sf wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:11 -0500, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
>> (How about compare the per capita rate of
>> buggy-whip crimes of the Amish vs. that of citizens of Oakland,
>> California. What kind of conclusions could you draw from that?)
>
> I'd say you're comparing apples and oranges.
>
>


That was my point.

I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia they got rid of
handguns and surprisingly enough crimes committed with guns went down
(but not to zero) and other crimes went way up to fill the vacuum.
Overall, crime went up as criminals didn't have to worry about their
victims possibly being able to fight back.

Bob

zxcvbob > wrote in news:73p8cjF1037r3U1
@mid.individual.net:

>
>
> That was my point.
>
> I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia they got rid of
> handguns and surprisingly enough crimes committed with guns went down
> (but not to zero) and other crimes went way up to fill the vacuum.
> Overall, crime went up as criminals didn't have to worry about their
> victims possibly being able to fight back.
>
> Bob

I don't know about England or Canada but in my experience, even before the
Port Arthur massacre and stricter gun laws, gun ownership was not the big
thing here that it seems to be in the US. There weren't a bunch of armed
people walking the streets or lots of people with a gun in the bedroom.
Certainly the only people I knew with guns were farmers with shotties and
rifles on the property to eliminate pests and the odd guy who went pig (or
other creature) hunting on weekends. I doubt criminals were expecting
victims to be armed.

And I'd have to look at what the crime statistics were but, the common
argument here is that those laws affect the law abiding gun owner only.
Criminals will still get guns. If that's the case, the only gun crimes
going down would be those where a law abiding person (the sort it is argued
should be able to be armed) has flipped their lid and used a gun rather
than fists or a knife, because it was there.

--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904

"Rhonda Anderson" > wrote in message
.5...
> zxcvbob > wrote in news:73p8cjF1037r3U1
> @mid.individual.net:

> And I'd have to look at what the crime statistics were but, the common
> argument here is that those laws affect the law abiding gun owner only.
> Criminals will still get guns.

That's the common bleat in western Canada too. The simpler statistic is
that the more firearms at large in the population, the higher the death rate
from them. Switzerland is often touted by the gun lobby as a safe place
with high gun ownership but their gun-death rate is much higher than
Canada's.

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:15:46 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

> sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:11 -0500, zxcvbob >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (How about compare the per capita rate of
>>> buggy-whip crimes of the Amish vs. that of citizens of Oakland,
>>> California. What kind of conclusions could you draw from that?)
>>
>> I'd say you're comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>
> That was my point.
>
> I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia they got rid of
> handguns and surprisingly enough crimes committed with guns went down
> (but not to zero) and other crimes went way up to fill the vacuum.
> Overall, crime went up as criminals didn't have to worry about their
> victims possibly being able to fight back.
>
> Bob

how many crimes were homocides? or robberies where people ended up dead?

blake

On Apr 4, 10:15*am, zxcvbob > wrote:
> sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:11 -0500, zxcvbob >
> > wrote:
>
> >> (How about compare the per capita rate of
> >> buggy-whip crimes of the Amish vs. that of citizens of Oakland,
> >> California. *What kind of conclusions could you draw from that?)
>
> > I'd say you're comparing apples and oranges.
>
> That was my point.
>
> I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia they got rid of
> handguns and surprisingly enough crimes committed with guns went down
> (but not to zero) and other crimes went way up to fill the vacuum.
> Overall, crime went up as criminals didn't have to worry about their
> victims possibly being able to fight back.

I think you're misinterpreting the UK (well England and Wales stats)
Since almost no one in the UKowned handguns before the ban, it was of
little impact on crime figures. Nobody was expecting to get shot by
the average citizen at any time.

Almost all guns in the UK were/are long guns mainly shotguns and the
gun ban had no effect on them. Both before and after the gun ban
basically the only people with hand guns etc were urban gangs who held
them illegally.

I can probably dig up the stats if you want.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane wrote:
>
>
> Almost all guns in the UK were/are long guns mainly shotguns and the
> gun ban had no effect on them. Both before and after the gun ban
> basically the only people with hand guns etc were urban gangs who held
> them illegally.
>
> I can probably dig up the stats if you want.
>

What ??? Do want to confuse opinions with facts?

:-)