Skepticism and the Assault Weapon Ban

[corplinx]

I wanted to create a thread about the assault weapon ban free from politics (fat chance).

Basically, regardless of whether you think guns should be legal, legal but tightly regulated, only some models legal and highly regulated, or illegal; I think we can have an honest discussion about the assault weapon ban.

A. Were the weapons "assault weapons"?

Well. Maybe. Any weapon can be used for assault. The most dangerous guns are what the ATF calls "Class 3" and after submitting to an anal probe they will let you buy them (full autos, burst fire, etc). The guns the bill banned weren't in that class. They could have been added to that class if they were easily convertible into full auto weapons.

B. Did the ban remove these dangerous guns from our streets?

It is hard to gauge this. These guns were used in very few crimes. These guns are still readily availble on the used market and can be found at any gun show and many gun stores.


Basically, what I find are several camps:

One wants guns banned and supports the bill not because it works but because its a brick in the wall. A stepping stone for more sweeping legislation.

Another are people who believe in limited but legal firearm availibility. They see these guns that look like full autos and want them banned. "It's not like you would use that for hunting a deer".

Another group is pro-gun to an extent and realizes the ban is a placebo and wants it gone.

Another group is what I call the internet gun ring. Sites likes 1911forum, fnhipower.com, glocktalk.com, sigforums, hs2000forum, etc. These are handgun enthuisiasts who want their gun as designed. The bill bans magazines over 10 rounds. This has driven up the cost of full capacity magazines on the aftermarket and it affects sport shooters, league shooters, and people who carry for self defense (not to mention the aforementioned enthusiasts).

The last group is strict second amendment supporters.



Regardless of which group you fall into, the question of whether or not the ban was effective at reducing gun crime or increasing public safety is not a political one. It is an up/down yes/no answer. The answer is of course no. However, you will find few discussions relating to that simple answer. Instead you will find discussions on switzerland, legal guns for hunting, and other silly distractions.

I'm glad we are all above that sort of plebian behavior, right?

[Bikewer]

There is yet another group, who you might refer to as the Militia crowd. These folks believe (quite passionately) that individual citizens should have access to military weapons as a bulwark against tyranny.
They see the citizen-soldier-revolutionary as standing up against totalitarian takeover of the government. (a situation that some see as either emminent or unavoidable)

This is nothing new, mind you, such fringe groups have been running around for a while. I remember reading about Mr. DePew and the Minutmen way back when.

I'm in law enforcement, and the picture of those two lads in LA blasting away with full-auto AKs is compelling. These weapons were, of course, illegal under the ban. Didn't stop them from obtaining and/or modifying same.
The ban was poorly written, poorly enforced, and easy to get around. Most of the things declared illegal were cosmetic.

Still, I keep asking myself, "Why do civilians need military weapons?"
My friends in the shooting community will go on for hours on this.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bikewer

I'm in law enforcement, and the picture of those two lads in LA blasting away with full-auto AKs is compelling.


Compelling how?

[Tony]

There's also an element of hypocricy in the anti-gun rights crowd. To [some of] them the Patriot Act is bad because it takes away freedom for security, but gun-"control" is good because it takes away freedom for security.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony
There's also an element of hypocricy in the anti-gun rights crowd. To [some of] them the Patriot Act is bad because it takes away freedom for security, but gun-"control" is good because it takes away freedom for security.

Inst the reverse true. Whta kidna burned me up about the ban was the timing. Specifically GW and Cheney going on in on about how they are for our safety and the Dems dont have the balls to protect us from looney terrorista. Then they look the other way on the gun ban sunset.

Forget the pro/anti gun lobby for a second. If you're revamping nat'l security after 911, dont you think youd at least LOOK at assault weapon issues. It would just seem to be a natural fit. It seems kinda silly that post 911 we'd be bending search n seizure, and due process rights in the name of safety, and not do the same with gun rights.

(note: I am not advicating for watering down the 2nd amendment, my beef is more with the insencerity of the Whitehouse.)

[Richard G]

Am I safer with an AK-47 "assault" weapon, and a few (loaded) 30 round magazines in my house? The answer is a resounding yes.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx
B. Did the ban remove these dangerous guns from our streets?

It is hard to gauge this. These guns were used in very few crimes. These guns are still readily availble on the used market and can be found at any gun show and many gun stores.


The bill bans magazines over 10 rounds. This has driven up the cost of full capacity magazines on the aftermarket and it affects sport shooters, league shooters, and people who carry for self defense (not to mention the aforementioned enthusiasts).

The last group is strict second amendment supporters.



I think the bill was along the lines of lead paint laws. No way coudl you rid the country of lead paint in one fell swoop. So they put in laws to basically phase it out over time. It may have taken 20 years, but theres alot less lead paint buildings out there. Just cause the problem is fixed right awyay doesnt mean the legislation is a failure.

As for somthing like a 10 round clip. I think the arguments on the affects on people are kinda weak. Just as you say that assault weapons are used in few crimes, how many times has a gun used in self defense needed more than 10 bullets to get the job done?

[jj]

I still remain clueless as to how banning a weapon will have any effect on a person who is already a wanted criminal.

That, I think, is the real truth to gun laws. They don't have any effect on anyone beyond the law abiding.

Now, given that many guns are used during periods of stress, etc, for bad things, that is an argument to be had, but that's for another day.

Of course, I used to live in NJ, a state where the "assault weapons" law included a Wrist Rocket as an "assault weapon" that carried a mandatory sentence. The reasoning was convoluted, but as usual, the law was written by a committee, with the usual lack of clarity.

Curiously enough, at least in the Courier News, it was Nicholas Bissell's office who pointed it out. The irony there remains.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by jj
I still remain clueless as to how banning a weapon will have any effect on a person who is already a wanted criminal.

That, I think, is the real truth to gun laws. They don't have any effect on anyone beyond the law abiding.

.

So we shouldnt have laws cause bad guys wont follow them?

Couldnt you take this attitude with all laws? Not just gun laws. Why bother banning anything?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Bikewer
There is yet another group, who you might refer to as the I'm in law enforcement, and the picture of those two lads in LA blasting away with full-auto AKs is compelling. These weapons were, of course, illegal under the ban. Didn't stop them from obtaining and/or modifying same.

Full auto AK-47s are Class 3 weapons and require a Class 3 ATF permit to buy or sell.

Semi-auto AK-47s were banned from new production or import by the bill.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
So we shouldnt have laws cause bad guys wont follow them?

No, we shouldn't keep laws that are designed to prevent something but fail disastrously.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
No, we shouldn't keep laws that are designed to prevent something but fail disastrously.

Isn't that the fault of those enforcing the law, and not the law itself?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
Inst the reverse true.

Both the way I illustrated and the reverse could be true. But I only brought up the anti-Patriot Act/anti-gun crowd because they have been the most vocal with the "giving up freedoms for security" mantra.

[AtheistArchon]

- So the solution appears to be: write new, clearer laws and make them enforceable. Then enforce them.

- Pointing out the extremes is easy... I doubt anyone here besides Dickie G would advocate carrying nuclear weapons around in a briefcase, and likewise it's probably not practical (at least at this point in time) to completely disarm the public and abolish the 2nd amendment, even if we wanted to do it.

- So the only question is: where do we draw the line between a legal firearm and an illegal weapon?

[Tony]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- So the only question is: where do we draw the line between a legal firearm and an illegal weapon?

I think we should start by passing a law that made anything illegal for the citizen to own, also illegal for the government to own.

[epepke]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Isn't that the fault of those enforcing the law, and not the law itself?

No, it isn't.

Let's say I want to reduce the number of choking deaths. So I ban square food. Hamburgers are OK, except for Wendy's. Pizza is OK, except for Sicilian. Wonder Bread is bad, but round French bread is OK. Sticks of butter or margarine arebad. Margarine in a tub is OK.

I justify this by gathering some statistics on how many people choke every year on square food! I pooh-pooh any objection with rhetoric like "you don't need those corners on your hamburger."

Surprise, surprise, the ban on Square Food has no effect on choking deaths, because the squareness of the food has no bearing on whether people scarf it down too fast. Similarly, the styling of the weapons and the size of magazines has no bearing on when and whether people use them in anger.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
I think we should start by passing a law that made anything illegal for the citizen to own, also illegal for the government to own.

So, can I have a nuke, or does the government have to get rid of theirs?

[TragicMonkey]

Also, I'd like one of those printing presses like in the US Mint.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
So, can I have a nuke, or does the government have to get rid of theirs?

Of the two, which is the most desirable?

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Tony
Of the two, which is the most desirable?

For Tragic Monkey, or for his neighbor?

