On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:52:25 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:10 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.

The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

No, Ed is simply stating what apparently a large portion of the U.S.
population seem to believe. That doing away with "guns" will eliminate
many, perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes.

Duh, do you pracice tautology much, John?

It's self-evident that "doing away with guns" will "eliminate many,
perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes."

Maybe you'd like to try re-wording that. d8-)


Of course it will Ed. Just like the law against gambling virtually
eliminated betting on what number would come up tomorrow, or the law
against prostitution eliminated sin, or the law against booze
eliminated that Demon Rum.

It's interesting that you're lumping gun bans with bans on vices. Your
comparisons suggest that you think that guns represent something
immoral. I thought that bans on chemicals were more appropriate.


After all we do have laws about guns. The waiting period that keeps
people from buying a gun and shooting their wife in a fit of pique, or
the law about concealed carrying. And certainly they have made
miraculous inroads into the problem of firearm deaths.

Firearms homicides are down 49% since 1993.


Or drugs. There has been laws against most of the recreational
chemicals for decades and of course that has caused a virtual "no
drug" atmosphere in the U.S.

And the Sullivan Law virtually banned pistols in New York... and of
course during the "Mafia Wars" nobody fired a pistol in anger.

I'm sure you realize how stupid this "point" is, John, since
practically all of the guns used in crime in NYC come from out of
state. In NJ, the figure is 82%, for similar reasons.

But the murder rate in NYC last year was the lowest since 1963, and
MUCH lower than cities in many states with lax gun laws.

Why do you suppose that is?


So, given the glowing success that banning something has had in the
U.S. it is obvious that essentially banning certain people from
possessing guns will cause firearm related deaths to negligible
numbers.

Well, let's put it this way: It's worked in other civilized countries,
but the horse is out of the barn in the US. Our laws are so lax, and
guns have so proliferated, that it will be easy for criminals to get
guns for decades, no matter how draconian our laws may become.

So we've screwed ourselves into a no-win situation. Now actual
functioning people -- including many here -- think that carrying a
concealed gun is not only sensible, but a perfectly natural thing.

The perspective is thus based on the fact that a lot of other people
have guns, and some of them are criminals. An extraordinarily high
percentage of crime involves a gun in the US. This is not a common
thing in other advanced countries.

And so here we are. There's really no need for you to keep repeating
the tired, and mostly fraudulent, arguments against gun restrictions.
At this time in our history, it no longer matters. We're awash in guns
and we have a set of laws that make it easy and fairly safe for
criminals to obtain them. In many states, we've made it considerably
easier over the past decade or so. America is a pretty safe place for
murderers with guns, and our comparative statistics prove it.


As I previously wrote, do you believe that the blokes holding up the
7-11s are going it with legal guns? Or the guys in the ghetto doing
the drive-bys have a concealed carry permit?

They don't need one. They can get a gun on a street corner -- a gun
that was bought legally not long ago.



But, what the hell Ed. If you cannot refute the logic just pirouette
across the stage and start arguing grammar.

I'm not arguing grammar. I'm pointing out that criminals's guns come
from the same places we buy ours. It's easy for them. And if they buy
in a private sale, in most states, all they have to do is lie.

Our gun laws that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
are based on the premise that criminals would never lie. Imagine that.




Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

--
Ed Huntress