Yet another school shooting.

[SME]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Emphasis. How long ago was that?

I don't remember exactly when, less than 10 years ago close enough? I don't know why "when" matters either.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by kev

Got facts or external links to back up your statements?

Not that I doubt that england has lower murder rates, but I would like to see how much lower and what devices were used in the murders.

Originally Posted by kev

I really could not care less about the murder rate in England or Europe.

How confusing!

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by uBeR

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Crime (as well as FBI data), the violent crime rate in Louisiana per 100,000 population was 790.24 for the 15 years prior to 2005 (1990-2004 average if you weren't sure). In 2005, it was 595.4--that's the lowest it's been since 1977! In Louisiana, violent crime dropped markedly from 2004 to 2005, while the national average increased.

From the links you sent me:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...dsInOneVar.cfm
Violent crime total
Year United States-Total
2000-------------1,425,486
2001-------------1,436,611
2002-------------1,423,677
2003-------------1,383,676
2004-------------1,360,088
2005-------------1,390,695

while the national average increased

- just how do you figure that? From 2000 to 2004 violent crimes dropped from 1.42 million to 1.36 million nation wide. In 2005, violent crime went back up 30,000 more crimes, but still below the year 2000 mark. I see no increase nation wide, but a decrease.


From a link you posted:

The following tables reflect crimes known to the New Orleans Police Department for January through December 2006, compared to the same time period of 2005.

http://secure.cityofno.com/portal.as...al=50&tabid=77

4th Quarter 2005 compared to 4th Quarter 2006

Offense--------2005-------2006------Change
Murder*---------9-----------52-------488.89%

From 4th quarter 2005 - 4th quarter 2006 murder increased 488% in New Orleans, as compared to the previous year.

The murder rates look like they have gone down - except in the last quarter 2006, when there has been a spike.

As a whole it looked like murder in N.O. spiked in 2005, and has gone down. 3rd quarter report from 2005 is not available due to Katrina.
----------------------------2005--------2006----------change
Violent Crime Total ----------2875--------2253--------(-)21.63%

So from 3rd quarter 2006 - 4th quarter 2006 there has been a sudden spike in murders. The rate before that was downward.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by SME

I've considered the other side but after reading other experts and doing my own research, I don't come to the same conclusions as the anti-gun liberals. Have you ever considered that you have it wrong? I used to think that the 2nd meant that citizens could have ANY kind of weapon the military has but after doing the research it's clear that wasn't the case but the 2nd is an individual right.

Anti-gun liberals? More like conservative-minded individuals who look at the Constitution and see that big government should not be extending their reach to places beyond its scope.

Just because a person can recognize that guns don't reduce crime and that the Second Amendment isn't an individual right, doesn't mean the person wants to take every gun away from law-abiding citizens. When you create polarizations, such as saying "anti-gun liberals" or "gun-toting hicks," you help none is fostering productive communication and debate. You do just the opposite.

Anyway, your realization that any weapon is not permitted under the Second Amendment is a bit strange, because no where in the Amendment does it say what limitations there are to the types of "arms." These types of regulations didn't come until much later through federal laws passed by Congress dictating the limits. Likewise, the Amendment doesn't give individual rights to the people to bear arms, but rather these are provided by laws governed by the state (except Wis. and Ill. of course) that also have specific regulations.

[Gigiya]

i like shooting nonfunctional electronic devices

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

From the links you sent me:

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...dsInOneVar.cfm
Violent crime total
Year United States-Total
2000-------------1,425,486
2001-------------1,436,611
2002-------------1,423,677
2003-------------1,383,676
2004-------------1,360,088
2005-------------1,390,695
- just how do you figure that? From 2000 to 2004 violent crimes dropped from 1.42 million to 1.36 million nation wide. In 2005, violent crime went back up 30,000 more crimes, but still below the year 2000 mark. I see no increase nation wide, but a decrease.

Your interpretation of the data is a bit suspect.

First, you don't ever want to use actual crimes committed. You want to use rate (that's because population is always changing). In this case, the rate is reported as violent crime per 100,000 population.

Now, my claim was that crime increased nation-wide from in 2005 from 2004. During the same period, violent crime decreased in Louisiana. I made this claim because you previously made the claim that Nagin's gun confiscation caused crime to go up after Katrina. The data shows otherwise. (Even if this claim were true, it wouldn't be fair because crime also went up across the nation during the same period; but it's not true, so we won't worry about that).

Originally Posted by ~kev

From a link you posted:

http://secure.cityofno.com/portal.as...al=50&tabid=77

From 4th quarter 2005 - 4th quarter 2006 murder increased 488% in New Orleans, as compared to the previous year.

The murder rates look like they have gone down - except in the last quarter 2006, when there has been a spike.

As a whole it looked like murder in N.O. spiked in 2005, and has gone down. 3rd quarter report from 2005 is not available due to Katrina.
----------------------------2005--------2006----------change
Violent Crime Total ----------2875--------2253--------(-)21.63%

So from 3rd quarter 2006 - 4th quarter 2006 there has been a sudden spike in murders. The rate before that was downward.

Your next interpretation of the New Orleans data is very curious.

It's a bit pointless (in this case here) to look at just quarterly trends.

Yes, in the 4th quarter of 2005 there were 9 murders, compared with 52 in the 4th quarter of 2006. But if you look at the first quarter of the two years, murder was reduced by 74 percent in 2006. When you look at these two facts, they don't really seem to show much of a trend or put anything in context; they're just two dots on a graph that aren't representative of much.

If you look at the yearly differences, however, which is based on a lot more data, you see crime actually dropped by 24 percent in 2006 compared to 2005 (despite the big differences in the 4th quarters).

But now looking at quarterly numbers will make sense because I'm going to ask you a question that will directly pertain to looking at quarters and will completely destroy your Nagin confiscation-crime link claim.

Why do you think crime dropped in the fourth quarter of 2005 to an astounding 5 murders, when it had consistently been above 60 murders each quarter before that? If you were going to say because that's when Katrina hit, your absolutely right. But this is also the same time Nagin and Riley began confiscating guns. Shouldn't crime be skyrocketing now according to your claim? Even if we look at the quarters following the New Orleans gun confiscation into 2006 (and even 2007), murders stay well below what they were before Katrina and before the gun confiscation (it makes no sense to compare while Katrina was hitting, such as you did, or we get 400%+ numbers like you did).

I hope this helps you see how, intuitively, something might sound correct ("taking guns away from citizens will cause murders to skyrocket because they can't defend themselves"), but isn't truly correct at all when the data says otherwise.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Why are there no reliable news sources reporting on Ray Nagin's contempt charges? In fact, there are none discussing his confiscation of firearms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo


First sentence -

"No one will be able to be armed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1EdC5y8EGU

Uber - let us agree that we disagree and move on from this subject. There is no need in bickering back and forth.

[uBeR]

Disagreeing with data is probably a bad thing, but I'll leave that up to you.

[Suite307]

Jesus fucking christ, every thread in off-topic turns into debate, you guys need to shut the hell up and have fun.

[uBeR]

Why the fuck are you reading this thread is a better question.

[Backstaber]

Woot for off-topic, the only place where you cannot only have debates but also learn a few things.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Backstaber

Woot for off-topic, the only place where you cannot only have debates but also learn a few things.

Honestly. I actually enjoy some of the debates on here. It's an interesting read. uBeR's last (long) post was very good.

[Ihmhi]

Americans have many rights, one of which is the ability to possess guns.

Laws exist that prevent them from having powerful weapons of war such as machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. for the most part.

One interesting thing I would have loved to see is if the amendment would have been made if the Founders knew about the military advancements that were made over the last couple of centuries. Hell, imagine that universe... everyone would have a Howitzer in their backyard next to the swing set.

Ultimately, I think of it like this. If you or your family are in imminent danger, do you honestly expect the police to handle it before one of you are dead? I sure as hell don't.

What if your house is being robbed by a man with a gun? If we do not have guns to defend ourselves, what is the anti-gun lobby's policy on that? Let them rob you and hope that the police show up in time to catch him before he runs off with everything? Who's to say he won't kill you?

One of my favorite reads in my Dad's NRA magazine is Armed Citizen, a series of newspaper clippings that show how responsible gun owners defend themselves when they have to. Let me post a few examples from my home state of New Jersey:

#1
Courier-Post, Camden, N.J., 10/22/04 State: NJ American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2004

Spotting two men trying to steal an ATV, Franklin, N.J., resident Robert J. Clark, Jr. retrieved his 9 mm Taurus handgun and confronted them. When one of the thieves appeared to go for a gun, Clark fired, killing him. The other suspect fled and was later arrested. A grand jury declined to file charges against Clark.

#2
The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ, 9/2/97 State: NJ American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1998

A Newark, New Jersey, liquor store owner lived above his business to keep watch on the place when closed. One morning, the shopkeeper heard the alarm go off and went downstairs to investigate, armed with his 12-ga. shotgun. He found a man ransacking the store who threatened the owner with a large rock. The owner told the intruder not to move and the would-be thief lunged at him. A struggle ensued and the burglar was shot in the neck. The attacker escaped, but was found by police and arrested a short time later. The store's back window was broken and a hammer and crowbar were found nearby. The intruder was charged with burglary and assault. The owner was not charged.

#3
The Times, Trenton, NJ, 3/22/96 State: NJ American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1996

Four knife-wielding men stole into Kuang Cheng's Lumberton, New Jersey, home, forcing his two young sons and their grandmother into the family room. As two of the intruders attempted to tape the elderly woman's mouth shut, the other two confronted Cheng and his wife in their bedroom. The homeowner, however, had heard his children screaming and had retrieved a .40 cal. pistol, the sight of which inspired one of the assailants to dive out of the second-floor window and the other to flee downstairs. Firing three times at the criminals, suspects in at least six similar incidents, Cheng single-handedly chased all of the men from his house.

#4
The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ, 9/14/96 State: NJ American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/1997

The two masked men stood over a sleeping Wayne Arbus after breaking into his Scotch Plains, New Jersey, home and shot him in the head when he awoke. Leaving him for dead, the two then rummaged through his house stealing a VCR, his wallet, credit cards, money, a BB gun and the keys to his car, which they decided to take as well. The severely wounded Arbus was conscious all the while however, playing possum until he heard his attackers leave. He then retrieved his .357 Mag. and ran outside, shooting at the men as they escaped, hitting his own car in the process. The two were soon arrested in another stolen car after Arbus alerted police.

#5
Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ State: NJ American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1966

In his Newark, N.J., home, Edward W. Williams, who was watching television, was alerted, first by his growling dog, and then by a woman's screams. He heard: "Don't let the man kill me..." Grabbing a rifle Williams ran outside the house and saw a man hitting a woman and dragging her towards some tall weeds. Williams shouted for his wife to call the police and then trained his rifle on the man. He held the would-be attacker until police arrived. Newark Chief of Police Charles M. Zizza recommended Williams for an outstanding public service award.

Five situations (out of ever so many in the database) that show responsible citizens using guns to defend themselves, other innocent bystanders, and their property.

Tell me, you anti-gun advocates, what would have happened to the people in these situations if they did not have a legal firearm with them?

Would the man in #1 have confronted the two thieves if he did not have the confidence of carrying a firearm? If he did confront them sans firearm and one of them did in fact pull a gun on him, what would have happened to him?

Situation #2? Are we still in caveman times? How would that headline look? "Man killed by large rock while interrupting liquor store robbery".

#3? Sure, maybe they would have let the family go. So, best case scenario if the homeowner did not have a gun: he would have been completely cleaned out by a gang of criminals. Worst case scenario? Maybe one of them would kill grandma for shits and giggles.

How about #4? They did not even bother with the whole "tie him up to the chair" cliché. They just shot him in the head and left him there to die while they stole what they could. That man would not only have been critically wounded (if he survived "playing possum" while waiting for the criminals to leave), but he would have lost most or all of his valuables.

And #5, from over 40 years ago. A woman was nearly raped and possibly murdered. How many rape victims are alive today wishing that they had a way to defend themselves when they were assaulted? How many rape victims aren't alive today because they didn't have a way to defend themselves?

Yes, truly, I would really love to see the anti-gun advocates answer to these preceding scenarios.

As if those were not reasons enough for me to want to have a gun, how am I to believe that the government can be trusted to act competantly in a large scale crisis? Look at how they handled Katrina. I will be damned if I let the federal government abandon my family and friends for several days while they get their thumbs out of their asses and come help (and then do a real bang up job at that, what with all of the dying and sick people they took their time helping).

How could I even count on the local government? During Katrina, many police officers deserted their posts. Estimates of the numbers of police officers who deserted or were fired range from 200-1,000.

The people who say "citizens don't need guns" have probably never been robbed at gunpoint. They probably never have had someone raped. They most certainly did not live through something like Katrina.

Have any of you anti-gun people had to live through something like this? I have been threatened by drug dealers. I have had a friend robbed at gunpoint and shot in the leg just because they can. I want to get a firearm as soon as I can afford one and acquire my permit (I might be moving soon, and New Jersey's right to carry laws are virtually nonexistant). If anyone threatens me, tries to rob me, or pulls a gun on me, my friends, my family, or just some innocent victim, you can bet that I will swiss cheese that bastard if I have to.

So, anti-gun peeps, put yourself in any one of the situations I have presented here - shot in the head, robbed at gunpoint, being dragged into the bushes in the dead of night by an assailant. Put yourself in the shoes of one of the people who had to live in New Orleans for several days with a diminished police force, flooding, and constant danger from nature and opportunistic criminals. Put yourself in any of these situations and honestly say that you would not want a reasonable means of self defense.

Is anyone going to say that? I sure hope no one is that stupid.

[Hawk Eye]

C'mon Ihmhi. All of those stories would have been so much cooler had you replaced Gun with Shuriken.

But yeah, #3 and 4 are my favourites outta there.

[Ihmhi]

Originally Posted by Hawk Eye

C'mon Ihmhi. All of those stories would have been so much cooler had you replaced Gun with Shuriken.

But yeah, #3 and 4 are my favourites outta there.

I thought posting this one was too cheesy and would incite "ban ninja swords" posts and the like... but since you said the magic "s" word...

#6 - Special Ninja Edition
The Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA, 6/7/89 State: NJ American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/1989

Joseph Hayes was working in his Springfield, N.J., office when a gunman dressed as a ninja warrior broke in and threatened to kill him and his family. When Hayes attempted to stand up, the man struck him with a handgun, then began to run off. Hayes grabbed a semi-automatic rifle and told the man to stop. When the assailant turned and shot at him, Hayes returned fire, killing his attacker. He was not charged.

Guns can even take down ninjas. Is there anything they can't do?

Oh dear, I believe I may have inadvertantly injected humor into one of those SRS BIZNEZ threads.

[Backstaber]

Marvelous posts Ihmhi! I wish I could vote for someone in New Jersey who would get rid of these god-forsaken anti-gun laws.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Backstaber

Marvelous posts Ihmhi! I wish I could vote for someone in New Jersey who would get rid of these god-forsaken anti-gun laws.

I'm crossing my fingers that laws like that stay contained where they are.

[SME]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Anti-gun liberals?

Anyway, your realization that any weapon is not permitted under the Second Amendment is a bit strange, because no where in the Amendment does it say what limitations there are to the types of "arms." These types of regulations didn't come until much later through federal laws passed by Congress dictating the limits. Likewise, the Amendment doesn't give individual rights to the people to bear arms...

Yes, the gun grabbing ignorant fucks that think it's not a right and support laws to that effect.

Actually it does. We, individuals, have the right to keep and bear "arms" not artillery, WMD, explosive ordinance, missiles, rockets, working tanks, etc. The 2nd clearly refers to "small arms" which would include more than you'd like but not as much as some people think it means. Again, you're just ignorant or in denial, if you had read the hardylaw link that I provided you might understand that the 2nd DOES protect our individual rights, as Parker vs DC will show.

[uBeR]

Actually, it doesn't say "small arms."

Anyway, keep up your ad hominem fallacies.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

Stories & guns for self defense

Yes, guns are powerful tools, which can quite literally be life savers and can sometimes be necessary for protecting yourself or your family.

But they're also powerful tools that can do unjust harm. Less than one percent of homicides are considered justified. Firearms are the leading tool used in suicides. Legal guns are also cause of many incidents that are just terrible to hear about. We went over his quite a bit in Amish shooting thread.

The basic point is that guns can be used for good and bad, and we have to figure out how to reduce the latter in a manner that makes sense and is fair.

Gun control doesn't mean the banishment of firearms. Regulation doesn't mean anti-gun. Understanding the data doesn't mean liberal fear mongers. It just means we have to be reasonable and smart about how we go about dealing with this issue.