http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-02.php

Have you seen that yet? It's pretty damn good. Hilarious and gutwrenchingly horrible at the same time. The scene where Michael confronts Charlton Heston is pretty hard core.

I've just seen a clip (on UK TV) showing a choir of throat cancer patients with voice boxes singing in the lobby of Philip Morris, very powerful, moving and funny all at the same time.

I might have to go and see him live in London this month.

Scary as in "guns are bad", or scary as in just how much of a gross distortion of information this is?

I'm just going off what I see on the web page. I have no desire to see this movie, as I'd actually trust a Clinton's "facts" before I trust Moore's. (And I can't stand the Clintonians either.)

BTW, I am not a Republican, I'm not defending Bush. But those attacks are about as well-based as any of Clinton's policies. Those polished stats look like they are straight out of Gun Control, Inc. The real data coming out of the FBI state-by-state crime data and the pure crime data coming out of England paint a much different picture. England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns, and the US has decreased crime every year for the last 9 years. The two countries are getting much closer in regards to *crime per capita*.

Sorry to rant, I just hate to see facts distorted so badly.

- Rick

It also doesn't say how many of those eleven thousand homicides were inflicted in defense. In a country where guns are outlawed, 99% of all guns are going to be used offensively. In the US, most gun casulties are the result of a person defending himself or his home. I'd say I'd have a much greater chance of my empeg getting stolen in the UK than in the US, especially if I'm legally packing heat.



It also doesn't mention that the US has a population of 300,000,000 while:

Japan- 126,000,000
Germany- 83,000,000
UK- 60,000,000
France- 60,000,000
Canada- 32,000,000
Australia- 19,000,000

It also doesn't mention that the US has a population of 300,000,000 while:

Japan- 126,000,000
Germany- 83,000,000
UK- 60,000,000
France- 60,000,000
Canada- 32,000,000
Australia- 19,000,000

Which doesn't really make a great deal of difference when you are comparing 11,000 deaths in the US and 60 in the UK (or whatever, I haven't gone back to check the figures again).

Scary as in "guns are bad", or scary as in just how much of a gross distortion of information this is?

Scary as in I had no idea there were so many deaths from shooting in the US. If those bare figures of 11,000 deaths in the US and 60 in the UK are actually correct then that is a stunning difference.

That is one death per 2,696 US citizens and one death per 882,000 UK citizens.

Are you saying that those figures are wrong and that the per capita gun deaths for the UK vs US are in fact much closer ?

I have no idea whether the figures are correct, although the UK figures do sound about right. It would be good if he had added a source...

England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns

What do you mean that England has got worse since banning handguns ? Are you suggesting that crime has got worse because the very small number of legally held hand guns have been removed ?

England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns

Has it? Can you quote some figures to back that up?

I've seen a lot of varying statistics for UK gun deaths. The lowest figure quoted is around 50 while the highest is around 75 per year during 2000/2001. I believe the variance may come from whether air weapons are included. The vast majority of UK firearms offences relate to air weapons (whether they're strictly firearms is another question).

In the UK just about any gun related homicide makes national news.

Rob

Define ``air weapons'' for me. BB guns and the like?

The 11,000 number is accurate. Unfortunately it doesn't show the whole picture. There were also 2,087 stabbing deaths in the states. So basically, guns outnumber knives 6-1, but that's only in deaths, not attacks. Guns are a more effective means of homicide. This does not make them necessarily evil. 2,968 people were murdered by fire, pushed off a building, blunt objects, etc. 86 people were poisoned. 304 criminals were killed by handguns of people defending themselves. Basically what I am saying here is that the problem isn't the guns, it's the drugs, poverty, gangs, etc. The murders would happen regardless of the means. Washington DC has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and their murder rate is 5 times higher than anywhere else in the country. What these numbers do NOT show is the unbelievely disproportionate nuumber of killings that happen in the inner-cities, as opposed to the rest of the country. Or the disproportionate numbers happening in state assisted housing.

Numbers can say anything you want them to.

