[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[jim mk2]

I want a government that functions, even if I don't agree with its policies. The US system of government is dysfunctional.

[Steve Moss]

I want a government that functions, even if I don't agree with its policies. The US system of government is dysfunctional.

Which is a big plus.

[dave birch]

Which is a big plus.

Goodness!

Just imagine what the US could have achieved had they been working together for the good of themselves and (indirectly) for the rest of the world.

Come on Steve, you've got to admit that your (and I suspect politicians worldwide) are only in it for their own ego and not for the well being of their planetary co-dwellers.

[Steve Moss]

Goodness!

Just imagine what the US could have achieved had they been working together for the good of themselves and (indirectly) for the rest of the world.

Come on Steve, you've got to admit that your (and I suspect politicians worldwide) are only in it for their own ego and not for the well being of their planetary co-dwellers.

You've described almost all politicians. Which is why its a good thing to restrain their power.

[Guest Norbert]

You've got a point. Absolute power and so on.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Anybody convinced by the police testimony in the Mark Duggan inquiry ?

[jim mk2]

US indulging in its favourite pastime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24613025

On a happier note the shutdown is over.....until the next time when the US again manages to make Greece and Italy look like well governed countries.

[RoyRover]

If all those school children had been packing heat they could have prevented this.

[Steve Moss]

Brace yourself, Jim. You doubtless will be shocked and horrified that the Interpol Secretary General appears to be considering an armed citizenry as a reasonable method of preventing and/or minimizing terrorist attacks:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341

But you should carry on thinking that gun control makes you safer.

[Paul]

I hadn't heard of Ronald Noble before but having read the article it's hardly a surprise he makes the suggestion. I can't really see what this adds to the discussion.

Noble is saying if Westgate happened in Denver or Texas the local citizenry are going to take out their weapons and tackle the terrorists.

"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'"[\quote]

To be frank I'm not sure how he can seriously suggest this or believe it would happen and a clearly intelligent man like yourself agrees. I don't agree with your views Steve but always respect your presentation.

However to suggest, probably lightly, armed citizens be ready to take on terrorists armed with who knows what simply invites more death on the public. Or are you suggesting, and this is not facetious, people take an assault rifle on the Saturday morning shopping trip, perhaps nip home to get the Kalashnikov before returning to help out?

If I ever hear gunshots or encounter terrorists I know which direction I'll be heading and it won't be towards them!

[Steve Moss]

Hi Paul:

I think we are on the same page when it comes to gunfire. Unless I'm in a uniform (when I was a much younger man) or the shooting is in the vicinity of my home or kids' school, I'm headed the other way. My presence would only complicate matters, even assuming I (or other armed citizens) had the (not very sensible) inclination to play the hero.

But I don't think Mr. Noble was advocating armed citizens converging on the terrorists from the wider community.

What I think Mr. Noble was getting at it is the difference in demographics between the USA and other Western countries. A Kenyan mall siege would be unlikely to be as successful in the USA as a percentage of the American population is armed, including in its malls. And while they might not want to be heroes, most people will fight if their life is threatened.

I think there is a reason that there are relatively few mall shootings in the USA, compared to schools. In a mall, any adult might be carrying a gun. In a school, the odds of armed resistance is low.

Here's a very long list of news stories documenting average people defending themselves:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Recollecting your recent riots, I thought this was a nice counter-point:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/1995/the-journalconstitution,-atlanta,-ga,.aspx?s=mall&st=&ps=

[jim mk2]

In civilised countries like Britain, "mall shootings" and school atrocities such as are commonplace in the US are virtually non-existent. I wonder why that is ?

[Steve Moss]

Actually, school shootings are not "virtually non-existent" in "civilized" Western Europe. Though the article is a few years old, you might be surprised:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr

And according to one of your professors, it's not guns which explain the USA alleged higher homicide rate, but our culture:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/17/guns-mass-killings-worldwide/1776191/

And I say alleged because no one has yet responded to my previous inquiries regarding the claims that the UK cooks it homicide books to produce a smaller per capita rate.

But I think your Professor Squires has a point about culture, as the USA had a million people in gangs in 2009 (mostly to fill voids created in their lives when young- which doesn't change the unfortunate fact that they are largely animals now), and that number has grown since:

http://gangs.umd.edu/Downloads/Prevention/Gangs%20101%20-%20Understanding%20the%20Culture%20of%20Youth%20Violence.pdf

[Paul]

I certainly agree with the perception the US has a far greater issue with mass killings than Britain, which is the country Jim referred to. The article would tend to suggest this is true. How the US compares with Western Europe I don't know.

