Further stats on murder rates per 100,000 pop (for year 2000)

London, England 2.59
Belfast, Northern Ireland 7.43
Edinburgh, Scotland 1.10
Paris, France 4.10
Berlin, Germany 2.20
Athens & Pireus, Greece 0.53
Dallas TX, USA 20.63
New York NY, U.S.A. 8.69
San Francisco, CA, USA 7.73
Washington DC, U.S.A. 41.78

WAIT! THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT!!!! Scott promised us that, if the populace
were armed, they'd be able to fend off the nasty perpetrators of evil
-- those who would murder us. But look! Where guns are prevalent,
people get killed. Whoops!?

[Fer Criisssakes! Belfast has a LOWER murder rate than San Francisco!
How does that happen?]

frtzw906

TnT, in the case of rick, it's a slow death by water torture.... idiot,
strawman, idiot, strawman, idiot, strawman, idiot, strawman, drip,
drop, drip, drop,drip, drop,drip, drop,.... aaaarrrrgghhhh! i can't
take it any more.....

but, no, i would not presume to speak for KMAN ... although, I do wish
he'd just drop-rick outta here....

frtzw906

Whoops! Torture induced typo.... that should read "drop-kick rick outta
here...."

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
===========
The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the
middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate,"
=============

Whoooaaaa!! Let's not gloss over this one eh? After all, we are talking
about the impact of guns -- things that KILL -- in this thread.

That may be what you're trying to bend the debate to, but that's not what
I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the rate of violent victimization overall and the impact
that banning guns has on the rate at which people are victimized.

The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned, victimization
by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States, crime
victimization by violent criminals is dropping.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

In case Scott doesn't like the NZ stats, here are some from
Australia...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls

Homicides per 100,000 population - average per year 1998 to 2000

USA 5.87
New Zealand 2.28
Sweden 2.06
Australia 1.87
Canada 1.79
England & Wales 1.50
Netherlands 1.40
Germany 1.19
Denmark 1.00


So, for me, these statistics beg the question: WHY? Why is the muder
rate so much higher in the USA? Are there extenuating factors?

Of course there are. Our culture is different from other nations, and yes,
our "gun culture" has an effect on the total number of homicides. But our
"gun culture" is part of our history and is enshrined in our law, and we
accept that one of the downsides to having a right to keep and bear arms is
that occasionally, bad guys will obtain guns and do bad things with them. We
accept this because we know that a) it is impossible to prevent criminals
from getting guns, even when guns are banned; b) more people are victimized
by violent predators when guns are banned; and c) our way of life is put at
risk by gun bans.

We compensate for the occasional bad guy by expecting all the good guys to
provide for their own personal and family's safety, and we respect their
right to keep and bear arms for that purpose.

However, the question is not really what the homicide rate is, it is what
happens to violent crime rates and the number of people not just murdered,
but victimized by violent criminals in ways short of murder when gun
ownership by law-abiding citizens is banned.

The facts are clear: Where guns are banned, violent crime and crime
victimization goes up, dramatically. On the other hand, the rate of violent
crime victimization AND homicide in the US has dropped radically in EVERY
place where concealed carry is lawful.

I would not choose to be one of the twenty five percent of Brits who are
victimized and traumatized by crime every year because they are debarred the
use of arms in self-defense. Moreover, I would not demand that my neighbor
submit to being victimized by disarming him merely because I'm paranoid
about guns and fixated on statistics.

Real people are really victimized, brutalized, injured and killed and they
have a fundamental, inalienable human right to keep and bear arms for their
own defense if they so choose.

When you, or anyone else, suggests, demands or supports the disarming of
your fellow law-abiding citizens because you don't like guns, then you
become directly and personally responsible for the trauma, injury and death
that results.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Further stats on murder rates per 100,000 pop (for year 2000)

London, England 2.59
Belfast, Northern Ireland 7.43
Edinburgh, Scotland 1.10
Paris, France 4.10
Berlin, Germany 2.20
Athens & Pireus, Greece 0.53
Dallas TX, USA 20.63
New York NY, U.S.A. 8.69
San Francisco, CA, USA 7.73
Washington DC, U.S.A. 41.78

WAIT! THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT!!!! Scott promised us that, if the populace
were armed, they'd be able to fend off the nasty perpetrators of evil
-- those who would murder us. But look! Where guns are prevalent,
people get killed. Whoops!?

Absolute numbers are less important than the rate of change for gun-owning
versus gun-banning societies, something that you deliberately choose to
ignore.

[Fer Criisssakes! Belfast has a LOWER murder rate than San Francisco!
How does that happen?]

More guns.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
TnT, in the case of rick, it's a slow death by water
torture.... idiot,
strawman, idiot, strawman, idiot, strawman, idiot, strawman,
drip,
drop, drip, drop,drip, drop,drip, drop,.... aaaarrrrgghhhh! i
can't
take it any more.....
========================
Sure, the truth is hard for ideologs, isn't it fool?
Unfortunatly for you, and kman, I have posted sites that show
people die waiting for health care in Canada.



but, no, i would not presume to speak for KMAN ... although, I
do wish
he'd just drop-rick outta here....
==================
Of course you do, you don't like facts that dispell your
idiocy...



frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT, in the case of rick, it's a slow death by water torture....
idiot,
strawman, idiot, strawman, idiot, strawman, idiot, strawman, drip,
drop, drip, drop,drip, drop,drip, drop,.... aaaarrrrgghhhh! i can't
take it any more.....

but, no, i would not presume to speak for KMAN ... although, I do
wish
he'd just drop-rick outta here....

frtzw906

I knew it was to good to be true, and now I see rick has you in his
sights. Don't say I didn't warn you. TnT

Weiser says:
==================
The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned,
victimization
by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States,
crime
victimization by violent criminals is dropping.
===============

I'll not dispute your sources and data.... except, as you well know,
because you presented this data, the definitions of various sorts of
crimes vary considerably from country to country. What may be deemed an
assault in one country may not be recorded as an assault in another.
Thus, the stats may not be comparable.

Thus, whether I'm trying to "bend" the debate is hardly the point. The
point is, more or less, a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter
where we are on the globe. Murder stats are comparable. The others
aren't.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
================
Our culture is different from other nations, and yes,
our "gun culture" has an effect on the total number of homicides.
==================

Scott, we agree!

frtzw906