quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Wrong. I know this will go over your head but I am going to point it out anyway. Australia's crime, and even murder rate are virtually unchanged from before the passed their draconian laws.

Quite wrong.
Read the link I gave that quoted from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Ours, with a steadily increasing number of guns out there is dropping rapidly.

Yeah... so rapidly that the US still have the highest gun stats than any other OECD country by several orders of magnitude.
Your rate of decline is sooo minimal it barely changes the figures that are quoted to 2 or more decimal places.
I hardly call that "rapidly".
And it's still waaay out of control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Since you and other anti gun types won't remember that I have said before that while this does not prove that more guns = less crime it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime.

You have either said, or implied, in previous gun threads that more guns make it safer for people; Ergo: less crime.
So you are back-peddaling again.

Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance.

This is absolutely true. Lawless areas have large numbers of people with illegal guns also predisposed to violence.

Step away from those areas and you have tons of law abiding citizens with guns almost no gun violence at all. Take out the psychopaths (the real psychopaths) and you have just a tad bit less, because there are so few legitimate psychopaths. But certainly in Aurora, CO or in CT, those areas have essentially no gun violence until a crazy goes off (in a no-gun-zone, of course, both times). Remove those and you've got nothing.

You can also see the difference by looking at domestic violence. There's plenty of that everywhere. Middle-class, upper-class, most assaults are domestic. That's more of a societal problem, not something you see only in gangs, although I'm sure gang members are even worse to their partners than others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy
Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance.

But each and every tiny area of any US town and city are not the sole thing used to make the statistics for the whole of the US.
You said it yourself - "small drug patches..."
Cherry pick what you like. It doesn't extrapolate to make it typically a US-wide statistic.
Wiki doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate.
You really are dense, aren't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

And still, some people were able to get guns, storm a government building, and.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy
Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance.

But each and every tiny area of any US town and city are not the sole thing used to make the statistics for the whole of the US.
You said it yourself - "small drug patches..."
Cherry pick what you like. It doesn't extrapolate to make it typically a US-wide statistic.
Wiki doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

The you are cherry picking because you eliminate those areas and all crime is much lower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy
Not a straw man. Pick any city in the US and the story is the same. The small drug patches are where the majority of the gun violence happens. If you do not recognize this as a fundamental fact, you have willful ignorance.

But each and every tiny area of any US town and city are not the sole thing used to make the statistics for the whole of the US.
You said it yourself - "small drug patches..."
Cherry pick what you like. It doesn't extrapolate to make it typically a US-wide statistic.
Wiki doesn't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy
What am i cherry picking? You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject beyond what a few websites throw out there. Go ahead, pick a city and google yhe city name and shooting map. You will see pockets where most of the shootings happen. These pockets are also drug areas. I know for a fact this correlation is true in Chicago, Louisville, and Atlanta. I know this will be the case in every city lookup, except maybe East St. Louis cuz that town is a complete shithole.
This is the truth no matter how badly you want it not to be. And if you refuse this simple exercise, willfull ignorance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: KYsissy
What am i cherry picking? You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject beyond what a few websites throw out there. Go ahead, pick a city and google yhe city name and shooting map. You will see pockets where most of the shootings happen. These pockets are also drug areas. I know for a fact this correlation is true in Chicago, Louisville, and Atlanta. I know this will be the case in every city lookup, except maybe East St. Louis cuz that town is a complete shithole.
This is the truth no matter how badly you want it not to be. And if you refuse this simple exercise, willfull ignorance.

I can cite a traffic jam in just about every major city in the UK at certain times.
That doesn't make the whole country in a gridlock.

Cherry picking "pockets" of certain crimes and those areas where it happens.
That in itself does not extrapolate to a national statistic for the whole of the US.
That is what you are cherry picking.

It's the extrapolation concept and logic you are not grasping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive.

Where??
I don't see that figure in any stats for the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it.

The topic is for guns - not other sources.
Another strawman diversionary tactic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate.
You really are dense, aren't you?

Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads.
You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime.
US statistics appear to prove otherwise.
The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country.
The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country.
Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes.
Again... gun crimes, not other crimes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
On pt. 1, that's what I thought. And it is problematic. A cop shooting a dangerous felon who is an imminent threat dead isn't gun violence in the meaning being discussed here. So "good" shoots get conflated with wrong ones, making the total higher than it should be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
On pt. 2, the issue is that most of us aren't in gangs. So guns aren't a threat to us. The gangbangers kill the gangbangers. Whether they use a gun, a knife, their fists or an IED, they're killing each other. There is no effect on the rest of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So it's not a real risk to me unless I decide to join the Crips or the Bloods or MS-13 tomorrow. If we're looking at societal effects, we have to consider them on the average person, not those who choose a life of violence. In the same way, if in the heyday of the Mafia, two warring families gunned down 50 made men and 1 innocent person, that's 1 relevant murder. That's all that matters to the rest of us. So these data again make guns appear much more dangerous than they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
On pt. 1, that's what I thought. And it is problematic. A cop shooting a dangerous felon who is an imminent threat dead isn't gun violence in the meaning being discussed here. So "good" shoots get conflated with wrong ones, making the total higher than it should be.

I thought you might come back with that.
A gun death, whether you consider it good or bad, is still a gun death whether you like it or not.
I don't consider any gun death to be good - no matter what the circumstance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
On pt. 2, the issue is that most of us aren't in gangs. So guns aren't a threat to us. The gangbangers kill the gangbangers. Whether they use a gun, a knife, their fists or an IED, they're killing each other. There is no effect on the rest of us.

Unless you happen to get caught in the crossfire or the mele.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
So it's not a real risk to me unless I decide to join the Crips or the Bloods or MS-13 tomorrow. If we're looking at societal effects, we have to consider them on the average person, not those who choose a life of violence. In the same way, if in the heyday of the Mafia, two warring families gunned down 50 made men and 1 innocent person, that's 1 relevant murder. That's all that matters to the rest of us. So these data again make guns appear much more dangerous than they are.

In your example, 50 made men and 1 innocent bystander is still 51 gun deaths.
And in my eyes, it's 51 murders by a gun.
I don't discount the other 50 just because it happens between two warring groups/families or whatever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive.

Where??
I don't see that figure in any stats for the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it.

The topic is for guns - not other sources.
Another strawman diversionary tactic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate.
You really are dense, aren't you?

Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads.
You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime.
US statistics appear to prove otherwise.
The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country.
The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country.
Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes.
Again... gun crimes, not other crimes.

I am of the view that if you have 100 murders a year 90 with guns and you ban guns.
If the next year you only have 10 murders with guns but you still have 100 murders you have gained nothing.
You, of course feel better if they are shoved out of windows.
the subject isn't reducing gun deaths, it is reducing deaths.
By the way my 46% comes from the FBI, I realize that since they aren't British you don't count them.
The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
46% is not a minimal drop in crime, it is massive.

Where??
I don't see that figure in any stats for the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
gun deaths in Australia may have dropped but the murder rate is virtually unchanged, and you know it.

The topic is for guns - not other sources.
Another strawman diversionary tactic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I said that that one fact did not prove that more guns = less crime, I did not say that they didn't have a good effect on the crime rate.
You really are dense, aren't you?

Nope. You deny what you have previously stated or implied in other threads.
You say it destroys the idea that more guns = more crime.
US statistics appear to prove otherwise.
The US have more guns per capita than any other OECD country.
The US have a much higher rate of gun crime per capita than any other OECD country.
Those stats are equatable. More guns per capita therefore make more gun crimes.
Again... gun crimes, not other crimes.

I am of the view that if you have 100 murders a year 90 with guns and you ban guns.
If the next year you only have 10 murders with guns but you still have 100 murders you have gained nothing.
You, of course feel better if they are shoved out of windows.
the subject isn't reducing gun deaths, it is reducing deaths.
By the way my 46% comes from the FBI, I realize that since they aren't British you don't count them.
The FBI also says that guns are used to stop violent crime 650,000 times a year.

I really don't know where you get the insane idea that I advocate banning of guns. I don't.
What I advocate is the banning of guns in public places - all public places.

If in the next year you still have 100 murders with only 10 being by gun, that is a distinct advantage because most assaults without a gun would usually also be without a gun.
So I dispute that you would still have 100 murders.
Or can't you grasp that logic??

Check out these figures: http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

Also, you say that the FBI stats show a 46% drop in gun crimes?
According to The Guardian, showing stats by state as well as overall (from FBI figures), apart from Hawaii almost all the other states were showing percentage of firearms murders of all murders in the 60% and more range.
Overall, the US only dropped by 3% for firearm murder rates.
In another chart, it shows a pie chart of murder weapons - 68% is by firearms.
It states -
The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 3% on the previous year
Note 3%, not 46%. Data provided by the FBI.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Also -
The 2011 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 3.8 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2010 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 386.3 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 4.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,908.7 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 1.3 percent decrease from the 2010 figure).
-And-
Each of the four violent crime offense estimates decreased when compared with the 2010 estimates. Robbery had the largest decrease at 4.0 percent, followed by aggravated assault with a 3.9 percent decline, forcible rape with a 2.5 percent decline, and murder and nonnegligent manslaughter with a 0.7 percent decrease.
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/fbi-releases-2011-crime-statistics
Again... not 46% as you claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You moron I didn't say in one year,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
in the last 15 years it has dropped from just under 7 to just over 4 in the same time the murder rates in your perfect countries has been stable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And you are still obsessed with just counting gun deaths,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
you do know they are just as dead if the murder weapon was a knife.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In DC the end result of the handgun ban was that while the % of murders committed with firearms was cut in half this was only because the murder rate with firearms remained steady but the total murder rate doubled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Ok, I may be just about the only American citizen who gets interrogated regarding firearms when I cross the border....but, yeah, don't think so. I am just a gal coming across the border in her car with her two dogs and inevitably get asked the question..."do you have any firearms on you?".

That's weird. Where do you cross the border? I have crossed the border more times than I can remember and I have never once been asked that question.

At the Western Washington/BC border