Gun Control

[MrVicchio]

Originally Posted by Figment

Because the Wild West had the most civilized and polite people in the world?



Good luck selling that one.

It wasn't what Hollywood teaches you, but thanks for showing your lack of historical perspective, it's enlightening.

Originally Posted by Figment

Also, don't know where you get your statistics, but from what I've come across on all statistics, that's simply an outright lie. Please provide evidence to back up that claim, because I've already shown statistics where it's the exact opposite.

There are a very few exceptions, but then those are in areas with extremely low populations and very low population densities.

[Figment]

I presume you are aware that the majority of weapons confiscated and used for murders in those northern cities stem from non-local, typically sourthern sources? ie. what's known as the "I95 route"? You are also aware that there was no gun-grabbing in Chicago and everyone was allowed to keep the guns they already owned? So basically, it was a half-arsed policy?

If you're not consistent with laws in neighbouring areas, you don't make it very hard for criminals to bypass your restrictions.


From the looks of it, your handgun carry changes haven't actually done much either. The big drop in crime in DC occured from 1992 onwards and the trend simply continues. In fact, there's no visible rising effect from the handgun ban - if anything, it went down.

It is therefore more interesting to see what other circumstances changed, particularly in 1992.

What actually happened then was a policy change by increasing public safety expenditures.

The policy changes and investments included reforms to policing, and increases in the number of police on the streets; reforms to criminal sentencing, and increases in prison and detention populations; a commitment to reducing illegal drug use and drunk driving, and increases in treatment capacity; a recognition that almost all those who go to prison are someday released, and renewed efforts to reduce reoffending and promote effective prisoner reentry. The
country has seen criminal justice innovations ranging from drug courts, to "hot spot" policing and CompStat, to the AMBER Alert system, to a new commitment to victims of crime and their right to be treated with dignity and respect.

As a country, over several decades, we steadily increased funding for criminal justice agencies at all levels of government, supporting numerous programs and initiatives that changed the way the nation approached crime and criminal justice.

Source:
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/foia...commission.pdf

The only case with those stats you could make is for Florida, since there's a disruption in the trend. Yet at the same time no gun restriction lift was performed in Chicago, yet Chicago had the same - even sharper (!) - drop in crime. It could thus also be argued that Florida wasn't as effective as Chicago in reducing murder rates, despite the laxer weapon laws.

Still, it's way higher than other countries. For instance, in 2012 ours was 1.1 per 100.000 and for Europe in general, we have 1.0 for Western Europe, 1.4 for Southern Europe, 1.5 for Northern Europe and 6.5 for Eastern Europe (including Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Belarus, etc). For the US, it's 4.8, while for Canada it's 1.6. So to have you come in here and showing off 6/100.000 and 15 to 20/100.000 is not really making a good case for non-restriction. In fact, Northern Europe is so high due to a single country with more relaxed gun laws: Finland (2.2). Norway has 0.6, Sweden 1.0, Iceland 0.3 and Denmark 0.9. So keep telling us we're doing it wrong. You're making a hugely strong case.

And Australia, which had been brought up earlier, now has a 1.0 rating.


It's also interesting to see what caused the increases in crime in the 80s so suddenly.

You're aware that there was a huge increase in crime and drugs use with the baby-boom and the economic recession of the early 80s (often refered to as the "lost generation"), which would particularly strike the more sensitive, densily populated areas?

(Which btw, in relation to our company ethics discussion, shows why low unemployment is so important and companies should try to retain a large workforce if they can afford it in the interest of society).

[MrBloodworth]

None of your sources are Unbiased. They are ether prop sites for gun advocacy, funded in part by the NRA, or conservative thing tanks. Just facts is a Conservative "Facts" site.

Sad part is, you have to look outside the us for real analysis of countries with real regulation and its effects, because by law, thanks to the NRA, Gun related data can not be researched by any federal agency or used to shape policy, including the ATF. By law, background checks have to be destroyed in 24 hours, and gun shop owners are not required to keep a sales registry.

[Figment]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rate_by_decade

Check this out, please.

[SolLeks]

may I ask what you are trying to point out with that link?

I see us having a lower homicide rate than the Bahamas, and its getting better over all despite the fact no gun laws have been added.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by SolLeks

may I ask what you are trying to point out with that link?

I see us having a lower homicide rate than the Bahamas, and its getting better over all despite the fact no gun laws have been added.

Mostly the whining that strict gunlaws leads to crime.

Every single European nation that has some sort of restrictions and background checks in place does better than your best scoring states. Same for Australia.



I wouldn't be proud of having a lower homicide rate than banana republics and majority of third world nations. That should be standard for a first world nation. Hell, China scores better.



The reason you got a tiny bit better (down from atrocious) is a move towards more government action and enforcement in the '90s. Sorry, but if you think you're scoring well, while scoring between second and third world nations (nations like Chile rate better), then you're not all that good at interpretation. :/



I'd also like to point out the Yugoslavian nations post-Yugoslavian war halfway the nineties. Gun ownership rose drastically (obviously not equally throughout the populace and without discipline and training, which is obviously worse than what you have). They went from ratings close to yours to 7-8 times worse within the span of a year. Then it died back down, but stayed relatively high.

What happened in 1997? Government lost full control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Rebellion_of_1997

Such great things happen when people have access to guns and instead of democratically replacing their government, decide to take on arms to quel any opposition to their own ideals. And I quote:

Opening of the depots

The Opening of the depots (Albanian: Hapja e depove) was the opening of the weapon depots in the north, for the protecting against the violence of the south.[12] The decision was taken by Sali Berisha.
When in southern Albania the army bases were looted, it was estimated that, on average, every male from the age of ten upwards possessed at least one firearm and ample ammunition.[13] In order to protect the civilians in the north and central Albania, the government allowed the opening of the depots for the population of those areas too.
During the rebellion 656,000 weapons of various types, along with 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition, 3.5 million hand grenades, and 1 million land mines were looted from army depots.[14]

Gangs

Taking advantage of difficult situations, criminal groups were armed and in an unexpected way were placed in charge of rebellion and took control of entire cities. Most had been imprisoned in the main prisons in Greece, and suddenly were able to escape, to come to Albania. The most famous is that of Zani Caushi, who escaped from a high security prison of Larissa, in February 1997 and established in Vlora, the gang of Coles, with a group of friends. The rule of gangs was terrifying. Typical cases remain Vlora, Berat and Lushnja. In Vlora 5 gangs were created, but 2 were those who ruled the city: the gang of Zani and the gang of Gaxhai. Movement in the city started at 10:00, when Flag's Square people gathered to hear the Committee of Rescue, and ended at 13:00. After that hour the streets were deserted and the only ones that moved were gangs. Gangs announced through speakers, fliers and other people not to go out as there would be fighting. Each night had attempted attacks with explosives and numerous shots in the air, along with dozens of dead. In Berat, Altin Dardha's rule was even more severe. In Lushnje, Aldo Bare's gang had control. The worst crime this gang did was to behead an opponent and walk around the city. Cities ruled by gangs were: Vlora, Berat, Tepelena, Memaliaj, Ballshi, Saranda, Gjirokastra, Lushnja, Pogradec, Cerrik, Tropoja.

A lot of those weapons have since been smuggled to (Eastern European) organised crime in Europe. We're really happy that some random nearby nation decided to arm their entire populace (and in doing so undermined EU gun policies that were quite effective at keeping criminals from gaining access to weaponry).

[belch]

Oh, so "Fortress Europa" is not the impregnable bastion that Figment claimed it was before? Well, who would have known?

The destabilization of Yugoslavia is plenty of proof that trusting your government to keep harm away is a foolish proposition.

[Crator]

I don't understand what the point of your posts to Figment are for belch. Why do you seamlessly attack him every time you post in this thread? We are supposed to be discussing the topic, not attacking each other at every turn.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Crator

I don't understand what the point of your posts to Figment are for belch. Why do you seamlessly attack him every time you post in this thread? We are supposed to be discussing the topic, not attacking each other at every turn.

Why are you defending a poster who is at best mentally unhinged or a troll?

[Crator]

I'm not defending anyone. I'm asking someone a question.

[belch]

Originally Posted by Crator

I don't understand what the point of your posts to Figment are for belch. Why do you seamlessly attack him every time you post in this thread? We are supposed to be discussing the topic, not attacking each other at every turn.

So, let me get this straight. Pointing out where Figment has reversed his earlier depictions of Europe as being some utopia of gun free happiness, and finally admitting that firearms are trafficked thru Europe in spite of heavy legislation...this now equates to an attack?

Ok Crator, go back and read where Figment doggedly attacked me, using actual slanderous terms, acted like a 5 year old that couldn't have his favorite toy...yet you think that I am attacking him?

No, I am laughing at his blatant flip-flopping of stances when it suits his argument. Rearranging pie charts and walls of text to fit his view. It's hilarious!

ETA: If I wanted to really dig into his hide, and since he brings up the Balkans, how about have him explain how well the UN Enclave at Srebrenica was held by the Dutch. Here's a hint...it wasn't.

[Figment]

Belch is still responding to me, continuing character attacks instead of argumenting his case? He's been on ignore for how long now?

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Why are you defending a poster who is at best mentally unhinged or a troll?

Okaaaaaay. Ad hominem much?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by belch

Oh, so "Fortress Europa" is not the impregnable bastion that Figment claimed it was before? Well, who would have known?

The destabilization of Yugoslavia is plenty of proof that trusting your government to keep harm away is a foolish proposition.

Let's see... Logged out to see what all the fuzz was about.



Oh hey - I've brought this up about a dozen times already.


That's what you get for never reading what I actually write and substituting it with their own favourite strawmen I suppose.

Where did I say it was IMPENETRABLE? Quote please. The entire quote.

Rather than RELATIVELY HARD TO ATTAIN ILLEGAL WEAPONS? And for the record, the influx from Albania isn't that big and a nuisance at most, but it's still a nuisance we wouldn't have had if Albania had not been distributing weapons to its populace.

Belch, you and your continuous use of absolutes and pretending we're using absolutes that you can argue with is a complete ignoring of the actual statements. And you do this CONTINUOUSLY, which is why you're on ignore. You are an outright liar and troll and completely incapable of proper debate because you aren't being fair and completely ignore what has been said on matters you wish to attack as a weakness.

I have never claimed - ever - that attaining guns illegally can be 100% foolproof. And I never said there are no guns smuggled into Europe.

I and others have always maintained that it would simply be a whole lot harder to impossible without having access to smuggling networks and that thus the majority of minor criminals would not gain access to them, UNLIKE IN YOUR SITUATION, WHERE EVERY CRIMINAL AND GANG MEMBER HAS ACCESS TO GUNS.

I've always stated that this restriction causes a far lower murder rate simply because it's harder to attain easy tools to kill with. That's it. That's all. Why do you try to exagerate my position where I'd be saying that Fortress Europe is 100% impenetrable? I have never, ever, claimed this!


How hard is that to understand? How hard is it for you to not lie about what someone else said? And how hard is it for you to admit we have a much, much, much lower murder rate? Which is by far the most important crime statistic: getting mugged you can survive and at most you lose some material posessions, quite likely without injury.

Getting killed or injured over a couple euro is a drag but foolish. And for the record, crime rates are quite low and are still going down, despite of the recession.

[Figment]

ETA: If I wanted to really dig into his hide, and since he brings up the Balkans, how about have him explain how well the UN Enclave at Srebrenica was held by the Dutch. Here's a hint...it wasn't.

Here we go.

1. No military support from the UN, particularly no air support because the French veto'd it.
2. No heavy weapons to fight tanks and artillery (the dutch mostly had rifles and some APCs) as it was officially an observation mission.
3. The Serbs had sieged the enclave and preventing food supplies to reach it for months.
4. Valley position, Serbs in the hills.
5. The mandate of the dutch included that they were NOT ALLOWED TO FIRE AT THE SERBS, unless fired upon (defense only). Several dutch tried to use warning shots to provoke being fired upon so they could actually aim at the Serbs. The Serbs did not bite.
6. The Bosnian-Serbs were a Serbia military supported civilian militia with no discipline to stop themselves from genocide and were entirely motivated by racial hatred.

So what we have here is a situation where an armed state militia fights other militias and takes on the role of judge, jury and executioner and what we end up with is a case of genocide. Well done, gun enthusiast Belch in bringing this up as an example of why paramilitary militias can't be trusted with powerful weaponry and how large scale standing army military government support is needed to thwart this sort of excesses from occuring.

You also realise a portion of the largely starving, 8000 male civilians inside the enclave were actually armed and went on pillage raids outside of the enclave for food and gave sufficient excuses for the Serbs to warrant a violation of the neutrality of the enclave to their own populace?

What ended the Yugoslav civil war? Military and international intervention and pressure on a much bigger scale than civilians resisting.


So let's see, how does this compare to the village idiots that in this thread claimed that Luxembourg could have stopped the millions of troops and thousands of aircraft and tanks of the Nazi Germany war machine if only the males of age in the 300.000 residents had had guns? (Note: Russia with its millions of better armed troops - even if relatively poorly armed - almost failed too but won on mere numbers - kinda like zergs in PS2).

Ah yes, it's a completely ridiculous position to take, because you can't ever hope to maintain it. The Dutch UN troops were send on a mission with no hope of success and everyone in our country had been questioning the point of sending troops in the first place based on the hope the Serbs would not abuse their regional position of power to frustrate and undermine the enclave.


I've also said several times in this thread why the big cities in the north of America failed with their gun restriction policies: neighbouring states and even those further away - WITHOUT STATE BORDER CONTROL - allowing for simple gun trafficking and supplying of the criminals, while guns never were confiscated in the first place so you never had a gun free zone in the first place. I've said it before, the policy was half arsed because it wasn't nationwide and because there was no effort made to reduce the amount of guns available. Hence there's next to no reason why there'd be a drop in crime. If you institute a ban on purchasing weapons due to the status quo being too violent and then maintain the status quo in already attained arms and on a national level allow the importation of guns to these ares, what's the bloody point?


So basically, no, I'm not flipflopping, it's a perfect illustration of why a populace can't fight back against a military with inferior weapons (and why your militia act failed compared to a standing army) and poor strategical positions on the one hand and without significant external military and diplomatic support on the other is something I've said constantly.

Regarding gun policy, I've always maintained you've never executed the policy correctly, because you can't do this in non-isolated areas where everyone around it does not follow the same rules and where you strictly maintain control over the influx of weapons to the isolated area. If anything, you've never been fair on that point because you simply haven't admitted that unrestricted gun policies in other states undermines the stricter gun policies of others.



And I've stated this continuously, every example you bring up is in line with what I've said from the start of the debate. Go and read back where I first mentioned Chicago.

Keep lieing about your opposition Belch, I've seen enough to warrant keeping you on ignore.

[Figment]

It wasn't what Hollywood teaches you, but thanks for showing your lack of historical perspective, it's enlightening.

Btw, missed this line. I'm not talking about the myth of bank robberies, Never watched many spaghetti westerns, if that's what you're refering to. I'm talking about the old west in general, which wasn't exactly 'civilized' and 'polite' as you stated.



The amount of vigilantism and bounty hunting, lynchings and other random (saloon) shootings in the west wern't exactly to be called 'civilized'. At least not in my book. Best not be a suspect in the old west, relatively large chance (compared to now (!)) you'd get hanged by an angry mob looking for revenge or a scapegoat.

I'm also more refering to the genocide of natives by settlers ("pioneers") and the US army to free up lands and drive them out of frontier areas, as well as the slaughtering of colonists by natives in retaliation or pre-emptively ambushing lone pioneers. People with weapons and territorial conflicts is obviously never a good mixture and I definitely would not want to call those peaceful or civilized times - that's not to say that all the people that went there in general were uncivilized. In fact, some frontier towns applied gun control where guns had to be checked in with the local marshall upon arrival in town.

Not to mention the over-hunting of buffalo for their pelts by highly praised poachers/huntsmen.

The regular stealing of land between prospectors in California. The higher frequency of train and bank robberies (which regardless of movies, lay significantly higher in the west at the time than anywhere else in the world, granted possibly also due to being rather attractive targets due to poor protection. Not so for bank robberies/general stores since those wern't as attractive or frequent a target as Hollywood would have one believe. But then anyone who trusts Hollywood for historical accuracy is a fool).

Then we're talking about the sheer amount of racist lynchings of natives, blacks, Irish and Chinese and of course Mexican prospectors. Then there was the land grab by large-scale ranchers by assasination and intimidation. Pretty much what a lot of the South American elite still does to small farming communities and natives, btw.

And no, I'm not talking constant high noon style shootouts. It doesn't mean each of those small towns had daily shootings over each and every argument or on a daily basis. It's more the comparative general state of (semi-)lawlessness or local judge-jury-executioner behaviour. If anything it was turbulent and the widespread availability of guns did not help keep people's calm.

Note, I can imagine there was a higher need for guns then though given the context and dangers of the time, but that's a different argument which has a lot to do with expansionism and colonialism and building up new communities in areas where other nations/peoples had claims as well. That's a self-induced threat though.