Home printing an assualt rifle

[dogboy]

just read this article gun stats on forbes...

Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

Still, it should also be remembered that the threatened party often has more motivation to fight back than a criminal hoping for an easy score. There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts.

Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn't sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.

On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

[Gurtie]

Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

I don't quite get their point there - Brits are more often home when burglars break in, and that's because we have tighter gun control laws? OK. But neither our home owners or our burglars are armed, in general, and break ins do not result in personal injury, in general (granted there are tosses who beat up old ladies shockingly but I doubt that's related to tighter gun control laws).  So how does it relate to public safety? More chance of treading on broken glass with a bare foot? 

[TallTroll]

I think the point is that US burglars take more care to ensure the target is out, to eliminate the chance of a firefight. If you're burgled whilst out, you have zero chance of injury, so keeping guns at home does protect you, albeit a little indirectly

[dogboy]

Right. If someone is going to rob you, and there is a chance you have a gun, they are more likely to try and rob you when you are not there.

There has been a fair amount of studies on this, here was the results of one of them:

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

...here's another one:

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

[dogboy]

I think guns are like alcohol. Banning them only creates new problems. I know it sounds counter intuitive but peace can only come about by eliminating the need for violence. You can stop the drug wars by legalizing drugs and taxing them. That's what happened to alcohol and tobacco.

[Chunkford]

Politicians will do what ever gives them the most votes so It will never happen, unless the majority of civilization change their views.

[buckworks]

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000.  ... Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S.

Those numbers do not compute.

Somebody is making things up.

[dogboy]

I don't see the issue(?)

In England you are less likely to be killed by a gun than in America... but you are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime.  

What numbers don't make sense?

[dogboy]

oh, and for your daily does of gun violence in America, yesterday a gun carrying man ended stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

[...]

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

[dogboy]

I guess when it comes to numbers, I think we need to look at the big picture.  In the big marijuana image above, those numbers for the large part are correct.  Notice also that it just says 'homicides', if that said 'homicides by guns' that number would be more like 11,000... and out of all those deaths, the vast majority would be drug related.

Really, stop and look at the big picture... big tobacco has pulled the sack over our heads.  All of these people are innocent consumers in my mind. A half million of them a year. That's ALOT of people.  LOTS of energy money keeping these people alive.  Here is another thing that jumps out at me... guns stop crimes from happening in the first place. They stop rapes and deaths and other violent crime - nothing else on that list can be said to do the same, except maybe aspirin.  You have to weigh the bad with the good.

[Rooftop]

Not sure those homicide figures are right and up to date.

Most recent set of UNODC Homicide Statistics ( http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html ) has the US rate considerably above the UK. 4.4 homicides per 100k of population vs 1.2.

I think that there are way too many other, larger, variables at play to suggest that figure has much to say about gun control. However it does question the argument that you are more likely to get murdered in the UK than the US that seems to come out quite a lot in these discussions. 

[dogboy]

Jason and I were just discussing this on Facebook. 

From what I understand, in England you are less likely to be killed by a gun than in America. However, you are also more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in England than in the US.

...I believe this is still true?

[dogboy]

As I said before, "Who has the guns in England? The criminals. Who are you trying to keep the weapons away from? The criminals. Regulation is not the key to this. The act of killing is already illegal. Why isn't that enough? Why isn't that working? Because criminals, by definition, break the laws. That's what makes them criminals."

>I think that there are way too many other, larger, variables at play
I agree. I think most homicides in America are drug related.  Either in urban gangs, or mexican drug traffic near the border w Mexico.