US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
which means he adds a demographic group to apolyton.

So now we're up to what, two?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Please give some sort of reference because this stat is in direct contradiction to the FBI and US Govt stats I quoted.



Well these stats look a little biased because:

A: the only country excluded from the study was the only area allowed to possess guns (Northern Ireland) Ironically Northern Ireland has a lower crime rate than the countries with gun control that he chose to include.

B: Then he took countries where only criminals have guns. Then he was able to co relate gun ownership with crime. Well if it is a crime to own a gun, every gun owner is a criminal.

WHICH IS MY POINT EXACTLY.

If only criminals own guns the more guns there are the worse it is.

If law abiding citizens, who pass a training course are allowed to own guns the crime rate will go down as a higher pct of gun owners are law abiding trained gun owners.

Maybe you should cite a study that has something to do with what we are discussing.



Once again you try and compare the US to Canada as if the two were the same. For that fact you might as well compare Idaho to New York City. How about this stat. There are probably more police in New York City per person than in Idaho per person. By your logic if the crime rate was higher in NYC than Idaho you would argue for the elimination of police.

The only true comparison is to take a jurisdiction and do a before and after comparison of the question. Which I have continually posted and show that law abiding citizens being allowed to own guns decreases the violent crime rate.

Other evidence might include asking murderers what would stop them from commiting a murder. Asking rapists what would stop them from committing a rape. Asking other violent criminals, and for that fact all criminals, what would deter them from commiting their crime. The 2nd most common answer was the thought of the potential victim being able to defend themselves.



I have no problem with registrationand in fact I believe that should be a vital part of the law. I'll state the obvious for you because you don't seem to get it; law abiding citizens would have no problem registering their legal gun. Only criminals would have a problem.



Well while your studies by individuals who may or may not have an agenda SUGGEST (and I repeat SUGGEST with no statistical evidence) that stricter gun control MIGHT reduce gun death. I'll go by the FBI, the US Govt and the UN stats (all of which agencies are for taking guns away from private citizens). None of them SUGGEST anything. They point out, with FACTS the various points I posted on page 7. Some of which include:

Crime rates go down
Violent crime rates go down

I am assuming the following 2 are because by making it legal and requiring education people act more responsible with their guns

Suicide rates using handguns goes down.
Child accidents involving handguns go down.

BTW these stats weren't suggested, they were stated as fact by the FBI.



I'm glad you found a criminologist who concludes something. Again I'll rely on the FBI stats.



Nice try again comparing apples and oranges. I prefer all the stats I showed you that continually prove that crime rates go down EVERY TIME after "shall-issue" laws are established. And NOT ONE STATE has ever revoked one once it was put in place. I guess I put less credence in Canadian criminologists with an agenda. I just prefer that our crime rates go down and I rely on the FBI for our data.



Well at least you tried this time to address the issues. Unfortunately the best you could do was find a couple private citizens that wrote a book. I prefer government statistics. Especially when they are in conflict with the governments own stated agenda.

Good Night and talk to you later.

Northern Ireland does not permit gum ownership, the police carry guns which is different to teh rest of the UK but otherwise the firearm laws are pretty much the same as the UK

[MOBIUS]

* MOBIUS adds Deity Dude to his list of Poly morons who refuse to believe that they are completely wrong and talking utter bollock!

Kinda reminds him of the fanatically unshakeable views of the Westboro Baptist Church congregation as filmed by Louis Theroux that he watched last night... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6507971.stm

[Kidlicious]

MOBIUS has lists with our names on it!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
* MOBIUS adds Deity Dude to his list of Poly morons who refuse to believe that they are completely wrong and talking utter bollock!

[/url]

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Arrian]

It is.

edit, having now read the thread: I think you're wrong, though. The stats you keep reeling off are pretty clearly cherry-picked.

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

DD, you may have missed my earlier question:

Originally posted by Dauphin

After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent).

What kind of crimes are we discussing here? If it's all crime, can you really compare vandalism, theft and fraud with murder, rape and assault in one all encompassing statistic? And are the metrics even the same - what does 25% actually mean?

[Dauphin]

Also, DD, do you consider that different countries have different reactions to relaxing gun laws?

e.g If England and Wales made handguns legal to anyone (with your choice of caveats) would you expect the crime rate to go down, considering that virtually no one is armed with handguns?

[Dauphin]

And statistics are a dangerous beast. I remember the 'chestnut' statistic that after the introduction of new helmets in WW1 the casualty rate of British soldiers increased. Many of those who previously died of head wounds were now suffering from concussions and non-lethal wounds.

[Asher]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCxcKGSQ7r7ORZNySqR3F0kP5rOgD91KJFCO2

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
It is.

edit, having now read the thread: I think you're wrong, though. The stats you keep reeling off are pretty clearly cherry-picked.

-Arrian

Arrian the tragically conflicted...

So eager to try to beat me down, and yet ultimately forced to agree with my conclusions that Deity Dude is indeed a knob...

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Dauphin
e.g If England and Wales made handguns legal to anyone (with your choice of caveats) would you expect the crime rate to go down, considering that virtually no one is armed with handguns?

except youngsters in inner cities it would seem.

i'd be interested to see what effect the ban on handguns in this country has had on the rate on gun crime. if you believe the papers it's gone up since the mid 1990s, but i don't know how true that is.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

Even if it were the case that I think about my supposed 'smartness', that would still leave me vastly more intelligent than you.


And better read, too. Good luck with your reading. However limited to what's current.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Great, you should take your own advice for once Molly.

It's not my advice, it's your deity's advice. In your holy book.


Why is it that the people who bray about their religions the loudest are usually the ones least likely to be able to adhere to their moral precepts ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

Sorry, bud. You're wrong here. You might think there's stylistic issues with it, but from a syntactical punctuation perspective there is nothing wrong with it.

Oh dear me, no.


But why bother ? As I say, you use, ecch, 'off of' .


And not even in an ironic way...