And they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.

btw, numbers are from 1998,

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki.htm

The two statements:

Guns are a more effective means of homicide.

and

Basically what I am saying here is that the problem isn't the guns, it's the drugs, poverty, gangs, etc. The murders would happen regardless of the means.

Seem to contradict each other. If the people killing other people with guns had to resort to less "efficient" and hands on methods, do you not think that the rate of "sucessful" killings would fall ?

Not if they really wanted someone dead.

Besides, if they completely disarmed the law-abiding public, it would be much safer for criminals to carry out their murderous plans. If you remove the risk from trying to rape someone, do you think rapes will go up or down? If 50 percent of women were carrying handguns, would it dissuade people from even attempting this? I think so. While many women carry things such as pepper spray or tasers, this does not present a deterrent to criminals. It may hurt for a little while, but there is no real deterrent here from attempting again, on another victim.

Besides, if they completely disarmed the law-abiding public, it would be much safer for criminals to carry out their murderous plans. If you remove the risk from trying to rape someone, do you think rapes will go up or down?

So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?

Would that also explain why the death penalty is so effective at keeping the level of murders in the US nice and low ?

Besides, if they completely disarmed the law-abiding public, it would be much safer for criminals to carry out their murderous plans. If you remove the risk from trying to rape someone, do you think rapes will go up or down?

From the figures that I can find on the 'Net it looks like the US has about 180,000 reported rapes a year, UK has about 6,000 reported (in both cases there are reports saying as little as 1 in 10 rapes are reported).

So taking the relative populations into account that gives you:

- 1 rape per 833 US women
- 1 rape per 5,000 UK women

It doesn't look like the availablily of hand guns is working there either (though the ratio isn't as stark as the murder rates).

P.S. if the reports are correct about the ratio of reported rapes to actual rapes that means one in every 80 US women and one in every 500 UK women are being raped each year, which is absolutely awful if it is true. We call ourselves civilized countries.

"So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?"

Yes. Go here and read FABLE VII.



This is an excerpt from the NRA website:

Israel's "guns everywhere" policy accounts for incidents such as the one in which three terrorists opened up with AK-47s on a Jerusalem crowd. The terrorists were able to kill only one victim before they were themselves shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis.

The surviving terrorist was bitter when he spoke to the press the next day. Their plan had been to quickly kill 20 or 30 people at a series of public places, always escaping before military or police could arrive. They hadn't known Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorist felt that it just wasn't "fair."

Incidentally, this occurred within three weeks of the massacre of 21 unarmed victims in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's fast-food restaurant.

-------------------------------------------------


I believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the most effective way to combat crime. It's not the only way, and it's not the only reason for civilians to be armed.

So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?

Well, according to a study by John Lott, that is indeed true - at least where law abiding citizens can carry concealed. Lots of attempts to poke holes in the study, to the best of my knowledge no one has been successful.

Do a google search for Lott "More guns, less crime"

/Michael

So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?

Yes, see Texas.

Would that also explain why the death penalty is so effective at keeping the level of murders in the US nice and low ?

It would be if it were actually carried out. Unfortunately, people are very rarely executed even if they recieved the death penalty.

I'd really like to see a non-NRA version of that story... 3 terrorists with AK47 automatic assault rifles vs a crowd with handguns, and only 1 dead victim? Assuming that all 3 started shooting at the same time, that'd be 3 magazines unloaded before anyone had a chance to react. Something doesn't add up.

it's the bullets man.

Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Scary as in "guns are bad", or scary as in just how much of a gross distortion of information this is?

Speaking as one who *has* seen the movie, (but not the web page, since it's in flash)...

The position taken isn't that "guns are bad" -- Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. In the film he points out that guns are readily available to anyone that wants one in Canada, as well.

The real data coming out of the FBI state-by-state crime data and the pure crime data coming out of England paint a much different picture. England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns, and the US has decreased crime every year for the last 9 years. The two countries are getting much closer in regards to *crime per capita*.

Sorry to pick on you here, but this seems to be the root of much of the discussion on crime in the thread. You've done something that many, many people I've talked to have done with this film, and gone from "gun problem" to "crime" in one leap. Moore and the film are not talking about crime related gun deaths, but gun deaths in the broader scope. He's not asking whether or not there would be less crime, but whether on not there would be less dead people that shouldn't be dead. He's also asking questions to figure out why it is that the US culture has the problem while similar first world countries do not.

