You love a good feud don't you. I clearly pointed out that the movie overstated the role of Williams but that is not my source for info on the subject. I know that he made contributions to the design of the M1 Carbine. But I've never seen that movie so it would be hard for me to cite it as a source. I only know there was a movie made about him and that it exaggerated his work. But the news report I read about him was strictly factual. It was an old newspaper account of his life and his work. Just FYI his short stroke principle was a huge part of the design of the M1 Carbine. But as usual you totally overlook the point of my post just to nitpick about what I say. The point was that guns can be made at home and Williams certainly proved that.
What's the True Statistics On England and Australia's Gun Bans?
- Thread starter sherman123
- Start date
- Status
You love a good feud don't you. I clearly pointed out that the movie overstated the role of Williams but that is not my source for info on the subject. I know that he made contributions to the design of the M1 Carbine. But I've never seen that movie so it would be hard for me to cite it as a source. I only know there was a movie made about him and that it exaggerated his work. But the news report I read about him was strictly factual. It was an old newspaper account of his life and his work. Just FYI his short stroke principle was a huge part of the design of the M1 Carbine. But as usual you totally overlook the point of my post just to nitpick about what I say. The point was that guns can be made at home and Williams certainly proved that.
Tommygunn
Member
Cee Zee said:
For the record, I HAVE seen the movie. It is a good movie -- BUT IT IS A MOVIE.
As Cee Zee stated it does "over-state" Mr. Williams' contribution to the carbine.
For people who are interested in the history of this weapon I strongly suggest finding good research material, and good books, about how the firearm was developed and not rely on a Hollywood production. which were made to entertain and make money.
I also have a problem with Nom de Forum's statement on the previous page. Cee Zee's statement was a straightforward and accurate statement. Is there some reason people have to be overly picky? Neither, however, do I wish to pick on Nom de Forum.
There REALLY just isn't anything here fellas.
Short version: The UK's homicide rate was on a general upward trend when they enacted their ban, and that trend continued. Australia's rate was on a downward trend, and that trend continued.
The empirical evidence suggests that gun control doesn't really do much of anything, in either direction.
The empirical evidence suggests that gun control doesn't really do much of anything, in either direction.
Nom de Forum
Member
For anyone looking for accurate historical firearms history from Mr. CeeZee, caveat emptor as he is doing the equivalent of peddling cubic zirconia a.k.a. CeeZee as diamonds. Mr. CeeZee you often claim to be a paid historian. How can you not get the simplest of factual details right on this forum? No worse historian than one that distorts historical truth to advance his political point of view regardless of how trivially.
Schwing
Member
Carl N. Brown said it all IMHO.
The fact that the British do not include a violent crime in their statistics until it has been successfully prosecuted, makes their crime stats completely useless.
How many rapes, murders, stabbings, etc happen on a daily basis in the U.K. that simply are not included because no perpetrator is ever prosecuted? To me this exclusion is nothing more than falsely selling tourists on how safe it is there.
I also find it telling that they switched to this method of violent crime statistics reporting a couple of years AFTER draconian gun bans were put in place. IMO, that is solid evidence that the bans were NOT having the promised impact and some chicanery was necessary to sell the effectiveness of the bans.
The fact that the British do not include a violent crime in their statistics until it has been successfully prosecuted, makes their crime stats completely useless.
How many rapes, murders, stabbings, etc happen on a daily basis in the U.K. that simply are not included because no perpetrator is ever prosecuted? To me this exclusion is nothing more than falsely selling tourists on how safe it is there.
I also find it telling that they switched to this method of violent crime statistics reporting a couple of years AFTER draconian gun bans were put in place. IMO, that is solid evidence that the bans were NOT having the promised impact and some chicanery was necessary to sell the effectiveness of the bans.
I don't have a whole lot to contribute but for an interesting note about statistics.
Don't believe any of them. First off they almost always come from a source that has an agenda, and even when the sources don't have an agenda, those who collate and promulgate the information can have an agenda. And it's evenhanded. The VPC and NRA will interpret the same raw data to support whatever benefits their respective causes, and as well they should. It's part of effective marketing. There's also the issue of confirmation bias, which proposes that they will see the data to support what they already believe.
This all supposes that the stats were obtained in a meaningful and scientific manner. How often do we look at stats and then look into the study to see how certain parameters were established, which pieces of data were included in the study and which were discarded as irrelevant, how they ran the numbers (Z-tests, T-Tests, Anovas, etc...)
