Would 'Gun Control' Reduce Murder?

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you know what has or hasn't changed? You're an imbecile who wants zero gun control.

because unlike you i actually check my facts instead of just spewing left wing doctrine

Like I said, you want a convicted bank robber to be able to walk out of prison and buy an AR15, no questions asked, the same day.

No sane person supports that, which means by definition you're insane.

It used to be legal for a guy to live in an insane asylum and buy a gun. Funny thing, murder rates went up after the UK made that illegal.

Doesn't prove anything, but it is funny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since Norway receives high praise in the OP for its low murder rate, let's take a look at Norway's gun control policies:

Right to Possess Firearms

In Norway, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law


Prohibited Firearms and Ammunition

In Norway, private possession of fully automatic weapons is permitted under licence

In Norway, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence

In Norway, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence

In Norway, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Norway are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security

Age for Firearm Possession

The minimum age for gun ownership in Norway is 16 years with special consent, 18 or 21 years for particular firearms

Background Checks

An applicant for a firearm licence in Norway must pass background checks which consider criminal and mental records

In Norway, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are not required

Domestic Violence and Firearms

Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Norway does not stipulate that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

Firearm Safety Training

In Norway, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm licence

Limit on Number of Guns

Licensed firearm owners in Norway are permitted to possess any number of firearms

Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition

A licensed firearm owner in Norway is permitted to possess any quantity of ammunition

Civilian Gun Registration

In Norway, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

Gun Dealer Record Keeping

In Norway, licensed firearm dealers are not required to keep a record of each firearm or ammunition purchase, sale or transfer on behalf of a regulating authority

State-Owned Firearm Records

In Norway, State agencies are required to maintain records of the storage and movement of all firearms and ammunition under their control

Regulation of Private Gun Sales

In Norway, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited.
well, thats' enough of that...

***********

Okay, since you want Norway's murder rate, you should want Norway's gun control.

Guns in Norway: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

This is what is known as cherry picking.

In what way?

If you claim cause and effect between Norway's gun policy and Norway's murder rate, why wouldn't you look at all of Norway's gun policy?

Where did I make that claim? I have an entire thread about this study, and I never once made that claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will it stop muders? or will it reduce murders?

You're being tricky with words with the OP question

Let me quote directly from the study on Russia, which gets a mention in the OP:

"...stringent gun controls that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them."

Not quite the picture painted by the OP, eh?

Russia has a higher homicide rate than the US despite the lack of guns. How is that not quite the picture painted by the OP? Is it because you are an idiot and can't read, and thus believe no one else can? Or are you really stupid, and don't read?

So if Russia had more guns amongst the populace, and a percentage of its non-firearm murder rate became firearm murders,

how exactly does that make Russia a better place?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is what is known as cherry picking.

In what way?

If you claim cause and effect between Norway's gun policy and Norway's murder rate, why wouldn't you look at all of Norway's gun policy?

Where did I make that claim? I have an entire thread about this study, and I never once made that claim.

So Norway has been cited in this thread for no reason? lol, what else in the thread is irrelevant?

That was a non-personal use of the pronoun 'you' btw.

 

[Vox]

Let me quote directly from the study on Russia, which gets a mention in the OP:

.stringent gun controls that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them
Not quite the picture painted by the OP, eh?

Russia has a higher homicide rate than the US despite the lack of guns. How is that not quite the picture painted by the OP? Is it because you are an idiot and can't read, and thus believe no one else can? Or are you really stupid, and don't read?

So if Russia had more guns amongst the populace, and a percentage of its non-firearm murder rate became firearm murders,

how exactly does that make Russia a better place?

if Russia had more guns amongst the populace the amount of murders would decrease exponentially.

It would make Russia much better place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me quote directly from the study on Russia, which gets a mention in the OP:

"...stringent gun controls that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them."

Not quite the picture painted by the OP, eh?

