I was planning on going on over to CNS News. com to get some info to write a rant about how the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) is going to protest against Greenpeace at one of GP's rallys. It seems that they see the Green's stance against industrialization and the use of pesticides in the 3rd would is helping keep them there.
But instead, I got sidetracked by this article about some Stanford statistics geeks trying to poke holes in the research done by Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime. (www.cnsnews.com/viewculture.asp?page\culture\archive\200305\cul20030513b.html
First off, this is a subject near and dear to me. I have absolutly no time for people who believe the propaganda given out by Sarah Brady and her ilk. I don't really need Lott's stats. I have history. Hell, I have the present. Britain and Australia. No guns in the hands of the citizenry, crime goes up. Easy enough. A study sponsored by the UN itself says that I am 6 times more likely to be on the wrong side of a violent crime in London than in NYC. If it wasn't so tragic for Londoners, it would be funny.
The truly most tragic part of this whole debate though, is that the most vocal of the anti-gun rights advocates want average, everyday, hard-working men and women to live their lives unable to defend themselves. All while the advocates live in walled-off neighborhoods with private security patrols. And with supporters like Oprah and large numbers of the Hollywood crowd to spread the word, the gullible public eat it up. Why else would they believe that the "Assualt Weapon Ban Bill" is a good thing.
Anyway, back to the article.
The main cheesehead here seems to be John Donahue from Stanford University Law School. I knew him to be an idiot when I read this quote from him. "There seems to be almost no benefit from concealed handguns". In the article the author noted that he immediatly retracted that statement. At least he has a small semblance of honesty. But he then goes on to compare the ability to carry a gun for protection to some "cost". And then goes on to say that they may "offset" one another. And he never goes on to say what the word "almost" means to him.
If this guy is as big an idiot I think he is, the "cost" he is refering to is the cost of sewing up bad guys when private citizens put holes in them. People like him never take into account the cost of sewing up private citizens when bad guys put holes in them though. It would cancel out their numbers. And the public never thinks of that part of the equation themselves, becuase crime only happens to "other people". So they go on believing the bile that spills out from people like this psuedo-social engineering law researcher.
I could go on and on asking how does this prick get the balls to morally equate the safety of the citizenry with dollar signs. Or tell you that this c*cksmoker wants a national gun registry "so he can gather more statistics" (yeah right!). But I think I'll just point you in the direction of the article and have you read it.
Warning: If our opinoins are in anyway alike, you are hereby warned to remove heavy objects and breakables from the desk beforehand.
Posted by AnalogKid at May 13, 2003 08:45 AM | TrackBackI dont normally comment on US gundebates (its your issue after all) but the idea that London is more dangerous than US cities is asinine:
"Murder rates in UK capitals are among the lowest in the world, according to a report from the British Government.
London leads the way, ranked in the bottom five in a survey of 20 European and nine North American cities with just 2.1 cases of murder, infanticide or manslaughter per 100,000 inhabitants.
Belfast was the most dangerous UK city in the survey with a rate of 4.4, compared with Edinburgh at 2.4.
"But this was far short of Washington DC with a huge 69.3 murders per 100,000 people - more than 30 times higher than London's rate.
Second place went to Philadelphia with a rate of 27.4 while
We ahve never ever had a gun culture, or a right to own weapons here, the gun ban after Dunmlane affected very few people. You should note that not one British political party has any plans to change our gun laws, we like them the way they are thanks.
Oh my g*d Har, you give me so much to play with.
We'll start with the "murder stats" in London. Notice who the report is put out by. The ones who want the world to only think the best of their city. And apparently you have missed the tales told, both before and after Dunmlane of the officials classifying crimes by what the criminal convicted of instead of what the crime acutally was, ie manslaughter was not classified as a murder. Just last week, a criminal who suffered from a terminal case of "suicide by cop", actually had his death classified as a suicide.
Next I'll remind you that the 2 US cities you mentioned are #1 (D.C.) and #3 (Philly, if I remember correctly) on the list of cities with the highest number of gun control laws. So you proved my point for me. Thanks.
I virulently deny that "very few people" were affected by Britain's last wave of gun control. Since there are no stats on the number of people who had previously owned guns who suffered a violent attack after the confiscation, I'll focus on the financial angle.
Every person who legally owned their firearms had to give them up. The criminals did not. If they were given monies for them, it was far below their true worth, especially if it had been handed down through the family. Or they had to have them demilled or deactivated, which kills their collector value. So folks who collected firearms took it in the shorts. And yes, it is a true hobby. It was just like collecting stamps or coins before the anti-gun groups started up.
Hell, even your country's Olympic shooting teams have to leave the country to practice.
So neener
Posted by: analog kid on May 13, 2003 09:28 AMAnd AK since then we have had no more lunatics wiping out a class full of kids, for which we are very happy.
This is a very different society to yours, its not an armed society and the idea of people wandering around with handguns is repugnant to us all. (90% of our police are not armed)
The USA is very different, and as I said before it's your issue. However dont pull that NRA trick of imagining we all had our guns taken away after Dunblane, we never ever had them.
Posted by: harmonia on May 13, 2003 10:50 AMThe latest figures for Scotland from the Scottish Executive (2000) show:
A total of 938 recorded offenses in which a firearm was alleged to have been used, the lowest such figure since 1979.
An air weapon was the most commonly used firearm.
The number of offenses involving the alleged use of a pistol/revolver decreased from 161 in 1999 to 93 in 2000, the lowest number since 1995
Yeah, so the number of firearm related offenses went down - but what about the TOTAL number of offenses? I spent quite a while trying to track these numbers down when I wrote this post:
https://www.nukevet.com/mt/archives/001451.html
Pretty dodgey stuff, indeed.
Posted by: Nukevet on May 13, 2003 01:52 PMYou're right Har, y'all just keep killing them one or two at a time.
sarcasm on/ That's much better!/ sarcasm off. Unfortunatly it ends up being people who could have defended themselves, had they been allowed to be armed. But we wouldn't want to offend the criminals, now would we?
And I know all about your bell hatted boys in blue. Their being unarmed leads to them getting killed and now they're asking for weapons.
You all never had the weapons?Seems the numbers from the time were quoting between 15,000,000 to 23,000,000 depending on who you asked. It may only be 10% of the US ownership figures, but that is still a buttload of steel.
Posted by: analog kid on May 13, 2003 06:13 PMThink of it like this Har,
The government deems that computers are dangerous. You could download child pr0n, or instuctions to make a bomb, or music. So first they make users register their PC's. You have to pay a yearly fee to keep your PC licensed. If you can't/don't pay you are arrested, and your PC's is confiscated and destroyed.
Well, a bomb goes off, kills 25 schoolchildren and Scotland Yard decides that the bomber got the instructions off the internet. "That is it", the parliment says, "another crazy person could do this again. We must ban the PC!".
Unfortunatly for you, you need your PC for work (imagine you tele-commute). You have a new P4 2.2gig, 1024k, system with a 19" monitor and they're going to give a check for $50 and put it in the crusher. That is what they did to gun owners in your country.
Don't think it can happen. Change the scenario a bit. Imagine the havok someone could wreak if they hacked into Britain's air traffic control computor and just 2 planes have near misses. The US system fights off around 30 attacks a day.
Think about it.
Posted by: analog kid on May 13, 2003 06:27 PMI cac see the headlines now, "Man with apple Mac rampages through school, hundreds killed"
Posted by: harmonia on May 14, 2003 07:31 AMMore like "Hacker used IBM Thinkpad to hack into air traffic control system last month. 11 airliners misdirected. 2054 dead" with a follow up of "Parlimentary Liberals Demand Registration of IP's and Observation of All Traffic".
Registration comes first.
Posted by: analog kid on May 14, 2003 10:52 AMHarm has never been strong on empathy. Being able to at least glimpse at what the other side feels would mean she'd have to grant maybe they could have a point.
Confiscation seems to be OK, if she doesn't like the people affected.
Posted by: puggs on May 14, 2003 05:36 PMHarm has never been strong on empathy. Being able to at least glimpse at what the other side feels would mean she'd have to grant maybe they could have a point.
Confiscation seems to be OK, if she doesn't like the people affected.
Posted by: puggs on May 14, 2003 05:36 PMOoops!
Posted by: puggs on May 14, 2003 05:37 PMShe is a little f'in communist. What do you expect Puggs?
Posted by: JACITELLI on May 15, 2003 10:37 AMI expect nothing, I hope to make a tiny crack in her closed mind for daylight to seep in. Not much hope, but maybe she'll find life on the fringe less enjoyable as she gets older.
I knew a communist once, she was bigoted politicaly, closed minded about history and oblivious to facts and evidence. She was also a really nice girl who wouldn't hurt a fly, or suffer anyone to go without if she had something to give. People can be wrong, horribly wrong and still be worthwhile. About harm I make no final judgement as a person. Politicaly she's an enabler for casues I hate, but I fall back on the tradition of hating the sin, not the sinner.
Posted by: puggs on May 15, 2003 09:05 PMGeeks, tragic geeks. That is what come in mind when I read the orig. post.
America with zillion of guns have over 11.000 people being killed with guns a year and the UK about fekkin 300 something. Well, if MURDER ain't a crime then wtf is??
Get real gun lovin' morons.
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs
What a stupid site on your cover it says you could download Child Porn!
What r u thinking i am gonna report u u sick bastard s err!
What r u dat desperate think of the poor children bloody hell!
U absolute mongs