Valhalla Legends Archive

Lets Talk Facts
-Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

-Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

-The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

-The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

-Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

-Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

· 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
· 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
· 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
· 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
· 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
· 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

-All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation's collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by "gun control" proponents.

-According to attorney David Kopel's The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, awarded Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel concluded "Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations." He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: "Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control...postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos."

-Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

-No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the pro hibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

Enjoy the facts.

This may be kinda off topic but it relates to hazards post a lil bit I think or at least parts of this movie do.If you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine you should.
Blah im tired this prolly sounds stupid.

Quote from: crashtestdummy on March 04, 2004, 10:13 PM
This may be kinda off topic but it relates to hazards post a lil bit I think or at least parts of this movie do.If you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine you should.
Blah im tired this prolly sounds stupid.

Mostly because Bowling for Columbine was largely made up. IIRC, some people even considered suing Moore for libel.

Really? What parts were made up and who thought of sueing him?

A late response, but:

Quote from: Adron on March 04, 2004, 05:35 PM
I have seen military with automatic rifles.

AFAIK, the automatic mode on an automatic rifle is illegal by international law (Geneva convention)...

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
No its not. Carrying a concealed firearm with a liscence is perfectly legal, and it is always legal to carry a knife.

You're talking about your reality, I'm talking about mine. It's not legal to carry a knife.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
Some get killed, true. Many thousands defend themselves. Who would you rather be? I welcome the chance for a whole gang. My shotgun holds 8 rounds, and my .308 holds five. I only need one per person. The liklihood of having your gun taken from you and used against you is slim to none.

You're being stupid. You think you're rambo? You think you can dodge bullets while killing everyone else?

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
You're dead armed or not if there is a robber at the base of your bed. I prefer to go down fighting. You can't keep criminals from being armed Adron. Get over it. Legal or not they will get firearms.

Where guns are forbidden, less robbers get firearms. It is as simple as that.

Another fact is that yes, you can survive a robber at the base of your bed, IF you live in a society where guns are forbidden. He has no real reason to try to kill you unless he's afraid of you, if he suspects that you may have a gun and try to kill him.

The existence of guns increase violence.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
My gun is locked and accessible, and I can get to it in an extremely brief time in case of emergency.

You say? I just don't see how you can arrange that. Please elaborate.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
You object to somebody shooting an attacker in self defense?

No. I merely point out that if you store your gun where your children can't reach it as your instruction for responsible gun owners will most likely specify, then it's probably too inaccessible.

Also, I object to somebody shooting an attacker in anything that is not self defence. That includes every situation in which the attacker is not an immediate risk of personal injury to someone.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
As could you point out yours?

I will see if I can find anything that you would be able to read.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
So you're saying that I have no right to protect myself from those who are armed with guns? That makes sense. What do you think? That we should all just be friends?

I'm saying that you have no human right to have a gun. Your claim to have a human right to have a gun is about the same as Iraq claiming to have a human right to have ballistic nuclear missiles. Do you want to give them some, just so they can protect themselves?

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
If you'll recall, war ended slavery.

If you'll recall, white men with muskets coming to Africa founded slavery.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:09 PM
Not be useful? Why don't you tell that to the founding fathers of the United States. Yea... their use of firearms sure proved to be anything but constructive. The general population sure screwed up with their use of firearms didn't they? Why don't you tell that to the millions who have been saved because they have armed themselves. Why don't you try telling that to those unfortunate enough not to have been armed. The general RESPONSIBLE population has the human right to protect themselves from the evils in society. People need firearms too. Basically you're saying that a woman who is about to be raped should just call for help, instead of stopping her attacker. The cops should be there in a few minutes right? Until then she should just roll the dice and take her chances, hopefully he will be a nice rapist and wait until help arrives. What dream world do you live in Adron? You must take the protection of yourself and the people you love into your hands. My home is guarded. You want to know the international sound for "Get the FUCK out"? It's the sound of a shotgun round being loaded into the chamber. Don't tread on me.

Maybe I live in the world of your dreams, because the risk of me getting killed in a gun fight is just a fraction of yours. Lucky me. Don't you wish you could be so lucky?

So yes, you completely screwed up with your free use of firearms.

And you want to know what? The sound of a shotgun round being loaded into the chamber is a "get out" sound unique to a small number of uncivilized countries, including the USA.

Quote from: Adron on March 04, 2004, 05:35 PM
Now, tell me of your experiences with guns?

My firearms experience? I have been shooting rifles and shotguns for about 12 years and have been firing handguns of all sizes and calibers for about 7 years. I have been hunting for nearly as long as I have been able to shoot. I have taken and passed the beginner and advanced firearms training courses. I am a liscensed hunter in the states of Florida, Georgia, and Kansas. I am a Junior member of the National Rifle Association and have been for a number of years. I personally own 3 firearms and my father an additional 7. I make a strong effort to make it to the gun range at least once a month for practice and drills. I have lived in all of my life in a society in which sometimes victims who could have protected themselves but instead relied on the police who, on deadly occasions, have failed them.

Also, you're saying that after 26 years in a society you have never heard of or seen of a violent crime where a gun was used?

Quote from: Yoni on March 05, 2004, 04:31 AM
A late response, but:

Quote from: Adron on March 04, 2004, 05:35 PM
I have seen military with automatic rifles.

AFAIK, the automatic mode on an automatic rifle is illegal by international law (Geneva convention)...

It is? Scary... What's it supposed to be? Burst? It's possible that the automatic mode on those is blocked. It's definitely not blocked on the old submachineguns of the military though; their construction is pretty much a huge bolt moving back and forth. It hooks up on the trigger when you release it, but there's just no mechanical feature that could enable single shots.

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 06:21 AM
My firearms experience? I have been shooting rifles and shotguns for about 12 years and have been firing handguns of all sizes and calibers for about 7 years. I have been hunting for nearly as long as I have been able to shoot. I have taken and passed the beginner and advanced firearms training courses. I am a liscensed hunter in the states of Florida, Georgia, and Kansas. I am a Junior member of the National Rifle Association and have been for a number of years. I personally own 3 firearms and my father an additional 7. I make a strong effort to make it to the gun range at least once a month for practice and drills. I have lived in all of my life in a society in which sometimes victims who could have protected themselves but instead relied on the police who, on deadly occasions, have failed them.

Also, you're saying that after 26 years in a society you have never heard of or seen of a violent crime where a gun was used?

No, I'm saying that I have never personally seen it. Of course I have heard of violent crimes where guns were used, just like I have heard of cannibals who killed and ate their victims. What I mean is that they are unfrequent enough that you can live for 26 years without seeing them. With any luck, I should be able to live my whole life without seeing a violent crime commited with the use of guns.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 09:39 PM
Enjoy the facts.

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't missed your facts. Unfortunately from them it seems that you won't accept the fact of crime rates being lower in countries where guns aren't free as evidence, and that's the only numerical fact I could've given you.

What I expect from a law against guns is that crime will rise for a while. There are enough guns on the market that it will take many years to lower the concentration to a point where guns will be sufficiently harder to obtain. Some crimes are likely to drop away quicker than others.

And yes, you need to search for an seize guns. Luckily, you're already prepared to accept that. Your current anti-terrorist laws are stricter than laws in other countries, so using them to search for an seize guns should be no problem whatsoever. Someone having a gun after the society has forbidden guns might well be a terrorist.

Quote from: Hazard on March 04, 2004, 05:39 PM
In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people. Consider the following:

Which house do you think an intruder would go for?

Why couldn't you just have a big sign saying you support guns or have that little man with holes in him on your door but not actually have a gun?  It would work right?  Then there really is no reason to have a gun because surely a criminal will not enter your house according to you.

Well, I think Adron and I stand in the exact same position on this issue so I don't really have a lot to add, but I'll comment on the position here.

Gun crime is on the increase here, as it is in most places. That is the only point I will concede. Yet, even given that, we do not have a fully armed police force. We don't even call it a force here - it's the police service - and I think that's an important distinction. To combat the rise in gun crime, specialist police units exist all around the country that are armed and able to respond very quickly to gun-related incidents when they occur.

In my life to date, I have very rarely seen firearms in the UK. So few times that I can list them here:

- At my Uncle's place in the country (he has a .22 bolt-action rifle)
- Once when I was working in a house that neighboured the Home Secretary's. He had an armed police officer as a guard. He had a handgun, I forget what sort. He was part of some specialist unit for protecting VIPs and diplomats.

That's it. When speaking of crime, I've never heard a gun being fired, never seen a criminal with a gun, never feared that a criminal might invade my home with one. I think that americans forget the possibility that criminals there only carry guns because they believe that their victims will have them. It works both ways. I can only remember seeing a gun in the hands of a criminal on TV once, and even incidents of gun crime are pretty unusual here - I would assume that it happens every day in the states, but here, it would be unusual to hear of more than one or so a month. Serious gun incidents like Tony Martin or Dunblane come along once in a blue moon.

To put it simply, if you'll forgive the pun: Guns in the hands of civilians are overkill. The only reason you'd need one is if the other guy has one. It's just a lot simpler if no one has them, which is why I support heavy gun control - it prevents, or at least seriously impedes, guns from being a problem in the first place. I don't think that the same applies in the states. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. That said, there's no sensible reason why civilians need automatic rifles. No reason why they'd need submachine guns, automatic shotguns, or in fact, auomatic weapons of any kind. Even semi-automatic weapons are a bit of a leap for me. It seems sensible to restrict those kinds of weapons. It also seems sensible to carry out extensive background checks before issueing a firearms certificate, like they do here, and to keep records of gun purchases forever. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if you want to buy a tool that you could potentially use to kill vast numbers of your fellow countrymen, that a record is kept of your ownership. If the government is going to trust citizens to have guns, should the citizens trust the government to use records of gun ownership responsibly?

Spouting statistics doesn't really help your argument either:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths.  1998 data.)

Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense. (Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45 (2): 263-267)

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. (Embassies and foreign crime-reporting agencies/FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1995.  The number for Germany represents total murders by firearms.)

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures. (Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)

I'm going to stop there, I think I've made my point. I don't by any means think that the situation is as simple in the US as it is here, but it's not nearly as clear-cut as some people here seem to think it is.

Hazard's root argument seems to draw validity from his perceived right to protect himself by firearm is more important than society's right to protect itself from permeation of firearms.  Unless I misunderstand?

I don't know where I stand on this, and am carefully listening to each of your arguments.  This is as good as time as any for me to form an opinion.

I do wish Hazard would respond directly to Adron's points with counterpoints.  My impression so far has been Adron responds reasonably directly to Hazard's points, but Hazard responds to Adrons with something not comparable.  Particularly with quoting U.S.-only statistics is not a controlled way of studying.  Without a control, it is generally accepted that measurements cannot be trusted.

I try to respond reasonably directly. There is no really good counterpoint to a scenario where the assumption is that Hazard has a gun pointed at an armed criminal entering his house.

It's easy enough to make up a dozen other equally (or more) probable scenarios though.

What I try to point out for that situation is:

If Hazard is responsible and stores his gun unloaded and out of reach of children, chances are he won't have his gun there in his hand at the time he needs it. (logical conclusion)

If Hazard keeps his gun easily accessible at all times, chances are his children will be able to get at it and kill or injure themselves or others by accident or intentionally. (supported by Arta's statistics)

If guns weren't so easily accessible, there'd be a rather large probability that the criminal didn't have a gun. (as evidenced in other countries)

If an criminal doesn't think Hazard is armed, there's less reason to start shooting. (logical conclusion)

Even with a gun in his hand, Hazard is probably not rambo. An experienced criminal might be more adept at shooting people, and might hit Hazard first. (assumption + logical conclusion)

How many murders happen in Sweden per year? Just out of curiousity. From what the biased liberal media has shown me, it's far greater than that of the United States. If that's true then perhaps that is why you don't see the need for protection of that level in America.