Legitimate question for "gun control"

Originally Posted by badfast

I would like to see those studies. Have one variable impact another single variable (i.e: crime goes down, gun ownership up and vice versa) is difficult to believe. Correlation is not causation. I am sure there are a number of variables affecting crime rates, not specifically gun ownership rates.

I would also like to see something stating that the low homicide rate with NFA guns are not at all associated with tighter controls.

Britain has far more crime vs the entire population than the US. Britain also has tighter gun regulations...

Britain: 10.4% (population: 62,641,000)
US: 3.8% (population: 311,591,917)

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

Sounds like there is a lot you want to know. That's great news

Better get started in your research

I'm done spoon feeding it to people. If you put the effort in yourself, it tends to stick better.

Let me know what you find!

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Reality and facts have a liberal bias.

What reality or facts do you have? You've provided none.

You've regurgitated some talking points you've just recently heard on the news and posted up some new information you just learned today on the internet after rapidly googling to see such things as what could be considered an illegal firearm, to which you demonstrated an illegal bullet, and a classification of weapon that is only illegal without the proper license and is not the weapon of choice when it comes to gun violence, and yet you're concerned about these "illegal guns"?

Get a ****ing clue man or stay out of the discussions. Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Again, no one is speaking on BANNING WEAPONS. I am specifically asking about what we can do to lessen these types of incidents. I know that Assault weapons are responsible for very little crime, I'm worried about the trafficking of weapons and giving law enforcement the proper tools to do their jobs, so civilians won't have to.

What incidents? The ones that just happened recently that the media is reporting on?

Cuz those where legal guns ya knucklehead. Those weapons weren't trafficked. They were purchased.

So...yeah...go on fixin our gun problems with that "reality" and those "facts" that liberal bias affords you.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Britain has far more crime vs the entire population than the US. Britain also has tighter gun regulations...

Britain: 10.4% (population: 62,641,000)
US: 3.8% (population: 311,591,917)

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

you don't say.....

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/0...wisted-outcome

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Britain has far more crime vs the entire population than the US. Britain also has tighter gun regulations...

Britain: 10.4% (population: 62,641,000)
US: 3.8% (population: 311,591,917)

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

Where did you get Britain's crime rate at 10.4%--since it is not listed on the page you linked? Your link states:
Total crimes 6,523,706 (UK) 11,877,218 (US)
Ranked 2nd. Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom

Then how do you explain this? Japan vs. US
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

Originally Posted by JonJon

Sounds like there is a lot you want to know. That's great news

Better get started in your research

I'm done spoon feeding it to people. If you put the effort in yourself, it tends to stick better.

Let me know what you find!

Got it. You have nothing. That is all you had to say.

Originally Posted by badfast

Where did you get Britain's crime rate at 10.4%--since it is not listed on the page you linked? Your link states:
Total crimes 6,523,706 (UK) 11,877,218 (US)
Ranked 2nd. Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom

Then how do you explain this? Japan vs. US
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

Total crimes committed provided at the bottom of those figures divided into the entire population yields those percentages I derived.

Edit: Japan would be 2,853,739 crimes/127,817,277 (population) = 2.2%

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Total crimes committed provided at the bottom of those figures divided into the entire population yields those percentages I derived.

Edit: Japan would be 2,853,739 crimes/127,817,277 (population) = 2.2%

Once your done explaining the crime rate difference between Japan (Strict Gun Control) and the US then explain how your factors (population/crime rates) mean anything.

Have you thought maybe population density might factor into crime rates?
Japan 349.1 people per sq km
UK 262 people per sq km
US 34.6 people per sq km
http://www.census.gov/population/int...ionGateway.php

Are you going to join the majority of people here. Find one fact to support your claim, choose it, and disregard the rest? You look silly pumping up a false correlation with such a fallacy.

Originally Posted by badfast

Once your done explaining the crime rate difference between Japan (Strict Gun Control) and the US then explain how your factors (population/crime rates) mean anything.

Have you thought maybe population density might factor into crime rates?
Japan 349.1 people per sq km
UK 262 people per sq km
US 34.6 people per sq km
http://www.census.gov/population/int...ionGateway.php

Are you going to join the majority of people here. Find one fact to support your claim, choose it, and disregard the rest? You look silly pumping up a false correlation with such a fallacy.

Just convert the percentages into figures per a certain population.

