Re: OT Canadian Gun Control

"Carl Nisarel" <hostlbuddha@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9534A50E14313hostlbuddha@130.133.1.4...
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Chris.Guynn rista --
>
> > "With the publication of the Lott-Mustard study, "Crime,
> > Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,"
>
> Anyone citing that old and now discredited study really needs
> to get up to date on Lott and his research.
>
> For more current research and information on Lott's MGLC,
> research read these:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zcs2

2 points.

First, on page three, Profewssor Donohue says that Lott didn't acknowledge
the introduction of crack into certain urban areas. He then says that the
RTC states in question tended to have less of a crack problem. On the
surface, that seems like it would help to support the Lott-Mustard theory.

Second, I find it interesting that the graph at the end clearly shows that
the RTC states are equal to or less than the non-RTC states in number of
robberies (weighted by population) for the entire graph. I have to wonder
what we would see if we weighted the numbers not only by population (as is
done in that graph), but also by dollars spent preventing and/or deterring
robberies (mostly police costs).

> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr

One note: "right to carry" and "shall issue" are NOT the same thing as is
implied by this article. "Shall issue" is a subset of "right to carry".

He then goes on to claim that all of his data is suspect because one table
was mislabeled and, then, surreptitiously amended.

Other than that it seems to be a decent rebuttal to the study.

I don't have time for the rest right now, I'll take a look at them later.

> http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsk

Bjórrúnar skaltu Chris Guynn rista --

>> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
>
> One note: "right to carry" and "shall issue" are NOT the
> same thing as is implied by this article. "Shall issue" is
> a subset of "right to carry".
>
> He then goes on to claim that all of his data is suspect
> because one table was mislabeled and, then, surreptitiously
> amended.

It's a bit more complex than that. There were serious coding
errors in Lott's data that, when corrected, erase the 'more
guns, less crimes' result.

Lott refused to even acknowledge that there were coding
errors. He then corrected the errors, changed his model, and
then revised the graph and backdated it.

His 'surreptitious amending' of the graph would be considered
blatent academic misconduct if Lott did that during a journal
submission process. As it is, honest academics don't change
their data, revise their models, and then backdate graphs in
an effort to cover up errors.

"Carl Nisarel" <hostlbuddha@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9534C3825CE11hostlbuddha@130.133.1.4...

Are you interested at all in empirical data?

Bjórrúnar skaltu Scott rista --

> Are you interested at all in empirical data?

Why do you ask?

Ayers & Donohue present empirical data.

Michael Maltz does a fine job demonstrating the serious
problems with Lott's empirical data.

Chris Guynn wrote:

> <snip>
>
>What about other violent crimes? What were those rates like? when I
>mention violent crimes, I am including things like rape, aggravated asault,
>aggravated robbery, etc...
>

In general violent crime rates are Canada then in the US (per capita).
I had a hell of a time finding comparison stat's - in fact the page
below was the only one I could find which directly compared different
types of crimes in the US and Canada. There is a good comparison table
at the bottom of the page, which compares crime rates between our two
countries in 2000. I couldn't find anything equivalent for more recent
years.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

Long and short (per 100,000) - more murders (3x), ~2x more assaults in
US (324 per 100;000 vs. 143 per 100,000), 65% more robbery in US, 3x as
many drug arrests, and more crimes in the US involve guns. Although
Americans are more likely to be victims of violent crimes, Canadians are
more likely to be victims of property crime - we have a B&E rate 1.3x
that of the US, 1.25x the US rate of car theft, an even number of
"other" thefts, and 1.4x as many arsons (all measured per 100,000).

Good news for both of our countries is that the rates of almost all
these crimes are dropping in both nations - many (especially robbery and
assault) faster in the US.

>Perhaps Canadians are just more interested in following the law. How do the
>rest of the crime statistics compare?
>

I hate to wade into the gun control thing, but I don't think gun control
helps. It is not that hard to get a legal gun in Canada - even a
handgun. And from what I've seen in the news illegal guns are not much
harder to find. About the only real difference between US and Canada,
in terms of gun ownership, is the number of hoops you must jump through
to get a gun in Canada (and we can't buy assault rifles). In Canada you
must secure a firearms acquisition certificate (basically a form you
fill out), and when you purchase a gun you have to register it (big
waste of $$$, IMO). Takes longer then in the US, but so long as you
don't have a record of violent crime or mental illness it's pretty easy
to get a gun up here.

