HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

A Closer Look At US Crime Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 09:39 PM
  #1
Jebby
Registered User
 
Jebby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
A Closer Look At US Crime Data

So far I've stayed out of the gun debate and in stead spent a decent amount of time lurking through the FBI's posted crime stats. Honestly, I've seen a lot of false information presented by both sides of the argument. I expect that from the media and politicians, I guess I just wish that my fellow 2nd Amendment lovers wouldn't stoop to spinning the data as well.

This is the first video that I've seen that I felt was worth sharing on the topic.


Jebby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 09:47 PM
  #2
tape to tape
Registered User
 
tape to tape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
He makes a good point about the effort to restrict specific rifles when it's handguns that are used in crime predominately.

Quote:
in 2011, out of the homicides that were caused by firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles, and the AR-15 is a subset of the rifle group.
This point needs to be repeated more.


Last edited by tape to tape: 01-08-2013 at 10:19 PM.
tape to tape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:08 AM
  #3
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape to tape View Post
He makes a good point about the effort to restrict specific rifles when it's handguns that are used in crime predominately.

This point needs to be repeated more.
Banning handguns or even passing laws to make them safer such as home storage laws are a complete non-starter in the wake of the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

As set out in the case headnote the majority held:
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

So good luck passing any effective legislation dealing with handguns.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 11:51 AM
  #4
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
Gun control types should be honest and admit the real thingthey need to change is the 2nd amendment, not try and subvert it with weasel tactics.

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 11:52 AM
  #5
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape to tape View Post
He makes a good point about the effort to restrict specific rifles when it's handguns that are used in crime predominately.



This point needs to be repeated more.
I will say this as I have said in other threads, restricting ownership of guns is not the only solution. In fact, it is a very easy solution for those who have not studied crime. The issue of crime and gun crime is multi-correlational. Having an effective gun control policy may work but only with the implementation of improving the conditions that lead to social disorganization. Look at theories such as Hirschi (general theory of crime), Merton's strain theory, Sutherland's differential association, labelling theory among many others. These can be found in intro crim classes. These theories explain the reasons for people that commit crime and gun violence. Handgun ownership does not cause crime or the discharge of firearms. Biological theories will say that high levels of the MAOA enzyme coupled with bad childhood will result in deviant acts including crime. As the guy in the video presented in a extremely simplistic fashion for the masses to understand, the conditions that lead to crime are lack of education, poor social conditions and poverty. Although his rationalization was correct, it was extremely limited probably due to time constraint in the video and the audience. People develop anti social values, attitudes and relationships because of where they live and who they grow up with. Psychologists will also point to a predisposition for the propensity of crime and gun violence. They will point to twin-studies and others. Other psychologists will point to operant and classical conditioning. Those who develop antisocial values may have inadequate conditioning in good families and great operant conditioning in families that exhibit social disorganization thus getting their parents antisocial values. Furthermore, criminologists and psychologists alike will point to early childhood parental care (love, affection, understanding), friends and others develop the tendency to conform or commit deviant acts.
Will restricting gun ownership reduce gun violence without an improvement of social conditions? I really do not think so. Regulation and deterrence can only go so far. Would I support increased regulation of firearms? Sure because handguns and automatic weapons are unnecessary. However, the social conditions that lead to gun violence are still going to be around. People will find other ways to commit crime and kill people. Furthermore, do you really think these high crime level neighborhoods (as depicted in the video) are really going to care if there are firearms regulation? These communities have different social norms than the rest of society and I doubt they care what the law says. They will simply break the law by purchasing illegal firearms and ammunition and continue shooting people.
By the way I am not an NRA loving fool nor watch fox news so please do not insult me and say that I am. I actually support gun regulations and a citizen possessing an assault rifle is beyond unnecessary.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 12:05 PM
  #6
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
"assault rifles" becoming a boogeyman is so ridiculous.

They are rifles designed for military firefights at a 200-400 metre range, so basically field rifles, something for field shooting. How the hell is this extra dangerous, are these criminals assaulting farmsteads? If the shooters' objective is to shoot defenceless schoolchildren at point blank range then he would be better served by any kind of semi-automatic pistol, or hell even a revolver would work.

I guess the word "assault" has been poll tested to be the scary sounding danger word politicians and media talking heads can run with, but it's fairly meaningless asides from its military technical uses. Not even the military uses "assault rifles" when their mission to bust into single rooms and clear them, they use shorter range weaponry.

