I just don't understand! (radical, extremist, solution, crime)

[freightshaker]

Originally Posted by hotair2

I don't worry about every forseeable and unforseeable danger of every minute of every day. That seems like a very sad way to live. Do you take a gun to the bathroom with you or do you have a spare in there?

I just love how someone who has never seen evil can be so condescending to people who have. I have been in neighborhoods in this country that would either frighten you or you are a blithering idiot. Go into any set of projects in a major city after sunset and tell me all about your confidence. Spend a night listening to gunfire in an area where the police won't come in until daylight. These places exist. Some of us have no choice but to go there on a routine basis. I promise you, in some of the areas I go, you wouldn't dream of going. So sit on your little pedistal and look down at people that truly have a reason to carry a firearm and continue to belittle people on topics that you obviously don't comprehend. I truly hope that you are never placed in a situation where you need a firearm and don't have it. I wouldn't wish that on you.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Spudee

In answer to the question posed above asking if the rate of firearm-related deaths has decreased since the Australian Government's gun by-back screen, the following information is contained in a paper prepared for the Royal Society of Medicine's by Simon Chapman in 2010:

"In the 13 years and eight months since the law reforms, there have been no mass shootings. While the rate of firearm homicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year prior to the law reforms, this increased to 7.5% per year after the introduction of the new laws, although this failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.15) only because of the low power inherent in the small numbers involved Firearm-related suicides in men declined from 3.4 deaths per 100,000 person years in 1997 to 1.3 per 100,000 person years, representing a decline of 59.9%. The rate of all other suicides declined from 19.9 deaths per 100,000 person-years in 1997 to 15.0 per 100,000 person-years in 2005, representing a decline of 24.5%. The yearly change in firearm-related suicides in men was −8.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] −10.2% to −7.0%), and the yearly change in other suicides was −4.1% (95% CI −4.7% to −3.5%), less than half the rate of fall in firearm suicide."

So I guess the answer is yes, there has been a significant decline in firearm related deaths in Oz.

You must have sucked as a police officer and investigator, because obviously you see only what you want to see, so I'd have to wonder how many innocent people you dicked over.

Your own report claims that it failed to reach a statistical significance, yet you claim exactly the opposite, and then you assert that 3% and 7.5% are significant, when it is not.

You'd sell your stocks because they declined in value 3%. Panic much?

Amused....

Mircea

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

You're comparing apples and oranges! You can't compare the number of gun related deaths to the number of deaths and injuries caused by distracted drivers.

Yes, I can compare them.

You fail to understand that firearms are constitutionally protected, while owning and operating motor vehicles is not constitutionally protected.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Assuming your numbers are correct your risk of being killed by a gun is 3 times greater than being killed by a distracted driver! (100,000 / 33,808 = 2.95)

Yes, and a distracted driver is often distracted by a cell-phone, which is another device that is not constitutionally protected.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Why would it matter were the first shooting took place?

Canada has 30 Million people, which is more comparable to your Swiss population of 7.9 Million, instead of the 312 Million people in America -- talk about comparing apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Let's see how good your political science terminology is in German...

I speak German. I read German. I don't write so well any more, but then I don't have much occasion to write German. I also speak, read and write Romanian, and speak Serbian and Slovak.

The German language is magnificent for its precision, and there's no distinction between an homogenous nation-State and a heterogeneous country?

You might want to look again.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

22% of Switzerland's population are immigrants. 72.5% of the residents with Swiss citizenship are German-speaking (or to use American terminology: 72% are of German ethnicity), 21% are French and 4.3% are Italian. So Switzerland is very heterogenous. But we are a neutral country, we haven't been involved in any international military conflict since 1515 and we haven't had any internal military conflict since 1847 and our violent crime rates are very low (especially compared to yours). So obviously you can lead a very peaceful and non-violent life in a very heterogenous country!

And your population is a mere 7.9 Million and geography plays a role. I dare say if the US was one giant mountain there wouldn't be much crime here either.

Your country isn't that heterogeneous either. You basically have Germans and French (Italians are like low-rent French wannabes). Culture is very important, as is the fact that there is no mobility in Switzerland.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

And btw Somalia is a very homogenous nation and still one of the most violent ones...

What? There more than 1,000 ethnic groups in Somalia. Nothing homogeneous about Somalia.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

But we should compare the US to other developed western democracies like western Europe, Australia and Canada.

But that's apples and oranges.

You compare two or more things that are similar. Similar to the US means country, heterogeneity, and size, geography, and population.

India and Russia are comparable to the US, but European nation-States and States are not.

You could possibly make an argument comparing European nation-States and States (along with Australia and New Zealand and Canada) to individual US States. Virginia has just over 8 Million people, and has comparable geography (even though it is a coastal State).

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

The whole anonymity thing....

Is a matter of criminology, which is a subset of sociology and psychology.

My first undergraduate degree was in law enforcement, and I spent hours and hours in really fascinating sociology and psychology courses.

I had always thought it to be strange that the De Bartolo MAFIA family operated in Cleveland, Akron and Youngstown, but not in Columbus or Cincinnati, yet the Paninni Brothers were lieutenants in the De Bartolo family and ran operations in Newport, Kentucky, but not in neighboring Covington, Kentucky or across the river in neighboring Cincinnati (Ohio).

There were no crime families in Indianapolis, yet they operated out of Gary, Indiana, East Chicago, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois.

I found the answer after taking numerous sociology courses.

There is a reason why, and that reason is related to culture, ethnicity and geography, as well as population size.

And so is all crime and the tendency and probability of crime occurring.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

America is trapped in a vicious circle: Law abiding citizens need to be armed because the criminals are armed. And criminals need to be armed and violent because their victims are...

That is patently false.

There are numerous cities and States in the US that attempted to ban firearm ownership out-right or severely restrict gun owner ship and the result was sky-rocketing crime, including violent crime involving fire-arms and the criminals did not stop shooting unarmed citizens.

As soon as Ohio enacted a concealed carry law, crime started dropping and continues to drop. Lather, Rinse, Repeat for any number of other cities and States that saw how stupid gun control is.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

If you lock the door to your room, call the police and have your (swiss army) assault rifle in your hand then the risk of being hurt or even killed by a burglar is near zero. Especially if the criminal in your house isn't violent and just as scared as you are. (As it is the case where I live).

Yeah, well, if only all criminals in the United States had been born and raised in Switzerland....

....but that isn't the reality.

The US cannot stop illegal aliens from entering the US any more than it can stop drugs or pirated consumer goods from entering the US. The US cannot prevent weapons from being smuggled into the US either. The only thing gun control laws do is disarm citizens and make them victims of criminals.

Criminals, by definition, will always violate the law no matter what.

And the purpose of owning firearms in the US is to protect the people from the abuses of government, or the tyranny of the majority (as someone else put it). If the only weapon I can own is a .22 rim-shot Derringer, then I can't exactly defend or prevent abuses by government, right?

Anyway, just because 0.0325% of population dies because of idiots with weapons is not a reason for the other 99.9675% of the population to surrender their weapons.

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/health/...eathreport.pdf

As you can see there, only 65.2% of homicides involved a fire-arm in Wisconsin. The point is that people in America are violent, and there's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with fire-arms.

It's easy to sit in your Ivory Tower Swiss Chalet and wax eloquently, but the reality in the US is quite different than the Swiss reality.

Criminalistically...

Mircea

[BruSan]

Interesting thread and many good points being made pro and con.

The only aspect I would care to comment on; as most have already been discussed, is the mention of a "culture of fear" in a bygone post.

That culture of fear has some degree of accuracy as political entities have made it a necessary cornerstone of electoral success to have the electorate consider how much safer they're gonna be with candidate number 1 versus number 2.

Homeland Security grew from a fear based premise various already existant agencies didn't have a handle on imminant threats or could work together to deal with them so the answer, of course, was to create a whole additional beauraucracy with attendant budget and "gravy" for various and imcompetant civil servants.

Are you any safer with the suspension of your civil liberties happening on a frequent basis through things like the "fear based" Patriot Act?

After the Colorado shooting "fear based" motivation, either about possible government instituted bans or just about the possibility of similar future occurances (recent news from Md would seem to confirm some fears) caused a spike in sales of handguns to occur.

It's all about the fear and what part politicians have used that fear to garner votes causing a catch 22. They help stoke those fires then sit down to argue about how best to put the damn things out while Rome burns.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Well, if you are pro-life and view abortion as murder then your right from your point of view. But I'm pro-choice so let's just agree to disagree.

as you wish.

If you want to see what "coddling criminals" really means then take a look at the Swiss justice system... At least compared to other western democracies you don't coddle them.

to me coddling criminals means giving them the things they would normally have to work for in real life. as i said, we have made prisons in this country a place to be.

I would really like to agree with you but I don't think that the world works this way. I used to think like you and thought that harder punishment would automatically lead to less crime, but statistically speaking we are probably wrong on this. However I am still in favor of the death penalty in very extreme cases and I really want longer prison sentences and less luxurious prisons for violent criminals. But I don't have much success when trying to convince other Swiss people. I think the way you Americans treat violent criminals is way better than ours. But on the other hand your approach to victimless crimes (especially drug use and such) is just creating even more problems.

i agree that putting drug users away is stupid. but then every low rank pusher becomes a "recreational" user to avoid prison by claiming that three kilos of coke is for his weekend use. at what point does a user, who in fact deals to support their habit, need to go to jail? understand that many of those users are in fact also dealers.

as to out violent criminals, we dont incarcerate them for long enough, imo. i mean really, five years for armed robbery? i say double that with NO parole.

[Spudee]

Originally Posted by MORebelWoman

No way to say this a nice way...Stay out of our politics.

"Stay out of our politics"!!! That's a bit rich coming from an American. Suggest you read up on recent international political history; Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. Gee I love it when irony jumps up and smacks you in the face.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

But in Switzerland (and most of Europe) the home owner will not attack the burglar. And because of this there is no need for criminals to be violent or even armed. That will only draw attention and get them in trouble. Instead they are alone and run away if they encounter anybody inside the house.

In the US it is NOT uncommon for the criminals to be carrying weapons and break into the home. Such was the case last year in Tucson, AZ. The homeowners were killed

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

If you lock the door to your room, call the police and have your (swiss army) assault rifle in your hand then the risk of being hurt or even killed by a burglar is near zero. Especially if the criminal in your house isn't violent and just as scared as you are. (As it is the case where I live).

Having personal experience with your example - I disagree. While calling the police (911) is a good suggestion, more than likely by the time they get to the residence, the resident is either death or severly injured.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Greatday

In the US it is NOT uncommon for the criminals to be carrying weapons and break into the home. Such was the case last year in Tucson, AZ. The homeowners were killed

yep, it happens far more often than people realize.

Having personal experience with your example - I disagree. While calling the police (911) is a good suggestion, more than likely by the time they get to the residence, the resident is either death or severly injured.

when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by MORebelWoman

No way to say this a nice way...Stay out of our politics.

Where does it say anywhere in your politics about having a gun in your pocket, purse or glove box of your car?

You obviously meant "stay out of our phobias".

[cruxan]

Originally Posted by 16trillionandcounting

First off where do you get the 100,000 number? I would think that is not even close to correct.

More importantly part of being an american is the right to bear arms. To protect ourselves, FROM EVERYONE.

How many people get shot by guns each day in the US
Typically, there are approximately 30,000 US deaths due to firearms in the US each year.

In 2007 according to the Centers for Disease Control Faststats and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control WIQARS Leading Causes of Nonfatal Injury Reports:

48,676 people were intentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
18,610 people were unintentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC)
17,352 suicides (intentionally shot themselves who died) (CDC)
12,632 criminal firearm deaths (killed in a crime by guns) (CDC)
This does not include deaths of people intentionally or unintentionally shot for legal reasons (Like the police shooting a suspect).
The above total is 97270 people shot in the US in 2007. About a third (29984) died, and it is likely that the total number of Americans shot is at least 100,000 given that all types of gunshot injuries/deaths are not included.

Using just the numbers above, a little math indicates that in the US, every day during 2007, AT LEAST 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died.

Read more: How many people get shot by guns each day in the US

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

So Austrailians, historically subjects of the crown, willingly surrendered their natural right to self-defense in a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy; and, you would like Americans to be equally naive. Does that about cover it?

I politely suggest you take a longer look at US history, the gun confiscations by the British Crown that were the last straw leading to "the shot heard round the world", and that our Constitution affirms and protects the natural rights of the citizens (not subjects) from abuse from a tyrannical government.

Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeated it. I'll be damned if law abiding American gun owners will be as stupid and naive as the Aussies who surrendered to the gun grabbers.




American Rifle (a ballad by Tommy Conners and Ron Rollins)

American Rifle - YouTube

Yep; even if it means your only security from your fellow citizens is to have a bigger gun or more of them?

Speaking of history and being damned to repeat it; didn't learn anything from all those shooting incidents of the past so now you're damned to repeat them eh?

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


Your school shootings of record started back in the 1700's with arguably the first "mass" shooting of students being committed April 9, 1891 when 70 year old James Foster fired a shotgun at a group of students in the playground of St Mary's Parochial School in Newburgh, New York.

The National School Safety Center states that there was an "improvement" in the years from 93 -2000 with a "significant decline" in school associated violent deaths resulting in only 198 homicides and only 171 deaths occurring from shootings on school properties from kindergarten through grade 12 with the year 98-99 seeing 3,523 students expelled for bringing a handgun to school.

Whew! Makes for an interesting read regarding gun violence asociated with schools.