Having lived in both Canada, and now the US, I've noted that the biggest difference in terms of attitude towards guns is that Americans think that guns are a good tool for protection. It's either "I am safe because the criminals are afraid I have a gun," or "I am afraid of crime, but a gun will keep me safe." Both are rather absurd. Canadians aren't anti-gun -- heck, I learned how to shoot a gun at church camp -- so much as we feel safe without the need to pack heat (that's not to say there is no crime). America is not so much the "land of the free" as it is the "land of the fear" -- what's the whole right to bear arms based on? Fear of the government. What props it up now? Fear of crime.

In reply to:

---

Moore and the film are not talking about crime related gun deaths, but gun deaths in the broader scope. He's not asking whether or not there would be less crime, but whether on not there would be less dead people that shouldn't be dead. He's also asking questions to figure out why it is that the US culture has the problem while similar first world countries do not.

---

I haven't seen the film, but your last 2 sentences are the nub of the whole issue.

I was going to do a post on this point earlier but decided not to, but since you've bought it up again here goes.

Its a well known fact (confirmed by many, many studies) that having any guns in the house dramatically increases the likelihood of death or injury to the (legal) occupants of the house.

One of the main reasons for this is that guns in the house increases the chance of a (successful) suicide attempt.

However removing that from the equation, still results in a higher death and injury rate due to many reasons including improper storage and/or improper use of the guns in the house resulting in death or injury to the occupants, whether through not storing the gun properly (e.g. keeping the ammunition seperate from the (locked away and - ) unloaded weapon), or from a lack of training in the proper use of the weapon, through to shooting the wrong people due to not properly (and accurately) indentifying your target before firing the weapon.

Seems ironic doesn't it that those who get a gun for protection of their familiy are probably putting their loved ones in more danger than if they did not have a gun in the first place.
I think that episode of the Simpsons where Homer joined the NRA (before being kicked out again) made this point quite well - many people (the NRA included if I recall) probably failed to make this connection.

One wonders what would the be ths situation if automobiles existed back a few hundred years ago - imagine if the US consitution had been extended to cover Automobiles - (say everyone has the right to "bear" (drive) an automobile) - would that now make the NRA and the AAA bedfellows? And would we be having the same discussions?

One wonders what would the be ths situation if automobiles existed back a few hundred years ago - imagine if the US consitution had been extended to cover Automobiles - (say everyone has the right to "bear" (drive) an automobile) - would that now make the NRA and the AAA bedfellows? And would we be having the same discussions?

That would be cool. When my gun jammed I could have the NRA dispatch someone for roadside repair!

Its a well known fact (confirmed by many, many studies) that having any guns in the house dramatically increases the likelihood of death or injury to the (legal) occupants of the house


Fable I

"After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes."

I tried finding information about that. I found that the california incident happened in 1984 but I couldn't find anthing on a terrorist attack in Israel that matched the description. However, I wouldn't be surprised that dozens of people with pistols could overtake 3 guys with AK's. I guess the terrosists must not have had very good aim to only get 1 kill.

I guess the terrosists must not have had very good aim to only get 1 kill.

That's cause the bad guys can't shoot straight. Just like the movies.



;-)

Yes, but I note this in that NRA rebuttal site:

In reply to:

---

Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,(7) - a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents.

---

So, I do not think my original comments are invalidated by NRA's rebuttal Fable#1.

I never said X times more likely to be killed or injured by owning a gun ( I did say many times more)

In relation to the point at hand (that having a gun in the home leads to more people being killed or injured than would otherwise be the case) - I think the above statistic shows this up. Especially for suicides.

Yes there may be a link between mental instability and suicides- Tthe fact still remains that if you add a gun in the home to that mix (for any member of the familiy in that home), then the (succesful) suicide rate will increase.

I wonder what the "accidental injury rate" is, given the "accidental death rate" is stated as 2%, more than that I would expect.
As don't forget to add to the sucessful suicide rate, the unsucessful cases, where the person did not kill themselves outright and the accidental "injury rate" from a gun in the house will surely exceed the NRA quoted "2%" figure.