In college I HATED my stats prof, but there was one thing he said that really stuck with me all these years. The very first thing he told us was, "Statistics lie. Don't believe them, any of them. I can interpret statistical data to prove to you that the average person in this world has one testicle and one ovary."
Don't believe any of them. First off they almost always come from a source that has an agenda, and even when the sources don't have an agenda, those who collate and promulgate the information can have an agenda. And it's evenhanded. The VPC and NRA will interpret the same raw data to support whatever benefits their respective causes, and as well they should. It's part of effective marketing. There's also the issue of confirmation bias, which proposes that they will see the data to support what they already believe.
This all supposes that the stats were obtained in a meaningful and scientific manner. How often do we look at stats and then look into the study to see how certain parameters were established, which pieces of data were included in the study and which were discarded as irrelevant, how they ran the numbers (Z-tests, T-Tests, Anovas, etc...)
In college I HATED my stats prof, but there was one thing he said that really stuck with me all these years. The very first thing he told us was, "Statistics lie. Don't believe them, any of them. I can interpret statistical data to prove to you that the average person in this world has one testicle and one ovary."
denton
Member
Well, I'm not quite as pessimistic as 19-3Ben, but his general skepticism is admirable.
Getting good data in this case is difficult. The least unsatisfactory data I could find was from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia, and this data was cobbled together from several sources.
Here is their homicide rate per 100,000, from 1990 to 2012, presented in a trended Individuals and Moving Range control chart. The purpose and design of this chart is to detect real change in a process.
[/URL][/IMG]
And the interpretation of the chart is:
1. Australia has had a stable and predictable decline in homicide rate during the years 1990-2012, with no statistically interesting deviations but one, in the 2004 and 2005 time frame (points 15 and 16).
2. There was no statistically interesting decline in homicides in the period immediately following Australia's seizure of semi-auto firearms.
3. Something interesting happened in 2004 and probably 2005. The reported homicide rate declined. This might be a real decline, or it might represent a change in the measurement system. Remember, the data are cobbled together from various sources. At any rate, by 2006 the data were back to the established trend line.
4. There is no evidence in the data to support the notion that the Australian gun ban actually did anything at all to reduce the total homicide rate. If the ban had been effective, a drop in homicide rates should have immediately followed, and it did not. The party proposing change has the burden of proof, and there just isn't any evidence in favor of the Australian ban.
5. Without banning semi-autos, the US experienced a very similar drop in homicide rate over the same period. Both countries reduced homicides by 50%. It is reasonable to believe that factors other than gun control have influenced both countries.
Getting good data in this case is difficult. The least unsatisfactory data I could find was from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia, and this data was cobbled together from several sources.
Here is their homicide rate per 100,000, from 1990 to 2012, presented in a trended Individuals and Moving Range control chart. The purpose and design of this chart is to detect real change in a process.
And the interpretation of the chart is:
1. Australia has had a stable and predictable decline in homicide rate during the years 1990-2012, with no statistically interesting deviations but one, in the 2004 and 2005 time frame (points 15 and 16).
2. There was no statistically interesting decline in homicides in the period immediately following Australia's seizure of semi-auto firearms.
3. Something interesting happened in 2004 and probably 2005. The reported homicide rate declined. This might be a real decline, or it might represent a change in the measurement system. Remember, the data are cobbled together from various sources. At any rate, by 2006 the data were back to the established trend line.
4. There is no evidence in the data to support the notion that the Australian gun ban actually did anything at all to reduce the total homicide rate. If the ban had been effective, a drop in homicide rates should have immediately followed, and it did not. The party proposing change has the burden of proof, and there just isn't any evidence in favor of the Australian ban.
5. Without banning semi-autos, the US experienced a very similar drop in homicide rate over the same period. Both countries reduced homicides by 50%. It is reasonable to believe that factors other than gun control have influenced both countries.
Just for the record the article I mentioned previously about where I got my information about David Williams is located here:
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2012/1/24/carbinearticle.pdf
This is how real history research is done. It comes from reading detailed accounts of events as close to the source as possible. This article is attributed to Williams himself. In other words he essentially wrote it or told it to someone else who wrote it actually. It's a very detailed account of his life and his work. BTW I think Williams overstates his work also. People sometimes do that. He claims in the article to have invented the "army carbine" as he put it. His prototype wasn't even finished by the due date for testing for the army. It was about 2 days away from completion. But Williams did contribute important concepts to the design as I mentioned before. This isn't the only source for my information on Williams. I know what others have said about how much he contributed to the M1 Carbine.
