 |
| |
|
|
*End Is Forever*
|
 |
Salford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
I've been doing a little delving into the respective crime figures of the US and the UK today, in response to a debate elsewhere. Anyway, this was my response... I've just copied and pasted it, and deleted the phrases that referred to the person I was talking to, so if there are a couple of sentences that don't fit so well, that's why. But the point remains the same.
The most recent full statistics available are for the
year 2000.
In 2000, 8493 (eight thousand, four hundred and ninety
three) people were murdered in the United States using
a firearm. In the UK, the equivalent number was 15
(fifteen). This means that for every person murdered
using a firearm on UK soil, over 566 people were
murdered by the same method in the United States.
Therefore, given that the UK has a population
approximately 1/6 of the US population, if US gun
murder figures were proportionally equivalent, then
there would be 90 gun murders in the United States.
This is quite a few less than 8493, don't you think?
In addition, in 2000 there were 407842 robberies in
the United States, of which 40.9% (166807) involved
firearms. The equivalent figure in the UK was 3965
robberies involving the use of a firearm. Again, if
the UK had the population of the USA, the equivalent
figure would be 23790. Again, a staggering difference.
I have little doubt that the staggering differences in
these figures are at least in part down to the
ridiculously lax guns laws in the United States of
America. Freedom is a noble goal. I fully
support the right of those who have legitimate uses
for firearms to keep them and use them. However, to
allow anyone to own high-powered arms without any
checks or safeguards is quite frankly folly, and is
illustrated as such by the figures above. 8000
innocent lives is not a price worth paying for the
dubious "freedom" of a few NRA gun nuts to keep their
weapons. The USA is suffering from this.
Sources:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime2.pdf
http://www.archive.official-documen.../crimestats.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
In 2000, 8493 (eight thousand, four hundred and ninety
three) people were murdered in the United States using
a firearm. In the UK, the equivalent number was 15
(fifteen). This means that for every person murdered
using a firearm on UK soil, over 566 people were
murdered by the same method in the United States.
Therefore, given that the UK has a population
approximately 1/6 of the US population, if US gun
murder figures were proportionally equivalent, then
there would be 90 gun murders in the United States.
This is quite a few less than 8493, don't you think?
[...]
8000
innocent lives is not a price worth paying for the
dubious "freedom" of a few NRA gun nuts to keep their
weapons. The USA is suffering from this.
|
Umm... don't you think that's a little disingenuous? A much more meaningful figure would compare the number of US murders per capita with UK murders per capita (I believe that ratio is closer to 1:50, but I think I'm overestimating).
Another thing to note that the UK is not fighting the same war on drugs that the US is, and is therefore isn't facing its consequences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
Personally, even if you concede that gun control would stop all those deaths (which it won't), I still oppose gun control as unconstitutional and the antithesis of freedom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Personally, even if you concede that gun control would stop all those deaths (which it won't), I still oppose gun control as unconstitutional and the antithesis of freedom. |
DF, you seem to have a very twisted idea of freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that if you let everyone do what they want, nothing will go wrong. While that's just fine, you also seem to think that this will work even if you don't allow this to be enforced. If everyone just ignored everyone else, then the result would be crime everywhere. You would be constantly getting mugged, raped, murdered etc. by anyone who wanted to, and no-one would have the right to do anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MacTBone
Well, he would have a gun to stop them 
Mr. Fun, what he's arguing, and I agree with him here, is that it is explicitly stated that we have the right to bear arms. If you take that away, there is always the possibility that the other Rights can be taken away at some time. By keeping all of the rights in tact, we can keep the whole thing in balance.
For the record, I believe that we should limit what guns can be purchased (you NEED a machine gun?). I also believe that trying to get rid of guns would become a major problem if such a law to ban guns was ever passed. It just isn't practical to get rid of an industry and hunt down every gun. |
I agree with Seneca -- you are using the slippery slope argument fallacy. Just because one thing happens does not mean that something else that you're claiming can happen, will happen.
And individual citizens do not have the right to bear arms. As I said before, it's defacto, and based on a misperception of the people. So there is no right to bear arms to take away, in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nobunaga
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
...according to consistent Supreme Court rulings over the past 65 years or so, individual Americans do not have the right to bear arms. |
Really? Care to name a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that unambiguously says such a thing?
How do you explain this very recent ruling by a federal court? If the Supreme Court had declared what you claim it did, then how could this federal appeals court unambiguously hold that the Second Amendment is an individual right? See for yourself here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...9-10331-cr0.htm
From the majority opinion:
"We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Ah, so that's why there's another gun thread. Somebody's copycatting.
--"I've been doing a little delving"
Little does seem to describe it, yes 
In any case, as has been pointed out, your comparison is flawed.
--"However, to allow anyone to own high-powered arms without any checks or safeguards is quite frankly folly,"
This is what's known as a strawman argument. Those numbers were derived from the current status in the US, which includes over 20,000 gun laws on the books. This is hardly "without any checks or safeguards".
--"I'd be very interested to hear how they account for the huge difference in firearms-related crime."
The WoD, as has been mentioned, is a large part of it (again, the Prohibition example). Cultural differences are a part of it as well (the largest group in those gun crime numbers are drug and gang related, and I don't think the UK has the same level of gang problems the US does).
--"What about the whole legal/illegal firearms ratio in America?"
This is an important number, since the majority of guns used in crimes in the US were illegally obtained as it is.
--"But according to consistent Supreme Court rulings over the past 65 years or so, individual Americans do not have the right to bear arms."
Again, bullshit, and references please.
--"Guns do more to stop crime than any other weapon."
Aye. Much more difficult statistics to gather, of course, but even on the low end of the estimates they more than balance out the above figures. See Gary Kleck's study for more info (don't think the full text is online, but a summary is).
--"So in every country where individual civilians are not allowed to own firearms there is no freedom?"
Urban Ranger, why are you arguing like you think freedom is a digital, all or nothing, condition?
--"As long as there's a general consensus that having a constitution is a good thing, then changing one part of it won't result in the rest of it being torn up."
Most of the rest of it already has been effectively torn up. Things like the DMCA and SSSCA (whatever it's called now) would never have even been considered if it was still in effect.
--"That new Supreme Court ruling is interesting -- thanks for posting the link to it."
He posted a link to a federal appealate court ruling, not a Supreme Court ruling.
--"where in this argument of the Supreme Court did they argue explicitly in support for the right to bear arms for individuals who DO NOT belong to any militia??"
The definition of milita in the Constitution effectively meant every able-bodied citizen willing to carry a weapon. Militia, even by current US law, is not defined as the National Guard.
Wraith
"If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
It probably would due to MAD.
(as in everyone has a gun, so noone wants to shoot someone and then be shot...)
quote:
"We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller." |
Well, there's an opinion that people who are not in militias can have firearms.
BTW, that's the same quote as above, I just highlighted the "not" part.
Last edited by mactbone on 24-03-2002 at 20:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nobunaga
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
That new Supreme Court ruling is interesting -- thanks for posting the link to it. |
You're welcome, but it's not a Supreme Court ruling, it's from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
quote:
[SIZE=1]
Obviously individual citizens comprise of an organized militia for state defense. But I have a question -- where in this argument of the Supreme Court did they argue explicitly in support for the right to bear arms for individuals who DO NOT belong to any militia?? |
Are you talking about the Miller case or the Emerson case (the circuit court case)?
quote:
I have read this case that you posted, but if I overlooked where the Supreme Court argued that individuals who do not belong in any militia have the right to bear arms, let me know. |
Sorry, again I'm confused. Do you mean Miller or Emerson? (The Miller case was ambiguous, I could argue it either way and so have the lower courts depending on their disposition )
BY the way, it is clear from original intent that an individual right was intended. Three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, in their commentaries on the Constitution, write that the 2nd refers to an individual right. If you're interested in that line of argument I'll post links.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2002 08:52
|