Guns or no Guns

[Roughidle]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Whoever brought up Jack the Ripper --- bit of a stretch. Try to stay in the same century - ok?

Even better to advance my point. Violence isn't restricted to our century and is still relevant. You're basing your opinion on history same as I. I meerly choose to look beyond today's headlines.

[HunterJJD]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

LORD STANLEY and HUNTER JJD -- You both obviously feel that I'm not thinking straight. You have a chance to help me "get it" and that's the best you can do? I said in my first post that I only know what I've seen. I have not done an in depth Thesis or Dissertation on this subject. I've seen news reports recently (in light of the VT shootings) and in the past and seen news articles in various magazines on the subject. BUT THAT'S IT! SO -- I thought I'd ask people who seem to know more about this stuff.

Why you yell at me, You just said the same thing I said. I did not say you could not think straight. You repeated what you see on TV and is what is pushed to the public. I blame you none for asking for the truth

[Tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by HunterJJD

Liberal news papers and congress

Liberals spin the news to suit them. I know that. But so do conservatives. How do you know the info. you see on any source isn't biased in one way or another? Are there really any non-biased sources? I read what I do and then ask the "other" side their opinion in the hopes of somewhere in there finding a little bit of truth.

By the way, I'm completely cool with people owning guns and I happen to support the right to bear arms and less restrictive laws on guns. That's why I was curious about all the stuff I see that say countries with really tight gun laws have less violent crimes happening. It didn't make sense to me.

[Tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Who was getting snippy, just advising you that you don't get it. I was just pointing out that there are facts out there that do not support your assertion, nothing more than that.

Sorry, it seemed snippy. I guess I came into this thread expecting bad reactions and couldn't see some for what they were.

[Tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by HunterJJD

Why you yell at me, You just said the same thing I said. I did not say you could not think straight. You repeated what you see on TV and is what is pushed to the public. I blame you none for asking for the truth

Once again, see my post to KK -- I expected people to just attack me in here (kind of how it goes when you rub against the grain in here - you have to admit that!) and didn't see it for what it was. I'll open my mind too. Geez - I expect people to be azzez, and it's me acting the azz. I'm a little sensitive today I guess!

[Vince]

My source is Britains own "Gun Control Network." The fact is they have had an increase since their implementation of their gun control measures in 1999. More homemade guns involved in crimes, etc. It's time for the "Gun Control advocates" to wake the hell up. And while "gun deaths" in England have decreased from 210 in 1999 to 167 in 2006, the incidents utilizing guns have increased.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

I am posting this strictly out of curiousity and am thinking maybe other peoples insight/knowledge will help me understand this better.

Why is it in countries that have literally banned all firearms, even cops on routine patrol don't carry them, they have a much lower (almost non-existent) incidence of violent crimes, especially those involving firearms?

Because this hasnt happened, they still have Violent Crimes, still have incidents involving Firearms.

• Gun Crime up Despite Ban (Britain)
• Battling Gun Crime (Britain)
• Gun Violence in Britain
• Gun crime figures show that the number of firearm offences in 2002/03 (excluding offences involving air weapons) increased by two per cent. This compares to a 34 per cent increase in 2001/02 (Britiain/Wales)
• The proportion of incidents in which a weapon was used has, however,
  increased significantly since the 1998 BCS. Since the last data (2001/02 BCS) the proportion of stranger violence incidents involving weapons has also increased. (Britain/Wales)
• since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level (Britain/Wales)

Australia is a flawed example : Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors (Snopes)

• Australia has also seen its violent-crime rates soar immediately after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32-percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1995. The same comparisons for armed-robbery rates showed increases of 74 percent
• Sydney gun crimes double

Failed Experiment : Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

People say: limit guns then only the criminals have them. That's not true in Britain or Australia.

Lets look at other Countries :

Germany - A license is required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need."

From Spiegel Online

Originally Posted by Spiegel

Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the United States. There, buying a machine gun is often easier than getting a driver’s license. And a new ban on violent games and killer videos will also be put back on the agenda. But in the end, nothing is likely to happen. And the next killer already lives somewhere among us. But we have little reason to point an accusing finger at the Americans. Despite strict gun legislation, we (in Germany) have experienced the school shootings in Erfurt and Emsdetten. We have to consider the problems in our society. And we have to take care of our fellow humans.

Click town names for news reports about the killings

Japan - Gun control in Japan is the most stringent in the democratic world. The weapons law begins by stating ‘No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords’, and very few exceptions are allowed. Gun ownership is minuscule, and so is gun crime. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences
From USA Today

Originally Posted by USA Today

Nagasaki Mayor Itcho Ito was shot twice ... The alleged shooter, Tetsuya Shiroo, 59, was arrested at the scene on suspicion of attempted murder after being subdued by staff members of Ito’s office when he tried to run away, the police said. The suspect is an acting leader of the Suishin-kai gang group affiliated with Japan’s largest organized crime syndicate, the Yamaguchi-gumi.

Shiroo admitted to shooting the mayor and said he had trouble with the city office over public works biddings, the police said, adding they seized a revolver.

‘’I fired several shots for the purpose of killing Mayor Ito,’’ the suspect was quoted as telling the police.

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Alot of people believe that if the US allowed people to have CCW permits in all states, that it would cut down on crimes with guns because criminals would be more hesitant to approach not knowing if you are armed. Yet, Britain and Austrailia tried the complete opposite way - no guns for anyone (except hunting, etc.) - and it's worked great. You don't see a case of criminals running around with guns - they don't have them either (I'm sure a couple got ahold of them somehow, though).

I don't get it.

As shown, Britain and Australia has not "worked great" the opposite has happened.

In Virginia they offer CCW permits to citizens. The school was an exception, and even licensed CCW permit holders were not permitted to carry their weapons on campus. In other words, if you looked at a map, there would be a circle around the VT campus which was the “gun free zone.”
Fascinating, isn’t it, that the bloodbath took place in the gun free zone and not in the zone around it, where all those private citizens were packing heat. In fact, bloodbaths usually take place in gun-free zones. But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence

Why is it that the massacres and bloodbaths always take place in areas that are officially designated “gun free” zones? Think about it. Columbine was a gun-free school. Luby’s, in Texas, was a gun-free restaurant. How many guys have snapped at their places of work, all of which are gun-free? Hell, how many guys at the US Post Office alone have gone nuts and killed their coworkers, all in a gun-free environment?

Why do massacres never seem to take place in environments where people are known to potentially be armed? If the crime is caused by the availability of guns, why wasn’t the area outside the VT campus the scene of the bloodbath, and the gun-free zone the safe haven from the scourge of gun crime?

This is the fallacy of Gun Bans

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

How do you know the info. you see on any source isn't biased in one way or another?

What I do is read the conservative "biased" story, then go see what the libs are saying about it. If their argument begins with "Yabbut...." then I know the conservative story is probably the truth. If the opposing argument brings facts, history and statistics into it, then I know the original story is horsecrap.

I also watch for hypotheticals in an argument. The first side to go into a "what if?" scenario is usually on the wrong side of the argument, especially if it's a really far-fetched "what if".

[Tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Because this hasnt happened, they still have Violent Crimes, still have incidents involving Firearms.

• Gun Crime up Despite Ban (Britain)
• Battling Gun Crime (Britain)
• Gun Violence in Britain
• Gun crime figures show that the number of firearm offences in 2002/03 (excluding offences involving air weapons) increased by two per cent. This compares to a 34 per cent increase in 2001/02 (Britiain/Wales)
• The proportion of incidents in which a weapon was used has, however,
  increased significantly since the 1998 BCS. Since the last data (2001/02 BCS) the proportion of stranger violence incidents involving weapons has also increased. (Britain/Wales)
• since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level (Britain/Wales)

Australia is a flawed example : Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors (Snopes)

• Australia has also seen its violent-crime rates soar immediately after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32-percent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1995. The same comparisons for armed-robbery rates showed increases of 74 percent
• Sydney gun crimes double

Failed Experiment : Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study


Lets look at other Countries :

Germany - A license is required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need."

From Spiegel Online

Click town names for news reports about the killings

Japan - Gun control in Japan is the most stringent in the democratic world. The weapons law begins by stating ‘No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords’, and very few exceptions are allowed. Gun ownership is minuscule, and so is gun crime. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences
From USA Today


As shown, Britain and Australia has not "worked great" the opposite has happened.

In Virginia they offer CCW permits to citizens. The school was an exception, and even licensed CCW permit holders were not permitted to carry their weapons on campus. In other words, if you looked at a map, there would be a circle around the VT campus which was the “gun free zone.”
Fascinating, isn’t it, that the bloodbath took place in the gun free zone and not in the zone around it, where all those private citizens were packing heat. In fact, bloodbaths usually take place in gun-free zones. But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence

Why is it that the massacres and bloodbaths always take place in areas that are officially designated “gun free” zones? Think about it. Columbine was a gun-free school. Luby’s, in Texas, was a gun-free restaurant. How many guys have snapped at their places of work, all of which are gun-free? Hell, how many guys at the US Post Office alone have gone nuts and killed their coworkers, all in a gun-free environment?

Why do massacres never seem to take place in environments where people are known to potentially be armed? If the crime is caused by the availability of guns, why wasn’t the area outside the VT campus the scene of the bloodbath, and the gun-free zone the safe haven from the scourge of gun crime?

This is the fallacy of Gun Bans

Wow. It blows my mind in a way. I see all this stuff - especially recently - of the leaders of Australia and people in Britain saying "You ought to ban them - worked great for us" and yet it clearly didn't. You just listed oodles of stuff clearly showing it doesn't work. Do you think the citizens in those countries honestly believe it's working?

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Wow. It blows my mind in a way. I see all this stuff - especially recently - of the leaders of Australia and people in Britain saying "You ought to ban them - worked great for us" and yet it clearly didn't. You just listed oodles of stuff clearly showing it doesn't work. Do you think the citizens in those countries honestly believe it's working?

Certainly not the victims.