FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

Mister Nagnag dont believe there is only .01 % problems with the LEGAL guns owners !!!

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

We need to get the gangbangers on the range and improve their skills. Way too many just wounded. Too much of a burden on the medical system keeping the fools alive. :shock: :thumbup:

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

This guy think the other way around

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/detroit-police-chief-more-legally-armed-citizens-deter-crime/#ixzz2uCmOGcIM

Skellum0

The stats you quote comparing US to UK are plain wrong. I quote below from an article which explains why. Note that the author is against gun control, he just happens to be one of the people who would prefer the debate to be on factual grounds. I happen to believe from other research that even his figures are skewed but I do believe he has made a genuine attempt. The article below is from a piece written by Daniel Bier debunking a US/UK comparison like the one above.

“In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. …The US has a violent crime rate of 466 [violent] crimes per 100,000 residents.”
Some advice for Mr. Swann: when you see statistics that look unbelievable, you probably shouldn’t believe them, at least until you dig deeper into the data. Based on these figures, it appears that Britain is over 4 times more violent than the US, and since this is all he gives you, that is exactly what he leads his viewers to believe.

What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)

First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point,” and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.” And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.

Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 7“In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. …The US has a violent crime rate of 466 [violent] crimes per 100,000 residents.”
Some advice for Mr. Swann: when you see statistics that look unbelievable, you probably shouldn’t believe them, at least until you dig deeper into the data. Based on these figures, it appears that Britain is over 4 times more violent than the US, and since this is all he gives you, that is exactly what he leads his viewers to believe.

What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)

First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

When you look at how this changes the meaning of “violent crime,” it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point,” and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.” And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.

Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it...

America has a much higher murder rate than other OECD countries, including Great Britain.

Besides the misleading data Swann used, it’s interesting to note the statistics he didn’t give you. For instance, Swann correctly pointed out that it is no surprise the UK has fewer shooting deaths than the US, since handguns are almost totally banned. But he neglects to mention that Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides–it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around. In 2010, the US had an average murder rate of 4.8 murders per 100,000 people–4 times higher than the UK’s rate of 1.2 per 100,000, and, coincidentally, the exact opposite of the impression that Swann gives viewers.

Violent crime in the UK has been in decline since 1995

And it’s also worth noting that while Swann implied that the UK is more violent than the US because of its handgun ban, violent crime has been declining in Britain since the mid-1990s, and it continued to do so without interruption after the 1997 Firearms Amendment went into effect. Meanwhile, in the United States, gun ownership has been falling steadily, even as the US experienced the same sharp decline in violence beginning in early ‘90s.

None of this disproves the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis (though the statistical evidence on whether gun ownership directly affects local crime rates, up or down, appears to be a wash), nor does it make any of the gun control proposals currently being debated any more attractive. What it does mean is that Swann’s argument here is disingenuous, factually inaccurate, and fundamentally flawed. At best, he is giving gun enthusiasts bad reasons to support the Second Amendment when perfectly good reasons are already available. By spreading myths, distorting data, and exaggerating the case, Ben Swann is doing libertarians and Second Amendment advocates a disservice.


America has a much higher murder rate than other OECD countries, including Great Britain.

Besides the misleading data Swann used, it’s interesting to note the statistics he didn’t give you. For instance, Swann correctly pointed out that it is no surprise the UK has fewer shooting deaths than the US, since handguns are almost totally banned. But he neglects to mention that Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides–it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around. In 2010, the US had an average murder rate of 4.8 murders per 100,000 people–4 times higher than the UK’s rate of 1.2 per 100,000, and, coincidentally, the exact opposite of the impression that Swann gives viewers.


Violent crime in the UK has been in decline since 1995

And it’s also worth noting that while Swann implied that the UK is more violent than the US because of its handgun ban, violent crime has been declining in Britain since the mid-1990s, and it continued to do so without interruption after the 1997 Firearms Amendment went into effect. Meanwhile, in the United States, gun ownership has been falling steadily, even as the US experienced the same sharp decline in violence beginning in early ‘90s.

None of this disproves the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis (though the statistical evidence on whether gun ownership directly affects local crime rates, up or down, appears to be a wash), nor does it make any of the gun control proposals currently being debated any more attractive. What it does mean is that Swann’s argument here is disingenuous, factually inaccurate, and fundamentally flawed. At best, he is giving gun enthusiasts bad reasons to support the Second Amendment when perfectly good reasons are already available. By spreading myths, distorting data, and exaggerating the case, Ben Swann is doing libertarians and Second Amendment advocates a disservice.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

"The reason for the 2nd Amendment was mainly for civil protection against a rouge government."


There was no political communism in 1787, so no one foresaw the need to defend against rouge, scarlet, or any other kind of red government. Besides that, whether to protect against communism or not, if the intent is not articulated, it is unimportant compared to the actual words in any legal measure. Finally, neither actual meaning nor the intent are sacrosanct. The Constitution created an undemocratic government, and that was partly corrected through the 13th and 19th Amendments. The major factor in determining any policy and law should be what we need, not what was the original intent. If the Second Amendment causes harm, it should be adjusted to our needs, not the words and intentions of some slave-owning, misogynistic Founding Fathers.

Skellum0

For everyone out there who uses the 'immaculate' logic along the lines of:

'North Korea has gun control, North Korea kills civilians therefore all gun control leads to government killing civilians.

I now have a counter using the same logic.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had almost no gun control coupled with around the highest rate of households with guns in the World. Hussein was one of the most brutal murderers of his own people in the World in his time. Therefore, using the same logic, America will turn into Iraq if gun control is not adopted.

There is a serious lesson to be learned from this. Firearms in civilian hands could certainly help 'regulate' government in the 18th century. In the modern World, if the military is on the side if the government then civilians don't resist for long.

Jumper 601

I've read some of your post today, but between jobs. You have your opinion and I can't change it, nor can you change mine. I will tell you this...when things go south, go on and run and hide. I'll be between you and the bad guys with my XDs or whatever I have with me that day letting you get away.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

Please, Mr. Pnagy, if you hate America so much..........please leave.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

Save PNagy. He's an OK guy even though I never agree with him. As far as larrypayne, save your ammo. His Muslim buddies will resue him. :thumbup:

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

It was to make sure that no elected President would try to make himself King. Is that possible? It was written in a way to make sure that it would not be changed. Is that possible?

PNagy, better keep your eyes on D.C. because I think someone does think it is possible. (I am not naming names but you know who I mean)

rrforster12 Loc: Leesburg Florida

Uh...I think he actually meant "rogue" not "rouge."

oldgabby Loc: Middle Tennessee

Most people killed weren't by government, they were by religions.
Most murders are not gangbangers against gang bangers, they are immediate family members and friends killing each other.
I can understand people possessing guns, what I can't understand is the unwillingness to restrict their access so that insane people and criminals don't get them.

'CAUSE THEY LET INSANE PEOPLE AND CRIMINALS DRIVE AUTOS.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

And vote. :lol: :thumbup:

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

Actually "rouge" goes along with the theme of the sentence. The color red. At least in my way of thinking. But don't put a lot of stock in my way of thinking. :roll: :lol: