Giffords Shooting

[rigney]

Homicide rates in GB were 1.28/100K and 5/ in the US. To indicate the means of homicide is in itself disingenuous. I would also suggest there are many factors involved, including record keeping, gang influence, demographics and cultural. India for the record is 2.8. Israel 2.4, South Korea 2.3, Canada 1.81 and Egypt by the way .8/100K.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

Realistically, there should be no firearm homicide's in either England or Australia. Guns have been banned in both of those countries for several years. Thought I'd just toss that in to rationalize what we're talking about.

 

Gun Control In U.K., Australia and Brazil

Jim Butler

President, SCRA

The experiences of the United Kingdom and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give American gun control activists pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Since 1997, serious violent crime has increased by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the handgun ban, armed robberies had went down by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as the ban went into effect, the robbery rate shot back up, almost to 1993 levels. Criminals who still had their guns now had the advantage over their unarmed victims.

When Australia's 1996 gun regulation went into effect the result was similar to the United Kingdom. Crime rates have averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. Armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.Recently Brazil citizens defeated a U.N. sponsored referendum to ban guns in their country by an almost two-to-one vote.

The Brazilians had seen the futility of progressively stricter gun control laws in their country which simply tilted the balance of power in favor of criminals. Brazil murder rates had risen every year from 1992 to 2002 as these progressively strict gun control laws took effect.

Compare these dismal crime rates in England, Australia and Brazil to the United States which has gone in the opposite direction by passing "right-to-carry laws" in almost all of our states. Not surprising, the murder rate has dropped in those states that have allowed law-abiding citizens to arm themselves. llinois and Wisconsin are the only states left in America that don't have some form of concealed carry laws.

Jim Butler's Commentaries

Sangamon County Rifle Association Home Page

 

England and Australia have a combined population of roughly 72,000,000 people. Heck, We have that many people jammed together in cities like New York, Chicago, Dallas, L.A. Detroit and three or four more that I can't remember.

Edited February 7, 2011 by rigney

[padren]

I think we need to break down a few variables and really get into the guts of the specifics when it comes to types of gun violence:

 

1) When we talk about some guy taking a concealed weapon into a building and robbing it at gun point, we often talk about how easy it is in some places to get concealed weapons - but how many people with concealed weapon permits (where required) are actually committing the crimes that involve concealed weapons? It's like trying to "get tough" on drunk drivers by lowering the legal B/A limit to drive, while ignoring the fact that the people who are breaking the law are already drinking and driving over the current limits, and just not getting caught until they t-bone someone.

 

2) There are many times of crimes and gun violence: We have:

A) Crimes of passion, which involve generally spontaneous reactions in which the immediate availability of a firearm allows a violent gun crime/act to take place. Usually these are carried out without planning or often forethought to the consequences of getting caught. They include domestic disputes that turn into murders or murder/suicides, escalated arguments that turn violent, and generally poor impulse control that fails to account for the consequences of the action. It's worth noting that increased punishment can't be expected as a viable deterrent for these sorts of crimes, as they occur when people are blinded by some sort of emotion and not thinking rationally.

 

B) Net-gain crimes, designed to increase how much wealth a person has compared to the day before. These are planned, weapons are chosen based on availability and liability of being caught while in possession of one, but it's also much easier to adapt to legal loopholes and at least obtain whatever is desired, for a cost that escalates depending on how well laws work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A huge amount of gang related gun violence is carried out (I assume, correct me if I am wrong) by people who are felons and don't have any legal right to carry a gun - they just live in areas where they are not likely to be arrested (thus, current laws enforcement issue), or otherwise skirt the law.

 

C) Lastly, we have gun violence that is accidental, where kids get their parents' guns, or adults shoot each other while hunting, or accidentally while cleaning. Since some of these accidents involve victims who do not own guns, it's worth noting that they end up suffering as a result of those who do want to own guns. I am not saying that justifies banning guns - just that it's worth noting that there are other, non-criminal means by which people end up the victim of gunshot injuries.

 

 

 

If we want to analyze the Gifford case, we have to accept that no increase in punishment would have dissuaded this guy, as he appeared to be entirely committed without concern for personal safety or circumstance. It sounds like he expected to suicide by cop, from his "farewell" sounding final messages he posted online.

 

The next question is: did he buy the gun while acting all fruit-loops, or did he hold it together well enough to appear as stable as any other law abiding citizen while acquiring the gun he used? He apparently had no trouble buying the weapon, ran into trouble buying ammunition at the first Walmart he tried (for behaving oddly), but had no trouble at the second.

 

So what could have been done differently? I suppose in this case, had the first Walmart reported his behavior and concerns to the police, it could have been prevented, but how often can Walmart employees be expected to make that call correctly? They aren't generally known to possess psych degrees, and could create a lot of potential issues if every false hit was followed up on.

 

 

All in all if we are reacting to this event as the impetus for a gun control regulation debate, it would be nice to know what new gun laws would have done in this case. Requiring concealed weapon permits would only have had an impact on the off chance he was stopped by an officer while concealing it - highly improbable. He passed all the standard requirements for purchasing the gun, but showed no red flags that would prevent him from completing the purchase. I can see how improved mental health laws would have made a difference, but without more data on him being available at the time how could any change to laws regarding the purchasing process have helped prevent this?

 

The only way to prevent this (with different gun laws), is if he tried and failed to buy a gun (or couldn't afford one) and got distracted/arrested for something else before acquiring one illegally.

 

Or am I missing something here?

 

 

 

Overall, I am fine with the general discussion on gun laws, but I want to be clear when we are talking about laws that respond to the Gifford case, and laws that are "just good" that people have kicked around for years, but don't apply specifically to the case. Within the broader discussion, I think it's worth while to pinpoint what the aim of proposed legislation or (highlighted existing regional legislation) is, in terms of how it is designed to impact types 1, 2 or 3 of gun violence. When we conflate all gun violence into a single messy ball, even the statistics become meaningless. The statistics for inner city gang members who illegally possess illegally obtained firearms despite felony records are meaningful, but they don't tell us the story when it comes to the full range of gun violence, etc and only skew it when the statistics are blindly combined with any given type of gun violence we are trying to discuss and debate specifically.

[swansont]

Realistically, there should be no firearm homicide's in either England or Australia. Guns have been banned in both of those countries for several years. Thought I'd just toss that in to rationalize what we're talking about.

 

Ideally, yes. Realistically? No, I don't think so. Why do you think that is a realistic result?

 

Gun Control In U.K., Australia and Brazil

Jim Butler

President, SCRA

The experiences of the United Kingdom and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give American gun control activists pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Since 1997, serious violent crime has increased by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the handgun ban, armed robberies had went down by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as the ban went into effect, the robbery rate shot back up, almost to 1993 levels. Criminals who still had their guns now had the advantage over their unarmed victims.

When Australia's 1996 gun regulation went into effect the result was similar to the United Kingdom. Crime rates have averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. Armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.Recently Brazil citizens defeated a U.N. sponsored referendum to ban guns in their country by an almost two-to-one vote.

The Brazilians had seen the futility of progressively stricter gun control laws in their country which simply tilted the balance of power in favor of criminals. Brazil murder rates had risen every year from 1992 to 2002 as these progressively strict gun control laws took effect.

Compare these dismal crime rates in England, Australia and Brazil to the United States which has gone in the opposite direction by passing "right-to-carry laws" in almost all of our states. Not surprising, the murder rate has dropped in those states that have allowed law-abiding citizens to arm themselves. llinois and Wisconsin are the only states left in America that don't have some form of concealed carry laws.

Jim Butler's Commentaries

Sangamon County Rifle Association Home Page

 

England and Australia have a combined population of roughly 72,000,000 people. Heck, We have that many people jammed together in cities like New York, Chicago, Dallas, L.A. Detroit and three or four more that I can't remember.

 

 

We were talking about deaths. Citing robbery statistics is moving the goalposts, and you haven't cited any statistics regarding murder rates.

