Brits on Vegas shooting.

I've had many anti gun folks claim that concealed carry does not reduce the crime rate. I respond saying that it doesn't matter if it does or not. CCW allows me to protect myself, and is my RIGHT. Even if ultimately the private ownership of firearms increases gun crime it would not diminish the legal and moral right of an individual to defend themself and their family. Even if having guns in my home increases the chances of me having a gun related accident it does not preclude me from choosing to take that risk in return for what it does for me.
Click to expand...

You are yielding ground to them, and you are doing it for no reason.

There is no, none, nada evidence that CC has no impact on crime. In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true. States with easier access to guns have lower rates of violent crime. That is straight up FACT.

Stop allowing them to frame the argument.
 
I agree, and I do always argue that ccw is linked to reductions in crime, but then add that crime reduction is not a prerequisite for the 2nd Amendment. I usually add that I do not feel compelled to "justify" my exercise of my rights.
 
And it really ticks off the anti-gun people...
Click to expand...

Anything that ticks off an anti-gun person is probably a good thing in my book. And, I don't use the term "anti-gun" loosely as I consider non-gun people not to necessarily be antis. Non-anti-non-gun folks deserve our legitimate attention.
 
I really am sick to death of being lectured by the English about gun control.

They serially ignore the fact that the UK has a much, much higher rates of violent crime while telling us how violent we are in the US.
Click to expand...
Possibly but don't forget that America has a substantially higher murder rate than the UK. But I would not concern yourself to much what they think about America and firearms in the UK.

Murder rates cannot be conclusively compared, since the UK does not count a murder as a murder UNLESS THERE IS A CONVICTION:
Click to expand...
Sounds strange , how do they list and investigate unsolved murders if they are not listed as murders.
 
Last edited:
+1 Tom. Also...
ghbucky01 said:
States with easier access to guns have lower rates of violent crime. That is straight up FACT.
Click to expand...
The catch is that the states with stricter gun control laws tend to be very different demographically from the more lenient states. The causal relationship between gun availability and crime rates is very complex and difficult to establish. Additionally, the waters get even muddier if one examines INDIVIDUAL TYPES of violent crime, particularly those that involve a gun by definition (e.g. brandishing or deadly conduct). Some recent studies suggest that the rates of such crimes are higher in so-called pro-gun states, and that these rates have climbed in recent years, despite dropping rates of other crimes.

The problem with crime stats is that you can get them to say almost anything you want if you slice and dice the data in just the right way. :rolleyes: Furthermore, I believe that we, as gun-rights advocates, tend to focus too much on crime statistics, while neglecting the MORAL and PHILOSOPHICAL arguments for and against gun control.
 
Sounds strange , how do they list and investigate unsolved murders if they are not listed as murders.
Click to expand...

My post provided a link to the Home Office. I am quoting, verbatim, the home office.

The only way to compare homicide rates between the US and UK would be to compare per capita convictions. But, that becomes very problematic due to the length of time, etc etc.

I can find no way to compare homicide rates.

But, given the overall violence that occurs in the UK, do you really believe that murders are magically lower?
 
The catch is that the states with stricter gun control laws tend to be very different demographically from the more lenient states. The causal relationship between gun availability and crime rates is very complex and difficult to establish. Additionally, the waters get even muddier if one examines INDIVIDUAL TYPES of violent crime, particularly those that involve a gun by definition (e.g. brandishing or deadly conduct). Some recent studies suggest that the rates of such crimes are higher in so-called pro-gun states, and that these rates have climbed in recent years, despite dropping rates of other crimes.

The problem with crime stats is that you can get them to say almost anything you want if you slice and dice the data in just the right way. Furthermore, I believe that we, as gun-rights advocates, tend to focus too much on crime statistics, while neglecting the MORAL and PHILOSOPHICAL arguments for and against gun control.
Click to expand...

You are yielding the floor to the anti-gun debate on hard evidence that easier access to guns results in lower violent crime rates. MORAL and PHILOSOPHICAL arguments are opinions, not factual. You will never win that argument.

The problem with arguing facts is that they have been talked around to the point where we shy away from them because they have framed it as 'gun violence' and we let them. But that is a false narrative and framed intentionally to make guns look bad.

Violent crime is the measure and we should hold the ground there.

And the cold, hard statistical fact is that easier access to gun equals lower rates of violent crime.
 
From the article:
"While there is little evidence to suggest that carrying a concealed weapon increases (or decreases) crime, it unquestionably raises the likelihood of guns being brandished in public," writes Michael Cohen of the New York Daily News.
Click to expand...

