rumors

[robertc729]

Pot meet kettle

[omegajim]

Well that explains why Bikebabe is so concerned, she's from Chicago.

[jprisme]

Yea chicago is one of the craziest street jungle's out there. there were a lot of projects which made gangs and when gangs broke up then little gangs came along. after that the "best" thing the mayor did at that time was call in police but then he screwd up and decided to split up the projects thinking that if he moved pieces of the project to certain more surburban areas, than it would help balance the system. well sure enough that plan back fired and like roaches the little gangs got to be big gangs because of the intimadating factor. And thats why chicago is bad, i think they are cracking down on it know though. i know i am missing a lot of details but we discussed this in urban planning at school.

[frostbitevinnie]

I saw a documentary on gangs in Chicago. Good God what a friggin mess!! The gubment in essence built a fortress and let the gangs rule. What really amazed me is that some, most, all the drug dealers were pulling down like 2K per day. I think I would work a couple years then move to a warm climate. I guess drugs make a dude stupid though.

[jprisme]

i saw that doc as well. hey well they say rule number one of drug dealing is don't get high off your own supply. yea in La it's crazy because its like a pyramid or a formula for gang. you have race, age, status, region, and who is against who at that time to decide what person you are against on that day.

[frostbitevinnie]

Best move I ever made, leave SoCal.

[jprisme]

yes, i get tired of wondering if i am goin to die everyday do to crazy drivers, gangs, or all the stress from both of them. i am only 19

[frostbitevinnie]

Left the LA area when I was 25. Been in MN since and love it.

[jprisme]

yeah i bet. i dont know though i dont think i could move away from california maybe away from LA i wish i was wealthy so i could live in bel air and have police have a perimeter for where i live and can identify anyone going on my block other than the garderner and pool cleaner. haha

[frostbitevinnie]

Wishing won't get you anywhere but where you are. It was difficult and scary but I did just fine. In all it was a great experience, expanding you might say.

[inspiron]

Originally Posted by B-Rex

And, BTW Scotty....I totally agree with you (as you can see). And it's not being macho or aggressive. We live in a country with over 380 BILLION people (there's that "billion" word again). As such, just from the raw statistics, we have way more illegally armed criminals than any country in Europe!

Inspiron, correct me if I am wrong...but aren't your current, ex and retired military males still armed with 9mm submachineguns in their homes? Plus, last time I checked, it was still possible to get a pistol permit for an upstanding and verified citizen there. Has that changed?

B-Rex

B-Rex, first off, the entire population of this rock is just over 6 billion people. There are 380 MILLION people in America. India and China are the only countries with more than 1 billion population.

Those people who are still in the military (reservists) keep their (semi-automatic) attack rifle at home. Officers may also have a 9mm handgun, but no, there are no automatic machine guns around. The Swiss government is in the process of collecting all of the Army weapons - in the future, they will be stored in bunkers around the country rather than in each person's home.

In the past, when someone completed their military service, they had the option to purchase their weapon. This too is becoming more strict - you have to be an active member of a shooting club and qualify each year.

[omegajim]

The Swiss government is in the process of collecting all of the Army weapons - in the future, they will be stored in bunkers around the country rather than in each person's home.

This just has bad idea written all over it.

Is there such a problem with the few in the army that people storing their guns at home has created much of a problem?

[B-Rex]

Originally Posted by inspiron

B-Rex, first off, the entire population of this rock is just over 6 billion people. There are 380 MILLION people in America. India and China are the only countries with more than 1 billion population.

LOLOL....I can't believe I wrote that! Mea Culpa. Yeah. I agree, it is MILLION. Can I use the Alzheimer's excuse?

Anyway, I'm sorry to see your country falling deeper into the totaltarian, fascist trap of gun confiscation. Like the rest of the European countries that are following the same trend, you all had best hope nothing like Hitler ever re-appears in any of your countries.

A disarmed populace is helpless against tyranny. And, just because we have become more "sophisticated" as a species does NOT mean that it can't happen again. History is not in your favor.

I wish you the best of Luck. I hope you don't need it.

B-Rex

[inspiron]

Originally Posted by omegajim

This just has bad idea written all over it.

Is there such a problem with the few in the army that people storing their guns at home has created much of a problem?

There has been some high-profile "incidents" involving military weapons recently. In one case, a guy was "bored" and decided to find out what his weapon could do, so he picked a 14 year old girl standing at a bus stop and shot her. That kind of thing may be fairly common in some parts of the world, but here, this sparked a huge discussion and led to the central storage of attack rifles.

[B-Rex]

The problem with the "Gun as the cause of violence" hypothesis is that is not supported by the facts. While it is true that most countries that prohibit guns have lower incidences of gun violence, many of them have the same or worse incidences of homicide and violence by other means.

Criminals, nuts and terrorists will ALWAYS find a way. They are the ones responsible for the greatest majority of firearms "incidents". Accidents with firearms, while widely publicized are far, far rarer.

In countries without civilian firearms, you just have lots more victims who can't fight back and defend themselves. Since the gov't (read police) arrive AFTER the incident, it is silly to assume that the gov't can protect you.

Even if all the guns were gone, there are plenty of ways to make or utilize explosives, compressed gases, knives, poisons, ice picks, zip guns, arrows, chainsaws and bludgeons. And unarmed, you have little or no defense against any of them.

B-Rex

[frostbitevinnie]

Back in the day Nigel the Neanderthal would club you to death. I think gun bans or no violence is here to stay.

[inspiron]

Rex, where did you come up with that statistic?

The chance of being murdered (by gun or any other means) is considerably lower in western Europe than it is in the USA.

Even Canada's murder rate (number of murders per 1000 population) is considerably lower than the USA.

NationMaster - Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country

USA - #24
Canada - #44
Switzerland - #56

NationMaster - Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

USA - #8 !
Switzerland - #19
Canada - #20

[B-Rex]

I didn't name specific countries. But countries like Mexico, Argentina etc. prohibit private gun ownership. However, look through this article and you will see what I was referring to regarding violent crime and gun control. You may find it interesting.

Gun Control Around the World: Lessons to Learn

Dr. Gary A. Mauser

Gary Mauser is a professor on the faculty of Business Administration at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia. This paper is adapted from the Sixth Annual Civitas Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia held April 26 though 28, 2002.

In the past few months, widely televised tragedies in France, Germany, and Switzerland have spurred politicians to introduce changes in their countries' already strict gun laws to make them even more restrictive. Perhaps you remember the headlines? A depressed student in Germany ran amok and killed several people in his school after he'd been expelled. In both France and Switzerland, angry individuals have stormed into local councils and began shooting legislators indiscriminately.

This is not a new story. We've seen this show before. First, there is a horrible event, say a disturbed student shoots people in a school, or a maniac goes on a rampage in a public place. Media coverage is intense for a few weeks. "Experts" on television wring their hands in concern about the danger of "gun violence." Then the government feels it must do something to protect the public, so the police are given sweeping new powers, or new restrictions are introduced on owning firearms. Afterwards, the media rush off on a new story, and the public forgets. Later, there is another tragedy somewhere else, and the process starts all over again.

Does this sound familiar? It should. This has been the pattern followed by virtually every gun law that has been introduced in the twentieth century around the world. In the 1990s, we've seen this drama on television from Australia, Great Britain, the United States, not to mention Canada, as well other countries. It's time to pause and ask a few basic questions. If gun laws work to prevent criminal violence, why do these events keep occurring? And not just in places where the gun laws are comparatively lax, but in countries where it is all but impossible for an average person to own a handgun. Guns are banned in schools. How could gun attacks happen in "gun free" zones such as schools?
If gun control is supposed to reduce violent crime, then eventually this must be demonstrated to be true, or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. However, most criminologists admit (albeit reluctantly) that there is very little empirical support for the claim that laws designed to reduce general access to firearms reduce criminal violence (eg, Kleck 1997). Frequently, assertions that gun laws work turn out to be bogus. In Canada, the government uses the falling homicide rate as support for their claim that gun control laws are working. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has been falling even faster in the United States.

FIGURE 1 US VS. CANADIAN HOMICIDE RATES

The drop in the criminal violence is much more dramatic in the US than it is in Canada (Gannon 2001). Over the past decade, the Canadian homicide rate has declined about 25%, but the violent crime rate has not changed. In the US during the same time period, both the homicide and the violent crime rates have plummeted by more than 40%. We can't credit gun laws entirely with this success. In both countries, the aging population has helped bring down crime rates, and, in the US, long jail sentences for violent criminals has also been effective.


Figure 1




Figure 2. Rates of Violent Crime

FIGURES 2 US VS. CANADIAN VIOLENCE RATES



1) Violent crime uncludes homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery. For comparison purposes, the Canadian category of aggravated assault includes attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault. Trend analysis starts in 1983 due to the reclassification of Canadian assault categories in 1983.

Source: Uniform Crime Reporting program, CCJS: Uniform Crime Reporting program, FBI


The United States

Nevertheless, gun laws have played an important role in reducing crime rates in the US. Since 1986, more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. As a result, the numbers of armed Americans in malls and in their cars has grown to almost 3 million men and women. As surprising as it is to the media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates. In his scholarly book, More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John Lott shows how violent crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than in the rest of the US (Lott 2000). His study is the most comprehensive analysis of American crime data ever completed. He shows that criminals are rational enough to fear being shot by armed civilians.

FIGURES 3 & 4 - CRIME RATES IN CONCEALED-CARRY STATES VS. NON-CARRY

These graphs compare the relative drop in violent crimes in those states that recently introduced concealed-handgun laws with those that did not. Since these laws were introduced in various years, from 1986 to the 1990s, these changes are calculated from the year the law was introduced ("0"). As can be seen, crime rates were increasing before the legislation was introduced, and the rates declined afterwards. Figure 3 examines the impact upon violent crime in general, and Figure 4 looks at homicide specifically.



Figure 3. The Effect of Concealed-Handgun Laws on Murders (Lott 199

The drop in the US crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office violent crime increased during the 1990s (Barclay et al, 1999). This contrast should provoke Canadians to wonder what happened in those countries where they believed that introducing more and more restrictive firearm laws would protect them from criminal violence.

Before we leap to the conclusion that our personal safety lies in making it ever more difficult for average citizens to own and use firearms, we should look around the world to see what other countries have done and how successful these experiments have been. Canadians are particularly interested in studying "English-style" firearm laws such as followed by other countries in the British Commonwealth.



Figure 4. The Effects of Concealed Carry-Handguns on Violent Crimes (Lott 199

Canada

Despite the drop in rates of criminal violence in Canada, the gun law has little to do with it. In a study Professor Dennis Maki and I did recently, that will be published later this year by Applied Economics, we found that this legislation may even have caused an increase in armed robbery. In our study we evaluated 9 other factors in our model as "covariates." Once we factored out the effects of these other variables, the Canadian gun law still had a significant effect. Unfortunately, this effect was positive, that is to say, the gun law actually acted to increase criminal violence.

FIGURE 5 - M&M T-TEST TABLE

Great Britain

The first country to consider is Britain, where they have endured a serious crime wave. In contrast to North America, where the homicide rate has been falling for over twenty years, the homicide rate in England and Wales has doubled over the past thirty years. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000 (British Home Office 2001).

Figure 5. Pooled Regression Models for Robbery and Robbery with a Firearm.

Dependent Variables Robberies Total Robberies with a Firearm
Independant Variable Coefficient T-ratio Coefficient T-ratio
1977 Gun Law 1.578 1.81* 4.518 2.11*

Registered Indians -2.417 -1.36 -2.253 -0.47
Male Youth -0.805 -0.72 -2.146 -0.85
Unemployment Rate 0.085 0.46 0.144 0.34
International Immigration 522.13 6.14* 958.79 4.14*
Clearance Rate1 -0.003 -0.44 -0.074 -1.91*
Police Effectives -0.008 -0.98 -0.032 -1.74*
UI Benefits 9.993 0.90 37.701 1.55
Internal Migration 31.731 1.11 -45.737 -0.63
Transients -435.59 -2.37* -592.33 -1.27

Constant 11.386 0.85 109.89 3.36*

Buse R square 0.521 0.576

Note 1: CR differs for each dependent variable.
*Indicates t-values significant at .05
Source: Mauser and Maki, Applied Economics (forthcoming).

In response to rising crime, British politicians, both Conser-vative and Labour, have brought in laws that increasingly re-stricted firearms ownership by the general public. Important changes to the firearm laws were made in 1988, and then again in 1992, before banning all handguns in 1997 (Greenwood 2001; Munday and Stevenson 1996). The Home Office has also tight-ened up on enforcement of regulations to such an extent that the firearm community has been virtually destroyed. Shotgun per-mits have fallen almost 30% since 1988 (Greenwood 2001). And the result of this Draconian gun control law in Great Britain? It's not pretty. No end appears in sight for the continuing crime wave.

FIGURES 6 AND 7 - INCREASE IN CRIME RATES VS. DECLINE IN REGISTERED GUNS

Year Shotgun Certificates Total Robbery
1980 781900 15006
1981 785200 20282
1982 780699 22837
1983 783400 22119
1984 798400 24890
1985 819300 27463
1986 841000 30020
1987 861300 32633
1988 882000 31437
1989 865100 33163
1990 802300 36195
1991 724600 45323
1992 589200 52894
1993 681100 57845
1994 670000 60007
1995 653800 68074
1996 638000 74035
1997 623100 63072
1998 627600 66172
1999 625692 84277
2000 600733 95754


Figure 6. Total number of shotgun certificates in England and Wales and total number of robberies with, or without, a firearm.

ENGLAND

Clearly, the firearm laws have not caused violent crime to fall, and the gun laws have probably increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime, and firearm crime, continues to grow. The number of violent crimes involving handguns has increased from 2,600 in 1997/98 to 3,600 in 1999/00. And firearm crime has increased 200% in the past decade. The British Home Office admits that only one firearm in 10 used in homicide was legally held (British Home Office, 2001). But, the politicians continue their policy of disarming responsible citizens.

Year Homicide per M pop
1967 7.3
1968 7.4
1968 6.8
1970 7.0
1971 8.3
1972 8.3
1973 8.0
1974 10.7
1975 9.0
1976 9.9
1977 8.5
1978 9.6
1979 11.1
1980 11.1
1981 10.1
1982 11.2
1983 9.7
1984 10.8
1985 10.7
1986 11.2
1987 11.9
1988 10.9
1989 10.3
1990 10.9
1991 12.2
1992 11.4
1993 11.0
1994 12.3
1995 12.8
1996 11.2
1997 11.7
1998 12.5
1999 13.2
2000 15.5

Figure 7. Homicide rate in England and Wales with, or without, a firearm.

Australia

English-style gun laws have failed in Australia too. In 1997, the Australian federal government panicked, following the horrific murders by a deranged man in 1996, and banned and confiscated 600,000 semiautomatic "military style" firearms from their licenced owners (Lawson 1999). The result? Violent crime continues to increase.

FIGURES 8 AND 9 - INCREASE IN CRIME RATES IN AUSTRALIA

Year HG Percentage
92-93 16.9
93-94 21.7
94-95 17.7
95-96 13.1
96-97 36.2
97-98 45.6
98-99 42.2
99-00 47.5

Table 8. Percentage of homicides committed with a handgun in Australia.

Year Armed Robbery B&E
1993 30 25000
1994 29 28000
1995 30 32000
1996 38 33000
1997 50 35000
1998 58 37000
1999 50 36000


Table 9. Armed Robbery and break in rates in Australia with or without a firearm

The destruction of the confiscated firearms cost Australian taxpayers an estimated $Au500 million, and there has been no visible impact on violent crime. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to escalate. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide - jumping from 30 per 100,000 in 1996 to 50 per 100,000 in 1999 (AIC, 2001). The homicide rate has not declined, and the share of firearm homicide involving handguns has doubled in the past five years (Mouzos 2001). As in Great Britain and Canada, few firearms used in homicide are legally held; in 99/00 only 12 out of 65 (18%) were identified as being misused by their legal owner (Mouzos 2001).

