egafd.com

"There is not much point in comparing the USA to Britain. The USA is a diverse, continent sized country, very different to our small, densely populated island".

I agree that there are a whole host of reasons why a country has the crime rate it does e.g. guns, poverty, disparity between rich and poor etc etc.

However, I don't see why a comparison shouldn't be made. The UK is very diverse, multi-ethnic as is the USA. I don't see why size should make a difference here other than to say that when people are living in extremely densely populated areas I would have thought the tendency for falling out and arguments is higher than in sparsely populated countries. Overall, gun ownership in the US is extremely high. In Britain it is extremely low. Why not compare?

"You might better compare the USA to Europe, where gun ownership varies wildly from about 1% in Britain to near universal in Switzerland, just as in the USA some states have fierce gun control, others don't"

Not sure if your figures are correct and I find your suggestions for comparison somewhat disingenuous.

For example looking at the figures below for gun ownership, you will see that the US leads the way by a huge amount and the figures quoted for Switzerland are nearer 50% rather than universal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _ownership

Here are the figures looking at homicides by percentage pop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Switzerland is often quoted as the country that proves there is no link between crime and guns owned. However, what the gun lobby forgets to mention is that Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world where even if you are relatively poorly off compared to the wealthiest, you are still a hell of a lot better off than the vast majority of the US pop. for instance.

The gun lobby also forgets to point out that instead of a standing, full-time army, Switzerland requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives. Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

If you compare the figures for gun ownership with gun crime I suspect that you will find that with all things being equal like huge difference between rich and poor, the crime rate will tend to be much higher in countries where it is easier to get guns.

Cheers
D

Won't allowing just over 21s just paint a target on the backs of the under 21s? Any 'nutter' over 21 can bring his gun in legally and pick any under 21s class he likes, knowing they're not armed.

You first talked about 'evening it up' but in actuality you're discriminating who can and cannot have the right to defend themselves based on their age.

We've all been to school/college/Uni/Work and know there are some characters you wouldn't want having a gun. They don't have to be psychopathic, just a little bit immature, daft or easily upset. Normal people 'lose it' on occasion and 'normal' folk go mental and punch/kick/stab/pummel others everyday. Just like in a pub where glass bottles are handy, some idiot WILL try and use one after a petty argument. If guns are handy you can bet your bottom dollar (to use a Texas phrase) some div will feel aggrieved enough to get their piece out......if only to threaten. And once one idiot brings out their piece it's guaranteed someone else will too (I mean, I would under those circumstances).

I think that despite students being sitting ducks in places like Texas, these tragedies happen so infrequently that less people will be killed in 'gun free zones' than 'gun heavy zones'. If you think differently then should anyone send school kids into gun free zones?

Sam:

Given that under 21s cannot carry pistols legally, all this law does is enable adults, ie over 21s, the same rights on campus as they do off campus. This in effect ends the "gun free zone" nonsense, as adults on campus have the same rights as adults off campus. You have come up with several rather lurid scenarios, but I'm afraid that only shows that you are unfamiliar with firearms. Dickheads who use illegal guns will do what they want anyway, this law enables sensible law abiding people to defend themselves and others.

David:

Given that almost every Swiss man owns an assault rifle, I think it is fair call gun ownership there "universal". Obviously, there is nothing stopping women from owning guns too, I'm sure many of them do.

As I am sure you are aware, the vast majority of gun crime in the USA is concentrated in the high crime areas. Most Americans have no contact with gun crime, but those unfortunate enough to live in certain parts of big cities see lots of it, regardless of what the law might be like in that state.

Thus, people in the parts of America most like western Europe have a crime rate similar to western Europe, maybe even less, regardless of the gun laws. When was the last time you heard of any of the 9000 people in Northern Ireland with a permit to carry a pistol causing a problem?

"Given that almost every Swiss man owns an assault rifle, I think it is fair call gun ownership there "universal".

First, the figures, I quote, state 45%. If this is your concept of "universal" you are already on dodgy ground.

"As I am sure you are aware, the vast majority of gun crime in the USA is concentrated in the high crime areas. Most Americans have no contact with gun crime, but those unfortunate enough to live in certain parts of big cities see lots of it, regardless of what the law might be like in that state. Thus, people in the parts of America most like western Europe have a crime rate similar to western Europe, maybe even less, regardless of the gun laws".

Do you actually believe this stuff you are coming out with?

The figures I quote produced by the United States Office on Drugs and Crime suggest a firearm homicide rate of 3 per 100,000 in the USA. Obviously this average includes high crime areas as well as the low crime areas you refer to.