I would expect that most gun related injuries are not directly due to people mistaking family members for criminals (or though that happens - even the NRA admits that), more likely you will be injured due to ricochets or splinters/bullet fragments or flying pieces of the building (e.g. masonry) or glass from windows, or even just the noise, from discharging a firearm inside a enclosed space.

A house is not a shooting range, nor is it the same as the outdoors - a house has lots of rooms "linked" to each other with common walls (or neighbours within a few feet of the home - either laterally or vertically - so while a bullet may miss the "target" and hit a wall or window, its what it hits on the other side of the wall or window that can cause injury as well.


I have some grave doubts about many of the statistics presented on the website you linked to.

The NRA seems to take a position that enforcement (or lack of it) is the underlying problem, yet in many case, it refuses to accept that enforcement of these rules is acceptable or valid.

For instance I note this statement is one of many I find troubling:

In reply to:

---

Mandatory (gun) storage laws also would be virtually impossible to enforce without violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. ...

... Most states provide penalties for reckless endangerment, under which an adult found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm can be prosecuted for a criminal offense.

---

How will the adults who do not store their firearms safely ever be caught, if the 4th Ammendment protects them from being subject to such checks as they could be deemed "unreasonable searches"?

I also note that the text says "Most states" - not all states, so in some states do not have such rules, so one presumably can be as careless as you like with Firearms and not be subject to any penalties in those states.

I wonder if these states the rates of injury and death in the home are different from the states which do have and enforce proper gun storage and negligence laws?

There is also this comment:

In reply to:

---

British gun owners failed to resist the passage of "reasonable" gun laws and have seen their rights almost completely disappear in the space of a few decades.
England changed from a nation with almost no restrictions on gun ownership and no crime, to a nation where all but certain rifles and shotguns are banned and crime is rising.

---

I'd like to know in which year (in the last few hundred or [thousand] years) was the year in which England had a population > 1 and no crime.

I also think that any link between rising crime levels and gun control laws is very dubious.

Crime rates worldwide are rising, even in those countries and states that have not changed their gun control laws.

To state as above that "crime is rising because gun control was bought in" is very misleading.

A large part of any rise in crime is generally due to increased reporting, not necessarily an increased incidence of crime or criminal activity.

Insurance companies in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. Australia and New Zealand and probably Canada too), will not allow claims for property lost due to crime/criminal activity without a copy of an offical police report.

This means that in countries like the above the "reported crime" rates for "low-level" offences like burglary is much higher than in many other places (the US included), since you have to report the crime to make an insurance claim.

Also, do not forget that world wide the population is rising, if only a small (and steady) percentage of individuals commit crimes, then of course the incidence will increase - in line with the general population growth.

Any crime statistics that do not compare "per capita" (per head of population) statistics and instead quote absolute "crime" numbers or take into account differing categorisation across jurisdictions are meaningless for comparison.

I found a lot of this sort of mis-use of statistics on the NRAILA website.

Y'know, I was going to write up a long rebuttal, but the reailty is that the issues surrounding the firearms in America are not going to be undeniably proven one way or the other here. The best thing anyone can do is their own research. To that end, I submit the following urls for you to do some personal eye-opening.

Keep And Bear Arms
The Armed Citizen (forum)
The Firing Line (forum)
Glocktalk (forum)
Gun Owners Of America

There are many more. That's just a few off the top of my head. If those don't change your mind, then probably nothing I say or write here will do it so I won't waste my time and yours with some long rant.

By the way, as of this last Saturday, you can add two more bodies onto this year's 11,000 dead in America:

2 men killed in failed robbery

I live about 40 miles away from Indy. The KaBA site always has articles like the one above. So yes, guns are used daily in America to kill, and to save lives. It's a heavy issue no matter how you look at it.

- Rick

I'd like to know in which year (in the last few hundred or [thousand] years) was the year in which England had a population > 1 and no crime.


1287. *



*. According to family folklore. My (great)^40 - grandfather said that there wasn't anything worth stealing.