Can someone enlighten me?
"unquestionably raises the likelihood"

How does Mr. Cohen go from point A (more guns are being carried concealed) to B (therefore more guns are being brandished in public)?
Wouldn't one have to (or at least be able to) dis/prove via empirical evidence that IF there were an increase in charges filed for ' brandishing in public' in all areas that allow CCW the increase over the normal amount of brandishing charges filed/unit of time came ONLY from CCWs? Isn't this what research is for? So you don't have to make squishy assumptions about results?

I recognize that this is an opinion piece, but I hate this pile of stink that journalism has been reduced. Even opinion pieces should do research or have banner under the title that says "This piece is un-researched and carries the equivalent weight of the opinion of the drunk bloke next to you at the pub rail."
 
But, given the overall violence that occurs in the UK, do you really believe that murders are magically lower?
Click to expand...
Every source I look at shows that the murder rate per 100,000 is higher in America.

My post provided a link to the Home Office. I am quoting, verbatim, the home office.
Click to expand...
Could you show the paragraph that says that unsolved murders are not included in up to date murder stats in the UK.

Its lower I would not say its magically lower in the UK.
 
Last edited:
ghbucky01 said:
There is no, none, nada evidence that CC has no impact on crime. In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true. States with easier access to guns have lower rates of violent crime. That is straight up FACT.
Click to expand...


Despite all evidence to the contrary? I'm not talking about some bogus study that counts gun laws without reading them for what they do. I'm talking about the hard numbers from the FBI and US Census bureau Super Strict Hawaii is 3rd. Super lax Vermont is 1st. Only 5 of the worst 15 are strict. Only 3 of the best 15 are strict. That's 8 of the "strict" 18 when you define strict as having at least one of the most 3 most common forms of gun control open to the States. That leaves 10 among the middle 21. This is not a ringing endorsement of absolutely either side's paradigm.
 
carguychris said:
I believe that we, as gun-rights advocates, tend to focus too much on crime statistics, while neglecting the MORAL and PHILOSOPHICAL arguments for and against gun control.
ghbucky01 said:
You are yielding the floor to the anti-gun debate on hard evidence that easier access to guns results in lower violent crime rates. MORAL and PHILOSOPHICAL arguments are opinions, not factual. You will never win that argument... The problem with arguing facts is that they have been talked around to the point where we shy away from them...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Whoa, slow down there, turbo! :rolleyes:

I didn't say that statistics are useless. I said that I think they've been overplayed.

You argue that we'll never win the moral and philosophical argument. Who here truly sounds like they're "yielding the floor"- me or you? :p

One of the undeniable fundamental truths that underlies all human debates is that statistics, science, and logic cannot always defeat empirical arguments.

Exhibit A: "Gun control has never worked because we've never earnestly tried it, by totally banning <fill in the blank>, under all circumstances, everywhere in the USA, no exceptions other than the military."

How do crime statistics address that argument? How do you prove that it won't work, or that it's not a good idea, solely using science and statistics?
 
Ah, the joys of trying to prove a negative...Tough to do..

And foolish to get into that debate.

and for foolish answers, there are many of them, too.

"Gun control never worked because we never tried it everywhere...etc..."

how about in prisons? Pretty strict gun control there. AND isolated from surrounding, more "permissive" states/districts, too!

Rates of gun violence (among inmates) is about zero. GO there, and be safe from "gun violence"!

From other violence?...not so much...
 
Actually, you are quite wrong about how the FBI reports "violent crime" and how different you think it is than in the UK in your post I quote:
Just a clarification, this much touted 'fact', first appearing in a Daily Mail article in 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html ignores the fact the violent crime is defined differently in the UK and the USA.

A closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K.

http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/t...violent-crime/

The FBI UCR states that, "violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

Then for England & Wales,
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
From pg 20 of the above link - The UK Government definition of Violent Crimes - “Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.” … whether or not there is any injury.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stat...
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, around a half of which involve no injury to the victim. “... that bears repeating as well, “around a half of which involve no injury to the victim”. “The latest police recorded violence figures show a reduction in volume of 7 per cent, down from 822,000 offences in 2010/11 to 763,000 offences in 2011/12.”. So around 385,000 violent offences in which the victim was injured. Still appalling, but nowhere near the figures generally being bandied about.

According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales for 2010/11, there was no injury in 51% of violent crime, and no weapon of any type was used in 79% of all violent crime.