In exactly the same way in Britain we have areas of high crime e.g. blighted parts of London, Manchester etc and areas of very low crime. The firearm homicide rate for England and Wales in the same table is .12, a fraction of that in the States.

So we have two countries which are multi-ethnic, big disparities between rich and poor, a flexible workforce i.e. low paid generally. One has gun ownership of 88% of the population and has the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment of their Constitution; in the other, legal gun ownership is very difficult.

So the vast difference in gun crime is purely coincidental is it?

Cheers
D

"When was the last time you heard of any of the 9000 people in Northern Ireland with a permit to carry a pistol causing a problem?"

I understand that there has been a war that went on there for most of the last 40 years with over 3,500 deaths. Given you mention that a significant number of permits were given to people like judges, Northern Ireland is probably not the best example for you to come up with about the reduced risks of allowing easier access to guns.

Cheers
D

Now, Mr Teacher, 'bout that detention ya'all talkin' 'bout!
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qRy7i8Xa2g4/T ... 738451.jpg[/img]

Robches: All you've banged on about is some people having the same rights on campus as off it. Why is this an issue for you? We all concede certain rights when inside different zones and buildings. I'm sure these 21 year old students have the right to smoke out of campus so should they be given the right to smoke inside too? I'm allowed to walk around with my cock out on some beaches while on others I'd be arrested. Stop using this 'rights' excuse because it's daft. I wonder how many employers in Texas allow their employees to bring their handguns to work? I mean, the check-out girls at Walmart should be allowed to carry their pieces, right? Do you want the waiter taking your order to have a Winchester rifle strapped to his back because he has a permit and 'has the right' to carry it around? People can walk into supermarkets and restaurants and cause massacres as well as colleges.

You've STILL not answered my very simple question: Since you said 'gun-free zones' make it easier for massacres to happen, how can you justify sending kids and young adults, under 21, into these dangerous zones? Is it ok in your world to send children into dangerous zones but not adults over 21? Why do you care more for over 21s than under 21s?

For me it's very simple. I can send children into 'gun-free zones' quite happily because I think gun-free zones are safer than 'gun-heavy zones'. You, however, have a dilemma and that is why you're dodging my question.

It's only a matter of time..

[IMG]http://i428.photobucket.com/albums/qq8/ ... at-gun.jpg[/IMG]

Sam Slater wrote:

> Robches: All you've banged on about is some people having the
> same rights on campus as off it. Why is this an issue for you?
> We all concede certain rights when inside different zones and
> buildings. I'm sure these 21 year old students have the right
> to smoke out of campus so should they be given the right to
> smoke inside too? I'm allowed to walk around with my cock out
> on some beaches while on others I'd be arrested. Stop using
> this 'rights' excuse because it's daft. I wonder how many
> employers in Texas allow their employees to bring their
> handguns to work? I mean, the check-out girls at Walmart should
> be allowed to carry their pieces, right? Do you want the waiter
> taking your order to have a Winchester rifle strapped to his
> back because he has a permit and 'has the right' to carry it
> around? People can walk into supermarkets and restaurants and
> cause massacres as well as colleges.
>
> You've STILL not answered my very simple question: Since you
> said 'gun-free zones' make it easier for massacres to happen,
> how can you justify sending kids and young adults, under 21,
> into these dangerous zones? Is it ok in your world to send
> children into dangerous zones but not adults over 21? Why do
> you care more for over 21s than under 21s?
>
> For me it's very simple. I can send children into 'gun-free
> zones' quite happily because I think gun-free zones are safer
> than 'gun-heavy zones'. You, however, have a dilemma and that
> is why you're dodging my question.
>
>


Sam:

I'm finding it very hard to follow your logic here.

The concept of a "gun free zone" is one in which no-one can legally be armed. As such, a would-be murderer knows he will be able to indulge himself on a large number of targets for quite some time. This is not theory, it has happened on several campuses which were "gun free zones". Allowing adult students the same right to own guns as adults off campus means that the campus is no more a "gun free zone" than anywhere else: it kills the whole concept, which I approve of.

People can indeed walk into supermarkets or restaurants and cause massacres, but until now they could walk onto college campuses secure in the knowledge that they could shoot and not be shot. That has changed. It wouldn't bother me if legally approved shop assistants had concealed pistols, but as it happens Walmart forbids its staff from being armed, and has sacked staff members who in the past have defended themselves and their customers, to their discredit, in my view.