Firearms & co... hate or love them?
- Thread starter Tony Manero
- Start date
philologus
Subgenius
My (inadequately expressed) point was that the gun crimes in the link I posted for US are included in total violent crime stats.
Mr.S.Marbo
New member
I don\'t know if they do show more violent crime than in the US. I don\'t know what the US figures were based on.
For example the UK report you quote takes into account crime that was not reported to the police. Did the US report take that into account?
Did you know the UK figures class some crimes where the victim received no injury at all as violent? Do the US figures include crimes where no injury was received and class them as \"violent\"?
\"Just under half (49%) of all violent incidents reported to the BCS did not result in any injury to the victim. A similar proportion (47%) of all police recorded violence against the person in 2005/06 involved no injury.\"
So of all these \"violent crimes\" nearly 1/2 resulted in NO INJURY at all.
The US report may not include crime that that was not reported to the police. The US report may not class a crime where no injury was received as \"violent\". If this is the case then there is no way you can compare the two.
Nearly half the UK \"violent crime\" recorded resulted in no injury. Can the same be said for the US statistics?
As for the original thread topic I think I would find it fun to fire a gun in a safe situation. Would I want guns to be more available in the UK? No.
philologus
Subgenius
Unfortunately, you\'re right with the second point. But I do question the efficacy of the preparedness. A gun isn\'t like a parachute, where you have time to respond to an immediate threat. If you wake up to a barrel in your face, how are you going to make it to your own gun in time? If a hijacker taps on the glass of your vehicle with the barrel, he\'ll likely take you out as soon as he sees you reaching for something. In a gun-ready country, the assailant is going to have his gun prepared first.
And on that point, I cannot argue. My hope is that you\'ll make it to your gun in time to protect those you love.
Braveheart712
New member
Here\'s a thought, maybe the statsitic in the US for gun violence are higher because we report and document the incidents better ???? 
Orb
procrastinator
Oh Dave! I know you\'re not going to change your mind. I\'m not saying ban guns outright, but in our civilised society, where millions of us are not killing each other, say, in the US, if there weren\'t nearly 300 million guns around, there would be less opportunity to use them.
You want your gun because you know there are so many guns around and therefore you are at more risk. up to 27 times more risk.
Here, there aren\'t anywhere near as many guns, so I\'m happy not having one because there is less likely hood of confronting someone with a gun.
The number of homicides does not increase to compensate for the lack of guns.
The stats speak for themselves. Surely?
As for drivel, we come from different backgrounds with different lives and different experiences. To me, your spouting utter drivel
Look at it this way. How close do you have to be to someone to stab them with a knife? Arms reach + 6 inches give or take. How close do you have to be to shoot someone? 10 meters? 100 meters? 500 meters? Its far easier to get away from a knife than it is a bullet.
And then theres Metal Storm
And then theres Metal Storm
philologus
Subgenius
Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo
I don\'t know if they do show more violent crime than in the US. I don\'t know what the US figures were based on.
For example the UK report you quote takes into account crime that was not reported to the police. Did the US report take that into account?
]Yes, the report shows its methodology and method of estimating unreported crime as well as crime for agencies reporting less than 12 months of data, all the exceptions are listed by state with independent explanations of each.
Did you know the UK figures class some crimes where the victim received no injury at all as violent? Do the US figures include crimes where no injury was received and class them as \"violent\"?
Yes, they do, from the report: \"Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program\'s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force.\"
If you look at each definition of the four \"Violent Crimes\" you see that :\" Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of-or threat to use-a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.\"
For \"robbery\" : \"(UCR)...defines robbery as the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.\"
Again no injury necessary for reporting.
For the rape category:\"Assaults and attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included\"
Murder implies that the attack was fatal but: \"The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults. \"
So there you have it.
\"Just under half (49%) of all violent incidents reported to the BCS did not result in any injury to the victim. A similar proportion (47%) of all police recorded violence against the person in 2005/06 involved no injury.\"
So of all these \"violent crimes\" nearly 1/2 resulted in NO INJURY at all.
The US report may not include crime that that was not reported to the police. The US report may not class a crime where no injury was received as \"violent\". If this is the case then there is no way you can compare the two.
Nearly half the UK \"violent crime\" recorded resulted in no injury. Can the same be said for the US statistics?
As for the original thread topic I think I would find it fun to fire a gun in a safe situation. Would I want guns to be more available in the UK? No. [/quote
EDIT: @EvilDave, I have a \"jasper\" of my own, except he\'s a \"Lucky\" and very protective of \"his\" mommy and kids, and he\'s Big & Loud
philologus
Subgenius
Originally posted by Orb
Blimey, this thread has been interesting; virtually real time responses!......shame it\'s getting late here in the UK. I\'ll see where it\'s gone to by tomorrow. Nice one!
night all!
Sleep well Rob.
Another interesting point is the sheer landmass of the US.
As an example, My nearest neighbor is over 600 yards away. We have had to call the police for a wreck on the highway that we live off of,in which people were critically injured and it took over an hour for the paramedics, and the police to arrive.
So while, it may take 15 minutes or less for a police officer to respond to a serious threat in your home, it takes much longer for them to get to mine.
As an example, My nearest neighbor is over 600 yards away. We have had to call the police for a wreck on the highway that we live off of,in which people were critically injured and it took over an hour for the paramedics, and the police to arrive.
So while, it may take 15 minutes or less for a police officer to respond to a serious threat in your home, it takes much longer for them to get to mine.
Heh, when I was on the south side of Chicago, there were drive bys in which no-one bothered placing a call. In at least one instance, an individual was asked by the dispatcher if anyone had been hit. Since the answer was \'no,\' no car was sent.
On the Navajo reservation, response time was around 45 minutes in many areas, and most cops knew back-up wasn\'t an option. Before they started cross-deputizing with the state, there were instances in which police stood by and watched as crimes occured just over the border. Sure the right kind of cop was on the way and the one watching was actually taking down information; still it was a shitty situation. There wasn\'t enough jail space to put people away anyway (18 beds at one time for roughly 200,000 people), and with the combined effect of the Indian Civil Rights Act and a high rate of prosecution refusals by the FBI, the likelihood that anyone would be punished for any crime was very low. (...and I do mean any crime.)
@jondalar - I think the question you posed is interesting. Why do so many people want guns in the US? I would imagine the main reasons probably vary with location: urban areas - self defense/fear of crime, rural areas - hunting.
My father was raised in a rural area and has always had guns, mainly for hunting. Quite a few rifles, shotguns and a few pistols. He bought an Uzi (sp?) at a gun show simply because he was curious about how accurately it would fire (not very). He also has an old muzzle-loader. Because I grew up around guns, I am comfortable with them, and respect them as a potentially dangerous tool - just like you have to be careful with a chainsaw, drill, open flame, etc.
I suspect many people own and collect guns because they appreciate either their craftsmanship or historical value. Therefore hunters might collect old rifles even if they don\'t hunt with them, or military buffs might be interested in collecting assault rifles.
Another group would be those interested in marksmanship - they have developed a skill that they enjoy from competitive standpoint, and likely accumulate different types of guns for different types of shooting competitions.
I know this is off the main theme in the thread of gun violence, but I can see plenty of reasons why people want guns that do not involve hurting others or self-defense.
My father was raised in a rural area and has always had guns, mainly for hunting. Quite a few rifles, shotguns and a few pistols. He bought an Uzi (sp?) at a gun show simply because he was curious about how accurately it would fire (not very). He also has an old muzzle-loader. Because I grew up around guns, I am comfortable with them, and respect them as a potentially dangerous tool - just like you have to be careful with a chainsaw, drill, open flame, etc.
I suspect many people own and collect guns because they appreciate either their craftsmanship or historical value. Therefore hunters might collect old rifles even if they don\'t hunt with them, or military buffs might be interested in collecting assault rifles.
Another group would be those interested in marksmanship - they have developed a skill that they enjoy from competitive standpoint, and likely accumulate different types of guns for different types of shooting competitions.
I know this is off the main theme in the thread of gun violence, but I can see plenty of reasons why people want guns that do not involve hurting others or self-defense.
