First of all, I only quoted the bits on drug use and fraud because they were in the same sentence and I didn’t want you to think I was leaving something out by trimming my quote. Second, I don’t think you even know what all these statistics mean. Let’s go a little slower.
The article I linked originally cites statistics for “violence against the person” and “violent crime”. Your page cites statistics for “being a crime victim”. These are very different concepts.
Now, it’s lovely that bicycle thefts are down and all, but I don’t think that’s anything to crow about when, as demonstrated in the Home Office report I cited earlier (the one that uses YOUR figures, remember), murder in the UK is up more than 30% since 1996 (the year of the Dunblane massacre that prompted the banning of gun ownership in the UK).
Incidentally, the stats show that there were 886 murders reported in Britain for the 2001/02 fiscal year/reporting period/whatever. So it’s more like 18 times, not “a hundred times”. And as I tried to say in my last post (which apparently you only skimmed), population is only one of the possible contributing factors to the higher U.S. murder rate.
I asked a question. And you responded by stating a fact which does nothing to answer that question. And then accuse me of a “non sequitor”. If you wish to decline to answer the question, you can just say so. If you were simply paroding the previous post, and not actually claiming what you appear to be claiming, then you can just say that. But simply dismissing an honest question as a “complaint” ( since when is a request for clarification a “complaint”?) and a “nitpick” is the sort of evasive conduct which makes it difficult for people like UncleBeer and SenorBeef to believe that you are acting in good faith.
It was certainly parody, but some people really never will understand that courts are required to give effect to every word in a statute or constitutional provision whenever possible. Happy now?
So is it your position that the courts are required to give effect to every word in a statute or constitutional provision? If so, where does this requirement come from, what is its exact wording, and what does it mean?
Okay, not really. It’s a basic principle of legal interpretation. Since the goal of statutory and constitutional interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the body that enacted the law, the court assumes that they put everything in there for a purpose. Courts are not supposed to pick and choose which parts of a statute or clause to enforce–they pick the interpretation that gives meaning to the entire provision.
As it applies to this topic, the principle contradicts the claim of those who say that the introductory clause of the Second Amendment is meaningless. In fact, the courts have repeatedly given substantive effect to the militia clause, as the Supreme Court itself did in the Miller case. Whatever else it is, the militia clause is not a legal nullity.
As a UK citizen, I don’t think it makes sense to look at the ban on guns and relate that to an increase in crime. In my 23 years I have heard of the following gun related deaths in the UK
Drugs related executions (Several)
Drugs related gang fights (Several, these invariably involve other weapons such as knives also)
The Dunblane tragedy
Tony Martin’s murder of a fleeing burglar
I have never heard of a gun being used in by a legal owner for self defence in the UK. Not once.
I just don’t see how any increase in crime is related to the gun ban.
I see. So you’ve already formed an opinion on erroneous information, information that was clarified on the NRA’s actions during that tragic time, and yet you still choose to vilify the NRA for the actions of two wackos? And I’ve provided you with statistics straight from the CDC, with a link, and you have no comment? So can I assume that you entered this debate not to share information, and maybe learn why/wherefore, but to climb on your soap box and school us bloody Yanks on how stupid we are?
Docklands wrote:
Obviously we don’t travel in the same circles, since most of the people I know, and some of the news agencies in ye olde country feel the exact opposite. And the lunacy of the parole board asking the opinion of the “victim” on Mr. Martins possible early release, while the “victim” was serving time himself, again, borders on high comedy. Vive le difference!! Oh, and Docklands, no one really cares where you choose to live.
Well Max, i am not quit sure if i am the one who needs to get in touch with my statistic side
Well, if you would have bothered to read the part about violent crime in the british study, you would have read the following:
Figure 6.2 in the same document is a graph on the development since '95 of crimes you might deem relevant - domestic violence and mugging. Not quite bicycle thefts.
Now the link you provided in your original post claims an increase against the person from 1991-1995, so obviously this leaves room for both sets of statistics. The pro-guns cited statistics describe the development from 91 to 95, the british study cited by me describe the development from 95 to 01/02.
So i’ll quote my response to your first post:
Now will you explain to me exactly how this is not the case?
Now about your second point:
Well now, your own figure of 10 000 was for homocide with firearms! So you can hardly compare that to the 886 murders by any method you quote for the UK. Please come up with the right figures and then we’ll have a sound debate.
So if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment stating
“Roses are red, violets are blue
the states shall be allowed to prohibit flag burning, and the feds too”
the SCOTUS would be required to find some way in which the first line modifies the second? “It doesn’t have any meaning; congress just felt like putting it in there” would not be an acceptable interpretation?
I find the idea that an interpretation that gives somemeaning, no matter how tortured, to every word is preferable to one that follows the clear meaning (or lack thereof) to be bizarre. It seems like throwing good money after bad to me; we already have one phrase that isn’t useful, why make it two?
Furthermore, it’s quite a leap to go from the principle that everything was written for a purpose to the principle that everything must have an influence on the meaning. How does the fact that something has a cause mean that it must have an effect?
Stating that a phrase doesn’t affect the law is not “picking and choosing” which parts to enforce: all phrases are enforced to the extent that they can be. Calling this “picking and choosing” is like calling it “picking ands choosing” which votes to count when the registar only counts the votes of people that showed up to vote. You can’t count a vote that’s not there, and you can’t enforce a meaning that’s not there. How do you “enforce” violets being blue or a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? Only imperative statements can be enforced, not declaratives.
Well, i actually said that the NRA staged rallies at the the time so-and-so, and at the place there-and-there. That is actually quite factual, except maybe for the plural form of “rallies”. And, still, at that rally you did celebrate (among other things) the right to bear semi-automatics, a right exercised by those two wackos. Which i found a bit tasteless.
I missed that one, will have too check on what you’re talking about here.
No, not really. I think that the US take on gun-control results in an on-going tragedy for it’s people. And since i view the strength of organisations like the NRA in setting the agenda as a cause of that situation i am interested in debating anyone sympathizing with them.
I also believe part of the problem lies in the unwillingness to change the wording of the american constitution and specifically the second amendment, the latter being the subject of this thread.
Yes, so long as there is a reasonable interpretation that gives effect to both clauses. In the case of the Second Amendment, there is indeed a reasonable interpretation of the militia clause that gives it substative effect–see Miller and the lower court decisions that build on that case.
And hey, who the heck are you to decide that Congress didn’t mean anything when it put those words in there? Damn liberal activist!
That’s not what I said. A reading that gives effect to everything Congress said is preferable to a reading that picks and chooses what stuff to enforce, so long as the complete reading is reasonable.
And the militia clause can be given substantive effect, so they do. Nifty, huh?
Ok BF, i think the points you made on the CDC-story link was that homocide is only 16th or so on the most common deaths in the US, and that most of that 16 000 out of the 28 000 people killed by guns were suicides.
So i looked at the CDC report.
Firstly, the fact that there are 15 causes of death more common than homocide, like cancer, alzheimer and accidents doesn’t relate much to the topic of homocide. These isues are debatet in their own right. People suggest solutions to try lowering the deaths by these causes, why not do the same on homocide.
Secondly, accidental injuries is number five on the list. How many gun related deaths are contained therein?
Thirdly, the violence in your society, and especially the risk of death by homocide is perceived by the general public to be a frightening, and real problem.
On the suicides: sure, i originally spoke of 10000 firearms homocides, nothing else. Someone else brought up the 28 000 death to firearms figure. But still, having a loaded gun in the closet when feeling suicidal amounts to nothíng?
While it’s nice that you like the drop in crime indicated by figure 6.2, you should turn the page and look also at figure 6.3, which indicates that violent crime recorded by police rose from somewhere in the 300,000 range (under older, apparently less-stringent reporting rules) to somewhere close to 900,000. I seem to recall reading (though I can’t find the article now) that police in England were criticized sharply a few years back for their crime-reporting methods, which tended to understate the actual number of crimes (for example, if one person burgled 40 houses and was finally caught, his entire spree was counted as a single crime). There’s something mighty fishy about the marked disparity between the number of crimes recorded by police and the number counted by the BCS.
In any case, I just can’t give much credence to a survey of crime that doesn’t count murder as a violent crime. Call me a stickler.
As for this bit: in figuring “18 times”, I was using the full U.S. homicide figure for 2000 of 16,137. Note that 16,137 divided by 886 gives the figure of 18.2, or “about 18 times”, as I stated. Had I used the 10,417 figure, the result would have been about 11.7.
It appears that you prefer to accuse others of dishonesty rather than do some basic math, math that you are either unwilling or unable to do. At this point, unless you’re prepared to demonstrate that you understand what we’re debating, I’m going to have to disregard any further posts from you. I don’t have time to be your teacher and correct all your mistakes.
‘Those two wackos’ were in no way doing anything the NRA condoned.
Unless of course you can find a cite demonstrating that the NRA advocates for the right of minors to carry semi-automatic handguns (illegal for them to possess) into a school.
So exactly which NRA endorsed right were ‘those two wackos’ exercising?
But of course, the two shotguns and the rifle were purchased quite legally by Eric Harris, who was 18. There’s your NRA-endorsed right to bear arms, eh?
Well as you state yourself - this is due to changes in the routines of police work in the UK. The conductors of the survey has used statistical and analythical methods to make a (hopefully) un-biased description of the development of violent crime.
Now, the conductor of this survey is the department responsible for internal affairs in England and Wales. You don’t trust their statistics, fine.
But - where would you get other statistics on the development of crime in the UK? What was the origin of the figures claimed in your link? Are they more credible?
As for your number-twisting on the ratio of US vs. US homocides: What is the relevance? My estimate of 100 was for firearms homocides and your complaint cited the ratio for homocides by any method.
So. What?
catsix:
Well, thats a formally valid objection. I was not aware of that law. But that law of course denies a minor the right to posses any firearm? I certainly hope so. But again i am not familiar with that law, so enlighten me.
So, if I read it correctly, you implied that the NRA deliberately staged a “celebration” right after the Columbine incident. I responded that this was not true and stated how and why the NRA convention was conducted. Yet you come back with this:
What is factual about this post? Oh and I’m sorry I missed this:
As much as the fact that you believe the NRA staged a “rally” immediately after Columbine? How about a cite for this one then.
I think I can help answer both paragraphs here, as they are linked. There are over 70 to 90 million gun owners in the US (depends on whose site you visit), and there are over 250 million firearms owned by those people. The NRA helps set the agenda because they are a grassroots organization of whom some of the 70 million support in some way. They help give a big voice to the little guy. (As opposed to the groups like the Americans for Gun Safety, who have no members and are bankrolled by a billionaire name McIlvey) This site says we’ve amended the Constitution 11 times between 1900 and now (constitutional scholars will correct me if this is in error). Simply put, there’s not a groundswell of support by the common man to alter the 2nd Amendment. There are a significant number who view the 2nd Amendment as meaning what it says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Now whether you exercise that right to defend oneself, derive peace of mind, put food on the table, or conduct lawful commerce with lawful products, that’s your business. Some legal scholars beg to differ (minty), but in the final analysis, firearms and their lawful usage are an ingrained facet of the American culture and heritage and will continue to be so for a long time.
On preview I see that you have responded to my earlier post, I will have to address that on the morrow, as it is time for bed. Good night.
It would certainly seem that despite the law only allowing 21-year olds, or older, the right to buy semi-automatics, this particular gun went through a number of legal transactions finally mysteriously ending up at the hands of the trenchcoat maffia.
Note, that were semi-automatics illegal, so would all those transactions.
The other guns was bought legally and handed to the boys by a friend. The latter fact also suggests the pointlessness of having a 21-year limit on semi-automatics when it can be supplied by a 21-year old just as easily as could liquer.
Oh no, I don’t disagree at all. In fact, the regulations I support–primarily registration–would not have any significant impact on overall rates of legal gun ownership. Nor do I think any proposals to ban or severely restrict gun ownership has a chance of getting anywhere with the public at large.
since when is a request for clarification a “complaint”?) and a “nitpick” is the sort of evasive conduct which makes it difficult for people like UncleBeer and SenorBeef to believe that you are acting in good faith.