Yes I do history for a living. I know how it works. I don't wish to further exacerbate the situation here. I apologize to anyone that might take offense at this post. I just wanted to show that I didn't lie when I said I got my information about Williams from a newspaper article. The secret to doing history is not to remember every detail but rather it's to remember where to find the details. I bookmark things I find important and this was something I saved.
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2012/1/24/carbinearticle.pdf
This is how real history research is done. It comes from reading detailed accounts of events as close to the source as possible. This article is attributed to Williams himself. In other words he essentially wrote it or told it to someone else who wrote it actually. It's a very detailed account of his life and his work. BTW I think Williams overstates his work also. People sometimes do that. He claims in the article to have invented the "army carbine" as he put it. His prototype wasn't even finished by the due date for testing for the army. It was about 2 days away from completion. But Williams did contribute important concepts to the design as I mentioned before. This isn't the only source for my information on Williams. I know what others have said about how much he contributed to the M1 Carbine.
Yes I do history for a living. I know how it works. I don't wish to further exacerbate the situation here. I apologize to anyone that might take offense at this post. I just wanted to show that I didn't lie when I said I got my information about Williams from a newspaper article. The secret to doing history is not to remember every detail but rather it's to remember where to find the details. I bookmark things I find important and this was something I saved.
Last edited:
vaupet
Member
The Flemish 'vredesinstituut' or 'peace institute' did a very thorough investigation on the effects of the then new law, on crime, murder, suicide etc, .
Their conclusion, in short, was that there was no direct relationship between crime-murder-suicide rates and the regulated, legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.
They investigated Belgium, the EU, Europe and a host of countries outside Europe .
They are not part of the weapons-lobby, on the contrary.
in dutch, of vourse:
http://www.vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/publicaties/boeken/vuurwapens-handel-bezit-en-gebruik
Their conclusion, in short, was that there was no direct relationship between crime-murder-suicide rates and the regulated, legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.
They investigated Belgium, the EU, Europe and a host of countries outside Europe .
They are not part of the weapons-lobby, on the contrary.
in dutch, of vourse:
http://www.vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/publicaties/boeken/vuurwapens-handel-bezit-en-gebruik
They also bow to a queen, accept hereditary rule, allow "Lords" to be appointed, and inherited, to make their laws and rule for life without ever being elected.
That speaks volumes about what they think of individual liberties.
Tell your uncle he should learn to bow or learn to shoot.
That speaks volumes about what they think of individual liberties.
Tell your uncle he should learn to bow or learn to shoot.
Calibre44
Member
Idiotic statement ... you most be one of the 80% of Americans who can't be bothered to get a passport and travel to broaden the mind. We don't bow to the Queen, she is only there because she is of use to the country. The Royal Family actually shoot and enjoy it ... it was a democratically elected Government that banned handguns not the Queen.. I own over 10 guns and can assure you that I shoot regularly and don't bow to anyone.
You can debate the issue without insults. This is THR.
You did not vote for the queen. All laws are passed by her consent. She has veto power by not consenting to laws. She appoints the head of government. Not you.
You did not vote for the House of Lords. No legislation can pass without their consent.
Less than 1/3 of your government was elected.
You are required to bow when in the queens presence.
About the best advice I can give you is this...
In the US, the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics report on ACTUAL CRIMES committed in the US for the period reported.
In Britain, their version of Crime Statistics is called the BCS, British Crime Survey. These statistics are based on random interview of 51,000 people across the UK, NOT ON ACTUAL CRIMES committed. The people surveyed are random, so they may not have actually seen crimes or have been victims of crime.
So the British statistics are basically <removed>. They don't report on actual crimes committed. So, there is no reliable way to tell what the impact is of their gun control laws.
The bottom line, is why in the UK they don't report on actual crimes committed. If they did, I'm sure you would find a lot more violent society than in the US. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this.
In the US, the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics report on ACTUAL CRIMES committed in the US for the period reported.
In Britain, their version of Crime Statistics is called the BCS, British Crime Survey. These statistics are based on random interview of 51,000 people across the UK, NOT ON ACTUAL CRIMES committed. The people surveyed are random, so they may not have actually seen crimes or have been victims of crime.
So the British statistics are basically <removed>. They don't report on actual crimes committed. So, there is no reliable way to tell what the impact is of their gun control laws.
The bottom line, is why in the UK they don't report on actual crimes committed. If they did, I'm sure you would find a lot more violent society than in the US. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this.
Last edited by a moderator:
And, we are done here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked