The Denver killer is clearly a very very sick young Man.

[Twizzle]

I am sure the concensus will be " f*** him " " hang him high " but I am not convinced it really acheives a lot at the end of the day. I find it tragic and horrendous the actions he took but also tragic that society and what happened to him made him do it. No one is born evil imo and life's events dictate actions. Fortunately only a tiny fraction of people take out their frustrations in the manner he did but it is obvious he is very ill. So the question is, if someone is very very ill and does what he did, what does society do ?

Put him to sleep.

 

[dingodan]

Along with Bold Seagulls comment that you brought up the articles, I would add: this nine page thread has covered many layers to the argument. You can't pick and choose the arguments to suit yourself.

The potential flaw to your logic for your argument has been highlighted. You disagree, but then, you would, it's your argument and for you that flaw doesn't exist. For others it does. I can see why not having everyone agree with you would be frustrating, but really you should try to get used to it. 6 billion people in the world, we're not all going to agree, even if you think the logic you see to an argument is so clear and flawless.

I did not bring up any article even mentioning the constitution or 2nd amendment.

I said that gun laws don't reduce gun crime, and I proved it with evidence.

Your problem is that you are convinced, beyond reason, that guns are bad and taking guns away from people is good. I don't doubt your intentions or your sincerity, or that you genuinely believe that this will reduce gun crime.

But again, gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is a fact backed up by evidence.

A fact which despite your post, nobody has contradicted with any evidence.

Gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is the result of examining the evidence.

And none of this means I like guns.

 

[Twizzle]

You can rely on me to light the fuse and stand back folks. Thats why you all love me. I am genuinely puzzled by the evil v ill argument. The Bulger killers had horrendous parents and watched a diet of horror films so were they born evil ? I don't think so. And my original statement that is is very very ill was because some people will not agree with that and just say he is evil.

A must be one of the some people, because a bloke who dyes his hair and dresses up, loading weapons to kill many people as possible, as well as booby-trapping his flat to kill some more needs to fry, with his eyes boiling out of their sockets.
Is THAT evil?
You come over as a bit soft, to be honest.

 

[Twizzle]

I did not bring up any article even mentioning the constitution or 2nd amendment.

I said that gun laws don't reduce gun crime, and I proved it with evidence.

Your problem is that you are convinced, beyond reason, that guns are bad and taking guns away from people is good. I don't doubt your intentions or your sincerity, or that you genuinely believe that this will reduce gun crime.

But again, gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is a fact backed up by evidence.

A fact which despite your post, nobody has contradicted with any evidence.

Gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is the result of examining the evidence.

And none of this means I like guns.

Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

I can't get how you come to that conclusion. Take guns away from the people, and reduce gun deaths, that's a given. This weirdo managed to get firearms and was passed as fit to buy them - that's proof enough!

 

[beorhthelm]

I said that gun laws don't reduce gun crime, and I proved it with evidence.

no you havent. i dont know what you think you've posted, but nowhere have i seen proof that gun law has no positive impact on gun crime, other than a 1997 reference with dubious causal evidence.

But again, gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is a fact backed up by evidence.

A fact which despite your post, nobody has contradicted with any evidence.

despite much evidence put in front of you that western countries (or seperate US states) with stricter gun control have less gun related crime.

Your problem is that you are convinced, beyond reason, that guns are good and taking guns away from people is bad.

 

[dingodan]

Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

I can't get how you come to that conclusion. Take guns away from the people, and reduce gun deaths, that's a given. This weirdo managed to get firearms and was passed as fit to buy them - that's proof enough!

Intuitively it might make sense. In practice it is not the result. Based on the evidence.

 

[Acker79]

I did not bring up any article even mentioning the constitution or 2nd amendment.

I said that gun laws don't reduce gun crime, and I proved it with evidence.


But again, gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is a fact backed up by evidence.

A fact which despite your post, nobody has contradicted with any evidence.

Gun laws do not reduce gun crime. That is the result of examining the evidence.

No, you supported your position with evidence that supports your position ignoring other evidence. You did not prove it, because it is a complicated relationship involving other aspects such as the rise of drug cartels, and so on. As well as guns already in circulation. Just because they are illegal doesn't mean they disappear. Comparing countries where there are fewer actual guns to those where there are more guns shows a link between increased guns and increased gun crimes. Studies looking at crime rates in a population before and after the same population pass laws is not the same as comparing gun crimes in a country before and after removing all guns.

