Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LoSboccacc]

The proportion of homicides which involve guns also dropped from about 24% in 1996 to 16% now, which further backs up that declines in the use of guns are partly responsible for the drop.

what? the inflexion comes post 2001, you cannot just claim "see it worked" when data shows close to zero correlation between homicide inflection and gun availability

at most it's following previous year trends


besides it correlates quite well with the increase in other form of violence:


look, everyone wants to feel good after a big tragedy, but you need to look at the data instead of interpreting it trough feelings.

[Reelya]

I was contradicting where it was said that homicides haven't come down at all:

Data shows in Australia there was NO impact on violence, only on means. Sure there's less gun violence, but homicide rate remained constant.

I showed that it didn't remain constant, which contradicted your point, now you're shifting the goalposts, first, saying it didn't come down fast enough, when in fact a time lag would be expected - most guns used in crime are stolen).

Also note, the very regular spike up in homicides every few years. Those stopped occurring completely after 1996. Probably a coincidence, but it's interesting.

And "other forms of violence" aren't as deadly, it seems. Which is the point, when a knife is used in a robbery, the chance of the victim being killed is much lower. Knives are a substitute for guns, but they're safer. Even if the same number of robberies is to occur.

[Erkki]

I cited the figures given in the links I actually provided.

I went looking for alternate info when you questioned it. There are over 200 citations in the two wiki's that I linked, it's not reasonable to expect someone to read all of that. I'm still not sure where you source the link you provided for which you said "in your own source it says ...". Where is that linked connected btw?

Sorry, it was actually LoSboccacc. Link was in one of my posts too. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

From page one. Its Brit government's own figures and theres loads and loads of data tables in it. You are likely interested in pages 32, 60, 75 and 77.

Put short, theres still a lot of guns(relative to rest of Europe) used in Britain's homicides despite the bans, and there was no impact in total homicide rates. If anything, they're going up and Britain is becoming more violent, just without guns. Handguns are being used ever less(page 60), but its only because people are changing tools.

Theres no figures on legal/illegal guns used in crimes for UK though. Or at least I cant find one.

[Sonlirain]

I'd like to point out that guns (even semi auto) are very practical when you want to mow down a large number of people in the shortest amount of time.
If i got pissed at my boss for firing me and want revenge without caring for my personal safety i can grab a pistol from my night stand go to work doing whatever my adrenalin and anger addled brain wants.

If getting a gun was harder (but not impossible perhaps) there's a good chance i'd cool off or worst case scenario grab a knife and go cut people, both alternatives reducing the bodycount because i'm sure the orlando massacre would have less dead/wounded if it didn't happen or the shooter arrived with a knife instead.

Of course that's assuming the shooter was a relatively sane human being that just broke down under high stress and not let's say... a dumb ass who just wanted to secure his 40 virgins and did it with a clear mind and premeditation.

In the second case things get extra complicated because people like that likely have some connection to middle eastern tourist organizations who might gladly organize them trekking gear.
A gun ban means just about fuck all when the smuggled can opener has a "made in أمك ك" sticker on it just like it did in France.
All a gun ban does in that case is reduce the chance of the victims surviving (by being able to maybe shoot back and making the attackers less aggressive due to bullets flying both ways and getting shot by a stray bullet before killing some infidels does not warrant you a place in heaven) from slim to fashion model with surgically removed ribs.

And how to solve that?
Hell if i know but drastic measures would be my best bet since silent invigilation of people suspected failed on several occasions.
Invigilation of people suspected of terrorism is fine and dandy but they have the luxury of instantly going loud if they notice they were discovered and throw themselves at whatever, whomever and wherever (witch is literally what happened in Brussels) as long as it's big enough to warrant a place on the news and cause some public hysteria.

[Starver]

On the thread title's subject matter, compare and contrast Orlando and San Bernardino, in the US, to Leytonstone (bad knife injuries, no death) and Lee Rigby (died at the hands of two attackers, who used a car before the knife attack), in the UK.  Other comparisons exist, but I tried to match factors such as declared motives and targets.

(I don't think anything like total gun control in the US is practical, but I do rather like living in a system where it already takes a lot more effort for lone wolves (or pairs) to accomplish less killing.)

[ChairmanPoo]

I just heard in TV that apparently the shooter used to be a frequent patron of the place. Apparently he was so tight in the closet that he went berserk trying to reconcile that with his ISIS-nutcase beliefs.

[TempAcc]

So far, I've seen people saying gun control had no real impact on the occurence of gun related violence/crimes in general, and also people saying ownership of guns also didn't contribute to lowering said numbers. If ownership of guns seems to somehow not affect these issues in any meaningful way, then why just take away one's right to own a gun? I'd rather give people an option rather then putting everyone at the mercy of the police's efficiency and speed of getting to them when shit goes down.

Since the police doesn't consist of superhuman wizards who are masters at casting teleport just yet, and the state isn't magicaly able to track every single (legal or illegal) gun ever, I'd rather give people an option which may just save their lives.

The same arguments for gun control I see here are the same everywhere else: hypothetical scenarios which were ALSO used to validate gun control, except at that time there were claims that the rates of gun related violence/violent crimes in general would go down. They haven't, so if statistics show gun control had done pretty much nothing to affect these numbers, then why even insist on gun control based only on imagined scenarios?

[MasterFancyPants]

I really don't see why gun control is playing such a big role in this case.

The guy was an Islamic extremist, he was going to kill people by any means necessary. If he didn't have a gun he would have used bombs like the guys in Boston and Brussels or he may have gotten one illegally like in Paris.

Actually, I do know why, but it upsets me when people use tragedies in order to push political goals.

[MasterFancyPants]

I'd like to point out that guns (even semi auto) are very practical when you want to mow down a large number of people in the shortest amount of time.

Not really, bombs work much better and you have a better chance to get away. There is a reason the vast majority (~95%) of deaths in military actions come from explosives.

Lucky for everyone, most mass killers haven't figured this out.

In fact, I worry every time I post something like this that it will somehow get disseminated to some lunatic.

[Erkki]

The hysterical society think it helps. Same thing in Europe now, terrorists used former Warsaw Pact guns in Paris, now EU Commission wants to remove almost every semi auto from the union and register magazines. From legal owners. All semi autos including deactivations(= decorations) and pistols. And make all licenses renewed every 5 years. They're just going to help the terrorists, destroy jobs and make ever more people hate the union. Madness.

Not really, bombs work much better and you have a better chance to get away. There is a reason the vast majority (~95%) of deaths in military actions come from explosives.

Lucky for everyone, most mass killers haven't figured this out.

In fact, I worry every time I post something like this that it will somehow get disseminated to some lunatic.

I think overall bombs do account for the same 90+% of terror victims, just not in the couple of last strikes in Europe/US. There just is something more scary, something more personal in using guns.

[LoSboccacc]

I'd like to point out that guns (even semi auto) are very practical when you want to mow down a large number of people in the shortest amount of time.

while the time aspect is true, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway strangled 49 people.

[Sonlirain]

I think overall bombs do account for the same 90+% of terror victims, just not in the couple of last strikes in Europe/US. There just is something more scary, something more personal in using guns.

No there's the fact the nutcase can leave the bomb in a dustbin and leave.
x people dead and wounded (oft crippled for life but we tend to ignore it).
Perpetrator alive.
And if he could build/acquire one bomb there is no telling how many he might be able to plant until he's caught.

I'd like to point out that guns (even semi auto) are very practical when you want to mow down a large number of people in the shortest amount of time.

while the time aspect is true, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway strangled 49 people.

Yeah but serial killers are mushrooms in rock paper scissors.
They attack unexpected kill a few people people and disapear.
Guns don't help them, guns rarely stop them and they existed long before guns did.

[Rolan7]

Posting to watch.
The gun debate is kinda interesting, I don't have a strong opinion (for such an important issue) so I tend to lurk.
I would like to discuss other aspects of the event later (probably when I'm back home).

[Erkki]

No there's the fact the nutcase can leave the bomb in a dustbin and leave.
x people dead and wounded (oft crippled for life but we tend to ignore it).
Perpetrator alive.
And if he could build/acquire one bomb there is no telling how many he might be able to plant until he's caught.

I meant publicity wise. Bomb terrorists even when they bring down an airliner don't seem to awake as strong emotions as the ones using firearms.

[Sheb]

Don't they? I mean, compare the Boston marathon bombing to that shooting in California last year?

I really don't see why gun control is playing such a big role in this case.

The guy was an Islamic extremist, he was going to kill people by any means necessary. If he didn't have a gun he would have used bombs like the guys in Boston and Brussels or he may have gotten one illegally like in Paris.

Damn right! That's why I never lock my door. Burglars would just get in by another way. /s

Seriously, if you want to argue that the costs of preventing a guy like this shooter to buy weapons is too high, you could, but this argument here is just dumb.

In other news, there was another terrorist attack by an ISIS-inspired lone wolf in France. Luckily, the attacker only had a knife, so the death toll is only two.