Can the US live in peace with its guns?
 
[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

I just have to say this first.  Anybody who lives in a region nick named the "Nanny state" has absolutely NO right to criticize My Constitutional rights.  You all can run to your bathrooms and hide while you call 999 and get killed by a criminal breaking in your house.  Or, even better, you can get charged for defending yourself and physically hurting a criminal.  How is that working out for you Brits?  You're crime rate must be sky high now...oh yeah, you don't even have room for all your criminals so you've let them back on the street.  Very effective UK.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/chris_ayres/article6054873.ece

 

Can the US live in peace with its guns?

LA Notebook: Seven gunmen have killed 50 people in the past month

The day that my US Green Card arrived in the post, I remember thinking to myself: “Oh cool, now I can go out and buy a high-powered semi-automatic assault weapon.”

Approximately two millionths of a second later, I had another thought - actually it's probably best if I don't go out and buy a high-powered semi-automatic assault weapon, or any other kind of weapon for that matter.

Knowing me, I would almost certainly shoot myself in the groin while loading it. Or my two-year-old son would get hold of it and execute his play date.

Or someone would break into our house and I would scramble for the gun. but hesitate before pulling the trigger and then the intruder, being more experienced in such matters, would grab it off me. And by that time he'd be angry.

Or I'd kill the intruder and then a blood spatter expert would declare at my trial that I'd shot him as he was turned away from me and I'd spend the rest of my life on Death Row.

The truth is that, when you get down to the boring, un-Rambo-ish details, it's hard to envisage a scenario in which the benefits of owning a gun for the sake of self-defence outnumber the pitfalls.

Take the issue of storage: most gunowners I know keep their firearms and clips locked up in separate places, for safety. But you can't very well say to the bloke in the ski mask who has just burst into your bedroom wielding an industrial meat cleaver: “Oh hang on a minute, old chap, while I remember the key-code to my gun box - and if you can just bear with me for a few moments longer, I need to go down to the shed to fetch my bullets.”

I mention all this because in the past four weeks a total of seven gunmen have killed 50 people in mass shootings across the US, which has inevitably provoked another debate over Americans' (and, by extension, Green Card holders') right to bear arms.

Some argue that such things would never happen if guns were banned; others say that such things would never happen if everyone from grannies to toddlers were packing heat.

While the latter argument is terrifying - who on earth would want to live in such a country? - I can understand why the Second Amendment (which protects the right to bear arms) is considered so politically untouchable. After all, it serves broadly the same purpose as Britain's constitutional monarchy, ie, to keep the elected government's ego in check.

But, of course, there's a crucial difference - a lone psychopath can buy a gun and shoot 13 people as they take an immigration exam in Binghamton, New York; that same lunatic would have a harder time trying to kidnap the Queen and use her to start a war with France.

Still, it took us a thousand years to reach such a benign relationship with our royals. We can only hope that it doesn't take so long for the Americans to reach a similarly tenable state of affairs when it comes to their firearms.

Bullet-proof

If anything, the recent shootings have inspired more Americans to buy guns, recession or no recession.

In fact, all over the country they are stocking up on as many pistols, rifles, and shotguns as possible before the Obama Administration bans or taxes them.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the FBI carried out more than 4.2 million background checks on behalf of gundealers from November to January (a check is required with every sale), up 31 per cent on the same period in the previous year.

Interestingly, however, violent crime rates have at the same time been falling in Los Angeles, New York and other big American cities The experts are at loss as to explain why this should be happening.

I have my own theory: people are buying so many guns that the criminals are simply running out of bullets. Or as one firing instructor explained to the Columbus Dispatch newspaper: “The ammo is being snapped up as soon as it comes in. People are in a frenzy. It's kind of like that run on Elmo dolls.”

Child's play

Speaking of Elmo dolls, a good number of the people arming themselves these days are young mothers.

If you don't believe me, visit BabyCenter.com, where a discussion forum was opened recently under the headline: “Do you think that every mother should own a gun?” One reader responded: “I keep a loaded 9mm in my diaper bag.”

Another wrote: “I carry a Keltec 380 [a small pistol] on my hip every day. I can clip it on my belt with the pistol between my undies and my jeans. I consider myself an easy target, a young mother who is juggling two rowdy toddlers, so I can't explain enough how glad I am that we have the right to bear arms.”

Ah yes, toddlers and deadly weapons - that famously reassuring combination.

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the FBI carried out more than 4.2 million background checks on behalf of gundealers from November to January (a check is required with every sale), up 31 per cent on the same period in the previous year.

Interestingly, however, violent crime rates have at the same time been falling in Los Angeles, New York and other big American cities The experts are at loss as to explain why this should be happening.

