The NRA doesn't dictate statistics to the U.S. Department of Justice, nor to the U.S. Bureau of Crime Statistics.
Let me get this right. You don't trust the UK government who have the data. But you do trust the US government who's only source is the UK government.
But up to now these so called stats of yours are notable by their absence, aren't they? After all you can't now link to the NRA nor one of the other gun-nut sites that get their FUD from the NRA.
It's all rather different from my stats, which are from a primary source, and which I linked to. They show exactly what I said they do. Or are you now thinking that you pretending to be too stupid to read a table of figures is preferable to you admitting you were wrong? http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf Table 2 page 12.
You're looking more pathetic with every post. Are are you so delusional you are blind to the facts when they are inconsistent with your previously held opinion.
Directly or indirectly you did. They are always the ultimate source of lies about gun statistics.
And as I clearly stated before, you aren't going to get it from the UK government, either.
LOL! The UK government are the only people that collect this data. They run the police, and the police are the only source of offence statistics. Anything you read or claim to have read elsewhere was either based on it, or was invented.
Come on now Jane. Admit you got it wrong. Your ego can take it.
And I'm not picking on the UK particularly.
Oh, I'm sure you'd like to shift the focus away from the UK now.
Assuming the privatization meant that the airlines would once again be responsible for their own security, the airlines would either compete on maximum invasiveness (anal cavity searches for all), maximum privacy (likely pre-2001 screening to meet their insurance carriers' requirements), maximum security (say, pressure-testing luggage and allowing small arms aboard), or some hybrid that people liked. The airlines would be directly accountable to their passengers and those passengers would provide their feedback by way of ticket purchases and relative pricing.
So you mean have security based on marketing principles rather than security principles. That sounds sensible./s
Obamacare for example was not a result of Obama reacting to lobbying. Quite the contrary all the lobbying power was opposed to it. Public healthcare is a matter of political principle, not lobbying.
a) The law says I have to. b) There are no downsides.
Neither is applicable to guns.
As has been pointed out to you many times before, your gun is more likely to to kill a member of your family than protect you from crime. Or it cane be stolen by a criminal and used to shoot someone else. Even if you believe the odds stack the other way in your unique case, the risk is still there.
It's not at all the same as wearing a seatbelt. If you were to have a seatbelt wrapped around your neck as you drive, that would be closer.
And what was the explanation for the initial rise?
American cultural imperialism. Most recently because America exported it's "Gangsta Rap" culture with the idea you're in the "hood" and you need to have a gun. Seriously. It was blatently obvious because the kids that started carrying guns had also started wearing red or blue bandanas, depending what gang they were in. And "gangsta bling". Heck there was even one of these gun owning gangs that called themselves "The Crips", that's how American influenced it was.
At the risk of sounding cliche correlation does not imply causation, and in this case even the correlation is shakey.
You're not just taking the risk, you are sounding cliche. On slashdot it's got to the stage when if anything is correlated, then people are inclined to believe it must not be causal related.
But that's by the by. I'm RESPONDING to a claim that the gun law changes didn't work because gun crime proceeded to rise. And I'm pointing out the factual incorrectness of that claim. And I did so without claiming that the correlation means causation. Simply that no one has offered any other explanation. Be my guest if you want to have a go.
He lives knowing that he will attempt to protect himself. You live hoping the govt will show up to help you. Which is more the "politics of fear?"
No, I have the education to know that the chances of a criminal shooting me are tiny compared to other ordinary everyday risks such as being killed on the road, which are in themselves tiny. I don't live in fear, I live without fear of things that I have no need to be fearful of.
Clearly you also buy into the fear thing as well. Which means you're also probably a conservative. (Which is not the same thing as a Republican.)
"Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"
If it was only that, the 2 words would be superfluous to the sentence. And in any case "disciplined" would work better.
"Well regulated" means "controlled". Proper ranks, with people obeying orders, meeting when required. Exactly what todays libertarians and survivalists are not.
The problem is that Congress isn't a "checks and balances" organisation. It's a "policies for sale" organisation. Lobbyists are people that bribe and blackmail. Congressmen are people who do what they are bribed and blackmailed to do.
But [A] again, the gun crimes per capita were already lower than in the U.S., and [B] after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up.
