Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

Source



Sometimes, you gotta do what ever it takes.

Take the guns out of the equation, Gus and co-workers more than likely beat to death"or close to it" ,and the robbers score an get to go home that night.



Obama should invite Gus and the 2 surviving perps over to the White House for a couple a beers and work out their differences?

YouTube

 

Americans in East Coast cities have largely conceded a monopoly of force to Law enforcement. Even Republicans.

East Coast gun sports are just not happenin, There is less and less wilderness open to field sport. State Parks have no hunting allowed. Gun ranges are expensive. Demographic and cultural shifts mean less hunters.
People here play golf. Firearms are generally frowned upon.


Twas a shame the the NRA filed a lawsuit to overturn the very restrictive firearms code of Washington DC. People living in DC supported the measure; even if it was later found unconstitutional. It was a case of rubbing residents noses in it.

Now, I open my newspaper to see people bringing firearms to events where The President is speaking. To East Coast eyes this looks foolish and extreme ( sure, its legal ) Why display a firearm in such a setting, does one feel threatened in such a setting?

If I want to argue that the goverment is in my pocket, someone can now reply that I am somehow associated with these gun people, yea its a distraction but thats how it goes.

 

Earthmother

And where in any one of my statements on this issue have I claimed that my ideas would magically change things instantly for the better? Where have I claimed to be setting up a ‘utopia’?

Come on, once again you seem more interested in scoring points against me than in actually entering into a rational debate.

In fact I’ve made it clear many times that this would be a long term plan, than the issues involved cannot be solved with some simple short term fix. You would know that if you’d read the pervious threads I’ve been in on this subject, did you, it would seem not?

*

And again with the right leaning philosophy of the individual, over that of the communal. An individual feeding some people once a week is good, but there are six more days in the week, and then there is the problem of that person falling on hard times and being unable to carry on, or moving away from that area (good for a new set of the destitute but the ones left behind go hungry).

And anyway giving someone a meal to eat is ok but wouldn’t it be better to try and get these people off the streets and give them education and training etc?

The best means of funding social programmes is through progressive taxation so if this person paid into a community chest through taxation, then such social programmes could be funded. But that comes up against your view that taxes should be voluntary, and people shouldn’t pay for things they don’t directly benefit from if they don’t want to.

You claim that you don’t complain about something unless you have some ideas on how to fix them. But looking through your own ideas on what to do I note that they would all take a lot of money and I don’t see how you’d pay for it all.

*

I also believe that people should stop being passive about the problems surrounding them and do something about them, the problem is that many don’t care that much about others because they have that same self centred individualist attitude I’ve mentioned.
That philosophical outlook stresses, self interest, self reliance, of looking to themselves rather than seeking communal answers and it also preaches personal responsibility. The thing is that that mentality can view the less fortunate as lacking in some way, that they wouldn’t be in that position if they were just more self reliant, that it was probably there own poor choices that got them there.

I’ve noted this viewpoint many times here and it does have a tendency to a belief that little or nothing can be done to change things.

I mean you’ve expressed similar views about people needing to be more self reliant and less molly coddled.

*

Why do you feel afraid?

Probably because you seem to have similar views as Mad, that people are by their very natures – “liars, cheats incredibly self centered, money hungry, raping, weapon wielding, gang joining, drug using, murdering, sometimes mentally disturbed sons of bitches” – and you see no way of stopping that and all you see is crime going up and people doing bad things to each other.

You talk of bringing communities together in a closer fashion, but how can people be brought together when people like you, Mad, and others mistrust and fear (almost to the point of paranoia) their fellow citizens.

I’ve travelled extensively in Europe and 95% of the people I’ve met are decent people. I’ve talked to hundreds of people on hipforums and only 2 or 3 have threatened me with violence.

I see criminality as a societal problem that needs to be solved, but many seem to see it as a runaway and un-solvable problem that can only be suppressed by the threat or use of violence.

*

 

So the most relevant statistics are the homicide figures

Let’s look specifically at UK knife related homicides as against US gun related homicide.

In 2004 230 people in the UK were murder by being stabbed with a sharp instrument (68 gun related killings) in the US in 2004 according to the FBI there were 10, 650 gun related murders (2,133 knife related homicides).

Let’s scale up the UK figures

The UK has roughly 60 million people and that equates to 230 sharp instrument murders so -

120 million = 460

240 million = 690

300 million = 920

The population of the US is roughly 300 million and has over 10,000 gun related murders

300 million = 10,000

150 million = 5,000

75 million = 2,500

37.5 million = 1,250

The thing is that guns are a far, far more effective weapon than knifes.