 

edit: in 1998 shall-issue states had a higher death rates than may-issue states, according to FBI statistics http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_rtcstates.html

But, as the Cap'n has already pointed out, owing to the lack of detailed study, these simple statistical comparisons don't mean very much.

[rigney]

#178 Today, 05:48 AM swansont

We were talking about deaths. Citing robbery statistics is moving the goalposts, and you haven't cited any statistics regarding murder rates.

 

Don't know how Australia fits in, but I believe the following referred to the U.K. alone.

Since 1997, serious violent crime has increased by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the handgun ban, armed robberies had went down by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as the ban went into effect, the robbery rate shot back up, almost to 1993 levels. Criminals who still had their guns now had the advantage over their unarmed victims.

 

Here are a couple links that likely won't do too much good.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000055.html

Edited February 7, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Rigney

 

Here are the figures for UK Homicide by Firearms

 

1990 60

1991 55

1992 56

1993 74

1994 66

1995 70

1996 49

1997 59

1998 54

1999 49

2000 62

2001 73

2002 97

2003 81

2004 68

2005 77

2006 50

2007 59

2008 53

2009 41

 

Your quoted source is picking and choosing his years and crimes - if I could post a table I would, but here is a link. http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-01940.pdf

 

There is no doubt the UK had a surge in guncrime in the late 90s early 00s - but today it seems to be back to the levels of the early 90s.

[swansont]

 

There is no doubt the UK had a surge in guncrime in the late 90s early 00s - but today it seems to be back to the levels of the early 90s.

 

Which, absent any relaxation of the gun laws, means that other factors affect crime rates, too. So simple statistics don't let us draw any valid conclusions.

[jackson33]

rigney; I understood your point and agree that if "Gun Laws" WERE effective, logically there should be no homicides in Countries with strong, enforced law.

 

swansont; I also understand your simply debating for stronger gun laws, which I rarely get involved with. Personally, I've never owned a gun, yet have been in public business all my life and the only guns I've ever handled were while in the Air Force.

 

What I was replying to was your play on words, to emphasize your debate. "Fifty times the death rate in the US, compared to England" is disingenuous to the discussion of deaths classified homicides or the value of gun laws. There have been studies done in the US, indicating where Gun Laws are relaxed, crime rates go down or where more strict laws are enforced crime and murder rates increase, Washington DC and Chicago come to mind.

 

Additionally trying to compare US statistics to those of other Countries, will always get me riled, whether it's gun law, Health Care,... or in fact in the US between States or Cities.

 

 

 

imatfaal; I'm not familiar with the "Daily Mail", maybe you are, but is there something missing in there 2009 understanding...

 

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

 

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

 

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

 

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France. [/Quote]

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1DICEMbR4

[rigney]

Jackson, most; if not all of us tend to forget devestation and want, unless we are in that position". Picked this off the internet just a few moments ago totally by accident. The Nile and Congo Rivers both ran red with hate and moral depravity in the nineties due to not understanding the other fellows view. I'll not try explaining this horror, other than to say it can come again, and for no other reason than that which is described here. I doubt if there were five thousand firearms in the whole massacre, but the bloodshed was incredible. Where does a "Mean Street" begin, and does it ever end? Hutu/Tutsi, North/South? Left/Right? Think about it!

 

http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/case_studies/rwandan_genocide.jsp?nid=6815

 

Preparations for the genocidal mass murder was well organized by the government.[10] When it started, the Rwandan militia numbered around 30,000, or one militia member for every ten families. It was organized nationwide, with representatives in every neighborhood. Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms. Other weapons, such as grenades, required no paperwork and were widely distributed by the government. Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes. Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because at the time, machetes were cheaper than guns.[11]

 

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm

Edited February 7, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Jackson - I am familiar with the Daily Mail. To give you a USA based analogy - posting The Daily Mail as a source for data is probably not far from an American citing the National Enquirer; their stories are not quite as ludicrous and they pretend to be serious journalists, but there reputation of mincing up data and printing lies and half-truths is awful.

