Vigilante

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your understandling of statistics and probability seem to be roughly zero. Again, the use of anecdotes, which are statistically meaningless, is a case in point. Also the fact that you ignore real world statistics, like the disgustingly high murder rate in the USA. 16,000 murders each year. 9,000 done with firearms. 8,000 with hand guns. Those are real statistics with real meaning.

[Seth]

Seth

Your understandling of statistics and probability seem to be roughly zero. Again, the use of anecdotes, which are statistically meaningless, is a case in point. Also the fact that you ignore real world statistics, like the disgustingly high murder rate in the USA. 16,000 murders each year. 9,000 done with firearms. 8,000 with hand guns. Those are real statistics with real meaning.

Yes they are, but they don't mean what you think they mean, and they certainly don't support your conclusions, which makes your understanding of logic and reason entirely absent.

[Blind groper]

Seth

If you compare the per capita murder rates of the 24 richest nations, you will find it runs almost direct correlation with gun ownership, with the exception of Switzerland.

USA top in murders and gun ownership.
Finland second in both.
Canada midway for both.
England, Australia and NZ well down for both murders and gun ownership.
Japan at the bottom with least murders and fewest guns.

Yeah, but you will tell me that is meaningless, won't you?

[Seth]

Seth

If you compare the per capita murder rates of the 24 richest nations, you will find it runs almost direct correlation with gun ownership, with the exception of Switzerland.

USA top in murders and gun ownership.
Finland second in both.
Canada midway for both.
England, Australia and NZ well down for both murders and gun ownership.
Japan at the bottom with least murders and fewest guns.

Yeah, but you will tell me that is meaningless, won't you?

And yet DC has the fewest guns yet the highest murder rate.

Damn confounding factors! Don't you just hate it when facts destroy your punditry?

Poor thing...

[JimC]

Seth

If you compare the per capita murder rates of the 24 richest nations, you will find it runs almost direct correlation with gun ownership, with the exception of Switzerland.

USA top in murders and gun ownership.
Finland second in both.
Canada midway for both.
England, Australia and NZ well down for both murders and gun ownership.
Japan at the bottom with least murders and fewest guns.

Yeah, but you will tell me that is meaningless, won't you?

And yet DC has the fewest guns yet the highest murder rate.

Damn confounding factors! Don't you just hate it when facts destroy your punditry?

Poor thing...

BG was comparing countries, not states within a country...

Yours is not a valid counter-argument to country to country comparisons...

[Gallstones]

That rifle was definitely a great equalizer for a mother of two young children in Detroit when she was facing down three armed home invaders.

The mother tells Action News she “didn’t have time to get scared.” When she heard the door to her home on Woodrow Wilson being kicked in, she immediately warned the three teenage intruders and then opened fire.

One of the teens dropped a handgun on his way out the door. He then tried to get back inside the house a second time, but was again met with gunfire. Once again, he took off and all three were arrested shortly after the incident by Detroit Police.

[Blind groper]

Gallstones.

Wake up!!

Using anecdotes as argument is a clear sign the debater has nothing. Anecdotes are statistically meaningless.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Re Washington DC.

I did a quick google search on crime in this city. It appears that the city fathers tried to restrict hand guns, but were stymied by the corrupt judges on your supreme court. Since hand guns can be bought freely on the second hand market, and since they are readily available out of city limits, there is no practical restriction on hand guns in Washington, and the hand gun murder rate is enormous!

[Gallstones]

Unconstitutional to confine the “right to bear” arms to the home
By Steve Straub On February 19, 2014

Via SCOTUSblog:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — the first to rule, ahead of the Supreme Court, that the Second Amendment right to have a gun extends nationwide — issued the most sweeping decision yet on the right to carry a gun in public places. The amendment means, the panel ruled in a two-to-one decision, that it is unconstitutional to confine the “right to bear” arms solely to the home.

Such a limitation, the panel ruled, would amount to a complete destruction of Second Amendment rights and cannot be justified on any constitutional reasoning. Thus, it said, while government might forbid carrying a concealed gun in public, or carrying a gun openly in public, it cannot do both. The right to have a gun for self-defense clearly exists beyond one’s home and hearth, the majority said. And, it added, it has always existed, since the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution in 1791.

Ninth Circuit: Peruta v San Diego County Opinion Feb 13,2014

[Blind groper]

And so the USA spirals down to self destruction.

If we look at the 24 wealthiest nations (measured as per capita earnings) we see that, not only has the USA the highest murder rate, but it is double that of the next highest. Even China, which is not part of that wealthy club, has a murder rate half that of the USA. To find more murderous nations, you have to go to third world nations.

Incidentally, the USA with a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people per year, is the only developed nation to exceed 3. And people like Seth and Gallstones simply cannot recognise that something is wrong!

[FBM]

Unconstitutional to confine the “right to bear” arms to the home
By Steve Straub On February 19, 2014

Via SCOTUSblog:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — the first to rule, ahead of the Supreme Court, that the Second Amendment right to have a gun extends nationwide — issued the most sweeping decision yet on the right to carry a gun in public places. The amendment means, the panel ruled in a two-to-one decision, that it is unconstitutional to confine the “right to bear” arms solely to the home.

Such a limitation, the panel ruled, would amount to a complete destruction of Second Amendment rights and cannot be justified on any constitutional reasoning. Thus, it said, while government might forbid carrying a concealed gun in public, or carrying a gun openly in public, it cannot do both. The right to have a gun for self-defense clearly exists beyond one’s home and hearth, the majority said. And, it added, it has always existed, since the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution in 1791.

Ninth Circuit: Peruta v San Diego County Opinion Feb 13,2014

That's a lot longer than I'm prepared to read, but I got to page 11. Looks like a coherent decision, legally speaking. Not that I'm a expert in that sort of thing.

[Seth]

To Seth

Re Washington DC.

I did a quick google search on crime in this city. It appears that the city fathers tried to restrict hand guns, but were stymied by the corrupt judges on your supreme court. Since hand guns can be bought freely on the second hand market, and since they are readily available out of city limits, there is no practical restriction on hand guns in Washington, and the hand gun murder rate is enormous!

Nice try, but now explain why this illogic does not apply elsewhere, like Virginia or Vermont or Florida or anywhere else that concealed carry is authorized, where the gun murder rates are low and going lower.

Or better yet just admit you are wrong, because you are.

[Seth]

And so the USA spirals down to self destruction.

If we look at the 24 wealthiest nations (measured as per capita earnings) we see that, not only has the USA the highest murder rate, but it is double that of the next highest. Even China, which is not part of that wealthy club, has a murder rate half that of the USA. To find more murderous nations, you have to go to third world nations.

Incidentally, the USA with a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people per year, is the only developed nation to exceed 3. And people like Seth and Gallstones simply cannot recognise that something is wrong!

You use China as an example? You might as well use North Korea because both cuntries (intentional) are totalitarian, despotic communist regimes that solve their political and criminal problems by killing people wholesale and often at random.

And which way is the US murder rate going with the massive increases in both gun ownership and the licensed carrying of concealed firearms?

Down.

Not up, down.

You're wrong, QED.

[Blind groper]

Before I start, let me make one thing clear, though, to avoid you setting up a straw man argument.

I do not claim that guns increase violent crime. Nor decrease violent crime. Violent crime is caused by violent people, whether they have guns or not. However, what guns change is the outcome of violent crime. If a violent criminal relies on his fists, or a lesser weapon, his violence is far less likely to result in a killing. If he has a gun, the violent crime is far more likely to end with a tragedy.

Concealed carry as a means of dropping crime is claimed by John Lott and his cronies, but reputable researchers have shown that this is not true.

Overall, violent crimes are dropping world wide. There are various reasons for this, and it applies to the USA as well as elsewhere. However, the reasons are related to other social changes, not guns. The vigilante culture and the availability of hand guns both work to keep the USA murder rate 5 times as high as it is in my country, despite the overall trend to less violence.

[Seth]

Before I start, let me make one thing clear, though, to avoid you setting up a straw man argument.

I do not claim that guns increase violent crime. Nor decrease violent crime. Violent crime is caused by violent people, whether they have guns or not.

Well, that's quite an admission...

However, what guns change is the outcome of violent crime.

Oh yes indeedy they do, which is exactly MY point.

If a violent criminal relies on his fists, or a lesser weapon, his violence is far less likely to result in a killing. If he has a gun, the violent crime is far more likely to end with a tragedy.

I'm in complete agreement with you so far. Keeping guns away from criminals is a good thing.

Concealed carry as a means of dropping crime is claimed by John Lott and his cronies, but reputable researchers have shown that this is not true.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. You have not shown that either Lott or anybody else who holds that position is wrong. More importantly, the legislatures of more than 40 states have examined all the relevant evidence time and time again and have concluded that it's YOU who is wrong, which is why they have passed "shall issue" concealed carry laws. I trust the wisdom of literally thousands of elected state legislators rather more than I trust yours.

Overall, violent crimes are dropping world wide. There are various reasons for this, and it applies to the USA as well as elsewhere.

Agreed.

However, the reasons are related to other social changes, not guns.

Well, I would agree that guns wielded by law-abiding citizens are not the ONLY reason crime is going down. But it is a contributing factor in the US, and even if not, such guns do not contribute to a rise in violent crime levels, which debunks your reasoning for banning guns.

The vigilante culture and the availability of hand guns both work to keep the USA murder rate 5 times as high as it is in my country, despite the overall trend to less violence.

Except that the facts prove you wrong. In the US in the last 30 years the number of guns, including handguns, in our society has increased dramatically, as has the lawful carry of those guns in public as authorized by the various state legislatures. And yet there is NO corresponding increase in violent crime, there is in fact a continued decrease in violent crime nationwide, with the largest decreases being found in those places where concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is permitted.

So, as you point out above "the reasons are related to other social changes, not guns."

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

I think we're done here.