussion. Specifically Stats Can (census 2006) and FBI crime stat.

Maybe you've looked at them, but I don't think you READ them.

beleive it or not you won't be changing my mind on the topic.

There's a nasty word for someone who believes the same thing on wednesday--regardless of what he learned on monday or tuesday.

Open mind, that's where it's at--is all I'm saying.

lol - so because they still commited crimes it doesn't mean that they didn't pick their targets based on risk of the victim being armed, or that they didn't commit more serious crimes for fear of being put to death for it?

No, it means that their "explanation" is worthless. You are asking someone for meaning/justification AFTER the fact, and after having been institutionalized. People will go to all sorts of lengths to justify actions they regret--consciously or otherwise.

Get into a car accident, and ask the person why they ran the red light months after the fact... Enjoy the answer.

they broke the law, they aren't brain damaged.

Never said they were--just that their justifications for their actions don't reflect the spontenaeity that describes a massive, massive percentage of criminal acts.

funny haven't scene yours either :la:

Re-read my post, then... I quoted from a 2003 crime survey right from the FBI... Google it.

[Kohburn]

here is a little tidbit using the FBI statistics for the year

Although the national figures show a decline, not all cities followed that trend. Murder was up in Cleveland, Washington D.C. and Baltimore. In the nation's capital there were 181 murders in 2007 compared to 169 in 2006; Cleveland saw a jump from up from 119 during 2006 to 134 in 2007.

note that the district of columbia and baltimore have some of the most strict gun control laws in the country - while the rest of the country has been losening the restrictions on law abiding citizens to allow them to arm themselves per the US constitution

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story? ... 712&page=1

and that is purely the murder rate - if you include "violent crime", forcible rape, burglery etc - the cities with the tightest gun laws aren't looking too hot.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/majorthefts/majorthefts.htm

[Kohburn]

I quoted from a 2003 crime survey right from the FBI... Google it.

meh a lot has changed since 2003 law wise

[Mach10]

note that the district of columbia and baltimore have some of the most strict gun control laws in the country - while the rest of the country has been losening the restrictions on law abiding citizens to allow them to arm themselves per the US constitution

I'm not trying to be a stubborn asshole...

But you can't attribute these statistics to gun ownership/control. If there were a direct correlation, you would see an instant spike in overall crime in the area from when the ban was placed, and the crime rate would follow the national trends, at a fairly constant rate above.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story? ... 712&page=1

and that is purely the murder rate - if you include "violent crime", forcible rape, burglery etc - the cities with the tightest gun laws aren't looking too hot.

Re-read the article; they are talking violent crime as a whole, and property crime as a whole. They mention the murder rate as down 1.1% with the overall violent crime down 1.8%

It's not sound to base the higher crime-rate in Balt or DC as being a direct result of gun control.

Go take a look at the US census numbers(2006) for Baltimore and DC (to quote your examples) and have a look at the population that sits under the poverty line.

DC is sitting pretty at 18.4%, with Baltimore at 22.9%

Compare this with San Jose, CA, which according to Wikipedia (referencing FBI uniform Crime rates, 2006) has both a very low violent crime rate AND a low property crime rate. Their city has a total of 8.8% sitting under the poverty line.

THAT is a correlation, because all things being equal, it's repeatable pretty much anywhere that more than 3 people settle in to live.

[Mach10]

meh a lot has changed since 2003 law wise

Fair enough... So I looked up the 2006 stats... Which say more-or-less the same thing. :salute:

[Kohburn]

I'll just leave it as you interperate the data a lot differently than I do.

[Kohburn]

meh a lot has changed since 2003 law wise

Fair enough... So I looked up the 2006 stats... Which say more-or-less the same thing. :salute:

as a whole the crime in the US went down - in the areas with the tightest gun laws it went up, and it wasn't legally owned guns causing gun crime.

nuff said

end discussion

[Mach10]

I gots a rock that keeps tigers away... $10.

Crime went up BEFORE the gun-control measures. The GC measures were an attempt to curb the violence on the streets.

Canada has a gun-related violence rate of 0.54/100,000 The US has a gun-related violence rate of 2.94/100,000

Interpret those all you want. :scratch:

[Kohburn]

Canada has a gun-related violence rate of 0.54/100,000 The US has a gun-related violence rate of 2.94/100,000

Interpret those all you want. :scratch:

meaningless

canada does not have the same borders we do, nor does it have the same culture or polulation density

[The Dark Side of Will]

Larry Niven on Kzin population density: "The more Kzin there are, the greater the opportunity for one Kzin to take offense at another. Our population is self-regulating."