 

My statistics were merely provided to show that picking and choosing a particular crime and time range can totally distort the facts - you will note that I made no conclusion or comparison apart from the UK gun-homicide rate.

 

Just out of curiosity are you able to provide a schedule of the gun homicides within the USA for last 20 years or so - this http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita table seems to suggest that for death by gun at least the daily mail is a long way off the mark (note this is murders not homicides)

[swansont]

swansont; I also understand your simply debating for stronger gun laws, which I rarely get involved with. Personally, I've never owned a gun, yet have been in public business all my life and the only guns I've ever handled were while in the Air Force.

 

I'm not, actually. I'm trying to point out that there are flawed arguments being made, and statistics are being massaged to make points that the data don't actually support. A debate based on misinformation isn't an honest debate.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53939-giffords-shooting/page__st__140__p__584226#entry584226

[Mr Skeptic]

rigney; I understood your point and agree that if "Gun Laws" WERE effective, logically there should be no homicides in Countries with strong, enforced law.

 

That makes as much sense as saying if "Rape Laws" WERE effective, logically there should be no sexual harassment in Countries with strong, enforced law. Not only are some homicides not done with guns, but laws do not have to be 100% effective to be useful, strong, nor enforced. It is enough that the law reduces the target activities enough so to overcome the social and economic costs of enforcement.

[jackson33]

Jackson, most; if not all of us tend to forget devestation and want, unless it is us who are in that position". Picked this off the internet just a few moments ago totally by accident. The Nile and Congo, both ran red with hate and moral depravity in the nineties due to not understanding the other fellows peril. I'll not try explaining this horror, other than to say it can come again and for no other reason than what is explained here. I doubt if there were five thousand guns in the whole massacre, but the bloodshed was incredible. Where does a "Mean Street begin, and where does it end?[/Quote]

 

Yes rigney, I recall it well and have often wondered if there was truly a way to shut down tyrannical actions by Governments or in some cases simply bad groups of people. Whether you believe 5 million or more Jewish folks died, the Holocaust was certainly one of the worst and not one firearm was used. Today tens of thousands of people are being killed each year in Mexico (have extremely strict gun laws) and primarily by gun fire. In Iraq and many other places with far different attitudes on Guns, people are killed by various incendiary devises, hundreds of thousands in Iraq and three thousand on 9-11 in the US.

 

 

Jackson - I am familiar with the Daily Mail. To give you a USA based analogy - posting The Daily Mail as a source for data is probably not far from an American citing the National Enquirer; their stories are not quite as ludicrous and they pretend to be serious journalists, but there reputation of mincing up data and printing lies and half-truths is awful. [/Quote]

 

imatfaal; I kind of figured the DM, might be what we call tabloid journalism, but it does pop up as an occasional source and yes I did note you made no summations.

 

 

Just out of curiosity are you able to provide a schedule of the gun homicides within the USA for last 20 years or so - this http://www.nationmas...arms-per-capita table seems to suggest that for death by gun at least the daily mail is a long way off the mark (note this is murders not homicides) [/Quote]

 

Yes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

But your forcing me to mention demographics. While Homicides are down over the past few years and crime overall, in certain locations it's not. Your welcome to make your own conclusions.

 

 

I'm not, actually. I'm trying to point out that there are flawed arguments being made, and statistics are being massaged to make points that the data don't actually support. A debate based on misinformation isn't an honest debate.[/Quote]

 

 

swansont; Are you then saying, criminals will abide by "gun laws"? I don't think so and removing guns from the general public will only increase violence on THEM. We don't all walk around with guns or have guns in our pick-up gun rack, but in Arizona, Florida, Alaska, the criminal element will be concerned, WE MIGHT.

 

Research indicates that cities which adopt these right-to-carry laws have a lower incidence of crime. Florida is participating in that study. According to an ILA report:

 

Florida continues to be the anti-gunners’ least favorite "carry" state. Its homicide rate has dropped 34.4% since right-to-carry became law. The rate for Florida’s 10 largest cities as a group has dropped 29.7%, the largest decreases occurring primarily in cities that had the worst homicide rates before right-to-carry became law.

Showing the deterrent effect that carry laws have on crime, Florida’s 10 largest cities all reported decreases in robbery between 1987 and 1996. While the state’s robbery rate has decreased 18.9%, the rate for the 10 cities as a group has decreased 19.1%. The single largest decrease , 34.3%, is reported by Jacksonville, the state’s most populous city[/Quote]

 

http://www.liberator.net/articles/guncontrol.html

 

This is an older report and I realize locking up criminals doesn't also effect crime rates, however anecdotally there are many such surveys.

 

Skeptic; That's what we are saying....

[rigney]

That makes as much sense as saying if "Rape Laws" WERE effective, logically there should be no sexual harassment in Countries with strong, enforced law. Not only are some homicides not done with guns, but laws do not have to be 100% effective to be useful, strong, nor enforced. It is enough that the law reduces the target activities enough so to overcome the social and economic costs of enforcement.

 

No!, Jackson was only saying that all of our laws need to be inforced. No statute is worth a plug nickel unless it is fulfilled to the letter. So, the problem is; while our prison systems are overflowing with a criminal element and attorneys doing a lucrative business defending them, there is no need for the AFL, CIO, or UAW unions to break our backs. We are going broke defending the criminal and his defenders. There was a time when laws made sense. "Of Mice and Men" comes to mind. Sane or insane, you can't hide behind either plea, but you can hide behind the ignorance of people who allow such shams to continue. Edited February 7, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

Yes rigney, I recall it well and have often wondered if there was truly a way to shut down tyrannical actions by Governments or in some cases simply bad groups of people. Whether you believe 5 million or more Jewish folks died, the Holocaust was certainly one of the worst and not one firearm was used.

(emphasis aded)

 

OMG, seriously?

 

http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/massedrapsmetoder.asp

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1942graebe.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_jews.html

[rigney]

(emphasis aded)

 

OMG, seriously?

 

http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/massedrapsmetoder.asp

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1942graebe.html

http://www.gendercide.org/case_jews.html

 

Must say that I have to agree with swansont' this time. Only reason the Nazi's stoppd shooting, gas was much cheaper. A couple hundred Jews, Slavs, Poles, or whomever in a well sealed room, three or four canisters of "Sarin" down the chimney, and 'Volare", it was off to the crematoriums. Beats hell out of a machete though, I would think? Edited February 7, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

swansont, it didn't occur to me to distinguish between "Concentration and Extermination Camps" and renegades said to be wasting bullets, in what should have been an obvious point, mankind's inhumanity to themselves. It's a little difficult to read, but here is a good general review of the Holocaust and it wasn't all Jewish, that were gassed.

 

The Nazis built six extermination camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, and Majdanek. (Auschwitz and Majdanek were both concentration and extermination camps.)

 

Prisoners transported to these extermination camps were told to undress to take a shower. Rather than a shower, the prisoners were herded into gas chambers and killed. (At Chelmno, the prisoners were herded into gas vans instead of gas chambers.)

 

Auschwitz was the largest concentration and extermination camp built. It is estimated that 1.1 million people were killed at Auschwitz. [/Quote]

 

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/holocaustfacts.htm

 

 

 

rigney; The Germans also did not want a revolt on their hands, especially after the war started in 1939....It's said, most those boarding trains heading for extermination, thought they were going someplace safe.

[rigney]

swansont, it didn't occur to me to distinguish between "Concentration and Extermination Camps" and renegades said to be wasting bullets, in what should have been an obvious point, mankind's inhumanity to themselves. It's a little difficult to read, but here is a good general review of the Holocaust and it wasn't all Jewish, that were gassed.

 

 

 

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/holocaustfacts.htm

 

 

 

rigney; The Germans also did not want a revolt on their hands, especially after the war started in 1939....It's said, most those boarding trains heading for extermination, thought they were going someplace safe.

 

After their starvation, deprivation and squlor, most of them had to believe that somewhere there must be a heaven. Edited February 8, 2011 by rigney

[rigney]

Some very good Giffors news!!

 

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3041426/vp/41596511/#41575890