There were also changes to methods of recording crime in England & Wales in 1998 & 2002/03...
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.u...

There was a change in recording methods in 1998 (NCRS), and again in 2002/03 which, again, makes it difficult to fairly compare data from either side of those dates.

The changes increased the crimes being recorded, "For many police forces, the introduction of the NCRS required a move to a more prima facie approach to crime recording, that is recording based more on the victim’s perception of a crime occurring rather than the police satisfying themselves that a crime had indeed taken place..


You will notice that in the UK If I say in a threatening manner "I'm going to punch you on the nose" I have committed a violent crime. In the US the punch has to land.

The original Daily Mail article was a set up to make Britain look bad so the Conservative Government could look good by improving the crime statistics.
Click to expand...
The FBI also includes threats as force. From the FBI's website:
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Click to expand...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime

So, just like in the UK, the mere threat to punch someone in the nose in order to steal from that person makes it a violent crime. Note also, that even the use of "force" does not mean deadly force. For example, a purse snatcher grabs a woman's purse but she doesn't easily let go and falls to the ground. That's actual force. "Forcible" rape only requires the threat of force.
 
But, given the overall violence that occurs in the UK, do you really believe that murders are magically lower?
Every source I look at shows that the murder rate per 100,000 is higher in America.

Quote:
My post provided a link to the Home Office. I am quoting, verbatim, the home office.
Could you show the paragraph that says that unsolved murders are not included in up to date murder stats in the UK.

Its lower I would not say its magically lower in the UK.
Click to expand...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

"Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise."
Click to expand...

You cannot compare UK homicide rates with the US. You have to compare murder Conviction rates.
 
manta49
Possibly but don't forget that America has a substantially higher murder rate than the UK. But I would not concern yourself to much what they think about America and firearms in the UK.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes but, how many of us are here? How many of you are there? People move around the globe more now than ever. AND the people that do, tend to be people with money and opinions. Don't think that opinion in the U.K. does not impact the bigger picture here.

It's not about where there is more violent crime, or where there are more gun problems per capita. Global politics is an industry that effects us all. As shoddy as that piece of jurno' is, it's on the BBC. It's the goddamned BBC, and is heard around the world. It's not like CNN, Fox etc. It's very unfortunate.

-SS-
 
JimDandy,

I'll confess that I have no idea what your point is here:

Despite all evidence to the contrary? I'm not talking about some bogus study that counts gun laws without reading them for what they do. I'm talking about the hard numbers from the FBI and US Census bureau Super Strict Hawaii is 3rd. Super lax Vermont is 1st. Only 5 of the worst 15 are strict. Only 3 of the best 15 are strict. That's 8 of the "strict" 18 when you define strict as having at least one of the most 3 most common forms of gun control open to the States. That leaves 10 among the middle 21. This is not a ringing endorsement of absolutely either side's paradigm.
Click to expand...
 
"Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise."
Click to expand...
Look up what ever statistics you want and form whatever source they were collected, and you will find that America has a higher murder rate than the UK. I will be happy to look at statistics that say different if you post them. What people take from that is up to them.
 
I've often wondered how I'd be perceived if I strutted around London wearing an NRA cap and a T-Shirt that said "PROTECTED BY SMITH AND WESSON (post Tomkins, PLC)" handing out pro-gun literature and NRA patches to folks on the street.
Click to expand...

We don't have to wonder how a brit would be treated, handing out gun control literature and paraphernalia.

As Jennifer Longdon steered her wheelchair through the Indianapolis airport on April 25, she thought the roughest part of her trip was over. Earlier that day she'd participated in an emotional press conference with the new group Everytown for Gun Safety, against the backdrop of the National Rifle Association's annual meeting. A mom, gun owner, and Second Amendment supporter, Longdon was paralyzed in 2004 after being shot in her car by unknown assailants, and has since been a vocal advocate for comprehensive background checks and other gun reforms.

As Longdon sat waiting for her flight, a screen in the concourse showed footage of the press conference. A tall, thin man standing nearby stared at Longdon, then back at the screen. Then he walked up to Longdon and spat in her face.
Click to expand...

I suspect our imaginary British pamphleteer would receive worse treatment in the more conservative sections of Texas or Alabama for example.
 
I suspect our imaginary British pamphleteer would receive worse treatment in the more conservative sections of Texas or Alabama for example.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but Longdon has no evidence to corroborate her story, and like other claims of hers, it appears to be false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top