[io333]

I found this website

http://www.guninformation.org/


on a different bbs (GT).


It seems to refute some of the stuff I've seen bantered about the gun boards (e.g., crime rising after gun control passed in England) pretty well. Opinions?

[boofus]

Washington DC is approaching a 20 year low in crime. Those brady idiots were pimping that statistic in one of their propaganda pieces as proof that gun control 'works'.

What they don't tell you is the DC gun ban was passed 29 years ago. So the crime rate still hasn't dropped to what it was before the ban. If the ban had any beneficial effect it would be a 29 year record low in crime, not 20.

[io333]

It's the England argument that concerns me most.

[richyoung]

Doesn't your computer have a search engine?

[slowworm]

Doesn't your computer have a search engine?

It probably does, but I think he'll find the ones on the web like google more use :D

[io333]

Well yea, I could go through the net digging ritual, like I have from time to time for the last 20 years or so (yes folks, there was a net before 1993), but I was hoping that someone already knew the answer.


Edit: up 'till now, I assumed the England argument (that crime went up) was more or less accepted as fact. This is the first time I've noticed a good refutation.

[boofus]

Wouldn't a better rebuttal be "Try to take my gun and I will shoot you in the face?"

There is no reason a law abiding person should have to justify a basic human right to the leftwing criminal lobby.

[io333]

There is no reason a law abiding person should have to justify a basic human right.


Look, I agree, but if some democrat decides to stand up in congress (after they regain control) and spout this stuff off, we had better be ready to refute it, or we're gonna be in trouble.

[longeyes]

Debating your basic inalienable freedoms is step one. Negotiating them is step two. Losing them is step three.

Don't get on that train. The right to self-defense and to overthrow tyranny is radical and fundamental.

In the end it will come to a test of wills, not brains.

[richyoung]

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in the 1990's.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws.

...which means there is NO WAY to know for sure the effect on the crime rate...


This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent(see Chapter 3)."(source- PDF file) So when you take into account changes in recording crime, there was an actual decrease in the violent crime rate. Since 1997, the overall UK crime rate has fallen by 27%. Burglary has dropped 39%. Vehicle thefts have dropped 32%. Violent crime has declined 26%(source).

The above is a lie, see the following excerpted from a report by Hoeard Nemerov:

" First, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For that, we will reference the International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000. (3)

In general, the research shows that violent crime rates were lower in the UK than the United States in 1992. (Rated in percent of those interviewed responding ''yes'' to being victimized.)

Burglary with entry: UK – 2.5% U.S. – 3.5%
Robbery: UK – .9% U.S. – 1.7%
Sexual assault of women: UK – .3% U.S. – 1.5%
Assault with force: UK – 1.1% U.S. – 2.2%



In the 2000 survey the researchers combined the three violent crimes of robbery, rape, and assault into one category entitled ''Selected Contact Crime.'' Here is what they report (post-ban for UK.)

Burglary with entry: UK – 2.8% U.S. – 1.8%
Selected contact crime: UK – 3.6% U.S. – 1.9%



These two reports were done with essentially the same criteria and methods, and they clearly show that while selected violent crime rates rose 100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the U.S. During this time, Britain outlawed private ownership of firearms, while over 70 million additional civilian firearms were sold in the U.S. (4) At the very least, a reasonable person is forced to conclude that availability of firearms to the general public is not a contributing factor to any increase in crime."


There is much much more about the politicization of crime reporting and statistics in England in the full report, available online at:What you don't know! (http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/what_you_dont_know.htm).



The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends."Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source).


More lies -the following is from "Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
By Jon Dougherty© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com", and also uses the International Crime Victim Survey data...



"...the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999. Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent). In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source).

True, but twisted and selective. Although the US does have a higher MURDER rate, (thanks, drug dealers and illegal immigrants!), the over-all VIOLENT CRIME rate is lower in the U.S. than Australia, despite the fact (or because of!) we have so many guns here.