The difficulty America suffers from in relation to this is possibly two-fold; whether Americans like it or not the view from outside the States is the lack of gun control leads to the widespread use of firearms and to mass shootings - a view no amount of statistics is likely to change as the numbers are usually presented by those who favour the status quo and we are widely sceptical of these sources. The gun lobby is perceived as having first and foremost a vested interest.

Secondly in Britain I feel we are more likely to get media reports, or at least readily recall, of US shootings. The European ones listed didn't ring many bells for me. The general view in the UK is the American gun laws lead to shootings, therefore any discussion is always going to point at the States rather than other Western European countries.

[Steve Moss]

I don't doubt that the perception is that there are more shootings in the USA and I believe that perception is actually true. This is due to a combination of factors, primarily involving the ready availability of firearms, gang culture (a product of broken homes and poverty), and an inability to deal with the mentally ill's access to weapons coupled with a naive belief that signs prevent deaths.

However:

1. I suspect the gap between the USA and the UK is not as wide as allegedly reported as there is reasonable cause to believe we're not engaged in an apples to apples comparison as the UK homicide rate appears artificially deflated;

2. The USA homicide rate is largely a function of gang and drug violence with large sections outside a handful of urban areas actually being safer than the UK, despite a huge number of firearms (lending credence to Professor Squire's hypothesis that gun violence is more cultural than it is about access to firearms);

3. There comes a point where one must decide whether we're a society of free men or whether we're going to child proof everything, ensuring that no one leaves home unless swathed in bubble wrap.

In conclusion, despite Jim's passionate critiques, I think the USA has it more right than wrong in comparison to the rest of the "civilized" world.

[jim mk2]

I don't doubt that the perception is that there are more shootings in the USA and I believe that perception is actually true. This is due to a combination of factors, primarily involving the ready availability of firearms, gang culture (a product of broken homes and poverty), and an inability to deal with the mentally ill's access to weapons coupled with a naive belief that signs prevent deaths.

However:

1. I suspect the gap between the USA and the UK is not as wide as allegedly reported as there is reasonable cause to believe we're not engaged in an apples to apples comparison as the UK homicide rate appears artificially deflated;

2. The USA homicide rate is largely a function of gang and drug violence with large sections outside a handful of urban areas actually being safer than the UK, despite a huge number of firearms (lending credence to Professor Squire's hypothesis that gun violence is more cultural than it is about access to firearms);

3. There comes a point where one must decide whether we're a society of free men or whether we're going to child proof everything, ensuring that no one leaves home unless swathed in bubble wrap.

In conclusion, despite Jim's passionate critiques, I think the USA has it more right than wrong in comparison to the rest of the "civilized" world.

First bold sentence: finally, an admission.

Second: you could not be more wrong. Like the rest of the US right you have your head in the sand over this.

[Steve Moss]

First bold sentence: finally, an admission.

Second: you could not be more wrong. Like the rest of the US right you have your head in the sand over this.

Jim:

The USA has 5 times the population of the UK. Heck, our illegal alien population is roughly 12 million people, or about 20% of the UK's population.

So yes, we have more shootings in the USA as we have a lot more of everything than the UK, if considered as a raw number.

The question is your per capita murder rate. Official statistics indicate it is 1.2 compared to 4.7. However:

1. That very much depends on where one lives- http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/

2. The UK allegedly counts the murder rate differently than the USA. Specifically, "Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction". Source- http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

If accurate, the actual UK murder rate is twice (or more) of the officially reported rate. Are the quotes about the different reporting standards accurate or not? If accurate, UK residents have been sold a bill of goods.

[jim mk2]

There are plenty of comments at the bottom of the first link rubbishing those statistics - and most of them are from Americans.

And who is Rick Boatright when he is at home ?

It's easy to trawl the internet and produce stats to back up an argument. Look at this one.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html

[thenodrog]

First bold sentence: finally, an admission.

Second: you could not be more wrong. Like the rest of the US right you have your head in the sand over this.

Quite right. Speaking of heads in the sand I'm sure that you would readily back the gun controls in the UK which you hold in such high esteem being extended beyond law abiding citizens to include the criminal society.

[Paul]

"Offences involving the use of firearms peaked later than overall violent crime with 24,094 offences being recorded by the police in 2003/04. Since then the number of such offences has fallen by 60% to 9,555 recorded offences in 2011/12. The current 16% fall between 2010/11 and 2011/12 is the eighth consecutive annual decrease in firearm offences."