That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising. With a particular school massacre being the catalyst. Gun crime continued to rise for 6 years till 2003. Since then it's been falling, and is below the 1997 rate. In fact it's the lowest now since 1990.
So, contrary to your assertion, gun crime did NOT stay up. It's now the lowest it has been in 23 years. There is an unexplained 6 year lag between the law coming in, and the rate of gun crime falling. And yet no explanation for the fall other than the change of law.
If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally.
There you go with the boolean variables again. In a country such as the UK where most gun ownership is illegal, there are some criminals with weapons, obviously bought on the black market. But they are a fraction of the number that the criminals with weapons in country with lax gun control such as the USA.Guns in the UK in anyone's hands are really rare.
Indeed the black market in guns in the USA will be many times the size of the black market in the UK.
"In the hands of criminals" is not a boolean variable. Quantity matters. And far more criminals have guns in America than in countries with sane gun control laws.
Isn't it pretty easy to buy ammo in the states without any permit?
I see Walmart says they are going to stop stocking ammo since the Adam Lanza massacre. Finally following what KMart was shamed into doing in Bowling for Columbine.
Right, but when you have browsers, word processors editors and such like on Windows or OSX, you don't say they ARE Windows or OSX.
Well, maybe Windows Explorer, due to the deliberate "co-mingling". But that's the exception. MS Office is's part of Windows for example. Even if it comes preinstalled on a PC.
It seems that open source people are surprisingly vague about what's what.
There's no such thing as "these people". Facebook has everyone from kids to people in their 90s. From poor to millionaires. In every profession. In pretty much every country. Anyone indeed who has family and friends that they don't see every day but like o keep in touch with.
Now, are you talking from experience of Facebook, frokm news stories or from what you imagine. Because if it's what you imagine it's worthless. If it;s news stories it's the unusual stuff not the normal stuff. And if it's experience, you're talking about the people you chose to be your friends on Facebook. Which would say more about your friends than about facebook per se.
I like my friends and family, so I have a good experience there.
If someone chooses to do a creepy thing, it's because they are a creepy person. It's not because they have a Facebook account.
Those that know, know Linux doesn't require a GUI at all. OR GNU for that matter. Knowing what one is talking about is key to context, one that I'm trying to get people to realize. Android is Linux, so is Red Hat, So is WebOS, so is.....
And there are people who are equally into the GNU/Linux scene and are just as knowledgeable than you who argue exactly the opposite. In fact RMS does. And I presume you accept he knows what he's talking about.
I've been taken to task by Linux people by referring to Linux when I'm talking about a distribution. And I've equally been taken to task when I'm talking about Linux the kernel. And it's all getting a bit old.
I'm beginning to suspect there are some here who argue it both ways, depending on what they are trying to prove at the time. Hence my post.
My standard is now this: Linux - the kernel Android - the Google product. GNU - Desktop distributions. Red Hat, Ubuntu etc. - Specific distributions. KDE/Gnome etc. - Window managers.
Like how "Windows" can mean either just the OS or the OS plus the software ecosystem around it?
No, not even a little bit. Everyone knows that Windows is what comes in a box from Microsoft called "Windows". It may be preinstalled on a PC, and that PC may also contain crapware installed by the OEM. But no one with any knowledge calls that crapware Windows, let alone any 3rd party software installed after.
It's crystal clear what Windows is just exactly the way it isn't clear what Linux is.
English language overloads words.
We're not talking about the English language. We're talking about product names. Which are normally: a) Defined by the person or organisation that created the product. b) International, not English language specific.
Slashdot Mirror
Gun crime was DROPPING from 1993 to 1997. See page 5 of your own source.
You must have myopia. Those bars are rising, not falling.
1994: 13,167
1995: 13,434
1996: 13,876
The NRA doesn't dictate statistics to the U.S. Department of Justice, nor to the U.S. Bureau of Crime Statistics.
Let me get this right. You don't trust the UK government who have the data. But you do trust the US government who's only source is the UK government.
But up to now these so called stats of yours are notable by their absence, aren't they? After all you can't now link to the NRA nor one of the other gun-nut sites that get their FUD from the NRA.