[cuchulainn]

Well yea, I could go through the net digging ritual, like I have from time to time for the last 20 years or so (yes folks, there was a net before 1993), but I was hoping that someone already knew the answer. Well, you might at least try using the search engines on:

A) This site

B) www.thefiringling.com (THR's predecessor forum)

C) www.guncite.com

The problem with this thread is that you're asking for refutation of many different claims -- meaning it soon will become confusing and unweildy as different people chime in on different questions. You'd do better to focus on one question at a time in separate threads -- but after researching them on the three sites above and then asking questions to fill in your knowledge gaps.

[kbheiner7]

I just posted to that board. I suggest thay all of you post thoughtful, passionate replies. This board is new. Maybe the guy will give up if his site is overwhelmed by folks walking The High Road. :)

[richyoung]

MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide.

This attempting to show a NEGATIVE cause and effect out of what is merely corellation. People in bad neighborhoods or with stalking, homicidal exes tend to buy guns more than others. One could make the same argument that "Flood insurance is not a good preperation for flooding, since those who buy flood insurance are actually more likely to be victims of a flood." (Duh - if you live on a mountain in Arizonna, you don't need flood insurance - if you live in a flood plain, you probably can't finace the house without it!) or "Buying a motercycle helmet actually makes you 10 times more likely to have head trauma in a motercycle accident" - because people who don't own motercycles AT ALL don't buy helmets!


Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide.

I trust NEJoM as far as I can thow Rosie O'Donnel...


Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source)

All those muderers, rapists, crank addicts, and thugs? They live with people, who, if they are smart, buy guns to use on their boyfriend in the wife beater shirt the next time he get drunk or stoned and comes to take your money or bust your nose... a possibly true 'statistic", but again attempts to infer cause and effect from correlation...


and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.


...and if I CHOSSE to end my life, (and if I don't own and control THAT, what do I own?) thats WHO'S business other than my own?

[Mr. X]

WHOIS information for guninformation.org:

[whois.melbourneit.com]

Domain Name.......... guninformation.org
Creation Date........ 2003-09-14
Registration Date.... 2003-09-14
Expiry Date.......... 2005-09-14
Organisation Name.... Seth Grandy
Organisation Address. 786 West 150 North
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Orem
Organisation Address. 84057
Organisation Address. UT
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... Seth Grandy
Admin Address........ 786 West 150 North
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ Orem
Admin Address........ 84057
Admin Address........ UT
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... hdy128@yahoo.com
Admin Phone.......... +1.8012214564
Admin Fax............

Tech Name............ YahooDomains TechContact
Tech Address......... 701 First Ave.
Tech Address.........
Tech Address......... Sunnyvale
Tech Address......... 94089
Tech Address......... CA
Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
Tech Email........... domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM
Tech Phone........... +1.6198813096
Tech Fax............. +1.6198813010
Name Server.......... yns1.yahoo.com
Name Server.......... yns2.yahoo.com

[neoncowboy]

Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide.

I hate this conclusion.

It assumes that the mere presence of a gun is the deciding factor in whether or not a death occurs. It seems to assume that it's the gun that is responsible. Jeff Snider examines this and other fallacious arguments for gun control in his book, 'Nation of Cowards (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888118083/neoncowboydesign?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1) '. Definitely a MUST READ for anyone who sees themselves as a champion of liberty. He deals a lot less with gun control issues than he does the overarching issue of personal responsibility, morality and liberty.

[DelayedReaction]

and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

I don't remember specifically, but I remember hearing that the same report that made this correlation also determined that you are five times more likely to commit suicide if you live alone.

[dev_null]

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[grimlock]

The only necessary arguments against gun control can be found here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

[Boats]

Actually the two Kellerman studies, which posit that old chestnut that you're 43 times (or 2.7 depending on the version of bovine excrement) more likely to be killed by your own gun than use it successfully against a criminal has been fairly well debunked. The earlier one is torn apart in Spring 1995 edition of the Tennessee Law Review, the later one was dismantled by the JPFO.

Kellerman's intros should have begun, "The first step to speciously compare apples to oranges is to find orange spray paint."

His model was poorly suited to what he was attemtpting to measure.
His sample sizes were ridiculously small.
He didn't have controls for obvious non-politically correct factors such as race.
He has to resort to statistical trickery to massage the minor actual differences in his model.
Neither article was peer reviewed before publication.
His conclusions are bogus in terms of correllation, one commentator I cannot recall saying that Kellerman would conclude "that the possession of syringes made one 43 times more likely to contract diabetes." (Explaining that maybe people murdered by guns were in fact predisposed to be murdered in such a way that has nothing to with lawful firearm ownership.)

