I'm with rappa, I don't think there will be any gun legislation any time soon, the statistics indicating that crime is on a substantial downward trend are just convincing enough to balance out the left wing media histrionics.
Perhaps if the US wasn't busy arming the cartels to protect their ( the US ) drug operations then Mexico wouldn't have the same issues it's currently facing....
The "gunwalking" operations became public in the aftermath of Terry's murder.[2] Dissenting ATF agents came forward to Congress in response.[16][17] According to Humberto Benítez Treviño, former Mexican Attorney General and chair of the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, related firearms have been found at numerous crime scenes in Mexico where at least 150 Mexican civilians were maimed and killed.[18] As investigations have continued, the operations have become increasingly controversial in both countries, and diplomatic relations have been damaged as a result.[2] As a result of a dispute over the release of Justice Department documents related to the scandal, Attorney GeneralEric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in criminal contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012.[19][20] Earlier that month, President Obama had invoked executive privilege for the first time in his presidency over the same documents.[21][22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Or isn't this highly public knowlege available for most of you ?
yes, it is widely known that Eric Holder is a fked up individual. Or maybe he was just following order from president Obama? At the very least Obama should be impeached and Holder tried for aiding and abetting a felony murder in the first degree. Oh we're talking about real life? nvm.
maggot is right though if the place i lived in was shit enough for me to suffer from that particular kind of pathological anxiety/insanity that makes you want to carry a gun (as the us quite evidently is for many) id get the **** out of there and find a better palce to live (of which there are many)
I wasn't comparing Norway to the US I was comparing NY to Oslo, but you're right that the comparison isn't correct.
Still, the way gun laws are progressing forwards, NY's de facto handgun ban will also be ruled unconstitutional in time. I would be very happy to make a better comparison then.
" Must stick head up arse and deny any knowledge, US could never engage in illegal activity"
So it should surprise no one that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the administration’s surrogates are vociferously claiming that Operation Fast and Furious, the gun-walking scandal run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is all Mr. Bush’s fault. Fast and Furious was a program that resulted in Congress holding Mr. Holder in contempt for lying, put a couple thousand guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs and led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent and as many as 200 Mexicans.
Obama spokesmen claim it all began under Mr. Bush and a little-known operation also run out of Phoenix, dubbed Operation Wide Receiver. The Bush-era program involved a few hundred guns and was designed and run by U.S. and Mexican agents who planted electronic tracking devices in the guns so the agents could follow the guns on both sides of the border. The idea was to compile evidence that could be used to prosecute gang kingpins.
A few of the guns vanished, however, as some of the batteries powering the implanted tracking devices failed, and in a few cases, gang members discovered and destroyed the devices. As soon as this was reported to Washington, the whole operation was canceled to prevent more guns from falling into the wrong hands. A vast majority of the guns involved were traced and retrieved; no one was killed; and the project was shelved as a bad idea.
Two years later, many of the same ATF and Justice Department officials in Phoenix came up with and launched a very different program they called Fast and Furious. Straw purchasers were allowed to buy more than 2,000 guns from dealers along our southern border who were pressured by government officials to look the other way. There was no attempt to trace or follow the guns; the Mexican government was not informed of the operation; and even ATF’s own agents in Mexico were kept in the dark.
No actionable criminal evidence against anyone was obtained, and agents who wanted to arrest middlemen before the guns walked were ordered to stand down. The program turned into a pipeline that provided arms to the Sinola drug cartel for use by the gang’s enforcers and drug smugglers.
So, naturally, only the police and criminals actually carry arms. However this doesn't seem to have stopped the killings.
Therefore, either the police murder a huge number of people or criminals do, and criminals don't bother obeying anti gun laws.
In the US, there have been a number of completely unreported cases of citizens, licenced to carry, stopping crimes carried out by criminals, who aren't.
So, the current logic seems to be " If we take the legal firearms away, that will reduce gun violence "
Is it only me, or is something wrong with this theory ??????
Yes, the US has an issue with violent crime and a complete lack of respect for human life, but that seems to me to be a top down view led by the 'govt' that the citizens simply reflect the US's foreign policy of " We'll murder anyone we want to if they have something we want to steal."
If a country has a policy of murder and theft, why be surprised if the people reflect that in their daily lives.
It would be interesting, possibly for a Masters or Phd, to carry out research on domestic crime over foreign policy and respect for others.
actually nyc is a great example
no guns which according to you are a womans only line of defense and the 3rd lowest rate of rape in major us cities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U ... ates_cities_by_crime_rate
and about half of the rapes per capita of austin which between you living there and on account of it being in texas i presum allows women to carry guns
Well, Virginia Beach, Virginia has a forcible rape rate of 13.5 out of 100,000 people, whereas New York City, New York has a rate of 13.3 out of 100,000 people. That is only a difference of two people out of 1 million unless my math is terrible. You can open carry a gun in the state of Virginia.
Virginia Beach has a robbery rate of 93.0 out of 100,000. NYC: 240.8 out of 100,000. What would one who claims that gun control affects crime rate claim based on that information? That gun control reduces rape but increases robbery? I would personally not argue that, as there are many other factors that could affect the rate of either crime.
One thing that I believe those who use crime rates to argue either for or against gun control fail to take into account is population density. It would seem very plausible that crimes such as robbery may be more prevalent in areas of high population density, as they may go unnoticed more easily. And many forcible rape victims are not random individuals on the street that are pulled into free-candy-vans and raped. Thus population density would not seem to have as much of an affect on forcible rapes.
I hope with this post to scrutinize the arguments of both those who are in favor of open carrying and less gun control, as well as those who are in favor of more gun control. inb4 everyone from every possible side of the discussion just becomes irate with me.
Why do you think there are no-go areas in the USA where armed gangs are a threat?
We have a few rough inner city areas in the UK where - frankly - you wouldn't want to go out at night, but there are very few guns in circulation among those gangs. Why? Because there are very few guns in the UK at all.
You don't seem to appreciate that all private gun ownership does is escalate the problem. Unless you don't see people getting shot as being a problem.
Kev there are areas in many European cities where people like you and I are would not be safe or welcome at any time of the day and even the police are not respected. If you were mugged in one of these areas you could only hope that all they want is your cell phone because if they beat you to death no one could catch them.
@Hummer
Still using Oslo as an example which is the most populous city in Norway, the number of rapes committed there is extreme by any standards, but it is no coincidence that it is mostly occurring in a city with such a high density of people and not in the country or smaller towns.
To me being armed comes down to choice and personal responsibility. I choose every day to be responsible for my own safety. I am lucky that I live in a place where that choice is not a privilege but a human right. In fact more and more police officials across this nation are encouraging people to be more responsible for their safety and use the tools that are available to do so (not just handguns). They admit their shortcomings and their inability to be where you are at the moment you are in need. I don't hear of the police in Oslo telling Norwegian women to protect themselves, or even admitting to the fact they they cannot solve the rape epidemic with whistles. Women there are treated like second-class citizens who neither the police nor the law will protect because they cannot defend themselves like a man could with his body. Defenseless women have to do silly things like dye their hair black or brown to be less of an enticing target for men; to change their entire persona and way of life for fear of rape or physical violence. Criminals should be the ones who need to operate in fear of their lives, not lawful citizens! There is no fear of the police or the legal system when the conviction rate is so low.
I find it amazing that being so terrified in your own country that you think you HAVE to own a gun just to feel safe in your own home is considered a "freedom" and something that should be celebrated.
true and the point of my post was mainly to show how inane flymikes logic is
but on that point between burglary and robbery which one includes pickpocketing? im guessing its robbery since burglary is the lowest in the us
with much more people either walking palces or using public transport in new york than in the rest of the us and nyc having a ton of tourists i would imagine that is a rather big issue which is something that carrying guns could only make worse
You're missing the point. The US has less violent crime and murder and is safer than it has been in a long time. Gun ownership among other factors helped to solve half of the problem of violent crime over the last 20 years. I need a gun less and less every day. But still I can say that twice as safe is not safe enough and that is obvious when watching US national news. Always remember that the US has almost 300,000,000 more people than the UK when you watch or hear news from this country. I feel like we have a magnifying lens over us which is the perception of other Western countries who do not recognize the major difference in population. If we were measuring overall crime per square mile in the First World the US would be close to last and the UK would be near the top.
Gun control is a matter of stopping the treatment when the disease is getting better. Guns are part of the solution that has made it so safe today compared to 20 years ago, not the problem. Why make them illegal now when lawful gun owners have already done so much good for themselves and the nation? Do lawful gun owners not deserve any credit for doing their part to decrease violent crime and homicide by a full 50%?
Would my revolver get no recognition for saving my life if god forbid the time came? If a woman saves her children from a violent home invader with her gun, why does the gun not get the credit since it gets the blame when it is used wrongfully?
Ok, I admit it, this made me laugh. At least you can be a good sport about it!
And being a rational person, I would opt to steer clear of those places instead of going there and carrying a gun with me.
^ Agreed.
And that is bloody sad, frankly. The fact that your argument hinges on the US being a terrible place to live doesn't help make a case for you; it just makes it seem more and more ridiculous that you choose to live there.
Not carrying a weapon does not put your own safety beyond your control, and carrying a gun will only help you in certain situations, it's not like you could do anything about a man stabbing you in the back as you walked down the street, no matter what you carry. Do you wear a stab vest or bullet proof?
Nothing you can carry or do will guarantee your safety, but what you can do, as a population, as a civilized society, is reduce the risks that people will be shot and killed by firearms, by getting as many as possible off the streets and out of homes. That is taking responsibility.
The problem is that your reasoning is contrary to the facts. Gun ownership has never stopped rising steadily in the US even as violent crime and homicide has plummeted to new lows. Maybe someday we'll live in a crime free utopia where the state controls all thoughts and emotions with a complete cocktail of psychotropic drugs, but not today.
In short, more guns exist in the US than there have ever been and crime has not been lower in quite a while. Your emotions on the subject are one thing and may be valid, but your feelings cannot protect you from criminals or your government. (same thing)
The Los Angeles homoscide rate is 10.6 with a population of 9,534,500
Detroit has the same rate with a population of 4,510,292
(These as of 2000, so it's old data though. Most other places though the rate is normal)
people who are purposefully contrarian in the face of facts and statistics that prove them wrong are probably much more likely to be victims of physical violence, but that's just a hunch.
The U.S also deems it necessary to lock away a much larger percentage of its population than any other country. Is this because guns have stopped them committing crimes?
There are lots of statistics, and dozens of reasons for each, in each case and in each country. I remember reading an article suggesting that video games were keeping kids off the streets, and another that reductions in the use of crack have had a major impact. But then I also read about crimes not being reported, recategorised so they don't count, and general figure massaging.
This is about mass shootings, anyway. To suggest that they are acceptable, a price worth paying even, because crime might be falling overall is a bit mad.
