The case against guns
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The case against guns
To Seth
You think that the academics who oppose the "more guns less crime" mantra are doing it for emotional reasons. That is seriously unlikely. They are professionals whose reputation depends on maintaining a strong professional approach. Their own survey results are published in peer reviewed reputable journals, and show the opposite to the 'more guns less crime' story you like to quote.
Actually, to be fair, I have seen their results, and it is more like "change the number of concealed carry permits, and the number of crimes varies very little".
But what minor trend they report is 'more guns, more crime'.
And as I have pointed out, with lots of back up data, if you compare nations, it is abundantly clear that more hand guns means more murders.
You think that the academics who oppose the "more guns less crime" mantra are doing it for emotional reasons. That is seriously unlikely. They are professionals whose reputation depends on maintaining a strong professional approach. Their own survey results are published in peer reviewed reputable journals, and show the opposite to the 'more guns less crime' story you like to quote.
Actually, to be fair, I have seen their results, and it is more like "change the number of concealed carry permits, and the number of crimes varies very little".
But what minor trend they report is 'more guns, more crime'.
And as I have pointed out, with lots of back up data, if you compare nations, it is abundantly clear that more hand guns means more murders.
Re: The case against guns
Ask BG. I'm not interested in supporting that kind of crap by repeating it.Daedalus wrote: What Harvard report? I'm new here, link?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The case against guns
Blind groper wrote:Coito
The USA as a 'homogeneous mass'.
In one respect it is. That is, in terms of hand gun availability. The pro-gun lobby here on this forum makes a big deal about the fact that murder rates are still high in places with stronger anti-gun laws. Of course they are.
Fewer guns, more crime.
So what? The fact remains, more guns, less crime, fewer guns, more crime.The laws may be better, but the gun availability is still there, since anyone who wants a hand gun can just slip across the state border and buy one.
Exactly, because people who use handguns to kill other people are criminals who don't give a flying fuck about what the law says and never will. Therefore in two communities in which the first has laws prohibiting non-criminals from being armed and in which the second has laws which permit non-criminals to carry concealed handguns the crime rate in the former will be higher than in the latter, as Chicago proves beyond any dispute.So the result of stronger gun laws in single states on hand gun availability is pretty much zero.
This is because criminals who use guns to victimize others are facilitated by laws that disarm their potential victims, making it safer for criminals to ply their trade. On the other hand, where law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed handguns (which statistics show they are extremely unlikely to misuse), criminals may have the same degree of access to firearms they can possess illegally, but they have a substantial motivator NOT to victimize people or to be much, much more careful in selecting their victims because they know anyone might be carrying a concealed handgun and might shoot them dead.
No, they have a high murder rate because there are lots of murderers there and their victims DO NOT have weapons with which to defend themselves, and the murderers know it.The same applies to Canada and Mexico. Their citizens who want hand guns can buy one in the USA, whch results in those nations having a high murder rate also.
Europe is different, since there is nowhere that hand guns are readily available, so people who want one have to go without.
Except for the criminals who want one who are able to get one almost as easily as they can here.
And yet your gun murder rate is non-zero and your violent crime rate is higher, which proves that disarming victims only results in MORE CRIME.The result is a murder rate that is a quarter that of the USA. My country, which has even more limited access to hand guns, has a murder rate one fifth of that of the USA, in spite of the fact that our violent crime rate is actually higher.
Neither does possessing a handgun.Your suggestion that the high murder rate in the USA came from a culture of violence is proven wrong by cases like NZ, where the amount of violence is as great, or greater than the USA, but the murder rate is a lot lower. Being violent does not make a person a murderer.
I pointed out that, in Britain, only 1 stabbing in 400 results in death. However, in the USA, 1 shooting in 5 results in death.
Apples and oranges. It's probably that Brits are abysmal knife-fighters because in my considerable experience I'd much rather face a crook armed with a gun than one armed with a knife who knows how to use it. That's why cops will shoot you dead if you brandish a knife at them and are within 21 feet of them.