Office for National Statistics

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/stb-focus-on--violent-crime-and-sexual-offences-2011-12.html

[Steve Moss]

Paul-

I'm not an expert an UK statistics, but my question involves the use of the word "recorded". Does a UK crime get recorded only if there is a conviction? If so, your numbers do not follow the same methodology as American crime. In the USA, if there is a dead body, not of natural causes, it is recorded as a murder regardless of whether the murderer is identified and convicted. If it takes a conviction to to be "recorded", the USA murder rate would plummet as a matter of statistics (which would not match the reality).

Short hand- the USA murder rate is an accurate representation of the deaths per 100,000. For the reasons stated above, the UK statistics as to murder per 100,000 may not be accurate.

I don't know the answer to the question. I've seen the allegation, I've seen the Home Office language which apparently corroborates the allegation, I don't know whether that is accurate (I take nothing at face value where the law is concerned as I once lost a case in front of the Arizona Court of Appeals where the word "or" was ultimately defined as "and") which is why I pose the question.

[Steve Moss]

There are plenty of comments at the bottom of the first link rubbishing those statistics - and most of them are from Americans.

And who is Rick Boatright when he is at home ?

It's easy to trawl the internet and produce stats to back up an argument. Look at this one.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html

I think you're avoiding the issue of whether the UK counts only convictions in its murder rate or not.

I'll help you. A report to your Parliament clearly states only convictions are counted toward the UK murder rate- http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm (look at paragraph 35 under "Cross Sectional Analyses"about 80% into the report).

But taking the UK rate at face value (which would be in error), here's some harder numbers, looking only to one American state:

Idaho has an over 50% firearm rate per household. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Idaho has a murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000. This is regardless of whether a conviction was obtained or not. This is comparable to the UK's [misleading] self-reported statistic.

So in at least one state (there are actually 4 USA states, 10 if one counts Scotland, and 15 or so if .1 or .2 or so is considered close enough) where the murder rate is less or about equal than the UK's self-reported murder rate (which is an artificially low lie the government is selling a lie to your public, at least to appearances) despite a proliferation of firearms in the USA. In reality, the data may be that the UK murder rate is much closer to the USA rate than the UK government is willing to admit (because if it does, its gun ban is idiotic).

This indicates that it is not gun ownership which accounts for the murder rates, but cultural variables. I would advance the proposition that a state's murder rate has far more to do with the number of gangs (foot soldiers in the drug wars) then it does the number of firearms.

As an aside, based on the UK's supposed statistics, your murder rate has not significantly declined because of your gun ban. Here's the stats per decade:

1860 means decade starting 1860 i.e. 1860-1869

1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

1.7 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/.

So if you are now around 1.2 per 100,000 (keeping in mind that you changed to a conviction only methodology after 1967, artificially lowering your murder rate), how have you improved your position by instituting a gun ban?

In case the above is too complex, as it requires comprehension and analysis of the written word, here's a chart (as a picture is worth a 1,000 words):

If accurate, the numbers indicate that it is cultural factors, not the number of firearms and/or gun bans, which most directly influence the murder rates.

Congratulations. It appears that Englishmen have given up their right of self-defense for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

[Mike E]

Imo Steve, if the UK intro'd gun laws like America, our murder rate would soar overnight simply because there are that many morons among my generation who would shoot anyone/anything for fun.

The culture of your land (with guns) makes it harder to predict what would happen. I reckon that if you banned guns your murder rate would go up just slightly but also level off more steadily than ours might by intro'ing guns.

I agree with you that it's the culture rather than the weapon, as we simply would struggle to see from the POV of owning a gun.

[jim mk2]

I t

Congratulations. It appears that Englishmen have given up their right of self-defense for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

Conclusion based on a few carefully selected statistics from a few chosen states. And then you choose to believe those figures while rubbishing the UK stats that have been verified by a number of different sources.

Your reasoning is as flawed as your perception of US voting intentions at the last election. As ever, you're talking nonsense.

[thenodrog]

"Offences involving the use of firearms peaked later than overall violent crime with 24,094 offences being recorded by the police in 2003/04. Since then the number of such offences has fallen by 60% to 9,555 recorded offences in 2011/12. The current 16% fall between 2010/11 and 2011/12 is the eighth consecutive annual decrease in firearm offences."

Office for National Statistics

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/stb-focus-on--violent-crime-and-sexual-offences-2011-12.html

So what can we glean from that?

1. Still almost 30 reported / recorded gun crimes every single day of the year in the UK where apparently we have had strict gun control for years.

2. Criminals are not nutjobs / homicidal maniacs.