It's all rather different from my stats, which are from a primary source, and which I linked to. They show exactly what I said they do. Or are you now thinking that you pretending to be too stupid to read a table of figures is preferable to you admitting you were wrong?
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
Table 2 page 12.
You're looking more pathetic with every post. Are are you so delusional you are blind to the facts when they are inconsistent with your previously held opinion.
It doesn't really matter where you got your information from, given that it's wrong.
But it probably did come from the NRA even if you're not aware of it.
Norway you say. Hmm... sounds familiar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_breivik
Is the point you're making that it's not guns on their own that are dangerous, but guns in the possession of right wing libertarians?
I did not get my information from the NRA.
Directly or indirectly you did. They are always the ultimate source of lies about gun statistics.
And as I clearly stated before, you aren't going to get it from the UK government, either.
LOL! The UK government are the only people that collect this data. They run the police, and the police are the only source of offence statistics. Anything you read or claim to have read elsewhere was either based on it, or was invented.
Come on now Jane. Admit you got it wrong. Your ego can take it.
And I'm not picking on the UK particularly.
Oh, I'm sure you'd like to shift the focus away from the UK now.
Assuming the privatization meant that the airlines would once again be responsible for their own security, the airlines would either compete on maximum invasiveness (anal cavity searches for all), maximum privacy (likely pre-2001 screening to meet their insurance carriers' requirements), maximum security (say, pressure-testing luggage and allowing small arms aboard), or some hybrid that people liked. The airlines would be directly accountable to their passengers and those passengers would provide their feedback by way of ticket purchases and relative pricing.
So you mean have security based on marketing principles rather than security principles. That sounds sensible. /s
I suggest listening to what the NRA has to say is not "research".
My version of events is factually correct. Yours is wrong. The official statistics are here, just as they were when I laid them out in my post:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
You think you know what you are talking about. But you don't.
Obamacare for example was not a result of Obama reacting to lobbying. Quite the contrary all the lobbying power was opposed to it. Public healthcare is a matter of political principle, not lobbying.
But I'll bet you wear a seatbelt.
a) The law says I have to.
b) There are no downsides.
Neither is applicable to guns.
As has been pointed out to you many times before, your gun is more likely to to kill a member of your family than protect you from crime. Or it cane be stolen by a criminal and used to shoot someone else.
Even if you believe the odds stack the other way in your unique case, the risk is still there.
It's not at all the same as wearing a seatbelt. If you were to have a seatbelt wrapped around your neck as you drive, that would be closer.
And what was the explanation for the initial rise?
American cultural imperialism. Most recently because America exported it's "Gangsta Rap" culture with the idea you're in the "hood" and you need to have a gun. Seriously. It was blatently obvious because the kids that started carrying guns had also started wearing red or blue bandanas, depending what gang they were in. And "gangsta bling". Heck there was even one of these gun owning gangs that called themselves "The Crips", that's how American influenced it was.
At the risk of sounding cliche correlation does not imply causation, and in this case even the correlation is shakey.
You're not just taking the risk, you are sounding cliche. On slashdot it's got to the stage when if anything is correlated, then people are inclined to believe it must not be causal related.
But that's by the by. I'm RESPONDING to a claim that the gun law changes didn't work because gun crime proceeded to rise. And I'm pointing out the factual incorrectness of that claim. And I did so without claiming that the correlation means causation. Simply that no one has offered any other explanation. Be my guest if you want to have a go.
He lives knowing that he will attempt to protect himself. You live hoping the govt will show up to help you. Which is more the "politics of fear?"
No, I have the education to know that the chances of a criminal shooting me are tiny compared to other ordinary everyday risks such as being killed on the road, which are in themselves tiny. I don't live in fear, I live without fear of things that I have no need to be fearful of.
Clearly you also buy into the fear thing as well. Which means you're also probably a conservative. (Which is not the same thing as a Republican.)
"Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"
If it was only that, the 2 words would be superfluous to the sentence. And in any case "disciplined" would work better.
"Well regulated" means "controlled". Proper ranks, with people obeying orders, meeting when required. Exactly what todays libertarians and survivalists are not.