The point is that you are creating red herring arguments because you don't give a fuck about the violent crime rate or what happens to it so long as the "handgun murder rate" goes down. You don't care if a million more people per year are the victims of violent criminal assault or even murder using other means. Nor will you acknowledge that a lawfully carried firearm is a good defensive weapon against violent criminal attacks, even though between 80,000 and 2.5 million events proving exactly that occur every year in the US.Britain has more violence overall than the USA, but has a quarter of the murders, for the simple reason that strongly violent attacks in Britain usually involve knives, whereas far too many of the same things in the USA involves hand guns.
It is very simple. If you stop people having possession of hand guns, the murder rate falls.
The reason your argument is fallacious is that you are ONLY concerned with the handgun murder rate, and you are not in the least bit concerned with the unintended but predictable consequences of disarming people who factually have an extremely low risk of improperly using their concealed handguns...far lower in fact than the general public. The consequences you ignore is the increase in criminal victimization and yes, murder, caused by disarming law-abiding citizens in an asinine and irrational attempt to disarm criminals by making it illegal for anyone to own handguns. I repeat, it's ALREADY ILLEGAL for a criminal to posses any kind of firearm with the intent to use it in a crime. Funny thing about that law, people who want to commit murder seem to ignore the fact that it's illegal for them to possess ANY weapon with that intent...probably because they are already ignoring the law that makes it illegal to unlawfully kill someone.
There's a significant clue there for dumb asses to ferret out if they have the slightest bit of intelligence.
Since the dumb asses here obviously can't figure it out, I'll make it plain: Criminals don't obey gun ban laws, only law-abiding people do, and it's not the law-abiding people who need to be disarmed, it's the criminals. By disarming law-abiding peoples all that happens is that you turn them into helpless victims who have no means to defend against armed criminals who arm themselves in spite of a host of laws that forbid them from doing so.
Derp.

"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The case against guns
Blind groper wrote:To Seth
You think that the academics who oppose the "more guns less crime" mantra are doing it for emotional reasons. That is seriously unlikely.
Who said "emotional?" It's political.
No they aren't. They are notorious anti-gun zealots who come to the table with a known bias and foregone conclusion they wish to support for political reasons.They are professionals whose reputation depends on maintaining a strong professional approach.
You'd like to think so, but their "peer reviewed" studies have been thoroughly debunked as propaganda.Their own survey results are published in peer reviewed reputable journals, and show the opposite to the 'more guns less crime' story you like to quote.
That's the ideological pre-determined conclusion they wished to come to, so it's no surprise that they came to it.Actually, to be fair, I have seen their results, and it is more like "change the number of concealed carry permits, and the number of crimes varies very little".
But what minor trend they report is 'more guns, more crime'.
Except your wrong.And as I have pointed out, with lots of back up data, if you compare nations, it is abundantly clear that more hand guns means more murders.
Here's an idea, let's experiment using the UK as a perfect test-bed. Since handguns are quite rare in the UK, according to you, let's change the laws and allow "shall issue" concealed carry (and the requisite weapons) in England and Scotland and then wait five years and compare the crime rates prior to the enactment of "shall issue" concealed carry to those after and see what the evidence shows.
In other words, replicate the events in the US, which had Florida liberalizing it's concealed carry law in the 1980s with NO commensurate increase in crime and in fact a drop in crime. More guns, less crime. This effect has been observed in EVERY STATE in the US where concealed carry has been made lawful, to the extent that the federal courts ruled that Illinois was acting unconstitutionally in being the ONLY state in which it was legally impossible to get a concealed carry permit and further ordered that the state CREATE a system for issuing such permits with 120 days, and where the state Legislature, just yesterday, passed a concealed carry law OVER the Governor's "amendatory veto", making it lawful (although not equally easy or simple) for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a concealed carry permit.
We are going to observe the crime rate in Chicago closely in the coming months and years as law-abiding citizens in the besieged inner city who are now helpless, unarmed victims begin to arm themselves and defend themselves against the predation of criminals and thugs.
I predict that in the first year of the program (where Illinois expects to issue more than 800,000) violent crime in Chicago will drop about 8 percent or more, and it will continue to decrease as more and more people arm themselves.
See ya next year.
Until then, or until you can produce results from a "shall issue" experiment in the UK, why don't you shut the fuck up?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The case against guns
I'm not going to help you support a claim you're making, especially by asking the guy you've clearly been fighting with for a long time.Seth wrote:Ask BG. I'm not interested in supporting that kind of crap by repeating it.Daedalus wrote: What Harvard report? I'm new here, link?
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (David Hume)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
"Atque in perpetuum frater, ave atque vale." (Catullus)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?” (Bladerunner)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
"Atque in perpetuum frater, ave atque vale." (Catullus)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?” (Bladerunner)
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The case against guns
Obviously, if handguns did not exist or were impossible to obtain, nobody would shoot other people with handguns. But the overall murder rate in the US is not all that high (globally) especially given the number the guns that are in existence in the US. We have the most guns, but we are definitely not anywhere close to the highest murder rate.Blind groper wrote:Coito
The USA as a 'homogeneous mass'.
In one respect it is. That is, in terms of hand gun availability. The pro-gun lobby here on this forum makes a big deal about the fact that murder rates are still high in places with stronger anti-gun laws. Of course they are. The laws may be better, but the gun availability is still there, since anyone who wants a hand gun can just slip across the state border and buy one. So the result of stronger gun laws in single states on hand gun availability is pretty much zero.
Then if you factor in that if we eliminated New Orleans, LA, Chicago, Detroit and a couple other geographic areas, the US would, in fact, have European level homicide rates.
Yes, handguns are still illegally available in Chicago, but the rank-and-file Chicago citizen does not own illegal guns. The illegal guns are typically owned by gang members and folks who are otherwise engaged in other criminal activity on a regular basis. It's not like Joe Teacher or Jane Accountant is packing illegal guns in any real significant numbers. All over the US, people GENERALLY SPEAKING own guns without there being a significantly higher intentional homicide rate.
Solving the intentional homicide rate in places like Chicago, LA and New Orleans, etc., by making it illegal for the great mass of people who in fact can be trusted with these very useful devices is like banning alcohol because some people drive drunk.
That is not supported by the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ate#CanadaBlind groper wrote:
The same applies to Canada and Mexico. Their citizens who want hand guns can buy one in the USA, whch results in those nations having a high murder rate also.
In Ontario, Canada's most populous province, the intentional homicide rate is only 1.2 per 100,000 and in Quebec, the next most populous, the rate is 1.32. New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have almost nonexistent intentional homicide rates and all of those provinces have most of their populations stacked up against the American border.
Nunavet -- has an intentional homicide rate of 21.1 per 100,000, which is remarkably high,. Much higher than the US by almost five times. And, the Northwest Territories is at 6.87 per 100,000. These provinces, however, have tiny populations.
Austria, for example, allows gun ownership and has about 30 guns per 100 people. That's one in three almost. Austria is 14th in the world in firearms ownership. And, Austrian companies make Glock and Steyr guns, including handguns. Austria has permissive gun laws.Blind groper wrote:
Europe is different, since there is nowhere that hand guns are readily available,
In terms of gun ownership, European countries are generally in the top 25% or thereabouts in the world. Yet, your intentional homicide rates are generally pretty low.
That depends on the country, and it depends on the US state. Many US states have lower intentional homicide rates than many European countries.Blind groper wrote: so people who want one have to go without. The result is a murder rate that is a quarter that of the USA.
Do something about your violent crime rate.Blind groper wrote: My country, which has even more limited access to hand guns, has a murder rate one fifth of that of the USA, in spite of the fact that our violent crime rate is actually higher.
What country are you referring to? Is it fair to compare your country to the entire United States, or would it be a fairer comparison to look to a demographically similar US state and make a comparison on that level?
It is not proven wrong by that, because New Zealand is just one example. There are plenty of places in the US, like New Hampshire, where gun ownership is widespread, and the homicide rate is as low or lower than New Zealand. That's what proves your assertion wrong.Blind groper wrote:
Your suggestion that the high murder rate in the USA came from a culture of violence is proven wrong by cases like NZ, where the amount of violence is as great, or greater than the USA, but the murder rate is a lot lower.