Japan: 22 crimes/1000 people
US: 38 crimes/1000 people
Britain: 104 crimes/1000 people

Edit: Because there are too many variables involved to say gun control has had a positive impact on a country's crime rates. Like I said, the population is much larger in the US yet the number of crimes committed is still much lower compared to that of Britain. Theoretically one would think in a society/country with more people the crime rate in turn would be much higher. And dare I say, but we have many more variables in this country that should contribute to a much higher crime rate yet that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Just convert the percentages into figures per a certain population.

Japan: 22 crimes/1000 people
US: 38 crimes/1000 people
Britain: 104 crimes/1000 people

Edit: Because there are too many variables involved to say gun control has had a positive impact on a country's crime rates. Like I said, the population is much larger in the US yet the number of crimes committed is still much lower compared to that of Britain. Theoretically one would think in a society/country with more people the crime rate in turn would be much higher. And dare I say, but we have many more variables in this country that should contribute to a much higher crime rate yet that isn't the case.

First, that is what I have been saying all along. You can't contribute one factor (gun ownership) and state it has a profound effect on another factor (crime rates).

You can argue statistically that the UK has higher crime rates, but someone else can say that the US has higher crime rates. 82% more than the UK according to your link.

For the bold:
How do you suppose? What variables do we have that Britain and Japan do not? We certainly don't have the same population density. Do you think that if the US reflected a similar population density it would have an effect on the population?

Gun control and crime statistics will never show a direct correlation. There are too many outside factors.

For the same reasons gun control doesn't stop crime, relaxed gun control doesn't prevent crime. Crime is a product of a slew of factors and it takes much more than some gun control legislation to have an impact on it, either positive or negative. Societal problems are much more deeply rooted than that.

and my post goes ignored...

And here is India vs the United States comparison from your(BF08) site:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

Bigger population, lower crime rates....care to explain?
Murders > per 100,000 people 5.5 (India) 5.9 (US) 7% more than India
Rapes 1.7 (India) 30.2 (US) 17 times more than India
Robberies 1.6 (India) 146.4 (US) 91 times more than India
Total crimes 1,764,630 (India) 11,877,218 (US) 6 times more than India
With a population of 1,210,193,422 and total crimes at 1,764,630 is a rate of .15% That is 1 crime for every 686 people.

Originally Posted by Scooby24

Gun control and crime statistics will never show a direct correlation. There are too many outside factors.

For the same reasons gun control doesn't stop crime, relaxed gun control doesn't prevent crime. Crime is a product of a slew of factors and it takes much more than some gun control legislation to have an impact on it, either positive or negative. Societal problems are much more deeply rooted than that.

That is kinda the point. I don't think too many people understand that though.

Originally Posted by Bart Taylor

and my post goes ignored...

Long article...it is not going unnoticed.

Originally Posted by badfast

First, that is what I have been saying all along. You can't contribute one factor (gun ownership) and state it has a profound effect on another factor (crime rates).

You can argue statistically that the UK has higher crime rates, but someone else can say that the US has higher crime rates. 82% more than the UK according to your link.

For the bold:
How do you suppose? What variables do we have that Britain and Japan do not? We certainly don't have the same population density. Do you think that if the US reflected a similar population density it would have an effect on the population?

Originally Posted by badfast

And here is India vs the United States comparison from your(BF08) site:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime

Bigger population, lower crime rates....care to explain?
Murders > per 100,000 people 5.5 (India) 5.9 (US) 7% more than India
Rapes 1.7 (India) 30.2 (US) 17 times more than India
Robberies 1.6 (India) 146.4 (US) 91 times more than India
Total crimes 1,764,630 (India) 11,877,218 (US) 6 times more than India
With a population of 1,210,193,422 and total crimes at 1,764,630 is a rate of .15% That is 1 crime for every 686 people.

And? What's the point of comparing all these countries? The fact remains that despite strict gun control in some countries, crime is still high. Perhaps it's not the guns themselves but differences among societies then...

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Obviously didn't watch video, but thanks. I'm not for "taking away guns"

Just placing limits which makes the 2nd irrelevant.

It was written to fight governments musket to musket.

The AR15 is a modern day musket. Argue all you want firepower has increased 10 fold.

Yes we should be able to take up arms against our government. Sounds tin hat but its partially what keeps things in check.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

How can we enforce existing gun laws when law enforcement's hands are tied? Why are we ok with the NRA (and the GOP) blocking our attempts to control illegal fire arms? Could it be they aren't looking out for gun owners, but rather manufactures and dealers?

And why isn't this more talked about?

What attempts have been made towards illegal firearms? Seems like sweeping legislation aimed at a small minority which affects the large majority mostly(remember criminals dont care about laws).

Originally Posted by Iceman00

And my biggest question to those who think the Obama administration (and those who watch/listen to Alex Jones :rofl ) What do you propose as gun "regulation" reform?

Simple. Nothing.

Sometimes water isn't the best way to put out fire.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

No such thing? Owning a gun that can shoot (if it existed) depleted uranium rounds? A weapon that is fully Automatic? No?

Fully automatic weapons are rare and very expensive. The secret about them is they aren't as effective in the real world as semi auto. Its very hard to control and fire a fully auto rifle.

As far as a theoretical fake uranium gun I dont think the public should have such things.

I also think the government shouldn't have nukes either but you dont see the government completely disarming itself do you? once again fire with fire.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

I was waiting for you to come in here and spout off **** about how the stolen/trafficked firearms are somehow legal. Obviously didn't watch the video, and of course frothing at the mouth over laws that don't exist.

I would bet most are stolen. Criminals will find a way no matter what. In the early days they would murder and steal them from police armories.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Again, you didn't watch the video - a vast majority of the illegal firearms (yes) that are trafficked come from a handfull of dealers, and dealers can't be inspected more than once a year, nor are they required to keep a log of their inventory. Also, they are not required to cooperate with authorities? If this is true, how to you think we can enforce existing laws on the books with those restrictions? Did you catch the part where they mentioned there is no current director of the ATF, and there hasn't been on for 7 years? Ridiculous.

Because the ATF is run by a government which at current time would like nothing more than to systematically disarm the public.

between purposefully allowing AR15's to be sold and get across the border to mexico and alot of other mishaps which come from the top.. who needs them.

Also where did you get the idea that the dealers don't have to cooperate with authorities. Pure BS.

They keep a record and so does the DOJ and dept of law enforcement in your state. They cant sell a gun without a background check. The government lacks the drive or competancy to actually use this info to help anything.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

They are, unless you have a class III license and are a dealer (using it for demonstration purposes) Unless I'm incorrect on that.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I can tell you the majority of violent crime (according to FBI statistics) are with *gasp* firearms. Let's be clear here, no on (in this thread) is calling for the banning of weapons, I asking what can be done to minimize the risk of these weapons getting into the wrong hands? Of should we just ignore the problem?

Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

I'd say you are probably right although the only statistics I could find are homicide rates knife vs gun.

Violent crime such as rapes,burglary,etc is harder to find.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Again, no one is speaking on BANNING WEAPONS. I am specifically asking about what we can do to lessen these types of incidents. I know that Assault weapons are responsible for very little crime, I'm worried about the trafficking of weapons and giving law enforcement the proper tools to do their jobs, so civilians won't have to.

You said it yourself that assault weapons(made up word/they aren't BTW) consist of a very small percentage of crimes so why go after them? It makes you feel better thats why.

What can you do to lessen these types of situations(besides not much)

More than one armed person protecting the "gun free zones". I wont get too deep into who it should be but its important its more than one. Otherwise you just find that one guy who you know is armed and take him out(probably with a pistol BTW).

Or

Eliminate gun free zones.


Some points
Armed police officers already exist in middle and high school so its not much of a change and shouldn't make you feel any different.

You could take the minimum of 70k and put it towards raises,severe long term training for qualified teachers. For the price of 2 officers you could have 5-10 well trained teachers.

Now comes the part where you insist that More guns = more violence and the teachers will snap and shoot kids.

Nothing is stopping a teacher from pulling a sandy hook situation as of now and guess what It hasnt and most likely wont ever happen. Teachers are on the up and up for the most part and mental instability is rare. I'd rather have teachers in place of high school dropout police officers we have instead.

These things would directly address the problem but you dont want to hear them when reality cannot coexist with the dreamworld liberals would like to live in.

Originally Posted by Iceman00

Reality and facts have a liberal bias.

wow really, regurgitating this old failure line?

Originally Posted by Iceman00

I'm worried about the trafficking of weapons and giving law enforcement the proper tools to do their jobs, so civilians won't have to.

Have you ever heard of this wacky escapade called Fast and Furious?

You're worried about some thug in an alley trading a Hi Point for food stamps while the government traffics everything you're scared of.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by MrWesson

Because the ATF is run by a government which at current time would like nothing more than to systematically disarm the public.

Both the Tiahrt Amendment and the provision that requires senate approval to appoint a director to the ATF were passed during the previous administration.

Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3

Have you ever heard of this wacky escapade called Fast and Furious?

It's not what you think it is.