The problem is that Congress isn't a "checks and balances" organisation. It's a "policies for sale" organisation. Lobbyists are people that bribe and blackmail. Congressmen are people who do what they are bribed and blackmailed to do.
No, but it could equate to "you are saying things that are factually incorrect."
But [A] again, the gun crimes per capita were already lower than in the U.S., and [B] after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up.
That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising. With a particular school massacre being the catalyst. Gun crime continued to rise for 6 years till 2003. Since then it's been falling, and is below the 1997 rate. In fact it's the lowest now since 1990.
So, contrary to your assertion, gun crime did NOT stay up. It's now the lowest it has been in 23 years. There is an unexplained 6 year lag between the law coming in, and the rate of gun crime falling. And yet no explanation for the fall other than the change of law.
If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally.
There you go with the boolean variables again. In a country such as the UK where most gun ownership is illegal, there are some criminals with weapons, obviously bought on the black market. But they are a fraction of the number that the criminals with weapons in country with lax gun control such as the USA.Guns in the UK in anyone's hands are really rare.
Indeed the black market in guns in the USA will be many times the size of the black market in the UK.
Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.
Of course you feel that way. Conservatism is the politics of fear.
Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.
Like knives. Which aren't nearly as effective at killing people. So the UK has a fraction of the homicides of the USA.
"In the hands of criminals" is not a boolean variable. Quantity matters. And far more criminals have guns in America than in countries with sane gun control laws.
Isn't it pretty easy to buy ammo in the states without any permit?
I see Walmart says they are going to stop stocking ammo since the Adam Lanza massacre. Finally following what KMart was shamed into doing in Bowling for Columbine.
Right, but when you have browsers, word processors editors and such like on Windows or OSX, you don't say they ARE Windows or OSX.
Well, maybe Windows Explorer, due to the deliberate "co-mingling". But that's the exception. MS Office is's part of Windows for example. Even if it comes preinstalled on a PC.
It seems that open source people are surprisingly vague about what's what.
There's no such thing as "these people". Facebook has everyone from kids to people in their 90s. From poor to millionaires. In every profession. In pretty much every country. Anyone indeed who has family and friends that they don't see every day but like o keep in touch with.
Now, are you talking from experience of Facebook, frokm news stories or from what you imagine. Because if it's what you imagine it's worthless. If it;s news stories it's the unusual stuff not the normal stuff. And if it's experience, you're talking about the people you chose to be your friends on Facebook. Which would say more about your friends than about facebook per se.
I like my friends and family, so I have a good experience there.
If someone chooses to do a creepy thing, it's because they are a creepy person. It's not because they have a Facebook account.
Those that know, know Linux doesn't require a GUI at all. OR GNU for that matter. Knowing what one is talking about is key to context, one that I'm trying to get people to realize. Android is Linux, so is Red Hat, So is WebOS, so is .....
And there are people who are equally into the GNU/Linux scene and are just as knowledgeable than you who argue exactly the opposite. In fact RMS does. And I presume you accept he knows what he's talking about.
I've been taken to task by Linux people by referring to Linux when I'm talking about a distribution. And I've equally been taken to task when I'm talking about Linux the kernel. And it's all getting a bit old.
I'm beginning to suspect there are some here who argue it both ways, depending on what they are trying to prove at the time. Hence my post.
My standard is now this:
Linux - the kernel
Android - the Google product.
GNU - Desktop distributions.
Red Hat, Ubuntu etc. - Specific distributions.
KDE/Gnome etc. - Window managers.
I invite everyone to join me.
Like how "Windows" can mean either just the OS or the OS plus the software ecosystem around it?
No, not even a little bit. Everyone knows that Windows is what comes in a box from Microsoft called "Windows". It may be preinstalled on a PC, and that PC may also contain crapware installed by the OEM. But no one with any knowledge calls that crapware Windows, let alone any 3rd party software installed after.
It's crystal clear what Windows is just exactly the way it isn't clear what Linux is.
English language overloads words.
We're not talking about the English language. We're talking about product names. Which are normally:
a) Defined by the person or organisation that created the product.
b) International, not English language specific.
Most of these are scary/downright creepy for me. But then I'm not a great facebook lover either.
They are creepy. And everyone on Facebook will think so too. Along with the rest of the world.