:D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tony
Of the two, which is the most desirable?

I'd be okay with nuclear disarmament if all the other countries did it, too. But for some reason I have trust issues with Kim Jong II.

[Bikewer]

The televised images of heavily armed and armored bank robbers having a prolonged shootout in the streets of L.A., while underarmed police officers scrambled for cover and more adequate weapons might well be considered "compelling", especially to someone who is so employed.
Can't think of a better word just offhand.

Of course, police have always had to play catch-up, as short-sighted and budget-conscious elected officials have not responded to conditions until after the fact.

The Thompson submachine gun was popular with outlaws before it began to be adopted by law enforcement, and, as I recall, Bonnie and Clyde had a BAR in the car when they were killed.

It's only been since the LA incident that police agencies have begun to supply and train officers in "patrol rifle".

I don't have any answers whatever for the overriding question of firearms ownership/restrictions. I've been reading both sides of the question for a long time, say early 1960's. Been involved both in shooting sports and law enforcement from the late 60's.

Criminals do not obey laws, by definition. Thinking criminals might be dissuaded from certain activities as a result of the fear of draconian punishment, wouldn't they?
Only a few hundred years ago, punishments were draconian indeed, with public execution and/or torture the norm in "civilized" societies. Public execution was the norm in our own country not so very long ago. Were crime rates affected positively?

Criminals tend to be impulsive, and to act on opportunity. Rare is the carefully-planned crime. And we humans tend to be unduly optimistic, even irrationally so. "I won't get caught, or, If I get caught, I won't get convicted." (And your odds are pretty good...)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Criminals tend to be impulsive, and to act on opportunity. Rare is the carefully-planned crime. And we humans tend to be unduly optimistic, even irrationally so. "I won't get caught, or, If I get caught, I won't get convicted." (And your odds are pretty good...)

But carrying a gun during the commission of a crime implies premeditation.

I told this story once before but it is worth repeating.

There was some sort of event at Bryant Park (behind the library in NYC) some years ago. I saw this guy have an animated conversation with another guy and the first went off to some bushes boardering the park. He pulled out a gun from the underbrush. I told a cop, the cop shrugged.

I really don't see a consistant response to firearms.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tmy
So we shouldnt have laws cause bad guys wont follow them?

Couldnt you take this attitude with all laws? Not just gun laws. Why bother banning anything?

I don't think I could have created a more beautifully misleading, insulting exercise of the excluded middle if I'd wanted to. Then again, creating such unethical things goes against my nature.

I'm surprised you're so comfortable with it.

[Bikewer]

Reminds me of an incident reported in Chuck Shepherd's News of the Wierd a few years ago:

An individual carrying a double-barrelled sawed-off shotgun entered a tough neighborhood bar with the intent to rob same.

In order to get the attention of the barkeep and the patrons, he fired a round into the cieling. This did not have the desired effect, however; perhaps the patrons were inured to such activities.
So he fired the second barrell.

He was found in the alley, sans firearm, in a severely contused condition.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy
........If you're revamping nat'l security after 911, dont you think youd at least LOOK at assault weapon issues. ..........

Your statement has merit, but the AWB 1994 really had little to do with security or reducing crime. The only people who said it did have anything to do with crime were the politicians who were trying to get ahead, and other people who were used to being lead around by the nose.

Since the AWB did not ban existing rifles, and the banned items were just modified slightly to be legal to produce and sell, the number of "assault" rifles in the USA did not go down. The number went up, dramatically, especially right after the bill passed the House and went to the Senate. As a firearms dealer in Hawaii from 90-94, I was unable to order ANY semi-auto rifles on the then proposed ban list. All of the distributors had large numbers of backorders for their larger clients.

With the sunset of the AWB, the number of assault weapons will not go up much either. Prices may drop a bit for the standard (high) capacity magazines as people are no longer forced to find mags that were manufactured (haha) prior to the AWB in 1994. Some people may convert their post ban weapons to the pre-ban configuration, but this makes no difference in lethality.

Kerry is a fool for suggesting that the AWB sunset with help terrorists and hurt the police. The AWB had no new requirements that would have made it harder for terrorists to buy assault weapons. It will hurt Kerry, but not as much as it should because too many Americans are foolish sheep that want to avoid responsibility and allow others to decide how they should live.

Bush is by no means the gun owners friend. He turned his back on them to try and placate the gun grabbers who were not fooled by his "I'll sign the bill to extend the AWB" statement, but did nothing to promote extending it.

Ranb

[Tmy]

I think its a good move by Kerry. Bush has been bashing him as being soft on terror and security. Harping on this gun ban makes Bush look like hes endangering the country just to make the gun lobby happy.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think its a good move by Kerry. Bush has been bashing him as being soft on terror and security. Harping on this gun ban makes Bush look like hes endangering the country just to make the gun lobby happy.

You think it is a good idea because you agree with Kerry or that is is good but inaccurate propaganda?

Ranb

[Larspeart]

Here is my stance on assault weapons bans (and most any other ban). The arguement against the weapons is usually something along the lines of...

'Yes, but what in God's name do you NEED with an AK-47 for?'

and my answer is..

'Do you NEED a bag of Doritos? If not, why not ban them. You can survive on bread, milk, cheese, and veggies, and we ALSO know that Doritos adversely affect your health. So... why don't we ban them? You don't NEED them.'

How about cars? No one NEEDS a car, as the world got by without them for all but the last .1% of it's human life cycle. So, if we can function just fine without them, why not ban them? Essentially, this is how I few the banning of just about anything. The reason sited is 'you don't NEED it', or 'it is potentially harmful/deadly to you'.



The other arguement is the more common one...

Normal, everyday, LAW-ABIDING people do not commit crimes. They ALSO OBEY las that come out. When assault weapons are banned, LAW-ABIDING people don't buy them.

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS though. It is asinine to believe that banning an item of self defense will in any way protect anyone. a criminal does NOT register his gun, nor does he buy it at a licensed gun dealership. You are ONLY taking weapons out of the hands of the law-abiding (that are mostly just collectors or weekend target shooters).

[merphie]

Originally posted by Bikewer
I'm in law enforcement, and the picture of those two lads in LA blasting away with full-auto AKs is compelling. These weapons were, of course, illegal under the ban. Didn't stop them from obtaining and/or modifying same.
The ban was poorly written, poorly enforced, and easy to get around. Most of the things declared illegal were cosmetic.

Still, I keep asking myself, "Why do civilians need military weapons?"
My friends in the shooting community will go on for hours on this.

Tsk tsk. Those full autos were not covered under the 1994 law. They are covered under the GCA of 1968 and the law (Forget the name) of 1934.

One thing of note is you never see the guy defending his store during the riots with a AR-15.

[merphie]

Originally posted by corplinx
Full auto AK-47s are Class 3 weapons and require a Class 3 ATF permit to buy or sell.

Semi-auto AK-47s were banned from new production or import by the bill.

Only the chinese AK-47 was banned.

I own a Romanian AK-47. It's fun as heck to shoot. It's even better to load rounds and test out different configurations. Other than that it sits in my gun safe.

I have thought about using it in hunting as well.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Here is my stance on assault weapons bans (and most any other ban). The arguement against the weapons is usually something along the lines of...

'Yes, but what in God's name do you NEED with an AK-47 for?'

and my answer is..

'Do you NEED a bag of Doritos? If not, why not ban them. You can survive on bread, milk, cheese, and veggies, and we ALSO know that Doritos adversely affect your health. So... why don't we ban them? You don't NEED them.'

How about cars? No one NEEDS a car, as the world got by without them for all but the last .1% of it's human life cycle. So, if we can function just fine without them, why not ban them? Essentially, this is how I few the banning of just about anything. The reason sited is 'you don't NEED it', or 'it is potentially harmful/deadly to you'.
Do I even need to explain to you why those examples are total ********?


The other arguement is the more common one...

Normal, everyday, LAW-ABIDING people do not commit crimes. They ALSO OBEY las that come out. When assault weapons are banned, LAW-ABIDING people don't buy them.

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS though. It is asinine to believe that banning an item of self defense will in any way protect anyone. a criminal does NOT register his gun, nor does he buy it at a licensed gun dealership. You are ONLY taking weapons out of the hands of the law-abiding (that are mostly just collectors or weekend target shooters).
Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do I even need to explain to you why those examples are total bulls**t?


Yes.

Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?

You'll first have to demonstrated that lax gun laws or more guns cause more "gun-crime".

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do I even need to explain to you why those examples are total bulls**t?

Actually, I'd like an explanation. How are you defining "need"?


Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?