(BJS and HO data)


*

 

In my city, London, the homicide rate is 2.1 per 100,000 (population 7.56 million in 2007)

For comparisons in population it is easier to go by States.

Here is a list of the top ten murder rates. First number is homicides per 100,000 followed by population

1. District of Columbia 30.8 –591,833
2. Louisiana 14.2 – 4,410,796
3. Maryland 9.8 – 5,633,597
4. Alabama 8.9 – 4,661,900
5. New Mexico 8.2 – 1,984,356
6. South Carolina 8.0 - 4,479,800
7. Georgia 7.5 - 9,685,744
7. Nevada 7.5 - 2,600,167
9. Arizona 7.4 - 6,500,180
10. Mississippi 7.1 - 2,938,618

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2007
U. S. Crime Statistics Total and by State 1960 - 2007

Only one state has a higher population than London in that list

Now Earthmother’s state West Virginia comes in at 32 in the list with a homicide rate of 3.5 but it only has a population of 1,814,468

And Mad’s, Connecticut is 37th with 3.0 for a population of 3,501,252


In fact in this list 41 states have a higher murder rate than London but only 12 states in the US have higher populations.

 

Do I feel safer in London?

Do I feel I’m going to be stabbed in a British street? Should average Americans fear been gunned down?

Well statistically in both the UK and US I’d be safe from a gun or knife attack.

I could increase my chances, by being of a certain age and ethnicity, by being of a certain social class, by living in certain areas and I could increase it further by becoming a gang member and even further by entering into a life of crime, especially drugs.

“Youth homicide is a serious problem in large urban areas, especially among black males. Homicides are the number one cause of death for black and Hispanic teens. Yet when socio-economic status is held constant, differences in homicide rates by race become insignificant. Major contributing factors in addition to poverty include easy access to handguns, involvement in drug and gang activity, family disruption and school failure. These homicides usually occur in connection with an argument or dispute. They almost always are committed by casual acquaintances of the same gender, race and age, using inexpensive, easily acquired handguns”
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesHF.htm


The other way of increasing my chances was to be in an abusive relationship (especially in the US with relationship to the access to guns)
Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. of Public Health 1089, 1092 (2003), abstract available at http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/7/1089
Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.
The Violence Pol'y Ctr., When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents, at 7 (2004), available at http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf
*

Outside of that the actual risk falls dramatically.

The thing is that the level of fear many American seem to feel of being a victim of such an attack seems to be a lot greater in the US.

One reason for this is fear mongering put out by the media and in forums like this the pro-gunners.

To me these issues are not going to be resolved by individual gun ownership but by collective action to change society for the better.

*

 

By simply saying that everything anyone says means nothing. You seem to think that nobody is addressing the issues properly, or having any correct answers. But that's not true. Your "ideas" are not really ideas, just contradictions to other people's ideas. You act as if the mere FACT that there is crime and violence in society is no reason to want to protect yourself, and that if everything went they way YOU want it to, protecting yourself should not be an issue. If things were THAT good, it would indeed be utopia.

You just say that because I'm right and you have no argument against it.

I read until you start spouting labels and terms and all manner of anal opinions, and then I stop.

*

What, you mean you think I am saying ONE person should or could do it all??? Come on now. That's just stupid. I said PEOPLE should do things like this. That means PLURAL. As in more than one. As in MANY. As in how about the MAJORITY of people start helping look out for those in need?

This magic trick has never been perfected, and if you have a way to do it and make it work, tell us what it is. Anyhow, you can not "teach" anyone if they are starving.

Bullshit. I NEVER said that and I wish you would stop saying I did. WhatI said is that taxes which go to NEGATIVE things like wars etc should be voluntary. Just like going in the military. Supporting the military should be the same. But for POSITIVE things like feeding the hungry, EVERYONE WHO CAN should contribute something.

By redirecting money instead of just spending more? There'd be a lot of existing horseshit that I'd get rid of - Instant extra money....

*

Too bad, because we all live together on this planet, and it ain't a very BIG planet, all things considered.

Black and white, black and white......
Don't you believe in balance? You don't think that being self reliant is conducive to helping others? Well, SOMEONE has to be self reliant, and therefore feel secure in their abilities, so that they CAN help others. If everyone feel sort of insecure, how is that going to help anyone?

I don't believe that for a minute. But I DO believe that humans distrust CHANGE, and that it is going to take CRITICAL MASS of people working for the good before positive changes can take place. And, yes, in general, humans DO need to start taking more responsibility for themselves and what they do, and YES humans in the "civilized world" ARE mollycoddled. How can you argue against that? Maybe you are one of the ones who can not look at change without fearing losing something.