 This author is an idiot.  There is a direct relationship between more guns and lower crime.  Read the book, "More Guns, Less Crime".  Oh lookie, I just found an interview with Mr. Lott. :D

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
 

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

Easy answer to that question.

NO

 

And it doesn´t just apply to the US.

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

Easy answer to that question.

NO

 

And it doesn´t just apply to the US.

 

Easer answer to this.

 

Yes.

 

You ban guns they find there way into the hands of criminals, innocent people get shot, then the police get guns then they die, and then it starts over again.

 

It’s not the gun it’s the tosser behind it.

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

People will still kill with homemade weapons and fists...so it´s just no...

Plus it´s impossible to obtain all guns and destroy them around the world...

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

Sorry I miss understood your post. Just read through a 33 page report as well as `Google analytics` (not the simplest thing to understand) and it was before half nine.

 

The eyes weren’t connected to the brain.

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

I see...

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

I see...

I can't.

 

It does your eyes in.

[L[Quote]] · 1841 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

   How is that working out for you Brits?  You're crime rate must be sky high now...oh yeah, you don't even have room for all your criminals so you've let them back on the street.  Very effective UK.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/chris_ayres/article6054873.ece

 

 

It’s made worse by the fact we don’t hang.

 

It’s going very nicely; crime is down (snorted laugh), crime is down but violent crime is up (a lot). But don’t worry because Jacqie Smith doesn’t tell us that, or much of anything to be fair.

 

You have the EU `do-gooders` telling us what to do with our prisons and prisoners.

 

And we’re not allowed to deport people back to there birth country because it go against there human right or because Europe is one large state and they wont let us send them back to Poland or where ever they come from.

 

They have a `foreign` prison in Cambridge somewhere that only accepts foreign prisoners because they can’t understand the English prison guards.

 

My favorite one is that farmer who, a few years back, shot a `traveler` (as they like to be know as now) because he broke into his house. He went to jail for murder. Why? I have no idea.

 

It was Prince Philip who said: `A gun is no more dangerous than a cricket bat in the hands of a madman. ` You have to agree.

 

It’s stupid. We run half of Europe yet we keep bowing down to it. It’s the EU who won’t let us have our guns. The EU and the labor government that we have.

[L[Quote]] · 1840 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

Before anyone gives up a single 22 bullet, you better assure everyone that everylast illegal gun is already out of the hands of the criminals. 

 

The have had gun drives that do no more than have people turning in junk guns that mean nothing.  People are not and should not give up their guns, under any circumstances.  Even countries like Canada with gun control still do not lack for guns for sport or plinking.  The idea they are totally unarmed is false.  Do we need multiclip simi automatic hand guns?  Yes, becasue if you need them you need all the firepower you can get.  Even the cops don't shoot once, they unload clips when the shooting starts.  Truth of the matte is more people are probably killed by criminals by throwaway 22 saturday night specials, than fancy glocks. 

 

It isn;t the guns that kill people, its the criminal who have them.  They are stolen and sold again and again.  How can you control all the thiefts and millions of stolen or non-registerd weapons that are in the system.  Its like trying to have a picnic on an anthill, there are just too many of them to propose taking guns away. 

 

What is unfortunate is you never hear, or rarly hear about a homeowner chasing off home invasions with their guns.  You hear everyday about a kid or accident with loaded guns around the house.  If a home invasion occurs, its more likely you will be so caught off guard, your gun might as well be 5 miles away as in the next room.  Granted, there is some peace in knowing you have some way of defending yourself, but the reality is to odds are just as great, that weapon could be used to kill you.  Either way, I;ll take my chances knowing I have protection if I need it, but nobody is taking my guns away. 

 

I have a sister in law who's belief is she never allowed her boy to even play cowboys and indians or have play kids guns.  She is one of the typical San Francisco liberal who is outspoken about everything from religion and gay rights, to how everyone else should live.  What just happened in San Franciso last wek?  4 cops killed by one of these lunitics released from prison and had a gun.  How would a convicted felon  have a gun???  You guessed it, they have them without going by the laws the rest of us do, and we are supose to imagine giving up our guns will fix the problem. 

[L[Quote]] · 1840 days ago · [L[0 points]] ·
 

 

It isn;t the guns that kill people, its the criminal who have them.  They are stolen and sold again and again.  How can you control all the thiefts and millions of stolen or non-registerd weapons that are in the system.  Its like trying to have a picnic on an anthill, there are just too many of them to propose taking guns away. 

 

It’s simple. Don’t give them up. And shoot them who try to take the away!

 

It’s the worst thing you could do. Shoot people who want to take them away they’re a pain in the arse who don’t understand guns.

 

Banning guns only effects people who stick to the law not the criminals.

 

 

 

If I were you G2 I’d have done away with that sister-in-law years ago, I can’t stand people like her.WinkLaughing