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:42 PM
  #7
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Gun control types should be honest and admit the real thingthey need to change is the 2nd amendment, not try and subvert it with weasel tactics.
Before the Heller case it was not an issue given the way in which numerous courts had for decades applied the last major SCOTUS ruling on the right to bear arms - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

It has only become problematical since 2008 with the interpretation that the majority placed on the Second Amendment and the way in which they re-interpreted Miller.

I disagree with the majority opinion of SCOTUS in the Heller case (5-4) in the manner in which they re-interpreted the Second Amendment and perform a judicial sleight of hand to get around the Miller case.

I go with the four other SCOTUS justices who dissented as their opinion seems to accord both with a rational interpretation of the wording of the Second Amendment and acknowledges past SCOTUS case law on this point.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law. Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there; we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980). No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.
~Justice Stevens with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer joined in dissent

Justice Breyer agreed with the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens but went even farther:
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.
I find the dissents in Heller to be much more persuasive than the majority opinion. YMMV


Last edited by Wetcoaster: 01-09-2013 at 02:21 PM.
Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 01:56 PM
  #8
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape to tape View Post
He makes a good point about the effort to restrict specific rifles when it's handguns that are used in crime predominately.

Quote:
in 2011, out of the homicides that were caused by firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles, and the AR-15 is a subset of the rifle group.
This point needs to be repeated more.
Terrific. I'm sure that's a great comfort to the parents and loved ones in Newtown and Aurora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Gun control types should be honest and admit the real thingthey need to change is the 2nd amendment, not try and subvert it with weasel tactics.
I think it should be completely repealed. It's preposterous that people think they should have a constitutional right to own a deadly weapon in 21st century, first-world country. It should be a privilege afforded only to those who can truly demonstrate that they can use such a dangerous tool responsibly.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 02:43 PM
  #9
Sirquacksalot
¡Viva Los Patos!
 
Sirquacksalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Mojave
Posts: 5,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tape to tape View Post
He makes a good point about the effort to restrict specific rifles when it's handguns that are used in crime predominately.



This point needs to be repeated more.
I've said before it's about handguns.

Sirquacksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:22 PM
  #10
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Before the Heller case it was not an issue given the way in which numerous courts had for decades applied the last major SCOTUS ruling on the right to bear arms - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
IF the SCOTUS was correct in its interpretation of the 2nd amendment 75 years ago, that people have a right to bear contemporary arms for military purposes, given that the founders deisigned the 2nd amendment so that all US citizens would be capable of defending the republic (as Madison discusses in the federalist papers), then by that logic any weapon in the military's doctrinal use should be available to the people. Ironically in Miller the SCOTUS erred because they went on to dismiss short barrel shotguns as military weapons, when infact they were in common use in WW1.

Now going on this fairly narrow interpretation, I guess technically a person could be forced to keep their military grade weapons locked up until designated training periods which would actually make them the "well ordered" militia specified in the constitution, although this restriction arguably conflicts with the latter part where the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Although now we're really getting into gymnastics if we're gonna say a person should not be able to take out this military grade rifle to defend their house in a home invasion, or to hunt a deer unless you wanna make hunting and sport shooting illegal (both ancient pasttimes, still legal even in Canada).

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:08 PM
  #11
Jebby
Registered User
 
Jebby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
This is a good video on crime stats from local news in Cincinnati


Jebby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:22 PM
  #12
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 25,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
This is a good video on crime stats from local news in Cincinnati

It is not a good video. Nice try though.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:33 PM
  #13
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
It is not a good video. Nice try though.
Yeah, what a load of horsecrap. Reality check? A "balanced look" at the gun homicide issue that concludes that guns don't kill people, people kill people? Might as well have been an NRA infomercial. You know the gun people can't win the debate honestly when they have to start talking about the violent crime rate rather than the homicide rate, because the homicide rate in Britain is one fourth that of the U.S.

Obfuscation - the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:41 PM
  #14
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 25,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
Yeah, what a load of horsecrap. Reality check? A "balanced look" at the gun homicide issue that concludes that guns don't kill people, people kill people? Might as well have been an NRA infomercial. You know the gun people can't win the debate honestly when they have to start talking about the violent crime rate rather than the homicide rate, because the homicide rate in Britain is one fourth that of the U.S.