The Nation - Gun Laws and Crime - A Complex Relationship - NYTimes.com

Having said that:

A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs.​

I'm not going to argue that proves it does reduce gun crime. Just that it is not the clear cut proved absolute fact that you want it to be.

Your problem is that you are convinced, beyond reason, that guns are bad and taking guns away from people is good. I don't doubt your intentions or your sincerity, or that you genuinely believe that this will reduce gun crime.

How delightfully condescending.


If you look at the two bigger post I included earlier I have said that there is more to this than gun control. It is an attitude, and for inidents like the colorado shooting to occur takes a specific combination of many different factors, the ease of access to guns being just one.

Yes, I think guns are a bad thing. I also think atomic and nuclear bombs are bad things. But I know they are a part of life, particularly for americans. I'm not naive enough to suggest, nor am I suggesting, that making guns illegal will solve all their problems.

 

[dingodan]

no you havent. i dont know what you think you've posted, but nowhere have i seen proof that gun law has no positive impact on gun crime, other than a 1997 reference with dubious causal evidence.



despite much evidence put in front of you that western countries (or seperate US states) with stricter gun control have less gun related crime.

Your problem is that you are convinced, beyond reason, that guns are good and taking guns away from people is bad.

Sure thing boss.

 

[dingodan]

No, you supported your position with evidence that supports your position ignoring other evidence. You did not prove it, because it is a complicated relationship involving other aspects such as the rise of drug cartels, and so on.
The Nation - Gun Laws and Crime - A Complex Relationship - NYTimes.com

A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs.​

I'm not going to argue that proves it does reduce gun crime. Just that it is not the clear cut proved absolute fact that you want it to be.



How delightfully condescending.


If you look at the two bigger post I included earlier I have said that there is more to this than gun control. It is an attitude, and for inidents like the colorado shooting to occur takes a specific combination of many different factors, the ease of access to guns being just one.

Yes, I think guns are a bad thing. I also think atomic and nuclear bombs are bad things. But I know they are a part of life, particularly for americans. I'm not naive enough to suggest, nor am I suggesting, that making guns illegal will solve all their problems.

The whole context of what you quoted:

At the crudest level, as Justice Breyer wrote, violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. “Indeed,” he continued, “a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place." “We know the D.C. handgun ban didn’t reduce homicide,” he said in an interview.

Not everyone agrees. A 1991 study in The New England Journal of Medicine compared Washington to its suburbs before and after the gun law took effect. It found that the law was linked to a 25 percent drop in homicides involving firearms and a 23 percent drop in such suicides. The study found no drops in other kinds of homicides and suicides in Washington, and no changes in the suburbs.

Professor Kleck was critical of the study, saying that the period it studied was too short and that the suburbs were a poor point of reference. “The place most like D.C. is Baltimore,” he said, describing his own approach. “It’s a virtual twin city.”

Professor Kleck conducted what he called “an elaborate before-and-after study” of Washington and Baltimore that took into account trends before the implementation of the ban and included “a good long follow-up” because the ban “didn’t immediately take anyone’s guns away.”

Baltimore did not have a similar law, yet its crime rate mimicked Washington’s. “The law itself had no effect one way or the other,” Professor Kleck said.

...There is some evidence, Professor Volokh said, that denying guns to people who might use them in self-defense, usually merely by brandishing them, tends to increase crime rates. There is also evidence that the possibility of confronting a victim with a gun deters some criminals.

In addition, criminals are the people least likely to obey gun control laws, meaning that the laws probably have a disproportionate impact on law-abiding individuals. “For the typical gun control law,” Professor Volokh said, “you’ll have very little positive effect but a possible negative effect.”

All I have said is that gun laws do not reduce gun crime, according to the evidence. The article actually generally concludes the same, although it does cite one study (which you quoted) which has suggested otherwise.

You are the first person to present facts so nice one for that.

I also found these statistics interesting.

"According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4."

 

[Acker79]

All I have said is that gun laws do not reduce gun crime, according to the evidence. The article actually generally concludes the same, although it does cite one study (which you quoted) which has suggested otherwise.

You are the first person to present facts so nice one for that.

No, I'm not. I'm the first person to provide an example of a study showing a decrease in crime after gun control laws were introduced. (I did not quote the whole article because you asked for evidence to the contrary of your position (though still provided a link for anyon who was interested to check out the whole article) so just showed the relevant bit). Others have posted facts, they have posted facts that countries where guns were not already in high circulation when gun laws were introduced, or where the guns in circulation have been significantly reduced as a result of the law, there is less gun crime.