Cross cultural comparisons? Always a problem. You might take a look at crimes of violence generally or homicides overall. I looked at and posted a quick and dirty analysis of homicides as related to gun ownership across a number of countries. With the exception of the outliers (US and Bosnia IIRC) there was no relationship. How do you explain heavily armed countries and their very low rates of gun homicides?

All this is to say that glib, culturally superior, answers are doomed to be flawed.[/QUOTE]

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?

First you will have to prove you can compare two countries accurately.

You will need to show where the 1994 reduced any crime.

You will need to show how the increase in CCW permits is responsible for any rise in crime.

You will also beed to show that there has been a rise in crime at all in the USA.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Do I even need to explain to you why those examples are total bulls**t?
Originally posted by Tony
Yes.
The example with Doritos (which I assume is some kind of unhealthy food-stuff) is bulls**t, because it is essentially a straw man. No one believes that assault weapons should be forbidden just because people don't need them, they believe that they should be forbidden because they harm people AND people don't need them. It is of course true that you don't need Doritos very much, but there is no conceivable (at least to me) way that they can hurt anybody, but yourself. Now I don't know a whole lot about the assault weapon ban, so I won't exclude the possibility that it isn't effective, but if that was what Larspeart meant he should have said that.

As for the car thing that is so painfully obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it, but just in case: Forbidding cars would seriously and adversely affect a lot of peoples ability to get quickly from A to B, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for many people to get to work. This would force them to get new houses closer to their work or public transportation, which would most likely be in the cities, these houses that likely don't exist in sufficient quantities. The new houses would also in most cases be more expensive and less family friendly (gardens for children to play etc.). It would thus course a huge disruption en a lot of peoples lives, I have problems seeing how a ban on assault weapons would course a disruption of even remotely similar proportions but you’re welcome to enlighten me.

Originally posted by Ed
Actually, I'd like an explanation. How are you defining "need"?
This definition suits me:
"need
noun
the state of having to have something that you do not have, especially something that you must have so that you can have a satisfactory life:"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53225&dict=CALD

Of course need can't be quantified and measured objectively, but if you're going to start arguing that comparing need is pointless because it can't be measured objectively that makes discussion of any political issue pointless, in which case you’re wasting your time on this sub forum.

Originally posted by Kerberos
Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?

Originally posted by Tony
You'll first have to demonstrated that lax gun laws or more guns cause more "gun-crime".
If, as I suspect though I'm willing to be proven wrong, US have more gun crime than any western country with strict gun laws then that would be evidence, not conclusive proof, but evidence. In any case Larspeart was the one who made a positive claim, namely that there is no correlation between weapon laws and gun possession among criminals, he has burden of proof.

Originally posted by Ed
[B]Cross cultural comparisons? Always a problem.
I don't claim that anything could be proven definitely, but correlations are evidence, and as I said to Tony, I was not the one who made a positive claim, why aren’t you calling on Larspeart to prove his claim? Do only claims you disagree with require evidence?
Originally posted by Ed
[B] You might take a look at crimes of violence generally or homicides overall. I looked at and posted a quick and dirty analysis of homicides as related to gun ownership across a number of countries. With the exception of the outliers (US and Bosnia IIRC) there was no relationship.
Comparing crimes of violence and murder generally might be interesting in another context, but Larspeart claimed that strict gun laws did not discourage criminals from having guns, not that they simply committed their crimes with other or without weapons. So in this context the relevant numbers are the number of gun crimes, not the number of crimes generally speaking (or possibly the relevant numbers might be the proportion of violent crimes that are committed using guns.)

Originally posted by Ed
[B] How do you explain heavily armed countries and their very low rates of gun homicides?
I don't know, which countries are we talking about? What procedures do they have for allowing people guns? Do they allow people to carry loaded guns around with them? etc.

Originally posted by merphie [B] First you will have to prove you can compare two countries accurately.
Actually Larspeart has to produce some other meaningful evidence for HIS claim.

Originally posted by merphie
[B] You will need to show where the 1994 reduced any crime.
No I wont, first of all I don't have BOP, and secondly as I understand Larspeart he's saying that gun laws generally don't have any effect on criminals (the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"), not simply that the assault weapon ban was ineffective.

Originally posted by merphie
[B] You will need to show how the increase in CCW permits is responsible for any rise in crime.
CCW?

Originally posted by merphie
[B] You will also beed to show that there has been a rise in crime at all in the USA.
Quite aside from the fact that I don’t have BOP - Why on Earth do I need to prove that?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Actually Larspeart has to produce some other meaningful evidence for HIS claim.

No I wont, first of all I don't have BOP, and secondly as I understand Larspeart he's saying that gun laws generally don't have any effect on criminals (the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"), not simply that the assault weapon ban was ineffective.

CCW?

Quite aside from the fact that I don’t have BOP - Why on Earth do I need to prove that?

Actually you made claims too. So you do have BOP.

CCW = Conceal Carry Weapon Permit.

Because you made the claim that the USA has a higher crime rate than countries with less guns.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I don't claim that anything could be proven definitely, but correlations are evidence, and as I said to Tony, I was not the one who made a positive claim, why aren’t you calling on Larspeart to prove his claim? Do only claims you disagree with require evidence?




No, they are not. Come on, thats stats 101.

[Richard G]

they believe that they [AWs] should be forbidden because they harm people...

If "AWs" harm people, then all of mine are broken.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Richard G
If "AWs" harm people, then all of mine are broken.

No, you don't understand. Owning such a gun makes you more likely to commit mass murder!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
Actually you made claims too. So you do have BOP.
I did? where?

CCW = Conceal Carry Weapon Permit.
Why on earth would I need to prove that there was a correlation between Conceal carry permits and crime? The post you responded to didn't mention or even allude to CCW's.

Because you made the claim that the USA has a higher crime rate than countries with less guns.
Again where? I ASKED if he could think of a WESTERN country that has as much or more GUN crime as US. I suspect that no such country exists, but I didn't specifically claim it because I unfortunately don't have the numbers. Even if I had made that claim however it wouldn’t in any way obligate me to show any of the four things you asked me to show

Originally posted by Ed
No, they are not. Come on, thats stats 101.
Yes they are, all other things being equal there is a greater likelihood of a causal relation between two data sets that do show a correlation than between two datasets that do not. You might say that the correlation isn't strong enough to draw a conclusion, that the causal relation is indirect, goes the other way or whatever, but statistical correlations are evidence of causal relationships. Also again I ask you: Why are you not asking Larspeart to back up his claim that there is no relation between gun laws and gun possession among criminals. Do claim you agree with not require evidence?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I did? where?


Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?


You were asking someone to prove a negative. You clearly are trying to make a claim here, but you are asking someone to prove your assumptions are wrong. So where is your information supporting your claim?

Why on earth would I need to prove that there was a correlation between Conceal carry permits and crime? The post you responded to didn't mention or even allude to CCW's.

Because CCW permits make guns more likely to be on the street. So since more states (Like 46 total) have CCW laws then it is possible that there are more armed people on the street. It is very relivant because It means more guns. So is our crime rate going up?

Again where? I ASKED if he could think of a WESTERN country that has as much or more GUN crime as US. I suspect that no such country exists, but I didn't specifically claim it because I unfortunately don't have the numbers. Even if I had made that claim however it wouldn’t in any way obligate me to show any of the four things you asked me to show

Here is the problem. You claim that other countries have a lower crime rate. (You only mentioned one type of crime, which other crimes are relevant) So you are implying that because the USA has more guns we have more crime. Which is to say that the availabilty of guns in the USA causes Crime.

So I ask you to support your claims. I don't see that trend in the data available from the Justice Department. Furthermore, I don't see if foriegn countries where laws have stopped gun crimes. So you must be expressing your opinion which has no facts to back it up.

Yes they are, all other things being equal there is a greater likelihood of a causal relation between two data sets that do show a correlation than between two datasets that do not. You might say that the correlation isn't strong enough to draw a conclusion, that the causal relation is indirect, goes the other way or whatever, but statistical correlations are evidence of causal relationships. Also again I ask you: Why are you not asking Larspeart to back up his claim that there is no relation between gun laws and gun possession among criminals. Do claim you agree with not require evidence?

Different countries have different laws. So any correlation would not be accurate and would be misleading.

What is the deal with Larspeart? Will you be happy if I ask him for data too? You can't support your claim so you try to pass the buck?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Here is my stance on assault weapons bans (and most any other ban). The arguement against the weapons is usually something along the lines of...

'Yes, but what in God's name do you NEED with an AK-47 for?'

and my answer is..