Obfuscation - the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Going from memory so could be wrong. Violent crime in the UK includes basic assualt and the USA does not include that in their stats. UK also includes all sexual assualts where the US only includes ****.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:57 PM
  #15
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
goosing someone in a bar is now a sexual assault lol

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:02 PM
  #16
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,650
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
Going from memory so could be wrong. Violent crime in the UK includes basic assualt and the USA does not include that in their stats. UK also includes all sexual assualts where the US only includes ****.
This is what the U.S. includes

Murder
Non-negligent Manslaughter
Forcible ****
Robbery
Aggravated Assault



Here is what constitutes violent crimes in Canada (which is similar to the UK's).

Homicide
Other violations causing death
Attempted murder
Sexual assault - level 3 - aggravated
Sexual assault - level 2 - weapon or bodily harm
Sexual assault - level 1
Sexual violations against children
Assault - level 3 - aggravated
Assault - level 2 - weapon or bodily harm
Assault - level 1
Assault police officer
Other assaults
Firearms - use of, discharge, pointing
Robbery
Forcible confinement or kidnapping
Abduction
Extortion
Criminal harassment
Uttering threats
Threatening or harassing phone calls
Other violent Criminal Code violations



From what I've read, while **** and attempted **** are violent in the U.S, it seems mere sexual harassment is considered violent as a 'Level 1 Sexual Harassment' offense in Canada. All forms of manslaughter are considered violent in Canada unlike the U.S. All forms of assault in Canada (and the UK) are violent where only the equivalent of Canada's Level 3 is violent in the U.S and son on and so forth.

In fact, "Level 1 Sexual Assault", "Level 1 Assault", "Uttering Threats" and "Threatening or Harassing Phone Calls account for 292,810 of Canada's 437,316 violent crimes in 2010. In other words, at least two-thirds of Canada's violent crimes aren't considered violent in the United States.

Roughneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:08 PM
  #17
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan View Post
Going from memory so could be wrong. Violent crime in the UK includes basic assualt and the USA does not include that in their stats. UK also includes all sexual assualts where the US only includes ****.
I have stated this before and I will do it again. Notwithstanding homicide, comparing any crime statistics among different countries is extremely difficult even for those with phd's in criminology. Definitions of crime differ dramatically from country to country, the reporting of crime by civilians differs considerably, the reporting of crime by police into the UCR or equivelant is different, undetected crime differs considerably, clearance rates differ considerably etc...
BTW does the US have sexual assault as a broad reaching sexual crime or do they have numerous categoes such as ****, indecent assault or whatever else to classify it?

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:10 PM
  #18
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
This is what the U.S. includes

Murder
Non-negligent Manslaughter
Forcible ****
Robbery
Aggravated Assault



Here is what constitutes violent crimes in Canada (which is similar to the UK's).

Homicide
Other violations causing death
Attempted murder
Sexual assault - level 3 - aggravated
Sexual assault - level 2 - weapon or bodily harm
Sexual assault - level 1
Sexual violations against children
Assault - level 3 - aggravated
Assault - level 2 - weapon or bodily harm
Assault - level 1
Assault police officer
Other assaults
Firearms - use of, discharge, pointing
Robbery
Forcible confinement or kidnapping
Abduction
Extortion
Criminal harassment
Uttering threats
Threatening or harassing phone calls
Other violent Criminal Code violations



From what I've read, while **** and attempted **** are violent in the U.S, it seems mere sexual harassment is considered violent as a 'Level 1 Sexual Harassment' offense in Canada. All forms of manslaughter are considered violent in Canada unlike the U.S. All forms of assault in Canada (and the UK) are violent where only the equivalent of Canada's Level 3 is violent in the U.S and son on and so forth.