*

Not. What you mistake for fear, is actually preparedness.

Not ALL people are like that, but more all the time. He's right. Can you prove this to be false?

Just like you said, a little at a time. In REALITY, it is very hard to trust anyone, you have to get to know them well first. If you don't keep a certain ALOOFNESS in regards to people you don't really know, you can end up getting all trampled on. But Aloofness does not mean you should be hateful and mean, it just means you are being CAUTIOUS. It's a smart thing to be. Just like being PREPARED, just in case. Smart.

And I'm sure you got to know all 95% of those folks well enough to know that they were incapable of screwing you over or harming you...
The 2 or 3 on hip forums who made threats, that's just stupid. How do you commit acts of violence on an internet forum?

I have a REAL life in the REAL world, and in this world, CRIME is going up, murders are going up, theft is going up, bad drug use is going up. Again, and for the hundredth time, HOW to stop that from happening, and WHAT to do in the meantime? Because no matter HOW many homeless and hungry I feed, no matter HOW many people I try to reach with a positive message (which I do almost every day), no matter how hard I try to "re-educate" the drunks and rednecks and drug abusers, it does not stop the FACT that there IS crime, AND robbery, AND murders taking place. And being in MY position, which you obviously know nothing about, it is DAMN EASY to PISS OFF someone who is caught up in all those bad things, because I DO believe that people need to ultimately take responsibility for what they do, and I actually INSIST on it. Even if you are mentally ill, I insist that you at least take responsibility for your illness if you can not take responsibility for your actions while being ill.

Well, THAT is where we really differ. Because I believe that generally speaking, using violence and intimidation to "get what you want" just tells the rest of the world it's OK to be violent. Like the prison system, (or the war system for that matter) it's all about PUNISHMENT. When it should be about teaching a better way to live so that those prisoners can be "free" from their oppressive life of crime. I do NOT believe in the death penalty for ANYONE. All that "eye for an eye" stuff is the thing that just keeps the shit ball rolling. People need to realize that KARMA takes care of things eventually. In other words, if I live a rotten life and treat others badly, I'm gonna have bad things happen to me. You don't have to lock me up, beat me up, prosecute me, yell at me, whatever. I'm simply gonna have a shitty life ANYHOW. So what I NEED is to be shown a BETTER way to live. NOT years in prison or the electric chair... And THAT requires people who are willing to STOP being vindictive and START being caring.

But none the less, if the local pillheads or crankheads decide they WANT to rob us, and they have GUNS, I want to be prepared. Because I can not do a DAMN THING to help anyone if I'm DEAD.

 

You want statistics.
How 'bout a little reality?

This county has approximately 7300 people living here:

http://hurherald.com/cgi-bin/db_scripts/articles?Action=user_view&db=articles_hurherald&id=35847

http://www.hurherald.com/cgi-bin/db_scripts/articles?Action=user_view&db=articles_hurherald&id=34062

http://www.hurherald.com/cgi-bin/db_scripts/articles?Action=user_view&db=articles_hurherald&id=35399

http://www.hurherald.com/cgi-bin/db_scripts/articles?Action=user_view&db=articles_hurherald&id=33151

 

Go earthmother!!!!!!

i agree with u, i live with my girlfriend in the Miami area and every gangsta around here has a gun. so i feel like having a gun by my bedside is just the smart thing to do. i will never look for trouble with my gun but if anyone breaks into my home they are gonna be sorry because i practice and im a pretty good shot.

also, i feel like owning a gun has made me more responsible. here we have the 10-20-life law with guns. so you can bet your ass im gonna be super careful and only pull out my gun when im gonna shoot someone in the head because i fear for my own life.

but lets go back to the MAIN argument. are we safer with guns or without guns?

to address this argument you must first realize a couple of basic FACTS.

FACT #1: we cannot get rid of 100% of the guns in our country. ( that would be like getting rid of 100% of drugs in our country, its not possible)

FACT#2: if a criminal wants a gun, you cant stop him by making gun control laws because criminals dont follow the law, they will just get it in the black market.

so if we have gun control laws that stop regular citizens from having guns, only criminals will have guns, and they will have the upper hand.

so if i live in an area with a high crime rate and criminals are walking around with guns, of course im going to be safer if i have a gun.

 

I'd feel safer in NYC then I would in London. Statistics are always fun shit, what they fail to mention is the fact unless you're in a gang your chances of being shot or stabbed in the US are rather small. Most violence is gang related, but at least our gangs do it for money, they have business ventures to protect(i.e. drugs and such). England just have gangs of knife wielding kids who go around piss drunk then for no other reason then to create mayhem. Now that's a culture problem.