'Do you NEED a bag of Doritos? If not, why not ban them. You can survive on bread, milk, cheese, and veggies, and we ALSO know that Doritos adversely affect your health. So... why don't we ban them? You don't NEED them.'

How about cars? No one NEEDS a car, as the world got by without them for all but the last .1% of it's human life cycle. So, if we can function just fine without them, why not ban them? Essentially, this is how I few the banning of just about anything. The reason sited is 'you don't NEED it', or 'it is potentially harmful/deadly to you'.

The other arguement is the more common one...

Normal, everyday, LAW-ABIDING people do not commit crimes. They ALSO OBEY las that come out. When assault weapons are banned, LAW-ABIDING people don't buy them.

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS though. It is asinine to believe that banning an item of self defense will in any way protect anyone. a criminal does NOT register his gun, nor does he buy it at a licensed gun dealership. You are ONLY taking weapons out of the hands of the law-abiding (that are mostly just collectors or weekend target shooters).

Since Kerberos can't support his claim. To satisfy him. Do you have data to support your claims?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie


You were asking someone to prove a negative. [/B][/QUOTE]
No I was asking him to name a western country with similar levels of gun crime as USA. It is incidentally perfectly possible to provide evidence for a negative claim, not to prove it definitely perhaps, but then again I never asked for that.

You clearly are trying to make a claim here, but you are asking someone to prove your assumptions are wrong. So where is your information supporting your claim?
What assumption? What claim?

Because CCW permits make guns more likely to be on the street. So since more states (Like 46 total) have CCW laws then it is possible that there are more armed people on the street.
That is possible.
It is very relivant because It means more guns.

In your previous sentence, you said it was possible that it meant more guns, now you state it for a fact, which is it?
So is our crime rate going up?

I wouldn't know, where have I claimed that?

Here is the problem. You claim that other countries have a lower crime rate.
Where?
(You only mentioned one type of crime, which other crimes are relevant)
I only mention gun crimes, only gun crimes are relevant.
So you are implying that because the USA has more guns we have more crime. Which is to say that the availability of guns in the USA causes Crime.
Where did I make any such claim? I never even mentioned crime in general, only GUN, that is, G U N crime. Why do you persist in attacking this straw man?

So I ask you to support your claims.
What claims?
I don't see that trend in the data available from the Justice Department.
Where have I postulated any trend whatsoever?
Furthermore, I don't see if foriegn countries where laws have stopped gun crimes.
I see you have finally figured out we're talking about gun crimes here that's nice. Incidentally I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in this sentence.

So you must be expressing your opinion which has no facts to back it up.
It is indeed my impression that there is more gun crime in US than in other western countries (I've already pointed out that I didn't have the data. so I'm not particularly impressed that you figgured that out) and I think it's likely that there a connection between gun crime and weapons laws. If you look the words up you'll see that opinion and claim aren't synonyms.

Different countries have different laws.
No s**t?
So any correlation would not be accurate and would be misleading.
No the correlation MIGHT be misleading, which I think I've already mentioned. I'd really like your basis for claiming this for a fact.

What is the deal with Larspeart?
He made a claim which I doubted, I'd have liked him to back up that claim.
Will you be happy if I ask him for data too?
I'll be happy if you stop confusing claims and opinions and stop ascribing opinions to me that I don't have, If you're unsure what I think of something you're free to ask.

You can't support your claim so you try to pass the buck?
I think you should look up the word "claim", once you've done that you can try to point out where I've made any of the claims you've ascribed to me. Good luck with that.

P.S. Claim: "To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=claim

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
You were asking someone to prove a negative.
No I was asking him to name a western country with similar levels of gun crime as USA. It is incidentally perfectly possible to provide evidence for a negative claim, not to prove it definitely perhaps, but then again I never asked for that.

What assumption? What claim? [/b][/QUOTE]

You said:

Just out of curiosity, can you name any western country with a strict weapon law that has as many or more gun crimes as US (not including of course illegal possession of guns and similar)? If not how do you explain that?

That seems to state that the US has a bigger crime rate due to the availability of guns. Am I wrong?

In your previous sentence, you said it was possible that it meant more guns, now you state it for a fact, which is it?

Assuming that everyone who is issued a permit carries a gun, it would probably be fact. That is not the point.

I wouldn't know, where have I claimed that?

You didn't directly. But you seemed to state that because we have more guns we have more crime. If guns are more available now because of the CCW, then under your theory wouldn't crime be going up?

Where?

See you quote posted above for the second time.

I only mention gun crimes, only gun crimes are relevant.

They don't tell us anything out of context. Especially across countries.

Where did I make any such claim? I never even mentioned crime in general, only GUN, that is, G U N crime. Why do you persist in attacking this straw man?

The strawman is yours. You made a statement you can not back. You refuse to clarify your statement and keep dancing around the questions. So more legally held guns mean more gun crime?

What claims?

Pick one.

Where have I postulated any trend whatsoever?

So then what are you saying?

I see you have finally figured out we're talking about gun crimes here that's nice. Incidentally I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in this sentence.

It's hard to see anything since you keep up the dance. My point in the sentence was that countries with strict gun laws still have gun crimes.

It is indeed my impression that there is more gun crime in US than in other western countries (I've already pointed out that I didn't have the data. so I'm not particularly impressed that you figgured that out) and I think it's likely that there a connection between gun crime and weapons laws. If you look the words up you'll see that opinion and claim aren't synonyms.

The two numbers mean nothing. If there is a connection between gun crime and gun laws then lets see it. Your opinion claims that there is a correlation. So unless you are spouting none-sense, I would assume you have something that your opinion is based on.

No the correlation MIGHT be misleading, which I think I've already mentioned. I'd really like your basis for claiming this for a fact.

It is misleading. Different countries, different laws. In the USA self defense is not a crime. I get the impression that this is not so in the UK. (referring to guns used in self defense)

I'll be happy if you stop confusing claims and opinions and stop ascribing opinions to me that I don't have, If you're unsure what I think of something you're free to ask.

Then state you opinion clearly and clear it up. The Ad hominem is not needed.

[neutrino_cannon]

Pistols constitute 75% of the guns used in crimes, assault weapons <2%. There was about a 40% drop in gun after 1994, but the downtrend started before 1994. The 1994 assault weapons ban clearly had nothing to do with the drop in crime.

Most of the gun companies now are not selling assault style weapons now that the ban's been lifted, a simmilar one is likely to be passed in the near future. Instead, they're selling conversion kits, collapsing stocks and the like.

The thesis of somehow reducing crime by banning weapons that are rare in crime, when the percent of crimes involving guns was low to begin with (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.htm) should be obviously inherantly flawed.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
[B
That seems to state that the US has a bigger crime rate due to the availability of guns. Am I wrong? [/B]
Yes you are wrong, what it implies is that US has higher rates of GUN crime than other WESTERN countries. Even if this wasn't evident from the original post, which I think it should be, you should have been able to figure it out around the third or fourth time I clearly and unambiguously stated that your reading was incorrect. US AFAIK does not have a consistently higher crime rate than other western countries.

Assuming that everyone who is issued a permit carries a gun, it would probably be fact. That is not the point.
That doesn't follow, you said that more states (though you didn't specify what it was more than, more than earlier?) had CCW laws, it doesn't necessarily follow that more CCW permits are issued.

You didn't directly. But you seemed to state that because we have more guns we have more crime.
I didn't state it indirectly either, you simply misread me, and ignored having your mistake pointed out to you repeatedly.

If guns are more available now because of the CCW, then under your theory wouldn't crime be going up?
First of all GUN crime, not general crime. Secondly that depends on how out hypothetical correlation would work. If for example we presume that guns aren't necessarily bought for crime, but that a person who decides to commit, a crime simply brings the gun he already owns with him, then CCW permits would not be a factor, the deciding factor would then be gun possession overall or rather gun possession among the social classes, most likely to commit crimes which might involve guns (murder, robbery etc.).

If on the other hand the possible correlation works through an "arms race" then CCW permits are more likely to be a factor, after all you have to be a rather dumb robber to try to use a knife or greater size to coerce a victim who might carry a gun. Even then though it doesn't follow automatically that any increase in CCW permits must be followed by an increase in gun crime since having (to pick a random number) 5% of the citizens carry concealed guns might be sufficient to make any halfway intelligent robber also carry a gun, in that case having the portion of citizens who carry guns increase to 10% might not have any effect.

See you quote posted above for the second time.
In which I claim nothing like that.

They don't tell us anything out of context. Especially across countries.
Feel free to introduce any context that you feel is relevant.

The strawman is yours. You made a statement you can not back.
I never made the statements you want me to back up. Even if I did however that’s not what a straw man is, try to look the word up.