That is simple and also simplistic, and also not always true. Handguns are freely available in New Hampshire (and other states) and the murder rate is not higher. The only assertion you can make is that you think the murder rate in new hampshire would be like 0.2 or something rather than 1.0, if only they'd get rid of the handguns. That strains credulity, however.Blind groper wrote: Being violent does not make a person a murderer. I pointed out that, in Britain, only 1 stabbing in 400 results in death. However, in the USA, 1 shooting in 5 results in death. Britain has more violence overall than the USA, but has a quarter of the murders, for the simple reason that strongly violent attacks in Britain usually involve knives, whereas far too many of the same things in the USA involves hand guns.
It is very simple. If you stop people having possession of hand guns, the murder rate falls.
Also, your idea that the proximity to gun permissive areas means there will be a higher murder rate due to the availability of illegal guns fails because many states in the US have really low murder rates, yet they are inside the same country where there are free and open gun, including hangun, ownership. Some places see high murder rates, others see very low murder rates.
Re: The case against guns
He's posted the links in this thread. Feel free to look it up. While I appreciate any support, I'm not going to do homework for you. I don't have it any more handy than you do and don't care to waste my time looking it up. You might want to get a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott on Amazon however, just so you can see what all the hoohaw is all about. It's in it's third or fourth revision I believe.Daedalus wrote:I'm not going to help you support a claim you're making, especially by asking the guy you've clearly been fighting with for a long time.Seth wrote:Ask BG. I'm not interested in supporting that kind of crap by repeating it.Daedalus wrote: What Harvard report? I'm new here, link?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The case against guns
I'm happy with the status quo here in Canada regarding gun control. It could be a bit more lax, but it's acceptable. I only own three firearms now and they are all for hunting, though I'm sure I could kill people with them if I had to. My point has always been that 'guns' are not the real issue, but rather a socioeconomic problem systemic to 'American' culture.Blind groper wrote:If you, Fakuname, are neutral to the issue, it just shows that you lack the emotional hang up that the pro-gun people have.
Re: The case against guns
38 pages in this thread to search without knowing what I'm looking for, because you can't be bothered to cite the one report supporting your entire position? Ooook...Seth wrote:He's posted the links in this thread. Feel free to look it up. While I appreciate any support, I'm not going to do homework for you. I don't have it any more handy than you do and don't care to waste my time looking it up. You might want to get a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott on Amazon however, just so you can see what all the hoohaw is all about. It's in it's third or fourth revision I believe.Daedalus wrote:I'm not going to help you support a claim you're making, especially by asking the guy you've clearly been fighting with for a long time.Seth wrote:Ask BG. I'm not interested in supporting that kind of crap by repeating it.Daedalus wrote: What Harvard report? I'm new here, link?

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." (David Hume)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
"Atque in perpetuum frater, ave atque vale." (Catullus)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?” (Bladerunner)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
"Atque in perpetuum frater, ave atque vale." (Catullus)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?” (Bladerunner)
Re: The case against guns
Mostly it's gangbangers. If you exclude the major metropolitan areas with gang problems the murder rate drops drastically. And in 90 percent of the nation that's rural and small-town, gun violence is all but absent entirely.Făkünamę wrote:I'm happy with the status quo here in Canada regarding gun control. It could be a bit more lax, but it's acceptable. I only own three firearms now and they are all for hunting, though I'm sure I could kill people with them if I had to. My point has always been that 'guns' are not the real issue, but rather a socioeconomic problem systemic to 'American' culture.Blind groper wrote:If you, Fakuname, are neutral to the issue, it just shows that you lack the emotional hang up that the pro-gun people have.
The thing that BG hasn't figured out is that it's cultural and ethnic. Political correctness usually prevents pointing out that the vast majority of shootings occur in black and hispanic minority neighborhoods. But it's getting better...as more good people arm themselves.
Race/Hispanic origin
In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6
per 100,000, compared to 1.9 for whites, 2.7 for American
Indians and Alaska Natives, and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific
Islanders
From 1993 to 2010, the rate of firearm
homicides for blacks declined by 51%, down from 30.1 per
100,000 blacks, compared to a 48% decline for whites and a
43% decline for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Asian
and Pacific Islanders declined 79% over the same period,
from 4.6 to 1.0 per 100,000. Although blacks experienced a
decline similar to whites and American Indians and Alaska
Natives, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 5 to
6 times higher than every other racial group in 2010. As
with other demographic groups, the majority of the decline
occurred in the first part of the period and slowed from 2001
to 2010.
The rate of firearm homicide for both Hispanics and non-
Hispanics was about 4 per 100,000 each in 2010
However, the Hispanic rate had a larger and more consistent
decline over time. The Hispanic rate declined 54% from 1993
to 2001 and declined 34% since 2001. In comparison, the
non-Hispanic rate declined more slowly, down 42% from
1993 to 2001 and down 5% since 2001.
In 2011, non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 per 1,000) and Hispanics
(2.2 per 1,000) had higher rates of nonfatal firearm violence
than non-Hispanic whites (1.4 per 1,000)
The rate of nonfatal firearm violence for Hispanics was not
statistically different from the rate for blacks. From 1994
to 2011, the rates of nonfatal firearm violence for blacks
and Hispanics both declined by 83%, compared to 74% for
whites.
Source
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The case against guns
You misunderstand. The "report" is the bogus Harvard study cited by BG as refuting Lott's work. I guess if BG wants to he can post the link.Daedalus wrote:38 pages in this thread to search without knowing what I'm looking for, because you can't be bothered to cite the one report supporting your entire position? Ooook...Seth wrote:He's posted the links in this thread. Feel free to look it up. While I appreciate any support, I'm not going to do homework for you. I don't have it any more handy than you do and don't care to waste my time looking it up. You might want to get a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott on Amazon however, just so you can see what all the hoohaw is all about. It's in it's third or fourth revision I believe.Daedalus wrote:I'm not going to help you support a claim you're making, especially by asking the guy you've clearly been fighting with for a long time.Seth wrote:Ask BG. I'm not interested in supporting that kind of crap by repeating it.Daedalus wrote: What Harvard report? I'm new here, link?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The case against guns
The guy I have quoted most is the subject of http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/featur ... -hemenway/
Professor David Hemenway of Harvard University, who has studied guns and their effect on American society. His widespread studies have made him an expert in the field, and he has drawn conclusions opposite to Lott and the NRA. Thus he is pilloried by Seth, who insults and abuses anyone who fails to agree with the Church of the Gun.
Hemenway is, of course, but one of a number of academics who work together on this. They have done the research work on concealed carry permits, and their findings are diametrically opposite to those of Lott and Kleck. This makes Seth's mantra of "more guns, less crime" look pretty sick.
Seth keeps claiming that banning hand guns will do no good, since criminals who want them will get them. This belief is not supported by the facts. In nations like Australia, New Zealand, Britain etc., hand guns are bannaed, and criminals are mostly without hand guns. A few turn up in criminal hands, but very few, and our hand gun murder rates are very close to zero. So, in spite of Seth's insistance that bans do not work, they obviously do work, since nations with bans on hand guns end up with very, very few hand guns, and almost zero hand gun murders.
The USA, by comparison, has 8,000 hand gun murders each year. Canada, which has a greater access to hand guns due to bordering the USA, has a murder rate 40% more than Britain. You will be unsurprised to learn that half of Canada's murders are done with Hand guns.
Professor David Hemenway of Harvard University, who has studied guns and their effect on American society. His widespread studies have made him an expert in the field, and he has drawn conclusions opposite to Lott and the NRA. Thus he is pilloried by Seth, who insults and abuses anyone who fails to agree with the Church of the Gun.
Hemenway is, of course, but one of a number of academics who work together on this. They have done the research work on concealed carry permits, and their findings are diametrically opposite to those of Lott and Kleck. This makes Seth's mantra of "more guns, less crime" look pretty sick.
Seth keeps claiming that banning hand guns will do no good, since criminals who want them will get them. This belief is not supported by the facts. In nations like Australia, New Zealand, Britain etc., hand guns are bannaed, and criminals are mostly without hand guns. A few turn up in criminal hands, but very few, and our hand gun murder rates are very close to zero. So, in spite of Seth's insistance that bans do not work, they obviously do work, since nations with bans on hand guns end up with very, very few hand guns, and almost zero hand gun murders.
The USA, by comparison, has 8,000 hand gun murders each year. Canada, which has a greater access to hand guns due to bordering the USA, has a murder rate 40% more than Britain. You will be unsurprised to learn that half of Canada's murders are done with Hand guns.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The case against guns
The guy I have quoted most is the subject of http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/featur ... -hemenway/
Professor David Hemenway of Harvard University, who has studied guns and their effect on American society. His widespread studies have made him an expert in the field, and he has drawn conclusions opposite to Lott and the NRA. Thus he is pilloried by Seth, who insults and abuses anyone who fails to agree with the Church of the Gun.
Hemenway is, of course, but one of a number of academics who work together on this. They have done the research work on concealed carry permits, and their findings are diametrically opposite to those of Lott and Kleck. This makes Seth's mantra of "more guns, less crime" look pretty sick.
Seth keeps claiming that banning hand guns will do no good, since criminals who want them will get them. This belief is not supported by the facts. In nations like Australia, New Zealand, Britain etc., hand guns are bannaed, and criminals are mostly without hand guns. A few turn up in criminal hands, but very few, and our hand gun murder rates are very close to zero. So, in spite of Seth's insistance that bans do not work, they obviously do work, since nations with bans on hand guns end up with very, very few hand guns, and almost zero hand gun murders.
The USA, by comparison, has 8,000 hand gun murders each year. Canada, which has a greater access to hand guns due to bordering the USA, has a murder rate 40% more than Britain. You will be unsurprised to learn that half of Canada's murders are done with Hand guns.
Professor David Hemenway of Harvard University, who has studied guns and their effect on American society. His widespread studies have made him an expert in the field, and he has drawn conclusions opposite to Lott and the NRA. Thus he is pilloried by Seth, who insults and abuses anyone who fails to agree with the Church of the Gun.
Hemenway is, of course, but one of a number of academics who work together on this. They have done the research work on concealed carry permits, and their findings are diametrically opposite to those of Lott and Kleck. This makes Seth's mantra of "more guns, less crime" look pretty sick.
Seth keeps claiming that banning hand guns will do no good, since criminals who want them will get them. This belief is not supported by the facts. In nations like Australia, New Zealand, Britain etc., hand guns are bannaed, and criminals are mostly without hand guns. A few turn up in criminal hands, but very few, and our hand gun murder rates are very close to zero. So, in spite of Seth's insistance that bans do not work, they obviously do work, since nations with bans on hand guns end up with very, very few hand guns, and almost zero hand gun murders.
The USA, by comparison, has 8,000 hand gun murders each year. Canada, which has a greater access to hand guns due to bordering the USA, has a murder rate 40% more than Britain. You will be unsurprised to learn that half of Canada's murders are done with Hand guns.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The case against guns
Sorry about the double post.
A reply to Seth on ethnic matters.
No, the USA does not have a ridiculously high murder rate because of the ethnic make up of the country. It is true that certain ethnic minorities are more involved in violent crime than others, but their presence creates high levels of violent crime, rather than high levels of murder.
Here in NZ, we have a much higher percentage of the population as dark skinned ethnic minority than the USA has. This is due to the high numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders here. Those minority groups are exceptionally over-represented in the violent crime statistics. Maori, for example, who are 12% of the adult population make up more than 50% of the prison population. One result of this is that NZ has a higher rate of violent crime than the USA on a per capita basis. Yet the USA has 5 times our murder rate.
The difference is gun culture and gun ownership, and primarily hand guns. Hand guns are used in 50% of all murders in the USA, while long guns are used in only one sixth. More hand guns means more murders. Just that simple. This is proven by the fact that Canada, which has more hand guns per capita than Britain, NZ, and Australia, has substantially more per capita murders than any other English speaking nation, except the USA, which has even more hand guns.
The USA has by far the greatest hand gun ownership of any OECD nation, and of the 24 richest nations, it has 85% of all firearms murders.Anyone who thinks there is no causal link is living in fantasyland.
A reply to Seth on ethnic matters.
No, the USA does not have a ridiculously high murder rate because of the ethnic make up of the country. It is true that certain ethnic minorities are more involved in violent crime than others, but their presence creates high levels of violent crime, rather than high levels of murder.
Here in NZ, we have a much higher percentage of the population as dark skinned ethnic minority than the USA has. This is due to the high numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders here. Those minority groups are exceptionally over-represented in the violent crime statistics. Maori, for example, who are 12% of the adult population make up more than 50% of the prison population. One result of this is that NZ has a higher rate of violent crime than the USA on a per capita basis. Yet the USA has 5 times our murder rate.
The difference is gun culture and gun ownership, and primarily hand guns. Hand guns are used in 50% of all murders in the USA, while long guns are used in only one sixth. More hand guns means more murders. Just that simple. This is proven by the fact that Canada, which has more hand guns per capita than Britain, NZ, and Australia, has substantially more per capita murders than any other English speaking nation, except the USA, which has even more hand guns.
The USA has by far the greatest hand gun ownership of any OECD nation, and of the 24 richest nations, it has 85% of all firearms murders.Anyone who thinks there is no causal link is living in fantasyland.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The case against guns
Sorry about the double post.
A reply to Seth on ethnic matters.
No, the USA does not have a ridiculously high murder rate because of the ethnic make up of the country. It is true that certain ethnic minorities are more involved in violent crime than others, but their presence creates high levels of violent crime, rather than high levels of murder.
Here in NZ, we have a much higher percentage of the population as dark skinned ethnic minority than the USA has. This is due to the high numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders here. Those minority groups are exceptionally over-represented in the violent crime statistics. Maori, for example, who are 12% of the adult population make up more than 50% of the prison population. One result of this is that NZ has a higher rate of violent crime than the USA on a per capita basis. Yet the USA has 5 times our murder rate.
The difference is gun culture and gun ownership, and primarily hand guns. Hand guns are used in 50% of all murders in the USA, while long guns are used in only one sixth. More hand guns means more murders. Just that simple. This is proven by the fact that Canada, which has more hand guns per capita than Britain, NZ, and Australia, has substantially more per capita murders than any other English speaking nation, except the USA, which has even more hand guns.
The USA has by far the greatest hand gun ownership of any OECD nation, and of the 24 richest nations, it has 85% of all firearms murders.Anyone who thinks there is no causal link is living in fantasyland.
A reply to Seth on ethnic matters.
No, the USA does not have a ridiculously high murder rate because of the ethnic make up of the country. It is true that certain ethnic minorities are more involved in violent crime than others, but their presence creates high levels of violent crime, rather than high levels of murder.
Here in NZ, we have a much higher percentage of the population as dark skinned ethnic minority than the USA has. This is due to the high numbers of Maori and Pacific Islanders here. Those minority groups are exceptionally over-represented in the violent crime statistics. Maori, for example, who are 12% of the adult population make up more than 50% of the prison population. One result of this is that NZ has a higher rate of violent crime than the USA on a per capita basis. Yet the USA has 5 times our murder rate.
The difference is gun culture and gun ownership, and primarily hand guns. Hand guns are used in 50% of all murders in the USA, while long guns are used in only one sixth. More hand guns means more murders. Just that simple. This is proven by the fact that Canada, which has more hand guns per capita than Britain, NZ, and Australia, has substantially more per capita murders than any other English speaking nation, except the USA, which has even more hand guns.
The USA has by far the greatest hand gun ownership of any OECD nation, and of the 24 richest nations, it has 85% of all firearms murders.Anyone who thinks there is no causal link is living in fantasyland.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests