Woohoo, Uzi's are legal again!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 13 2004, 06:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 13 2004, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 05:58 PM
I think we're on the same page. I said "some would argue" that if you took guns out of the picture, actual incidents might remain the same - since the motivation would be there, whether a planned murder or a dispute at a traffic light - but the death rate might actually fall quite a bit.

As an example, instead of reaching into the glove box for your pistol to settle a traffic dispute, you might simply have a fist fight.

Cowperson

Right, I hear what you're saying. Though I'd assume that even violent conflicts might go down, as quite often a gun could be compensating for cowardice. Anyone ever watch "Swingers"? When one of the main character's 'posse' is shoulder-bumped by another guy in a parking lot, a shouting match ensues. The 'posse' member easily wins the argument by whipping out his gun and waving it in the other 'posse's faces. I've a feeling that that type of situation, especially among younger males, is a pretty common occurence, to prevent someone from 'fronting' you or whatever lingo kids use. If the guy hadn't had a gun, it seems doubtful that he would've had the guts to even open his mouth, let alone fight or stab the guy.

I guess the next step would be to see how many violent actions per capita there are in the UK, and compare that w/ the US. If the UK's is similar in occurences, than we can suggest gun violence would be replaced by other types. If violence in the UK occurs less, per capita, then I'd assume guns are probably a decent part of the problem (but not all, got to be some cultural stuff there too). [/b][/quote]
Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, the incidence of vilent crime in the UK has recently surpassed that of the USA.

There was a point, I think about eight or ten years ago, where the murder rate in Seattle was five times that of Vancouver, cities only 100 miles apart but in different worlds.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 13 2004, 12:15 PM

In terms of guns, my take is that the number of intentional murders would not change substantially if guns are taken out of the equation. However, accidental killings would fall dramatically b/c the lethality of accidents would be much lower.

As a registered amateur internet psychologist, I'm going to have to disagree with that.

Like Cowperson said, instead of reaching for your pistol you have a fistfight. It takes a long time to kill someone with your bare hands. Most people would stop long before it gets to murder. If you have a gun in your hand, it doesn't take long.

To take it one step further -- maybe a lot of people wouldn't even pull over if they didn't have the gun.

[Lurch]

Like Cowperson said, instead of reaching for your pistol you have a fistfight. It takes a long time to kill someone with your bare hands. Most people would stop long before it gets to murder. If you have a gun in your hand, it doesn't take long.

You are making a pretty big assumption that the guy that today carries a gun doesn't switch to a knife, baseball bat or illegal gun. I don't know, but I would guess the number of people who carry a legal and registered gun in their glove box, pull it out and shoot somebody over a blown left turn comprises a tiny number of murders. Further, you believe that these people will not choose to behave in the same manner but with a different weapon.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 13 2004, 12:29 PM
To take it one step further -- maybe a lot of people wouldn't even pull over if they didn't have the gun.

I'd like to post some disagreement with that one: If *nobody* had a gun in their glove box, it's a lot more likely that I would pull over and/or give out a lot more middle fingers...

The possibility of the next nutjob having a gun in his car is what keeps me from being a lot more "expressive" driver.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 13 2004, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 13 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Right, I hear what you're saying. Though I'd assume that even violent conflicts might go down, as quite often a gun could be compensating for cowardice. Anyone ever watch "Swingers"? When one of the main character's 'posse' is shoulder-bumped by another guy in a parking lot, a shouting match ensues. The 'posse' member easily wins the argument by whipping out his gun and waving it in the other 'posse's faces. I've a feeling that that type of situation, especially among younger males, is a pretty common occurence, to prevent someone from 'fronting' you or whatever lingo kids use. If the guy hadn't had a gun, it seems doubtful that he would've had the guts to even open his mouth, let alone fight or stab the guy.

I guess the next step would be to see how many violent actions per capita there are in the UK, and compare that w/ the US. If the UK's is similar in occurences, than we can suggest gun violence would be replaced by other types. If violence in the UK occurs less, per capita, then I'd assume guns are probably a decent part of the problem (but not all, got to be some cultural stuff there too).

Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, the incidence of vilent crime in the UK has recently surpassed that of the USA.

There was a point, I think about eight or ten years ago, where the murder rate in Seattle was five times that of Vancouver, cities only 100 miles apart but in different worlds.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Cow I wouldn't be making any Comparisons between the USA and the UK. Because regular police officers do NOT carry guns, I would say that makes a HUGE difference in the crime rate.

Too many times raids in the UK end up with a police officer dead or wounded because they got knifed.

[RougeUnderoos]

True true but the point is it takes just a few seconds to kill someone with a gun. If it's an "anger" thing, which I assume lots of murders are, someone with a baseball bat, knife or there bare hands might have a second or two to realize what they are doing. Also, people can defend themselves better against a baseball bat or a knife.

Yes I do believe that these people will not choose to behave in the same manner but with a different weapon. You don't? Having a gun as opposed to a knife or a bat tilts the odds pretty good and likely makes certain people much more aggressive/confident than they normally would be.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 13 2004, 06:45 PM

You are making a pretty big assumption that the guy that today carries a gun doesn't switch to a knife, baseball bat or illegal gun. I don't know, but I would guess the number of people who carry a legal and registered gun in their glove box, pull it out and shoot somebody over a blown left turn comprises a tiny number of murders. Further, you believe that these people will not choose to behave in the same manner but with a different weapon.

The blown left tire scenario was simply illustrative of "crimes of passion" or a crime committed without premeditation.

This may prove my theory wrong:

Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this has accounted for a murder rate lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada (www.canadianfirearms.com/Research/canus_en.html). However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5% (www.guntruths.com/Myths/safer.htm). US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 -- at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun ( www.amfire.com/afistatistics/homicides.html). Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time -- and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10).

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 13 2004, 06:54 PM
Cow I wouldn't be making any Comparisons between the USA and the UK. Because regular police officers do NOT carry guns, I would say that makes a HUGE difference in the crime rate.

Too many times raids in the UK end up with a police officer dead or wounded because they got knifed.

Well, I made the comparison, but the very point in making it was that IF there is a different in rates of violence between UK and US, THEN it could be said that guns are a contributing factor to this difference. In that way, it makes perfect sense to compare the US to the UK. The very fact that cops don't carry guns (as well as them being illegal) makes the comparison legit (well... mostly... there are always other confounding factors).

[FlamesAddiction]

Guns make it way too easy for people to kill someone on a whim. To stab someone to death takes a lot of effort, and there is also some danger to the person with the knife because it requires such close range. You would really have to hate someone to kill someone in such a personal way.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 06:56 PM
The blown left tire scenario was simply illustrative of "crimes of passion" or a crime committed without premeditation.

This may prove my theory wrong:

Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this has accounted for a murder rate lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada (www.canadianfirearms.com/Research/canus_en.html). However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5% (www.guntruths.com/Myths/safer.htm). US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 -- at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun ( www.amfire.com/afistatistics/homicides.html). Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time -- and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10).

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

Cowperson

The only issue I have w/ this statistic is that it is very susceptible to confounding factors. It could be that gang violence and the mob wacked a lot of people in the 1970's, but tapered off through the 1990's, while other types of gun violence rose to compensate, evening the percentage. I'm not saying this is what happened, but there are SO many other factors (the state of the economy, race tensions, wartime, peacetime, all kinds of demographic shifts). To say that there are more guns on the streets, but the same amount of gun deaths, could be ignoring or not taking into account a lot of other things.

That stat doesn't necessarily tell me that guns 'aren't' the problem, so much as that there's been some success in controlling the amount of shooting deaths from 'mortifying' to simply 'reprehensible', in relation to the rising # of total guns in society.