Personally speaking I think its a "culture" thing - Canada and the US
have very different histories, different levels of urbanization, and
generally speaking a different outlook on guns themselves. Just looking
at violent crime you might assume Americans are just more violent
(although most of the American's I've met certainly are not). From what
I see in the media, and read here, many Americans buy guns as a form of
protection - guns are seen as a way for you to protect yourself and your
family. Most Canadians I know don't see guns in that light. We see
guns as more of a tool - we hunt with them, use them to control vermin
on farms, or use them for fun at firing ranges (my favourite use, even
though I suck).

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAM.ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:ceb2a4$qb3$1@news.ucalgary.ca...

<snip>

Outstanding.

And, thank you for being honest.

Guns are not the problem, societal differences are. Some people are simply
criminals, and would be under any circumstances, but a huge number of people
are basically driven to crime because they see no reason not to commit
crimes if it gets them ahead, no matter for how long or with or without any
permanence. Then you look at people like Martha Stewart and Ken Lay, and you
see further reason to come to the conclusion that it only matters if you get
caught. The rich folks, and the moral fibre of America (such as some of our
politicians) are largely an illusion.

We have a huge sector of our population that feels, right or wrong, that
there is no future, no one is going to "give them a break", and that they
are doomed to life as a poorly paid worker bee, just like everyone in their
family as far back as you care to look. Under such circumstances, it is easy
to justify stealing, killing, getting high.

I was in basic training with a kid who was from Detroit. He dropped out of
school, came from a poor family, and for him his choices were limited. The
Marine Corps was the only service that would take him, and it was either be
a Marine or go back home to the life his dad and uncles lived. He developed
a heart murmur and was going to be discharged. He told me that night that he
wasn't going home. I told him that as soon as his papers cleared he was
going. Period. Later that same night he drank Brasso. He chose suicide
rather than go home. It was a real eye opener for me. I never realized how
desperately many people feel, and that realization was driven home by the
sight of a young man I really liked writhing in a pool of blood and mucous
as he bled to death out his mouth and nose.

Simpletons like to have things like guns and drugs to blame problems on, all
the while blissfully unaware of what they see in the mirror. America locks
its drug and societal problems up in a jail where the "good people" wont
have to look at them. Which is why there is no end in sight. Injustice is
the cradle of crime, guns and dope are nothing more or less than tools.

"Carl Nisarel" <hostlbuddha@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9534C3825CE11hostlbuddha@130.133.1.4...
> Bjórrúnar skaltu Chris Guynn rista --
>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
> >
> > One note: "right to carry" and "shall issue" are NOT the
> > same thing as is implied by this article. "Shall issue" is
> > a subset of "right to carry".
> >
> > He then goes on to claim that all of his data is suspect
> > because one table was mislabeled and, then, surreptitiously
> > amended.
>
> It's a bit more complex than that. There were serious coding
> errors in Lott's data that, when corrected, erase the 'more
> guns, less crimes' result.

Actually, from what I read, they don't erase the result, tehy just minimize
it to the point of irrelevance.

> Lott refused to even acknowledge that there were coding
> errors. He then corrected the errors, changed his model, and
> then revised the graph and backdated it.
>
> His 'surreptitious amending' of the graph would be considered
> blatent academic misconduct if Lott did that during a journal
> submission process. As it is, honest academics don't change
> their data, revise their models, and then backdate graphs in
> an effort to cover up errors.

No doubt.

Adam Helberg wrote:

>
> Unfortunately is not a debate of facts, it's emotion. The gun people believe they
> have a right to own and carry guns and they feel safer with guns, and no amount of
> debate or presentation of facts is going to change that.
>
> Adam
>
>
We have never seen any facts.