The article concludes that it is a complex issue and there is no clear cut definitive answer, even if cursory looks at statistics may show no difference overall. One of those issues is that guns are already in circulation when the law is passed, and perhaps it is not that the laws don't work, more that the existence of guns in circulations are blunting the effects of the law.

 

[beorhthelm]

All I have said is that gun laws do not reduce gun crime, according to the evidence. The article actually generally concludes the same, although it does cite one study (which you quoted) which has suggested otherwise.

You are the first person to present facts so nice one for that.

please do explain the likly reasons for the 100:1 difference between US gun crime and UK gun crime. or are you going to continue to ignore the those inconvienent facts?

 

[dingodan]

please do explain the likly reasons for the 100:1 difference between US gun crime and UK gun crime. or are you going to continue to ignore the those inconvienent facts?

It's not a result of gun laws here, or a lack of them in the U.S.

 

[dingodan]

Others have posted facts, they have posted facts that countries where guns were not already in high circulation when gun laws were introduced, or where the guns in circulation have been significantly reduced as a result of the law, there is less gun crime.

Sorry I must have missed that? Can you show me this?

One of those issues is that guns are already in circulation when the law is passed, and perhaps it is not that the laws don't work, more that the existence of guns in circulations are blunting the effects of the law.

If there were no guns in circulation, nobody would be calling for a law against them would they.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's not a result of gun laws here, or a lack of them in the U.S.

not even going to make a stab at what other causes their might be? you at least acknowlege there is a massive difference in incident of gun crime in the US? if its not guns, its pertinent to uncover what exactly it is then, as a matter of life and death.

 

[Acker79]

Sorry I must have missed that? Can you show me this?

Here:

Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

I can't get how you come to that conclusion. Take guns away from the people, and reduce gun deaths, that's a given. This weirdo managed to get firearms and was passed as fit to buy them - that's proof enough!

Yes, I think we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that not all of those 10.27 murders per 100,000 population would have taken place had firearms not been readily available.

I think you need to do a better job of defending these stats from a US persepctive where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution:

USA 10.27 (unintentional death rate 0.23)
UK 0.46 (0.01)
Germany 1.57 (0.04)


Can you do that? I very much doubt it.

 

[dingodan]

not even going to make a stab at what other causes their might be? you at least acknowlege there is a massive difference in incident of gun crime in the US? if its not guns, its pertinent to uncover what exactly it is then, as a matter of life and death.

Not really. It is only pertinent to this discussion to correct people who think that gun laws are the solution to the problem. I don't claim to know how to solve the problem of violence in the U.S. All I know is that banning guns will not reduce gun crime. Because that is what the evidence shows.

 

[Acker79]

Not really. It is only pertinent to this discussion to correct people who think that gun laws are the solution to the problem. I don't claim to know how to solve the problem of violence in the U.S. All I know is that banning guns will not reduce gun crime. Because that is what the evidence shows.

Correction, only banning guns probably won't work. It is a complex situation that requires multiple efforts that may include gun control laws.

 

[Davemania]

The Denver killer is clearly a very very sick young Man.

There are no winners here.

Yes, you should be a detective and/or psychologist, indeed none of us had worked out that he is indeed a bit sick. Sorry for sarcasm, im a bit drunk

 

[BadFish]

So how does the relationship between these kind of massacres and gun laws look? To me these seem to be largely an American Phenomenon and One he contributing factors would seem to be the easy access to guns in America. So taking out gun crime as a whole and looking specifically at these kind of warped public massacres there was one in Australia (port Arther i think) before the gun reforms, and have not been any since.

All this is not researched as i don't have time right now but i would like to reiterate the point of lookig at these types of indiscriminate massacres in isolation from other gun crime.

 

[dingodan]

Here:

Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

This is quite deceiving because it is not per capita. The U.S. is 4th highest, but also has a 300 Million + population. This was not a fact presented to counter my argument that gun laws don't reduce gun crime. It doesn't deal with the question at all.

And:

USA 10.27 (unintentional death rate 0.23)
UK 0.46 (0.01)
Germany 1.57 (0.04)
[People in Switzerland are required by law to own and know how to use a firearm- 0.58 for homicide with a firearm]

(these figures were apparently taken from List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Well homicides is actually 4.4 not 10.27 (5.71 being suicide and the rest accidents), the U.S. being 17th highest in respect of homicide deaths with a firearm.

And regardless, this does not prove or disprove that gun laws reduce, or do not reduce gun crime. So again these are not a facts that were presented to counter what I had said.

I had said, "gun laws do not reduce gun crime". These posts have little to do with dealing with that question.