In fact, "Level 1 Sexual Assault", "Level 1 Assault", "Uttering Threats" and "Threatening or Harassing Phone Calls account for 292,810 of Canada's 437,316 violent crimes in 2010. In other words, at least two-thirds of Canada's violent crimes aren't considered violent in the United States.
That is an extremely great representation of why it is so hard to compare crime stats.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:10 PM
  #19
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
I have stated this before and I will do it again. Notwithstanding homicide, comparing any crime statistics among different countries is extremely difficult even for those with phd's in criminology. Definitions of crime differ dramatically from country to country, the reporting of crime by civilians differs considerably, the reporting of crime by police into the UCR or equivelant is different, undetected crime differs considerably, clearance rates differ considerably etc...
BTW does the US have sexual assault as a broad reaching sexual crime or do they have numerous categoes such as ****, indecent assault or whatever else to classify it?
This makes sense, but I'm wondering what the relevance even is. It makes some sense to compare the gun homicide rates of various countries, and even more sense to compare the overall homicide rate. But why do the gun people automatically shift the discussion to violent crime overall - it looks to me like an attempt to change the subject, unless I'm missing something.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:29 PM
  #20
kov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
This is the first video that I've seen that I felt was worth sharing on the topic.
Oops, friendly fire. He's clearly trying to defend gun rights, but his main argument turns on him pretty badly. His point is that banning guns doesn't stop violent crime:

The UK has very restrictive gun laws but higher violent crime than the US.

The US has very lax gun laws but higher murder rate than the UK.

But why mention the murder rate? He ends up saying our criminals are more lethal and coincidentally have access to more guns (imagine the UK's murder rate if they did too!)

Unless there's another way to interpret this ...

kov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:29 PM
  #21
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
This makes sense, but I'm wondering what the relevance even is. It makes some sense to compare the gun homicide rates of various countries, and even more sense to compare the overall homicide rate. But why do the gun people automatically shift the discussion to violent crime overall - it looks to me like an attempt to change the subject, unless I'm missing something.
I was just commenting on what the other person said. Comparing homicide rates with or without the discharge of firearms is not really that difficult. As far as I know, most jurisdictions treat homicide rather seriously and it rarely if ever goes unreported unless you a communist regime.
BTW I appreciate and respect your input on the high rate of gun violence in the US. It is clear that you are passionate about this troubling problem. I sincerly hope that gun violence will also go down.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:34 PM
  #22
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
I was just commenting on what the other person said. Comparing homicide rates with or without the discharge of firearms is not really that difficult. As far as I know, most jurisdictions treat homicide rather seriously and it rarely if ever goes unreported unless you a communist regime.
BTW I appreciate and respect your input on the high rate of gun violence in the US. It is clear that you are passionate about this troubling problem. I sincerly hope that gun violence will also go down.
Oh, I know dude. I was just wondering whether anyone here could explain whether the overall violent crime rate (even if it could be reliably compared) is relevant in this discussion, or whether it's just a red herring by gun rights advocates to obfuscate the issue.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:46 PM
  #23
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
Oh, I know dude. I was just wondering whether anyone here could explain whether the overall violent crime rate (even if it could be reliably compared) is relevant in this discussion, or whether it's just a red herring by gun rights advocates to obfuscate the issue.
Morally, I would say I am probably more on the side of restricting gun ownership, especially so with respect to handguns and assault rifles. Personally, I apply violent crime or any crime rates with gun crimes as well. Criminology theory looks at why the individual commits crime. The theories are used to explain crime in general whether that be homicide, gun violence (homicide or not) robbery, **** or something extremely minor. That is why you might see me arguing minor crime, violent crime and gun at the same time. I am not sure if I am communicating this well enough.
Do gun rights advocates use the same argument as I present. Or do they strictly throw up the second amendment?

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:49 PM
  #24
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadri43 View Post
Morally, I would say I am probably more on the side of restricting gun ownership, especially so with respect to handguns and assault rifles. Personally, I apply violent crime or any crime rates with gun crimes as well. Criminology theory looks at why the individual commits crime. The theories are used to explain crime in general whether that be homicide, gun violence (homicide or not) robbery, **** or something extremely minor. That is why you might see me arguing minor crime, violent crime and gun at the same time. I am not sure if I am communicating this well enough.
Do gun rights advocates use the same argument as I present. Or do they strictly throw up the second amendment?
Well I'm not sure... the guy in the video basically says "the U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., therefore gun control doesn't work." Which seems like an odd leap of logic.

Ugmo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:54 PM
  #25
Kadri43
Registered User
 
Kadri43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: noneofyourbusiness
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
Well I'm not sure... the guy in the video basically says "the U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., therefore gun control doesn't work." Which seems like an odd leap of logic.
Ya looking solely at what you just wrote I would agree.

Kadri43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.