[noname]

what if, instead of greater caution, criminals switch to more aggresive tactics (like they already do in places where the certainty of confronting an armed person are high, caracas and bogota for example) like shoot/disable first, commit crime later????

A lot of crimes that turn violent (burglary, theft etc,) start out as crimes of opportunity. The majority of stats on the issue in the U.S. support the supposition that increasing a citizens legal ability to defend themselves decreases the rate of those crimes. (Unless you're from new Orleans, then ou're just farked)

 

[Silver]

THe point I was making is that murder rates are not indicitive of the enfectiveness or lack there of when analizing gun control laws.
Trying to simply use murder rates as an indicator is a moot point as it is ineffective and meaningless.
What to have a little fun, take the overall murder rates from all these countries and break them down by demographics. Age, race, income, education, you'd see that by demographic most western nations get a lot closer, especially the gap between the U.S. and Canada.

Source?

 

[noname]

Source?

IF I was at home with access to all my books you'd quickly get one. Guess you'll have to wait till then.

 

[DaveW]

Moot point. The biggest advocacy point of pro gun lobbyists is that not knowing who is armed and who isn't will incur greater levels of caution in criminals, making them less willing to openly confront their victims. Thus reducing the likelyhood of a violent confrontation.

Ocams razor at work again....... Or making the criminal more likely to arm them selves, which in turn makes it more likely that someone will die....personaly I'd rather get beaten up than shot.

 

[DaveW]

oh, beaten while posting.

DOH! ....Ditto.

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

I'm not talking about crime rates. I'm talking about murder rates.

The levels of assault per capita are higher in New Zealand. Why is the NZ murder rate so much lower per capita?

Because they have Changleen! Sorry, I had to.

 

[MikeD]

Even I have been sucked into it...a discussion about the actual second amendment becomes an argument about guns, in which everyone tries to support their emotions with statistics. Although it can't be a failure as an experiment, I'm sort of disappointed that no one has engaged the Constitutional argument except in passing...

 

[Transcend]

Pussify the men,take the guns away,raise taxes,implant micro-chips,total control of the people,ban this ban that,etc..
Sounds scary ......Sounds like commie left wing crap to me ..!

(( Must read this website ))

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

There will be a great huge revolution if the United States government or U.N or anyone tries to take firearms away from us.

Well, with a response like that I guess we can't ignore that logic!

 

[MikeD]

U.N or anyone

The UN? HAHAHAHAAAHAHHHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaahhhAHHAHHAHAHAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhahahahahhaaa ... ah... ahhhh...hheeeehhh eh eh heh heh.

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

The UN? HAHAHAHAAAHAHHHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaahhhAHHAHHAHAHAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhahahahahhaaa ... ah... ahhhh...hheeeehhh eh eh heh heh.

Hey, I'm not sold that the UN would try it either, but s*it like the Kyoto Protocol is a step in that direction. We give an inch they will try and take a mile.

 

[DaveW]

WOW! go the tin hat brigade!

Anyone who thinks the UN would ever be interested in doing that is in need of a padded cell! :looney:

 

[Changleen]

Hey, I'm not sold that the UN would try it either, but s*it like the Kyoto Protocol is a step in that direction. We give an inch they will try and take a mile.

You have mental problems. Seriously. I think you should go and see a doctor. You may have some sort of condition.

 

[bjanga]

So. Regarding the second amendment . . . who constitutes a militiaman in 2006? Anyone?

 

[DaveW]

Personaly I would have said when they wrote it that the Militia were what we now call the police?

But thats just a guess on my part.

 

[bjanga]

How cozy is a militia with the government, though?

 

[MikeD]

So. Regarding the second amendment . . . who constitutes a militiaman in 2006? Anyone?

National Guard is the closest thing we have...force composed of local part-timers, under control of the state gov't, whose functions are 1) final defense of the locality in case of invasion and 2) enforcing peace in times of disturbance.

Only thing is that this 'state' militia is ultimately a part of a federal structure, which sort of defeats the original point of ensuring the fed. stays off the people's backs. However, like we said, times do change...I don't think we're in imminent danger of slipping back to monarchy or allegiance to a foreign power anytime soon, so I guess it doesn't seem as important to us now.

 

[Changleen]

or allegiance to a foreign power

Not so sure about that one...

 

[Transcend]

Hey, I'm not sold that the UN would try it either, but s*it like the Kyoto Protocol is a step in that direction. We give an inch they will try and take a mile.

Holy Christ, please do some research before you spout off at the mouth.

Factories need to pollute less; oh no they are going to take our guns away!

 

[alwaysbroncin19]

Holy Christ, please do some research before you spout off at the mouth.

Factories need to pollute less; oh no they are going to take our guns away!

Read my post....it's a step in that direction and you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Changleen]

Read my post....it's a step in that direction and you know what I'm talking about.

In the direction where you have to think about the needs of other people on the planet, and maybe even the future? Damn you suck soooo much.