CONCLUSION

Gun laws may not reduce violent crime, but crime causes gun laws. The loser in this drama is individual freedom. The winner is bureaucracy. Since it is a truism that only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any other kind of law for that matter, it is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive it is, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. There have always been criminals, and there have always been deranged people. Murder has been illegal for hundreds if not thousands of years. The truth is we live in a dangerous world, and the government can't completely protect us.

This brief review of gun laws in the British Commonwealth suggests that English-style gun laws have failed to reduce violent crime. However, more research needs to be done before we can draw this conclusion with much confidence. All I've been able to do so far is to examine simple two-way analyses. Before we can have any confidence in our conclusions, we need to conduct econometric studies in order to disentangle the complex events that occurred at the same time that new firearm laws were introduced.

Nevertheless, we can say that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country we've examined here: not Great Britain, not Canada, and not Australia. Only the United States has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence. One of the important reasons is that many states in the past two decades have encouraged responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. Perhaps it is time criminologists encouraged more individual self-reliance.

REFERENCES

Australian Institute of Criminology. Australian Crime, Facts and Figures, 2000. AIC, 2001.

Barclay, G. C. Tavare, and A. Siddique. "International comparisons of criminal Justice statistics, 1999." Issue 6/01. England and Wales.

British Home Office, May 2001.

British Home Office. Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 2000. December 2001.

Gannon, Maire. "Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States." Juristat, Vol 21 (11), December 2001.

Greenwood, Colin. "Labour's Gun Plan." Shooting Times and Country Magazine, 12 April 2001, p. 8.

Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns. Firearms and Their Control. Aldine de Gruyter, 1997

Kopel, David. The Mountie, the Samurai, and the Cowboy. Prometheus Books, 1992.

Lott, John, Jr. More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press. 2000.

Mauser, Gary. Many of my published papers related to gun control in Canada are available on my webpage. <www.sfu.ca/~mauser>

Mauser, Gary and Dennis Maki, "An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearm Legislation: Robbery Involving a Firearm," Applied Economics. (forthcoming).

Mouzos, Jenny. "Homicide in Australia, 1999 - 2000," Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues, No 187, February 2001.

Mouzos, Jenny and C. Carcach, "Weapon involvement in armed robbery," Australian Institute of Criminology, Research and Public Policy Issues, No 38, 2001.

Munday, R.A.I. and J.A. Stevenson. Guns and Violence. Piedmont Publishing, 1996.

[B-Rex]

To see the actual graph and charts on this go to:

untitled

B-Rex

[1badbaker]

My 2 cents....

I spent three years living in Chicago. On my way to school I had to drive right through Cabrini Green. Some people claim it's one of the worst projects in the country, definitely the worst in Chicago. Some of these days I was going through early in the morning/very late at night. Yes, there were drug dealers out, yes you saw gang members. I never had any problems. If you stay aware of your surroundings and don't bother anyone, they usually don't bother you. In fact, there was two guys I saw almost every early morning/late night, after about a week of seeing me regularly they would give me a nod as I drove past. I think they understood I needed to go through that area, but I wasn't any harm to them.

I am an NRA member and I have a firearm permit, but I do not own a gun yet. When I do have some extra money and can purchase a gun, it isn't going to be solely for self-protection.

When I left Chicago, I moved to St. Louis. This was almost two years ago, right before the FBI made St. Louis the most dangerous city in the country. The parking garage for work was two blocks away, and it wasn't the safest or most well lit of areas. Again, no problems. Look like you have a purpose for being where you are and leave the other people alone.

Either I got very lucky those 4 1/2 years, or it's not the epidemic that it's made out to be.