Unfortunately those that believe in stricter gun control never produce
any facts that the controls stop crime, or gun incidents

"Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ORzNc.579$cK.262@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net...
>
> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
news:ce6fk1$fim@odah37.prod.google.com...
> >
> > Chris Guynn wrote:
> > > <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> > > >
> > >
> >
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It
> > is
> > > > perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law,
> > but
> > > > death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger
> > gun
> > > > control.
> > >
> > > That is probably true. Now the question begs to be asked, what
> > happened to
> > > the non-gun related violent crime rates?
> > >
> > > > In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
> > > > with 1,367 in 1989.
> > >
> > > What about the deaths not involving firearms? How did they change
> > (if at
> > > all)?
> > >
> > > > Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
> > > > handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States.
> > Suggestions
> > > > that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work
> > are
> > > > ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
> > > > Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than
> > 10,800
> > > > in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are
> > effective.
> > >
> > > That alone isn't proof. The population density of America is
> > approximately
> > > ten times that of Canada. If you assume a linear relationship
> > between
> > > population density and murder rate, that would put Canada at an
> > adjusted
> > > 1,490 murders. You could assume a similar situation for population.
> > It's
> > > feasible that murder rate is *partially* determinedby both total
> > population
> > > and population density (the more people you have, the more will be
> > killers
> > > and the closer people live to each other, the easier it is to get on
> > their
> > > nerves). If that is the case (again, assuming linear realtionships),
> > that
> > > would give Canada an adjusted murder rate of 14,900. Granted that's
> > based
> > > on assumptions, but they seem relatively valid to me.
> > >
> > Your assumptions stink.
> > Let's take Toronto for example. There are only about 60 murders per
> > year. Toronto is just as densely populated as any average North
> > American city, 2.4 million in 247 square miles. Still think U.S.
> > population density is the problem? Name a city even half Toronto's
> > size in the U.S. that comes close to our murder rate.
> > So if we don't have lots of guns you would guess we kill each other
> > by different means? Not so. Over 40% of murders are committed with guns
> > despite controls. Why? I guess that is one thing guns do well.
> > I'm not a supporter of Michael Moore, I don't believe half of what
> > he says, but I did watch Bowling for Columbine. Charlton Heston
> > embarrassed himself and the N.R.A. when Moore pressed him for an answer
> > as to why there is such a disparity between our two countries murder
> > rates. I nearly puked when he answered 'racial mixing'. Toronto is
> > a very diverse city. We still seem to get along okay.
> > So what's the answer? Would Toronto's murder rate go down if we had
> > more guns? Or would yours go down if you had fewer?
> > http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/statistics.php
> > http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm
>
> Unfortunately is not a debate of facts, it's emotion. The gun people
believe they

Well Adam if you'd stop emoting perhaps we'd get somewhere.

> have a right to own and carry guns and they feel safer with guns, and no
amount of

We do.

> debate or presentation of facts is going to change that.
>

Because the facts support our position.

> Adam
>
>


Dennis


--
Thermonuclear War.
It's the -responsible- environmental alternative
Popeye

"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
news:20040730225421.04587.00000417@mb-m27.aol.com...

> Tucker High coach, son slain in home invasion; suspect killed by police
>
> By MIKE MORRIS
> Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
>
> A longtime teacher and coach at Tucker High School and his 17-year-old son
were
> killed Tuesday night during a home invasion in Gwinnett County.
>
> Gwinnett police said Coach Bill Venable's home was the second house the
suspect
> had barged into during a late-night crime spree that ended when police
shot and
> killed the suspect.
>
> "Lilburn police responded to a home invasion [on Lula Street]," said
Gwinnett
> police Cpl. Dan Huggins. "The suspect came into the residence, demanded
money,
> and also stole a red Honda Civic."
>
> The suspect then drove the stolen car about a mile to the Woodfalls
subdivision
> in Lilburn, where he entered Venable's house on Woodfall Way, "and that's
when
> the killing started," Huggins said.
>
> "The suspect entered that residence, and there were three people home, a
male,
> a female and their son," he said. "The suspect got into some type of
struggle
> with the 55-year-old male, and the son came downstairs to see what the
> commotion was."
>
> The man -- later identified as the Tucker coach -- and his son, Bill
Venable
> Jr., were shot.
>
> The teen died at the scene, and his father died later at Gwinnett Medical
> Center.
>
> After the shooting, the suspect fled on foot into nearby woods.
>
> Helicopters and dogs were called in to track the suspect, and the suspect
> opened fire on a police dog, hitting the dog twice.
>
> At that point, two Gwinnett police officers shot the suspect, Huggins
said.
>
> The unidentified suspect, who appeared to be in his early 20s, died at
Gwinnett
> Medical Center.

Fuck.