You refuse to clarify your statement and keep dancing around the questions.
I have clarified several timesm both in this post and in others, you have ignored the clarifications and kept attacking your ridiculous straw man.

So more legally held guns mean more gun crime?
Possibly, but that wasn't what I said, what I said was that I think it's likely that looser gun laws lead to more gun crime.

My point in the sentence was that countries with strict gun laws still have gun crimes.
Of course there is, the question is if there is as much gun crime.

The two numbers mean nothing. If there is a connection between gun crime and gun laws then lets see it. Your opinion claims that there is a correlation. So unless you are spouting none-sense, I would assume you have something that your opinion is based on.
My opinion doesn't "claim" anything, my opinion "is" that it is likely there is a correlation, but as I've already mentioned, I don't know where to find data about the levels of gun crime in US, various European countries, Canada, Australia etc. Larspeart claimed that no correlation existed, a claim which I challenged, I obviously challenged the claim because I didn't agree with it, but challenging a claim, doesn't automatically obligate me to produce hard data to support the opposite claim. It is of course impossible to prove that no correlation exists. but it is, in principle, perfectly possible to provide evidence that any correlation that exist is fairly small.

It is misleading. Different countries, different laws.
Which proves nothing, the fact that different countries have different laws, doesn't prove that any correlation that might exist is meaningless, depending on the size of the difference, how and which laws are different, and so on we might with various degrees of certainty arrive at the conclusion that the correlation is or isn't coincidental.
As I mentioned earlier I didn’t really have any idea about where to get data on the rate of gun crimes in European countries, but inspired by neutrino_cannon I tried the Danish Department of Justice and found this study (In Danish of course):
http://www.jm.dk/wimpdoc.asp?page=document&objno=51673
It is a sampling of a 1000 cases of violent crime in year 2000 which is sorted in various ways, one way is method of attack, of the 1000 violent crimes 2 was done using guns, that is 0,2%, in contrast according to neutrino_cannon’s link the portion of violent crimes done using guns in US was more than 7% that is proportionally 35 times more often than in Denmark, could different laws about when the use of a gun is a crime account for that difference, I doubt that. The statistical sample is of course also rather small (only two cases of gun violence) but that is also insufficient to explain the difference. Could some third factor other than your gun laws account for this enormous difference? I can’t think of any but feel free to make suggestion. I could try to look on the home pages of the British, Canadian or Australian departments of Justice to see if I could find similar data.

In the USA self defense is not a crime.
I don't know any country where it is, definitions of self-defence might vary of course.

I get the impression that this is not so in the UK. (referring to guns used in self defense)
I'm Dane not Brit. In Denmark self defence is usually defined somewhat more narrowly than in the US, but it is not illegal to defend yourself with a gun and I strongly doubt that it is in UK either. Of course you might be convicted for illegal weapon possession if you weren't allowed to have or carry the gun. Also that would actually increase the number of gun crimes in countries with stricter gun laws, so that wouldn't explain it if US has higher rates of gun crime.

Then state you opinion clearly and clear it up.
I have done several times but here we go again:
I do NOT claim that US has universally higher crime rates than countries (Western or not) with stricter gun laws, as a matter of fact I've heard that US has lower rates of violent crime than at least some European countries. I really have no idea if the average crime rate in US is greater or lesser than that in other western countries. Even if you do have higher crime rates however I don't claim that this is necessarily causes by your gun laws, I don't totally exclude the possibility, but I don't claim it either, nor do I particularly strongly suspect it is the case. I do not, have not and will not claim any of those things is that totally clear? Good.

OK this is what I DO think:
I'm fairly certain that US has higher rates of gun crime than western countries with stricter gun laws, but I deliberately phrased it as a question because, I didn't have the numbers and didn't know where to get them. Also I think it's likely that this presumed greater rate of gun crimes is caused, at least in part, by your gun laws. I don't claim this is a fact but I think it's most properly. after all why would you use for example knifes for a robbery when you have relatively easy access to guns which after all is a significantly more effective weapon.

The Ad hominem is not needed.
Since when is it an Ad hominem to object to being ascribed opinions I don't hold? How would you react if I asked you to defend any of the numerous claims you haven't made in this thread, and ignored having my mistake pointed out to me repeatedly? Do you even know what an Ad hominem is?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Yes you are wrong, what it implies is that US has higher rates of GUN crime than other WESTERN countries. Even if this wasn't evident from the original post, which I think it should be, you should have been able to figure it out around the third or fourth time I clearly and unambiguously stated that your reading was incorrect. US AFAIK does not have a consistently higher crime rate than other western countries.

To me it seems you are implying something with this statement. If what you say is true, then what is the cause for this?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
To me it seems you are implying something with this statement.
I really can't be held responsible for your impressions, if you can't accept that I mean exactly what I've clearly stated I mean, then I can't really do anything about that.

If what you say is true, then what is the cause for this?
If what is true? That US has higher rates of gun crime? If that is true, then I think the reason is that you have looser gun laws - I said that in the previous post.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I really can't be held responsible for your impressions, if you can't accept that I mean exactly what I've clearly stated I mean, then I can't really do anything about that.

Fair Enough, but you confirmed my impression with your next statement, so was the that comments really needed?


If what is true? That US has higher rates of gun crime? If that is true, then I think the reason is that you have looser gun laws - I said that in the previous post.

So you think the gun laws are a cause for the gun related crime. What is this opinion based on?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
Fair Enough, but you confirmed my impression with your next statement, so was the that comments really needed?
Well the comment you quoted said that quite clearly so I thought you were saying it implied something further.

So you think the gun laws are a cause for the gun related crime. What is this opinion based on?
It's basically based on logic. Some crimes are spontaneous, if the perpetrator of a spontaneous crime doesn't have a gun or easy access to one then he's unlikely to use it for the crime, thus in countries where people don't usually have guns it's unlikely that fx a husband who decides to try to murder his wife, is going to use a gun. Alternatively if I plan to rob someone, then I'm certainly not going to use a knife or superior size, if I feel there's a significant risk that my victim carries a gun. If on the other hand I'm reasonably confident that my victim won't be armed, then a knife or bulging muscles will most likely be sufficient, especially if getting a gun isn't all that easy (though it will of course always be possible) or the penalty for using a gun is higher (I'm not sure if this is this is the case, certainly the penalty for robbery at gunpoint is higher than unarmed robbery but I wouldn't be surprised if it was also punished more severely if you used a gun than if you used a knife.)

Also I don’t see what else could account for the huge difference in gun crime we can see between US on one side and Denmark on the other (possibly along with most or all other western countries).

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Well the comment you quoted said that quite clearly so I thought you were saying it implied something further.

[B]
It's basically based on logic. Some crimes are spontaneous, if the perpetrator of a spontaneous crime doesn't have a gun or easy access to one then he's unlikely to use it for the crime, thus in countries where people don't usually have guns it's unlikely that fx a husband who decides to try to murder his wife, is going to use a gun. Alternatively if I plan to rob someone, then I'm certainly not going to use a knife or superior size, if I feel there's a significant risk that my victim carries a gun. If on the other hand I'm reasonably confident that my victim won't be armed, then a knife or bulging muscles will most likely be sufficient, especially if getting a gun isn't all that easy (though it will of course always be possible) or the penalty for using a gun is higher (I'm not sure if this is this is the case, certainly the penalty for robbery at gunpoint is higher than unarmed robbery but I wouldn't be surprised if it was also punished more severely if you used a gun than if you used a knife.)

Also I don’t see what else could account for the huge difference in gun crime we can see between US on one side and Denmark on the other (possibly along with most or all other western countries).

I was getting at exactly what you just said. Of course I would have lived without the playing with words.

The facts show that gun laws have little (if any) effect on crime. Crime has been dropping in the USA since the early 1990s. In fact the cities in the US with the highest crime rates have the strictest gun laws. Most gun crimes are commited by gangs and most criminals do not obtain a firearm by legal means. So you could say that the problem in the USA is not the gun laws. It is a problem with gang activity and a black market.

You were making a common assumption about two different countries with different laws and culture. Your assumptions are very wrong because the data doesn't even come close to showing any correlation as you stated. There is no logic in your assumptiont. I don't know the laws or culture of your country, but I can tell you that the cross cultral comparison has no merit and is misleading.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
I was getting at exactly what you just said. Of course I would have lived without the playing with words.