[Zrex]

I don't understand trying to argue with the anti's and their so called "facts". All it does is cost you a lot of time digging up the truth, and then they ignore it and claim its "for the children" or something like that.

I would rather spend the time playing with my kid or reloading or shooting or mowing the lawn or taking out the trash or....... you get the idea. They just aren't worth the effort.

[io333]

Everyone, and especially richyoung, thank you very much for putting away this current anti-attempt at statistical argument.

[io333]

I would rather spend the time playing with my kid or reloading or shooting or mowing the lawn or taking out the trash or....... you get the idea. They just aren't worth the effort.


Every time we let our guard down for a second, they start trying to slide new legislation through. That's reality. Hide your head in the sand if you wish, but that means that the rest of us have to make up for the lack of your effort.

[thorn726]

Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime (source).It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun control laws were enacted in Germany to disarm Hitler and those in the Nazi militia. In that case, gun control was a protection against political tyranny.

oh my.

what a loaD!

[boofus]

Gun control laws were enacted in Germany to disarm Hitler and those in the Nazi militia. In that case, gun control was a protection against political tyranny

And those laws sure worked wonders didn't they.

[Zrex]

Hide your head in the sand if you wish, but that means that the rest of us have to make up for the lack of your effort.

Yeah, arguing with some jackass anti on the internet where they refuse to use reason or logic is really helping preserve our rights. Why don't you direct your energies where they might be productive instead of presenting facts and figures to someone who doesn't care? It's not like you are writing a letter to your state rep, you are just arguing with some sheep who makes no decisions and who is only using your efforts as entertainment. Pound your head on that wall all you want, but it doesn't mean you have actually acomplished anything.

Maybe you should look at your priorities if you think spending time with your kids is burying your head in the sand, but spending time researching issues for someone who will not change their mind regardless of what you say and is laughing at your efforts is protecting our rights.

:rolleyes:

[asteffes]

Can we all please attempt to remember that CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION!?!

[io333]

Gosh Zrex, it must be hot in Texas today.


:cool:

[richyoung]

the dude is a waste of time - my correspondence with him follows (from bottom up:):

SO how did violent crime RISE in the UK and DROP in the US despite the UK removing guns and the US adding them? You sir, use statistics the same way a drunkard uses a lamp post - for support, rather than illumination. I'm done with you.
-----Original Message-----
From: guninformation.org [mailto:webmaster@guninformation.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:15 PM
To: Young, Richard C Mr Contractor
Subject: RE: Brittain, Australia crim after giun ban


Doing my work? If you are going to make a claim about the ICVS then you should back it up.
Well I took a look at that report. You seem to be quite selective in your use of numbers. You talk about Australia's overall crime rate, but don't bother to mention what the report said about the UK in that respect (percentage of people victimized once or more):

UK-
1992- 30.2
1996- 30.9
2000- 26.4

Well, that's the prevalence rate according to the ICVS. And the British Crime Survey (which has a sample size 20 times that of the ICVS) has reported that violent crime in Britain has been declining.

As for you claims about the gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria, you should look at this report.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

I think that WorldNetDaily needs to look at the big picture of what has happened in Australia.
And don't tell me that they don't have a political axe to grind.

You've given me some ideas. I'll probably posts some graphs of crimes rates onto my websites since it seems like some people don't bother to read the reports that I have provided links to.

"Young, Richard C Mr Contractor" <rich.young1@us.army.mil> wrote:
OK - since you want me to do YOUR work for you:

ststistics for 1992 (pre-ban):

Burglary with entry: UK - 2.5% U.S. - 3.5%
Robbery: UK - .9% U.S. - 1.7%
Sexual assault of women: UK - .3% U.S. - 1.5%
Assault with force: UK - 1.1% U.S. - 2.2%


Now, the numbers for 2000 require some explanation: the catagories for robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force are all combined into one new catagory, that of:"selected contact crime:

statistics for 2000 (post-ban):

Burglary with entry: UK - 2.8% U.S. - 1.8%
Selected contact crime: UK - 3.6% U.S. - 1.9%



These numbers come from the International Crime Victims Surveys of 1992 and 2000. They were conducted using essentially the same terminology and methods, and UNLIKE the stats you cite, were compiled by people without a politcal waxe to grind. The numbers show that violent crime went UP over %100 from 1992 to 2000 DESPITE essentially outlawing private firearms ownership and use for defense, whilst in the same period, violent crime in the U.S, DECLINED %65 DESPITE more liberal concealed-carry policies and the sale of 70 million additional firearms to the populace. If "gun control" REDUCES violent crime, why weren't the U.S.' streets "awash with blood", and WHY isn't the U.K. a peaceful paradise?

From the same source, vis-avis Down Under:

Over-all violent crime victimization:

1988 - %27.8 1991 %28.6 1999 %30.

The numbers are RISING, despite the gun ban - HOW can this be? In fact, Australia SINCE the gun ban LEADS the ICVS report in three of four catagories, burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."

Helping you to see the light
Rich Young





-----Original Message-----
From: guninformation.org [mailto:webmaster@guninformation.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Young, Richard C Mr Contractor
Subject: Re: Brittain, Australia crim after giun ban


Your arguments are unconvincing since you fail to cite even one statistic or any evidence at all to back up your claims. Somehow you think that putting words in capital letters makes what you say believable.

"Young, Richard C Mr Contractor" <rich.young1@us.army.mil> wrote:
I must respectfully inform you that according to analysis of data from the
International Crime Victimization Survey, violent crimes against people have
indeed dramatically increased in both Great Brittain and Australia since
thier gun bans were implimented. Althoug Australia soes indeed have a lower
MURDER rate than the U.S., for largely demographic reasons - (Australia
doesn't have millions of illegal immigrants pouring over a largely unpoliced
border, doesn't suffer from racial tension to the degree the U.S. does, does
not (yet) have a violent urban gang drug culter to the same degree) the
overall VIOLENT CRIME rate in Australia is HIGHER than that of the U.S.,
despite, (or more probably, because of) their recent unfortunate gun ban.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to address the other mistakes and
mis-statements on your web site.

Respectfully,
Rich young

[Henry Bowman]

Zrex, you are right that arguing with some anti on the net is a waste of time. However, there are millions of uninformed, gullible sheep out there who vote based on their emotions, rather than on facts or rights. Additionally, the party that supports disarmament has a record of vote fraud to enhance their power in the .gov.

Being prepared to refute this nonsense, one heart and mind at a time is the best thing that we can do to inform the flock. The mainstream media will not help us, will not defend or seek the truth, and largely has an agenda of supporting centralized power because they stand to benefit from it. (makes local news reporting less relevant.)

It goes against the basic grain of those of us who simple want to be left alone to try and persuade others to our point of view. After all, we leave them alone to believe what they want. But the opposing view is not content to leave you (us) alone and, if unattended, will hoard power while we aren't looking and use it for cross purposes.

Stay informed. Stay vigilant. Stay free.
That others will also be free is a beneficial side effect.
That the power-grabbing antis will be torqued off by so much freedom is just plain fun. :neener:

[kbheiner7]

My last post on that sorry board:

Guncite? Surely you jest. I accept their truthfulness about as well as you would accept a reference from an NRA publication.

Want to know what some of the founding fathers intended about citizens owning arms and why? Read the Federalist papers. Even Guncite doesn't dare refute these. They are far too clear and widely distributed to discredit. If you are truly interested in the history of the idea, look into the original 13 colonies' individual state constitutions. They are quite clear on the matter.

Reread my post about Japan. If you'd care to discuss the related issues, I'd be glad to. Social and economic class structures and post WWII conditions have considerable bearing here.

If evil guns are the simple reason for crime, why do large cities with the most strict gun control have the highest gun-related murder rates? Switzerland should be mired in gun violence, as their gun ownership rates nears that of the U.S. As I'm sure you are aware, their crime rate is quite low. They also managed to avoid being invaded in either of the two World Wars. An armed populace is helpful that way.