Russia has a higher homicide rate than the US despite the lack of guns. How is that not quite the picture painted by the OP? Is it because you are an idiot and can't read, and thus believe no one else can? Or are you really stupid, and don't read?

So if Russia had more guns amongst the populace, and a percentage of its non-firearm murder rate became firearm murders,

how exactly does that make Russia a better place?

Alternatively.

If the people of Russia had more guns, and a portion of the homicides become people living because criminals are less likely to attack them, how does this make Russia a worse place?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In what way?

If you claim cause and effect between Norway's gun policy and Norway's murder rate, why wouldn't you look at all of Norway's gun policy?

Where did I make that claim? I have an entire thread about this study, and I never once made that claim.

So Norway has been cited in this thread for no reason? lol, what else in the thread is irrelevant?

That was a non-personal use of the pronoun 'you' btw.

This is not my thread. You claimed I made the argument, I did not.

You, however, cherry picked, which is what I pointed out.

 

[Vox]

Yeah, because Russia is such a great example of what a country should be doing.....

Russia is not a good example what to do, but Russia being extremely diverse in the population( racially and ethnically) country and relatively comparable to the US in size ( just twice less the population not ten or hundred times less, like all other European countries) could be somewhat comparable in crime patterns.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are more guns today….yet the murder rate, which was 10.7/ 100k in 1980…is now 4.8 (2011) DoJ stats….

Clearly not association between guns and the murder rate.


2/3 of gun deaths are suicide.
Suicide Rates Surge, Now Account For 2/3 Of Gun Deaths

If guns made a society safer, we'd have the safest society in the history of the universe. Instead we have one of the most violent and are "raised in violence" according to one guy on this thread.

If guns made a society dangerous we would have a higher murder rate than Russia.

We don't.

Who's claiming that gun control is supposed to prevent other-than-gun crime?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where did I make that claim? I have an entire thread about this study, and I never once made that claim.

So Norway has been cited in this thread for no reason? lol, what else in the thread is irrelevant?

That was a non-personal use of the pronoun 'you' btw.

This is not my thread. You claimed I made the argument, I did not.

You, however, cherry picked, which is what I pointed out.

I didn't cherry pick anything. If I did, then tell us what specifically I left out that I should have included.

 

[Vox]

Guns in Ukraine: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

Guns in Russia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

this is very interesting site and one can compare a lot.

Two neighboring counties which came from the same "parent" - USSR - both have diverse population and both are not small.

The crime rates in one is skyrocketing. The crime rate in the other is very small.

The difference - gun policy.

In Ukraine handguns are permitted, though policy of licensing is restrictive.
In private ownership of handguns Russia is prohibited.

And the rate of homicide is FOUR TIMES HIGHER than in Ukraine, where guns are permitted.

in Russia, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2009: 15.17
2008: 16.77 9



In Ukraine, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2009: 4.88
2008: 7.08 13




the site allows you to compare all positions with all countries.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If guns made a society safer, we'd have the safest society in the history of the universe. Instead we have one of the most violent and are "raised in violence" according to one guy on this thread.

If guns made a society dangerous we would have a higher murder rate than Russia.

We don't.

Who's claiming that gun control is supposed to prevent other-than-gun crime?

That would be people like Candycorn, Saigon, you, and everyone else that argues that gun control makes people safer.

Any other questions, idiot?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So Norway has been cited in this thread for no reason? lol, what else in the thread is irrelevant?

That was a non-personal use of the pronoun 'you' btw.

This is not my thread. You claimed I made the argument, I did not.

You, however, cherry picked, which is what I pointed out.

I didn't cherry pick anything. If I did, then tell us what specifically I left out that I should have included.

Why did you pick out Russia and Finland while ignoring the other countries? Why do you keep pointing to gun crime then the thread is about all homicides and suicides?

Hint, it is because you are cherry picking in an attempt to prove how stupid you are. You could save yourself a lot of work, we already know.

 

[martybegan]

The author of this thread praised Norway's gun policies as a formula for low murder rates.

Take it up with her, asshole.

No, im taking it up with you, you dipshit gun grabbing cumwad.

No, you made an irrelevant post. If you want to debate the issue, grow up, be a man, or at the very least whatever passes for a man in whatever cesspool of ignorance you come from,

and be relevant.

Just stopping you from going to where i knew you would be going, i.e. more restrictions on guns = more gooder.

 

[JoeB131]

People always have murdered other people
People always will murder other people

The question is, " Do you want to be defenseless when someone decides to murder you?"

No, but I don't want it to be easy for them to do it, either.

11,000 gun murders in the US.
11 In Japan
48 in the UK
248 in Germany

I could go on, and I have...

 

[Vox]

People always have murdered other people
People always will murder other people

The question is, " Do you want to be defenseless when someone decides to murder you?"

No, but I don't want it to be easy for them to do it, either.

11,000 gun murders in the US.
11 In Japan
48 in the UK
248 in Germany

I could go on, and I have...

And? You might want to add. the population of those countries as well

Is a death from a firearm any worse than a one from a knife?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, but it's fun to catch you lying.

I was hoping you'd come back....but as you haven't, for my own amusement, and as a exercise in logic....


...I'll prove that you are the liar. Ready?





1. Your claim is that I have lied in stating that the report was from Harvard.
You: "but it's fun to catch you lying."

2. Let's see. The OP begins:
"Well, well, well.....we just got the answer.
And, from Harvard, no less.

3. It continues, within quotation marks, with
" " A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy..."


4. I believe you have admitted that it was published by 'the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.'


5. QED, I accurately stated '...from Harvard,...'


6. Since your charge is untrue on the face of it....you must be a liar!

Was that elegant, or what.



Further....you declined to disagree with the conclusion of the report....so, the post is pretty much evidence that you are, at the least, a fool.

You have accrued two titles!
Wear them proudly!
Realize, you could accurately change your avi to "Lying Fool"...and who could argue.

You said:

"2. Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?"

It's not 'Harvard research'.

The authors and acknowledgments, directly from the paper itself, which of course you never read:

* Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional
lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be con‐
tacted at [email protected]; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground,
WA 98604.
** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian crimi‐
nologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
He may be contacted at Gary Mauser, [email protected], and 604‐291‐3652.
We gratefully acknowledge the generous contributions of Professor Thomas B. Cole
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Social Medicine and Epidemiology);
Chief Superintendent Colin Greenwood (West Yorkshire Constabulary, ret.); C.B.
Kates; Abigail Kohn (University of Sydney, Law); David B. Kopel (Independence
Institute); Professor Timothy D. Lytton (Albany Law School); Professor William
Alex Pridemore (University of Oklahoma, Sociology); Professor Randolph Roth
(Ohio State University, History); Professor Thomas Velk (McGill University, Eco‐
nomics and Chairman of the North American Studies Program); Professor Robert
Weisberg (Stanford Law School); and John Whitley (University of Adelaide, Eco‐
nomics). Any merits of this paper reflect their advice and contributions; errors are
entirely ours.

I see no merit or accuracy in identifying this as 'Harvard research'.

I suspect your habitual ignorance, moreso than your habitual dishonesty, is the source of this inaccuracy.

You're a dunce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was hoping you'd come back....but as you haven't, for my own amusement, and as a exercise in logic....


...I'll prove that you are the liar. Ready?





1. Your claim is that I have lied in stating that the report was from Harvard.
You: "but it's fun to catch you lying."

2. Let's see. The OP begins:
"Well, well, well.....we just got the answer.
And, from Harvard, no less.

3. It continues, within quotation marks, with
" " A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy..."


4. I believe you have admitted that it was published by 'the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.'


5. QED, I accurately stated '...from Harvard,...'


6. Since your charge is untrue on the face of it....you must be a liar!

Was that elegant, or what.



Further....you declined to disagree with the conclusion of the report....so, the post is pretty much evidence that you are, at the least, a fool.

You have accrued two titles!
Wear them proudly!
Realize, you could accurately change your avi to "Lying Fool"...and who could argue.

You said:

"2. Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?"

It's not 'Harvard research'.

The authors and acknowledgments, directly from the paper itself, which of course you never read:

* Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional
lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be con‐
tacted at [email protected]; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground,
WA 98604.
** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian crimi‐
nologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
He may be contacted at Gary Mauser, [email protected], and 604‐291‐3652.
We gratefully acknowledge the generous contributions of Professor Thomas B. Cole
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Social Medicine and Epidemiology);
Chief Superintendent Colin Greenwood (West Yorkshire Constabulary, ret.); C.B.
Kates; Abigail Kohn (University of Sydney, Law); David B. Kopel (Independence
Institute); Professor Timothy D. Lytton (Albany Law School); Professor William
Alex Pridemore (University of Oklahoma, Sociology); Professor Randolph Roth
(Ohio State University, History); Professor Thomas Velk (McGill University, Eco‐
nomics and Chairman of the North American Studies Program); Professor Robert
Weisberg (Stanford Law School); and John Whitley (University of Adelaide, Eco‐
nomics). Any merits of this paper reflect their advice and contributions; errors are
entirely ours.

I see no merit or accuracy in identifying this as 'Harvard research'.

I suspect your habitual ignorance, moreso than your habitual dishonesty, is the source of this inaccuracy.

You're a dunce.

I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.

It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is not my thread. You claimed I made the argument, I did not.

You, however, cherry picked, which is what I pointed out.

I didn't cherry pick anything. If I did, then tell us what specifically I left out that I should have included.

Why did you pick out Russia and Finland while ignoring the other countries? Why do you keep pointing to gun crime then the thread is about all homicides and suicides?

Hint, it is because you are cherry picking in an attempt to prove how stupid you are. You could save yourself a lot of work, we already know.

It was Norway, not Finland.

I referred to those countries because the OP referred to those countries. You're attacking me for staying on topic? lol

I pointed to gun crime because I think gun crime is relevant when you're talking about guns.

No one I know who supports gun control is making the argument that gun control will reduce the frequency of people being murdered with a knife or a baseball bat.

The OP invents a false claim that no one is claiming, and then attempts to refute that invention.

That is the classic example of a strawman.

 

[Vox]

You said:

"2. Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?"

It's not 'Harvard research'.

The authors and acknowledgments, directly from the paper itself, which of course you never read:

* Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional
lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be con‐
tacted at [email protected]; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground,
WA 98604.
** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian crimi‐
nologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.
He may be contacted at Gary Mauser, [email protected], and 604‐291‐3652.
We gratefully acknowledge the generous contributions of Professor Thomas B. Cole
(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Social Medicine and Epidemiology);
Chief Superintendent Colin Greenwood (West Yorkshire Constabulary, ret.); C.B.
Kates; Abigail Kohn (University of Sydney, Law); David B. Kopel (Independence
Institute); Professor Timothy D. Lytton (Albany Law School); Professor William
Alex Pridemore (University of Oklahoma, Sociology); Professor Randolph Roth
(Ohio State University, History); Professor Thomas Velk (McGill University, Eco‐
nomics and Chairman of the North American Studies Program); Professor Robert
Weisberg (Stanford Law School); and John Whitley (University of Adelaide, Eco‐
nomics). Any merits of this paper reflect their advice and contributions; errors are
entirely ours.

I see no merit or accuracy in identifying this as 'Harvard research'.

I suspect your habitual ignorance, moreso than your habitual dishonesty, is the source of this inaccuracy.

You're a dunce.

I'm someone who can reduce you to that kind of sputtering. You should apologize for falsely identifying this as a Harvard study.

It was propaganda crafted by special interests and published by a special interest.

it is a valid study and you can't overturn anything what they have said, becasue it is statistics.