The facts show that gun laws have little (if any) effect on crime. Crime has been dropping in the USA since the early 1990s. In fact the cities in the US with the highest crime rates have the strictest gun laws. Most gun crimes are commited by gangs and most criminals do not obtain a firearm by legal means. So you could say that the problem in the USA is not the gun laws. It is a problem with gang activity and a black market.
Sight, you repeated attack on straw man has been noted, I could have saved a lot of time if you'd announced from the start, you were only interested in trolling.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sight, you repeated attack on straw man has been noted, I could have saved a lot of time if you'd announced from the start, you were only interested in trolling

Trolling? Strawman? I think not. I have plenty of facts to backup my claim.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Yes you are wrong, what it implies is that US has higher rates of GUN crime than other WESTERN countries. Even if this wasn't evident from the original post, which I think it should be, you should have been able to figure it out around the third or fourth time I clearly and unambiguously stated that your reading was incorrect. US AFAIK does not have a consistently higher crime rate than other western countries.



For what's it's worth, there are a number of first world nations where guns are more common and obtainable than the US, and where murder rates are lower. Switzerland, Isreal, and Finland all fall into that category. There are also a number of countries where guns are harder to legally obtain and where murder rates are higher, including Russia, Brazil, and Cuba (but only slightly in the case of Cuba).

While guns (mostly handguns) are common in homicides, most violent crimes do not involve guns. Also, the majority of all gun deaths (in the US at least) are suicides. Of course, I doubt removing guns from the citizenry will stop suicides much. they're pretty creative and resourceful when it comes to self-immolation.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
For what's it's worth, there are a number of first world nations where guns are more common and obtainable than the US, and where murder rates are lower. Switzerland, Isreal, and Finland all fall into that category. http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/gdpeuropeanunion.htm
I don't really think Israel is comparable. As for Switzerland and Finland we’re talking about gun crime in general, not just murders (which aren't all done with guns either). Also it might be relevant if citizens are allowed to carry their guns on the streets or not, and if their rates of gun crime is higher than in other western countries were guns are less available.

There are also a number of countries where guns are harder to legally obtain and where murder rates are higher, including Russia, Brazil, and Cuba (but only slightly in the case of Cuba).
None of these are western countries.

While guns (mostly handguns) are common in homicides, most violent crimes do not involve guns. Also, the majority of all gun deaths (in the US at least) are suicides. Of course, I doubt removing guns from the citizenry will stop suicides much. they're pretty creative and resourceful when it comes to self-immolation.
I haven't disputed any of that, though if you'll notice, while guns are not that common in crimes other then homicides in US, they're still around 35 times more common than in Denmark.

[LW]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
For what's it's worth, there are a number of first world nations where guns are more common and obtainable than the US, and where murder rates are lower. Switzerland, Isreal, and Finland all fall into that category.

Guns are not easier to legally obtain in Finland than in the US. First, the would-be gunowner has to get a permit to obtain a gun from the police. A new permit is needed for each gun. Moreover, you have to have a valid reason for having it. According to law, the only valid reasons are:

- hunting
- target practice
- work where necessary (in practice only some policemen or security guards in case of stun guns or pepper sprays)
- using it in a "performance" (= movie or theatre, no real ammo involved)
- including it in a museum or other collection
- memorabilia (only exceptional cases, the police decides whether the case is exceptional enough)
- signalling (signalling pistols only)

[Edited to add: you have to prove that you have the reason. This may necessitate joining a target shooting club, for example]

Note that self defence is not on the list. Before 2001 it was possible to obtain pepper sprays for self defence but now they are also forbidden.

The law also states that the gun has to be suitable for the intended purpose. You can't, for example, buy a pistol for "hunting".

After obtaining the gun the new gunowner has to go in person to the police station to show that the gun is the same one that the permit was given for.

In addition, the gunowner needs also a permit to own a gun. You could have guessed that the permit to obtain the gun would be enough, but it is not. In some cases (mostly collections) you get a permit only to own the gun, but not to shoot with it.

It is not possible to get a permit for an "exceptionally dangerous" gun or ammo, where exceptionally dangerous gun is either a rocket launcher, a mortar, a breech-loading gun or something that is "equivalent" to it, a missile, a full-automatic gun, or a gun that is concealed to look like something non-dangerous. Exceptionally dangerous ammo includes armor piercing, explocive, incdendiary, hollow-point, dum-dum, fragmenting, arrow-tip, or multiple-bullet ammo.

There are two main groups of illegal guns in Finland: forgotten relics of WWII (mostly in inoperable state because of years of neglect) and guns smuggled from Russia.

There are also a number of countries where guns are harder to legally obtain and where murder rates are higher, including Russia, Brazil, and Cuba (but only slightly in the case of Cuba).

However, it is very easy to obtain an illegal gun in Russia.

[merphie]

I'm sure with the right money and knowing the right people it would be possible to get a gun illegally anywhere.

The point is Kerberos comparison is just his opinion. It is based on assumptions that are not accurate or supported by any facts.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
I'm sure with the right money and knowing the right people it would be possible to get a gun illegally anywhere.

The point is Kerberos comparison is just his opinion. It is based on assumptions that are not accurate or supported by any facts.
Why don't you provide evidence for your opinion that US rates of gun crime is the same as other western countries?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Why don't you provide evidence for your opinion that US rates of gun crime is the same as other western countries?

I never said that. Why don't you prove USA gun laws are the cause of the higher crime rate?

I have shown that gun laws have little effect on the gun crimes in the USA. You just ignored that information and insist on promoting your opinion which is based on inaccurate assumptions.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
I never said that.
So what? You have reapetedly asked me to back up claims I haven't made.
I have shown that gun laws have little effect on the gun crimes in the USA. You just ignored that information and insist on promoting your opinion which is based on inaccurate assumptions.
No you have claimed that gun laws have little effect on gun crimes, you haven't shown it.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
So what? You have reapetedly asked me to back up claims I haven't made.
[B]
No you have claimed that gun laws have little effect on gun crimes, you haven't shown it.

You claimed that other countries have a lower gun crime rate due to their restrictive gun laws. That is what you imply.

I wrote about it here. I see no reason to repeat it.

Explained Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45383)

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I don't really think Israel is comparable. As for Switzerland and Finland we’re talking about gun crime in general, not just murders (which aren't all done with guns either). Also it might be relevant if citizens are allowed to carry their guns on the streets or not, and if their rates of gun crime is higher than in other western countries were guns are less available.

After seeing LW's post, I retract my statement about Finland. The fact that there are countries with high legal availibility of guns, and lower murder rates than the US, as well as several with higher muder rates and lower gun availibility shows that there is no clear cut correlation between gun availibility and murder rate.


None of these are western countries.


Brazil not western? Praytell than, what is? AFAIK, western Europe has reasonaly low murder rates, I know nothing about the gun laws there and frankly have no mind to look them up at this hour.

Does Mexico count as Western?

In both the cases of Brazil and Russia, guns are readily availible on the black market, far moreso than the legitimate one.


I haven't disputed any of that, though if you'll notice, while guns are not that common in crimes other then homicides in US, they're still around 35 times more common than in Denmark. [/B]

As far as the topic is germaine to the assault weapons ban, weapons affected by the ban are incredibly rare, especially in crime. I think it's their cost, I can certainly see some advantages to them, but then I'm not a career criminal.

As far as I have read, crminals tend to prefer small concealable semi automatic pistols in the .32-.38 range. An assault rifle (actual definition i.e. intermediate semi auto shoulder arm, not the silly legal definition) would be more accurate at range, and have much more penetration of bullet resistant vests. On the other hand, it would be a bulky and hard to obtain weapon. Even with the now-legal collapsing or folding stock, no shoulder arm is as easy to hide as a pistol. It would also be several times more expensive and much harder to maintain. I can't believe that most criminals, excepting assasins, go around intending to use their guns, so their choices in weaponry make sense.

I also find it hard to believe that any criminal would try to legally obtain an armalite AR series weapon for >$1000 when they could get a cheap Kalashnikov knock-off for under $100 outside the US.

[merphie]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
After seeing LW's post, I retract my statement about Finland. The fact that there are countries with high legal availibility of guns, and lower murder rates than the US, as well as several with higher muder rates and lower gun availibility shows that there is no clear cut correlation between gun availibility and murder rate.

The crime rates in the US have also been dropping since 1992. The AWB has been shown to be farce. People just don't know the truth behind it because some of the politicians are pushing the myth.

As far as the topic is germaine to the assault weapons ban, weapons affected by the ban are incredibly rare, especially in crime. I think it's their cost, I can certainly see some advantages to them, but then I'm not a career criminal.

As far as I have read, crminals tend to prefer small concealable semi automatic pistols in the .32-.38 range. An assault rifle (actual definition i.e. intermediate semi auto shoulder arm, not the silly legal definition) would be more accurate at range, and have much more penetration of bullet resistant vests. On the other hand, it would be a bulky and hard to obtain weapon. Even with the now-legal collapsing or folding stock, no shoulder arm is as easy to hide as a pistol. It would also be several times more expensive and much harder to maintain. I can't believe that most criminals, excepting assasins, go around intending to use their guns, so their choices in weaponry make sense.

I also find it hard to believe that any criminal would try to legally obtain an armalite AR series weapon for >$1000 when they could get a cheap Kalashnikov knock-off for under $100 outside the US.

The Justice department shows the assault weapons are only about 2% in crimes. They are too difficult to conceal so most of the time handguns are used. Most homicides are also caused by gang violence as well.

An AK-47 will cost you about $350 in the USA. I bought a new Preban AR15 for $600.

[Bikewer]

There were a few "spectacular" crimes involving so-called assault weapons that fueled public (and thus political) ardor for a ban.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall a school playground shooting with an AK or somesuch. The hue and cry at the time was that the high magazine capacity made it easier to commit mass murder. Of course, anyone can be trained to switch magazines in under a second....

There were also some high-profile shootings of law enforcement personel, committed, as I recall, by fringe right-wing militant types.

It is pretty easy to blame the weapon, and the public gets caught up in the hysteria. I recall a local news item where a fellow was involved in a shooting with what the local paper called an "assault weapon", an AR-7. For those that are familiar, this is a small .22 rifle that stows away entirely into its floatable stock. It's been sold to campers, canoers, and backpackers for many years, and is about as far from an assault weapon as you can imagine. The paper printed a retraction.

Charles Stuart Whitman shot a whole bunch of people from the Texas Tower way back when, and not an "assault rifle" in the bunch of weapons he hauled up there.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Bikewer
There were a few "spectacular" crimes involving so-called assault weapons that fueled public (and thus political) ardor for a ban.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall a school playground shooting with an AK or somesuch. The hue and cry at the time was that the high magazine capacity made it easier to commit mass murder. Of course, anyone can be trained to switch magazines in under a second....

There were also some high-profile shootings of law enforcement personel, committed, as I recall, by fringe right-wing militant types.

It is pretty easy to blame the weapon, and the public gets caught up in the hysteria. I recall a local news item where a fellow was involved in a shooting with what the local paper called an "assault weapon", an AR-7. For those that are familiar, this is a small .22 rifle that stows away entirely into its floatable stock. It's been sold to campers, canoers, and backpackers for many years, and is about as far from an assault weapon as you can imagine. The paper printed a retraction.

Charles Stuart Whitman shot a whole bunch of people from the Texas Tower way back when, and not an "assault rifle" in the bunch of weapons he hauled up there.

I agree. Are you are talking about the California bank robbers who used AK-47 in a shoot out with police? They used fully automatic weapons. Those are already restricted.

The problem is everyone sees these rare events and doesn't know they are a small percentage of crime.

I saw a news report where some lady proclaimed that Bush letting the AWB expire was stupid because now we are not safe from them as they will "Flood the Streets".

That is what gets me upset.

[Bikewer]

As was the spectre of terrorists coming en masse to the USA to buy AKs....You can pick them up in the street in Iraq, or most 3rd world countries, for that matter.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Bikewer
As was the spectre of terrorists coming en masse to the USA to buy AKs....You can pick them up in the street in Iraq, or most 3rd world countries, for that matter.

Or any country that makes them. There are plenty of flavors. Russian, Romainia, and China to name a few.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by merphie

An AK-47 will cost you about $350 in the USA. I bought a new Preban AR15 for $600.

I've heard lower quoted for Kalashnikov's purchsed in third world countries, though that would clearly be inferior to a U$1,000 AR-10 (I mean come on, what am I going to do with 5.56 mm NATO?).

I used the more expensive AR because the caliburs were closer.

[epepke]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
As far as I have read, crminals tend to prefer small concealable semi automatic pistols in the .32-.38 range. An assault rifle (actual definition i.e. intermediate semi auto shoulder arm, not the silly legal definition) would be more accurate at range,

Maybe. I've found the sights on many assault weapons to be not so good.

and have much more penetration of bullet resistant vests.

That's more a function of ammo than the weapon, and there's enough overlap with pistols that I don't think this can be claimed clearly.

[Bikewer]

There are many different "levels" of body armor available to police/military/security personel. The better the protection, the more weight and bulk.
Nothing can be said to be entirely "bulletproof", there are just varying levels of bullet resistance.
In a working environment, wearing a heavy, highly protective vest under your uniform, along with 12 pounds or so of belt gear, can be a real chore.
Police officers working the street tend to use the lighter "fabric only" vests, reserving the heavier items for the tactical and special ops guys.
In general, the lighter vests will stop most handgun ammunition.
This includes heavier rounds like the .44 magnum (rarely encountered) provided armor-piercing ammunition is not used.

They will not reliably stop military FMJ rifle rounds, especially readily-available armor-piercing. The difference in energy and penetrating ability between the average pistol round and even relatively low-powered rifle ammunition is considerable.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
After seeing LW's post, I retract my statement about Finland. The fact that there are countries with high legal availibility of guns, and lower murder rates than the US, as well as several with higher muder rates and lower gun availibility shows that there is no clear cut correlation between gun availibility and murder rate.
First of all we're still talking gun crime, not crime in general or murders in general. Secondly it doesn't show any such thing, it simply shows that guns aren't the only factor wich I think most of us knew anyways.

[/B] Brazil not western? Praytell than, what is? AFAIK, western Europe has reasonaly low murder rates, I know nothing about the gun laws there and frankly have no mind to look them up at this hour.

Does Mexico count as Western? [/B]
In Denmark Western countries is often used to mean Western Europe, US, Canada Australia and so on. I was under the inpression that you used the word in a similar manner in the US but if you consider Brazil and Mexico Western countries then apparently I was wrong.

In both the cases of Brazil and Russia, guns are readily availible on the black market, far moreso than the legitimate one.
And?

As far as the topic is germaine to the assault weapons ban, weapons affected by the ban are incredibly rare, especially in crime. I think it's their cost, I can certainly see some advantages to them, but then I'm not a career criminal.
I'm not sure what germaine means, I looked it up but it doesn't appear in Dictionary.com. As for the rest of it I don't really disagree, but Larspeart in his post seemed to be claiming a general lack of effect in weapon laws in reducing gun possesion among criminals, not simply a lack of effect of the Assualt weapon ban in particular.

As far as I have read, crminals tend to prefer small concealable semi automatic pistols in the .32-.38 range. An assault rifle (actual definition i.e. intermediate semi auto shoulder arm, not the silly legal definition) would be more accurate at range, and have much more penetration of bullet resistant vests. On the other hand, it would be a bulky and hard to obtain weapon. Even with the now-legal collapsing or folding stock, no shoulder arm is as easy to hide as a pistol. It would also be several times more expensive and much harder to maintain. I can't believe that most criminals, excepting assasins, go around intending to use their guns, so their choices in weaponry make sense.

I also find it hard to believe that any criminal would try to legally obtain an armalite AR series weapon for >$1000 when they could get a cheap Kalashnikov knock-off for under $100 outside the US.
I haven't really disputed any of that either.

[merphie]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
I've heard lower quoted for Kalashnikov's purchsed in third world countries, though that would clearly be inferior to a U$1,000 AR-10 (I mean come on, what am I going to do with 5.56 mm NATO?).

I used the more expensive AR because the caliburs were closer.

The AK has some advantages. It depends on it's use. I could hunt deer with my AK, but couldn't do it with the AR-15.

NATO 5.56 is just a .223 Remmington. I use it for target practice. I experiment with the ammunition as well. I can sit all day at the range and just shoot paper evil do'ers.

:D

[merphie]

Originally posted by Bikewer
There are many different "levels" of body armor available to police/military/security personel. The better the protection, the more weight and bulk.
Nothing can be said to be entirely "bulletproof", there are just varying levels of bullet resistance.
In a working environment, wearing a heavy, highly protective vest under your uniform, along with 12 pounds or so of belt gear, can be a real chore.
Police officers working the street tend to use the lighter "fabric only" vests, reserving the heavier items for the tactical and special ops guys.
In general, the lighter vests will stop most handgun ammunition.
This includes heavier rounds like the .44 magnum (rarely encountered) provided armor-piercing ammunition is not used.

They will not reliably stop military FMJ rifle rounds, especially readily-available armor-piercing. The difference in energy and penetrating ability between the average pistol round and even relatively low-powered rifle ammunition is considerable.

After a hit with a 44 mag you probably won't survive even if the bullet doesn't penitrate.

Keep in mine Armor piercing is restricted.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
First of all we're still talking gun crime, not crime in general or murders in general. Secondly it doesn't show any such thing, it simply shows that guns aren't the only factor wich I think most of us knew anyways.

Actually the US data does not show any correlation between gun crimes and laws. The gun crime has been dropping for a while.

[neutrino_cannon]

My understanding is that kevlar body armour does OK against most pistol cartiges, but fails miserably against almost all centerfire rifle cartiges.

A 30-06 usually will have a 120-200 grain bullet, but far less frontal area than a 180 grain .38 bullet. Furthermore, the 30-06 has about three times the velocity.

Result: Hole in the kevlar. No special armour piercing ammo necessary.

Ceramic body armour, the really heavy stuff, can stop rifle bullets. I'm thinking that it's rare enough that somebody armed with a center fire rifle (even a bolt action deer hunter) could easily deal with any armour they ran into.

If there's armour piercing involved, then a 30-06 can pierce a couple of inches of concrete. I think movies tend to make people underestimate just how powerful rifles are.

Since a lot of semi-auto rifles (especially "millitary style" ones) are intermediate cartridge, the difference will be less, but my sources still inform me that even short rifle cartiges regularly defeat kevlar.

I'm not sure what germaine means, I looked it up but it doesn't appear in Dictionary.com. As for the rest of it I don't really disagree, but Larspeart in his post seemed to be claiming a general lack of effect in weapon laws in reducing gun possesion among criminals, not simply a lack of effect of the Assualt weapon ban in particular.

You couldn't find "germaine" because it's actually spelled "germane". It means relevant.

While I think the effectiveness of a given gun law has to be taken independantly of other gun laws, the late assault weapons ban did nothing to deprive criminals of weapons, especially as you could still own "assault style" weapons you purchsed before the ban. That, compounded with the rarity of the weapons in crime (1-2% or less of weapons in police seizures) indicates to me that the legistlation was totally superfluous.



In both the cases of Brazil and Russia, guns are readily availible on the black market, far moreso than the legitimate one.

And?

While legitmate gun ownership is usually held up and argued for as a means of reducing crime, and I do think a good arguement can be made for it, I don't think there's many people who believe that illegal guns readily availible to anyone without background checks on a black market is a good way to prevent crime. A completely restricted legal arms market leads to a completely unrestricted illegal arms market, and nobody wants that.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

While legitmate gun ownership is usually held up and argued for as a means of reducing crime, and I do think a good arguement can be made for it, I don't think there's many people who believe that illegal guns readily availible to anyone without background checks on a black market is a good way to prevent crime.
Are you saying that Brazil and Russia have a bigger black market for guns because they have more restrictive weapon laws? Sorry, but that simply doesn't hold water, Russia is a mess, and while I know little about Brazil I do know it's not a post-industrial country. If Russia and Brazil have a bigger black market for guns than US, then it's much more likely that this is because they have inefficient governments, than because their weapon laws are strict. You simply can't compare US to such countries.
Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
A completely restricted legal arms market leads to a completely unrestricted illegal arms market, and nobody wants that.
I'd really, really like you to provide evidence for that claim, I'm not an expert on American gun laws, but it seems to me that all you have to do to get your hands on a gun in US is to find somebody with no criminal record, and have him buy you the gun. I've even heard, though it's possible I'm wrong, that you can buy guns legally at garage sales, without any background check at all. Do you have any evidence at all that US loose gun laws makes it more difficult to get illegal guns?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Kerberos
...................... I'm not an expert on American gun laws, but it seems to me that all you have to do to get your hands on a gun in US is to find somebody with no criminal record, and have him buy you the gun. I've even heard, though it's possible I'm wrong, that you can buy guns legally at garage sales, without any background check at all. Do you have any evidence at all that US loose gun laws makes it more difficult to get illegal guns?

In the USA, when a person buys a gun with the intention of giving or selling it to a person who can not legally own firearms, it is called a strawman purchase. This is of course, illegal and can be considered part of the "black market".

Federal law requires that all licensed dealers do background checks before selling to unlicensed persons. There is no Federal law requiring an unlicensed person to do background checks when making the occasional sale of a personally owned firearm to anyone else. Some of the 50 states have laws requiring background checks to be made for some or all gun sales within the state. In the state of Washington where I live, I can go to a gun show or a garage sale and legally buy a gun with no background check or other paperwork.

In my opinion, loose gun laws merely allow those who want firearms to get them, legally or otherwise. The US Dept of Justice has data on how the typical criminal gets his/her guns, and it usually is not at a gun show. They are usually stolen or provided by a friend.

Some of the States have laws on the books that make mere possession of certain firearms a crime. Most of these laws are not based on crimes committed, or a desire to reduce crime. They appear to be based on what you might call a "gun phobia" that exists in the states government or portions of it's population. Laws like these can lead to persons breaking the law without meaning to or never commiting a voilent act at all. So you have to ask yourself, if you own a banned gun, is it part of the black market, or are you just not willing to let the government tell you what to do?

This is my first post on this thread. I was rather puzzled that anyone could think they could discuss gun control in the USA without getting knee deep into politics.. It's ugly.

Ranb

[Richard G]

In the USA, when a person buys a gun with the intention of giving or selling it to a person who can not legally own firearms, it is called a strawman purchase. This is of course, illegal and can be considered part of the "black market".

Sarah Brady herself, the brainless twit who lobbied for the Brady Bill and the AWB, was guilty of making a straw purchase.

Of course she wasn't prosecuted for violating her own law. She was too stupid to even realize she had broken the law.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Richard G
Sarah Brady herself, the brainless twit who lobbied for the Brady Bill and the AWB, was guilty of making a straw purchase.

Of course she wasn't prosecuted for violating her own law. She was too stupid to even realize she had broken the law.

Really? Do you have a link?

Do you know the NRA will hold a debate with a anti-gunner next month?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Richard G
Sarah Brady herself, the brainless twit who lobbied for the Brady Bill and the AWB, was guilty of making a straw purchase.

Of course she wasn't prosecuted for violating her own law. She was too stupid to even realize she had broken the law.

No, she did not make a straw purchase. Buying a gun to give as a gift to a person legally allowed to own a gun is not a straw purchase.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ffrrg/transcripts/ltfour.htm

"Bobby’s father could truthfully complete the form 4473 to indicate that he is the actual purchaser because he would take title to the weapon and then transfer the firearm to Bobby as a gift."

See the above link and educate yourself.

I have to agree that Sarah Brady is a lying, gun-owner hating bitch though.

Ranb

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ranb
No, she did not make a straw purchase. Buying a gun to give as a gift to a person legally allowed to own a gun is not a straw purchase.

She did try to do away with personal transfers. I don't remember the legislation number, but I believe it included the "gun show loophole" I would almost bet she has tried to have that type of gun banned.

I have to agree that Sarah Brady is a lying, gun-owner hating bitch though.

Agreed!
:D

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Are you saying that Brazil and Russia have a bigger black market for guns because they have more restrictive weapon laws?

Yes, although lack of government and police infrastructure does not help matters.

Sorry, but that simply doesn't hold water, Russia is a mess, and while I know little about Brazil I do know it's not a post-industrial country.


http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~sergiok/brasil/brafacts.html

38%of Brazils GDP is industrial as of 1997. That's comperable with Germany:

http://countrystudies.us/germany/145.htm

http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/projects.nsf/0/f5df605dbd8d8c72882569740058ef24?OpenDocument

Brazil is usually classified as a "newly industrialized country".


If Russia and Brazil have a bigger black market for guns than US, then it's much more likely that this is because they have inefficient governments, than because their weapon laws are strict. You simply can't compare US to such countries.

What about Mexico then? Their gun laws are far stricter than the US's (calibur restrictions and lots of other stuff), and they have a thriving illicit weapons market.

What about Britain where illegal gun ownership has increased, as well as gun related crime, since the near-ban of handguns there?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html

If Britain isn't comperable with the US, nothing is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3189184.stm

There is a considerable source for illegal British guns too, there are an estimate 3 million illegal guns in Britain.


I'd really, really like you to provide evidence for that claim, I'm not an expert on American gun laws, but it seems to me that all you have to do to get your hands on a gun in US is to find somebody with no criminal record, and have him buy you the gun. I've even heard, though it's possible I'm wrong, that you can buy guns legally at garage sales, without any background check at all. Do you have any evidence at all that US loose gun laws makes it more difficult to get illegal guns?

Gun laws vary state to state here in the US. In Colorado there is a ten day waiting period before purchase of a firearm. Background checks are also required at gun shows.