 

Here's a link to some interesting stats, I won't bother cherry picking to prove my case

Perception of Safety Walking in the dark.


Perception of Safety Burglary.


NationMaster stats


So, I have to ask, Why do YOU feel afraid???????

 

I think guns are the last line of defense against a fascist government should it arise.

 

you are welcome to name one, only one single incident when private weapons (or even militia) ever prevented a fascist gouverment from arising.

the US still have the most killed ppl by guns of all western countrys. not only in total numbers but also in percental numbers. make of it what you want, but this is a fact.

if someone wanted to kill you, do you really think your bedside gun would save you?why dont you simply install a phone beside your bed and call the police?

stupid question, but doesnt your country have something similar to a police? your argument sounds more like you are living in a war zone, not in a western country.

so, instead of being knocked down and punched up, you draw your gun, shoot one person and in return you are shot by another one. so, instead of you lying in the hospital, maybe missing a few teeth, we have two dead bodies. yeah, much saver.

the best protection against violence is to actively create an invironment where crimes are the BIG exception, with a good social care, good income and good education - in combination with a well trained executive force.
The US have bad social care, bad income for too many ppl and an education system that benefits the elites. their executive personell is untrained, poorly educated and undermanned. on top of that their weapon laws are simply ridicilous. now i dare to claim that having a gun will do absolutely, absolutely NOTHING to increase security - it gives a false feeling for security, yes, but a gun will never create an invironment where guns arent needed for savety.

my country has very harsh and strict gun control laws. we have a good working social net, good incomes and good education system. no one needs a gun ANYWHERE to protect himself from harm. yes, there are murders in my country - and yes, some of them are done with guns. however, there are very few murders with guns... and generally, most murders in my country happen inside social circles (most often families).

i say, crime problems are selfmade, a social failure running rampagne. and you dont remove social failures with guns.

how was the proverb again? fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity?

 

When the prohibition of alcohol was put into effect it created crime and filled penitentiaries that required enormous amount of tax dollars to maintain, of course this didn't work and the law was abolished.

When Marijuana as well as other drugs were condemned by the United States government it again create a crime network where once non existed, and overburdened the court and prison system, as is testament by the large number of people who enjoy cannabis on this site alone it can be stated that this law is also terminally flawed.

Now with that being said I wonder what would happen if firearms were banned...

hmmm....

 

Im not saying your wrong but this is the most bias liberal bullshit ever.

one thing though, about the cops:

The police are minutes away when seconds matter

 

Even though you completely ignored the social points of that post. When you get away from the cities in the US most crime rates in the US are actually lower then other countries.

And yes, why don't you check out the otherside of statistics too, over a million people a year on average successfully use guns to stop a crime from happening to them. BUT OH NO GUNS CAN'T DO ANY GOOD!!!#(#$

And for more statistics, how about we check out the heaven that is canada

Now considering I'm not in a gang and my lifestyle means I don't have a good chance of being in gang/drug related violence, the risk of a violent crime happening to me an home invasion is lower here in the states.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7936817.stm
Gun laws obviously stop massacres,, there's been 3 in Germany in just as many years. Stop blaming guns and stop trying to take away freedom, address the issues on why people go on shooting sprees to begin with

 

The fact is in many places in the US once you get away from East coast of major cities the police are tens of minutes away. Which goes back to the irony of the fact if you take away the crime rate for cities, the crime rate in most rural parts of the United States is in fact extremely low, nobody kills or assualts people out there and who's going to break into a house when every house has a gun.

 

You really can't prevent a crime just because you own a gun, or just because you're there on scene when it happens.

Those points are totally useless in a debate about gun control.

 

But you can, in fact it happens dozens of times a week, or at least stop a crime that is already in process. And threat of violence works does work, no one would choose to break into the house that they know has a gun in it

 

No, they befriend the people with the loaded guns sitting about their house so the people will trust them enough let them in.... That's one of the news articles i posted... They had a whole house full of loaded guns apparently, but were not expecting someone they knew to also have one, and USE it on them... Yea, you can say it didn't help those people that time, but the cops HERE can be as much as an hour and a half away, and if they decide the situation looks like they could get hurt, they spend even more time than that getting prepared to put on their SWAT TEAM dog and pony show. Which has to come over 60 miles to get here... And what do they do when they arrive? Look for someone to shoot... They're all about guns. Wonder why. Do ya suppose it's because they feel SAFER? The cops here are so lame, I'd rather have a PERMIT for a handgun and do a citizen's arrest.... And I wouldn't take the perp to the police station in THIS county, I'd go to the next one over. These guys are worthless.