I suspect that the reason you have offered no counter to my explantion about the placement of the 2nd Amendment is that you have none. I have yet to meet a person who does when thought of in that light. The word "militia" is often confusing to simple-minded gun-control activists that haven't carefully studied the history of the issue. When condidering the structure of the Constitution and how the enumeration of powers is clearly segregated in every other way, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. It was inculded in the Bill of Rights because it is a right of the people. If you have an arguement here, let's hear it. I've debated this at the collegiate level and have yet to hear a counter-arguement on this point. I could use the practice!

I'd also be interested to hear how American law has been effective at eliminating any product or service. The sexual nature of men and women have created demand for prostitution for thousands of years. That demand has been satisfied despite laws against it in most countries. Drugs? Same story.

Of course, there are countries in the world where people are not allowed to own private arms. Some of them have low gun-related violence. Others suffer greatly at the hands criminals who don't care to follow such laws. You folks know the pro-gun arguements. History has not been kind to people that surrender their arms. "Those that beat their swords to plowshares will plow for those that don't."

I fully agree with the Benjamin Franklin quote I mentioned above. I think some of you are willing to forsake liberty for a little safety. I also agree with old Ben that you deserve neither. As I said earlier, I respect and value your right to think differently. I think it is short-sighted and cowardly, but I respect your right to your thoughts and voice.

It is your right to not own guns and not like them. It is not your right, by any stretch of the imagination, to demand that I not have them. It is no more reasonable than telling a man where and how he may worship or speak.

While it is sometimes an exercise in futility, it is often satisfying to argue these folks into a position where they can't say anything. Once in a great while, learning actually takes place. While these folks may never take up arms themselves, they may gain a level of understanding that may help them vote a little wiser. :)

[DarthBubba]

Hey all,

Just read the book “How To Lie With Statistics” by Darrell Huff.
This wonderful book will help you see that all of the polls and collected data that is turned into statistics for public is easily manipulated to tell what ever story you want.
You all know what that means, Hey we can get what ever results that we need to push dangerous legislation off on the people and if the news media shouts it loud enough for long enough it will become the truth.
Wake up folks it is all Bull Chips.

DarthBubba :evil:

[RaggedClaws]

Guncite? Surely you jest. I accept their truthfulness about as well as you would accept a reference from an NRA publication.

What's wrong with Guncite?

[Zrex]

Henry,

I hear what you are saying and tend to agree. One has to stay apprised of the facts and be prepared to share them with those who are uninformed and willing to listen. My big problem is wasting time on people who are as firmly anti-gun as you are pro-gun and who seek out arguments just to entertain themselves. They live off the grief they cause others. The last thing those people want is to get NO reaction. They live on hate mail. They make themselves happy by making you angry. They are an absolute waste of time.

That being said, I like talking to those who are open minded or uninformed but willing to listen. Of course, the best way to convert folks is to take them shooting. ;)

[Henry Bowman]

Zrex - We are in total agreement.

[joab]

One has to stay apprised of the facts and be prepared to share them with those who are uninformed and willing to listen And that purpose is served by engaging the antis on their own turf.

Arguing with them does no good, they're a lost cause.

However many uninformed, but willing to learn, are visiting these anti sites.

It wasn't all that long ago that I had some slight anti leanings coming to sites like this and the one being discussed are where I developed my somewhat informed opinion.

It was the intelligent fact based responses here and THR as opposed to the emotional almost hysterical responses of the anti sites that cemented my stand

This guy presents a reasoned argument that a fence sitter may take as fact if not debunked with reasonable dialog instead of base "It's my right and your stupid" responses

These comments come up often in daily conversations with co workers and acquaintances. I for one would like to be able to defend myself with good solid arguments instead of pat answers.

Every anti you meet is a possible convert every kid you meet is a possible future politician

[griz]

OK, if you're primarily concerned about the UK stuff, then I will quote this from the source of your refrences main cite, the British Crime Survey:

"The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office"

It is the results of a survey and the authors conclusions instead of the promised statistical look at the UKs crime rate. And no I didn't wade through the entire report, but if you are unwilling to search then a quick skim on my part and a look at page one puts me ahead.