Thoughts on gun control

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Concealed carry laws work very well. I every state where they've been enacted, violent crime, especially against women, has dropped dramatically without a shot being fired.

Not knowing who might be armed is a effective deterrent to would be criminals.

What do your stats say about other crimes increasing?

In a link posted yesterday, I think you'll find those stats. To be best of my knowledge, violent crimes of all types have dropped in states with concealed carry laws. Bear in mind, that those qualifying for a concealed carry license have usually undergone a background check and have had some dedicated instruction in use of the weapon. It is possible somewhere that somebody with a concealed carry license has committed a crime with their concealed weapon, but I am unaware of any such incident. Given the rabid passion with which the anti-gun people hate the concealed carry law, you can beat it would have been widely publicized if such an incident had occurred.

Bear in mind it is only crimes committed with firearms that make front page news. The many many MANY occasions where somebody was able to use a firearm to prevent a crime, especially a crime against themselves, or the crimes averted purely because of the possible or probable presence of defensive firewarms do not usually make the front page news.

Thanks for your interest, but that did not answer the question that I asked.

I was citing what was reported in the BBC article, Walter, and it is linked for you to see what it says. If you don't like what the BBC reported, take it up with them. I didn't write the article.

Foxfyre wrote:

I was citing what was reported in the BBC article, Walter, and it is linked for you to see what it says. If you don't like what the BBC reported, take it up with them. I didn't write the article.

I believe Walter was referring to the fact that the handgun ban was enacted after the massacre, while your comments at the beginning of your post indicated that something prevented the victims of the massacre from carrying firearms.

I probably stated it poorly, but my point was that if school officials or even the teacher had access to a firearm, they might have been able to stop some of the deaths. I did not intend to link that point to the gun ban itself.

I was citing what was reported in the BBC article, Walter, and it is linked for you to see what it says. If you don't like what the BBC reported, take it up with them. I didn't write the article.

Intrepid wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Concealed carry laws work very well. I every state where they've been enacted, violent crime, especially against women, has dropped dramatically without a shot being fired.

Not knowing who might be armed is a effective deterrent to would be criminals.

What do your stats say about other crimes increasing?

In a link posted yesterday, I think you'll find those stats. To be best of my knowledge, violent crimes of all types have dropped in states with concealed carry laws. Bear in mind, that those qualifying for a concealed carry license have usually undergone a background check and have had some dedicated instruction in use of the weapon. It is possible somewhere that somebody with a concealed carry license has committed a crime with their concealed weapon, but I am unaware of any such incident. Given the rabid passion with which the anti-gun people hate the concealed carry law, you can beat it would have been widely publicized if such an incident had occurred.

Bear in mind it is only crimes committed with firearms that make front page news. The many many MANY occasions where somebody was able to use a firearm to prevent a crime, especially a crime against themselves, or the crimes averted purely because of the possible or probable presence of defensive firewarms do not usually make the front page news.

Thanks for your interest, but that did not answer the question that I asked.

It didn't? I thought you asked for statistics about other crime increasing. I referred you to a posted link. How is that not responsive to your question?

Foxfyre wrote:

I was citing what was reported in the BBC article, Walter, and it is linked for you to see what it says. If you don't like what the BBC reported, take it up with them. I didn't write the article.

I didn't refer to the BBC article at all but to the fact that at the time of the massacre everyone coul carry weapons in the UK according to the then laws.

The ban actually happened because of the referendum AFTER it (done by the conservative government) and the later stricter law by the Blair government.

...Bear in mind that this creep killed 16 children and a teacher. And the number of victims suggests that he probably took time to reload. Had somebody in the school had a weapon, at least some of the deaths might have been averted.

But I WAS referring to the BBC article.

And I agree, the gun ban was in response to the massacre.

Foxfyre wrote:

...Bear in mind that this creep killed 16 children and a teacher. And the number of victims suggests that he probably took time to reload. Had somebody in the school had a weapon, at least some of the deaths might have been averted.

This comment refers to the article? How?

The way I read it, you're either a) implying that the victims did not have access to firearms or b) that purposefully arming people at schools will prevent future deaths.

A) would be false; the folks at the school apparently had access to firearms if they had so chosen.

B) would be an opinion, and I don't see any support for it in your article.



If you misspoke, then that's fine, but please stop denying that you said something when we can go back and read the words for ourselves.

You often tell me that my English knowledge isn't so good because it is not my native language.

Could you please explain how the fact that those teachers had no weapons [which I don't know, I haven't been in the school at that time] is related to the BBC article?

I have NEVER told you or anybody else that your English knowledge "isn't so good" or is not good at all. I respectfully request that you retract that statement. (I can remember one time defending you when another member criticized your English.)

Foxfyre wrote:

I have NEVER told you or anybody else that your English knowledge "isn't so good" or is not good at all. I respectfully request that you retract that statement. (I can remember one time defending you when another member criticized your English.)

Sorry, you're correct.

You only said that I'm "usually clueless re what the discussion is about".
I'd thaught, this was referring to my knowledge of English.

No, if I said you were clueless, I probably thought you were clueless about what the discussion was about.

(I do try not to be goaded into that kind of ad hominem though and apologize for any instance in while I can be faulted on that.)

John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer wrote:

Britain has already banned just about every type of weapon that a criminal might want to use. Handguns were made illegal in 1997

Quote:

If banning guns decreases crime, what caused the steep decrease in crime from 1995 to 1997?

It seems to me that the decrease in crime started before the banning of guns which would make me think that banning guns are not the sole reason for decreased crime (if it has anything to do with decreased crime)? In fact, from your graph, the decrease in crime was less the two years following the banning of guns, than the two years preceeding the banning of guns.

And the number of victims suggests that he probably took time to reload. Had somebody in the school had a weapon, at least some of the deaths might have been averted.