Chris Golden 
Member since May 17, 2013


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Actions, not words

You ignored my request for the link to the U.S. murder rates rising and substituted U.K.

Were you mistaken when you stated U.S. (and U.K.) murder rates were rising? I can accept that as everyone makes a misstep or two and no one is infallible. I tend to think you did as when you answered my U.S. murder rate with U.K. data it contradicted your initial statement that they were rising.

I suppose we will just have to accept that you're unclear on the U.K murder rates and won't admit to your false claim murder rates in the U.S. are on the rise.

However, let's move forward. You are very perceptive. While stationed in England, and thank you for your service sir, I sincerely mean it, you took note that it seemed like the crime rate was low to begin with but you postulate it was due to the small amount of firearms you observed.

The U.K. has always had lower crime rates. However in contrast with our falling violent crime rate, the U.K. has been rising after enacting severe gun laws/bans. Comparing U.K. crime data well before registration and after the gun ban, their crime rates were very low at the beginning when they had guns, however that changed. The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban and it’s getting worse!

In contrast the U.S. rates have been steadily dropping over the past decade despite having more guns per citizen than any other country in the world and even more in the past year (unprecedented). In fact utilizing your theory, more guns=more violence we should be the most violent nation in the world. Were not, and far from it.

There are cultural differences that cannot be ignored. What should not be ignored is a less violent U.K. after disarming the common citizens had significant increases in their violent crime. Ironically, gun crime has doubled in the decade after the U.K. after banning them. Currently the U.K. is listed as the most violent country in the E.U. The reporting method utilized in the U.K. falsely lowers the actual (true) number of gun crimes, so the rate increase is actually higher than reported (it's worse). Reports of crime data manipulation (think NYC) in order to preserve tourism have been mentioned.

Let's not kid ourselves, gun control is honestly not about crime control. It is simply about eliminating legal guns/magazines/ammunition and access to them, nothing more. Too bad as more could be done identifying those at risk, providing supportive services, providing tools and resources to allow inner city youth an option, rather than succumbing to gang violence and drugs, where the majority of our unlawful gun use originates.

This is an interesting point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

I checked on your source: http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.h…

The first reaction was raw numbers without factoring the "rate" (incident and population). So its not meaningless it becomes difficult to determine actual rate which is more meaningful.

Scrutinizing the page, this "For some reason the UK government are not very forthcoming on providing these statistics, plus we have the battle of recorded crime versus reported crime and the ambiguity of the British crime Survey. if you find a reliable source we would love to know." Seems to lend more credence to the claim that the U.K. has been cooking the books so to speak. It's not uncommon to under report crime, when one realizes that pay, promotions and tourism plays a part to fudging the numbers. It's done here as well. In NYC they had an entire 24 hour period without one reported violent crime. Time magazine even awarded Bloomberg for the "accomplishment". 8) It was again reported at Trayvon's school where a news caster broke the story Trayvon was found with "stolen items" in a back pack but it was logged as "found items" by campus security. The chief furious someone leaked the information, demanded an investigation, he got it and was fired after it reflected he was actively under reporting crime. Did he have to return the award he received for significantly lower crime? I don't know.

It's also a private/personal website and might be biased. But none the less it's impossible to determine rate based on that site and it admittedly reports the numbers were extremely difficult to obtain. Here in America we have something called the freedom of information act that significantly assist obtaining that type of collected information. My question is why is it so difficult to obtain? Don't they accurately track it? Why would they not want the public to know?

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Chris Golden on 01/02/2014 at 4:15 PM

Re: “Actions, not words

@mark,

"Still don't want to defend the increasing murder rates in the U.S. Where is your source for this." (my actual quote)

This is honestly what is call cherry picking sir. Answer the question finally and stop omitting the portions you don't like. It took a conscious effort do that and that was no mistake. It questions one's integrity.

I will discuss the initial question on that claim about gun registration in the U.K. then the dropping murder rate as I will have to review it as it contradicts several other reliable sources.

OBTW you initially stated murder rates were going up in both the U.K. and U.S. You know when I asked you for the U.S. link, then provided one with the DOJ (U.S.) data table that reflects the murder rates dropping for just the past decade. So now you're saying the U.K. murder rate went down? Which is it up or down for U.K. but first honestly answer the questions I have asked.

1). Link to the increasing murder rates in the "U.S." (I never asked for the U.K. link nor refuted your initial claim of it rising).

Then we can continue forward.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Chris Golden on 01/02/2014 at 6:46 AM

Re: “Actions, not words

@mark,

Still don't want to defend the increasing murder rates in the U.S. Where is your source for this.

Where has firearms registration reduced crime, just one place, surely you can come up with just one glaring example if you can...

Answer and I will continue on the 4.8 rate, formerly known as 480%.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Chris Golden on 01/01/2014 at 7:57 PM

Re: “Actions, not words

@B. Broch,

Yes sir I read that post (12/25/12:48) and you eluded to how quantify rate when used in statistics. I feel it was over Mark's head. One must be able comprehend rate, when other important variable parameters are ignored, typically to suit the researcher's intent. You made a valid honest point.

Anyone with some basic researching education, when scrutinizing the far majority anti-gun data will see some clear trends that deviant from the scientific model. Mostly bias, confabulation and ignoring critical variables in order to develop a flawed hypothesis in order to support disarming the common citizen. Then publish it without peer review. It sincerely questions integrity and morals of those "types" of researchers.

Mark will never admit to his own ignorance. He thinks too highly of himself to allow it. So I'll just be waiting for that link I requested, to figure out where the heck he came up with the murder rates increasing in the U.S. I'm not holding my breath.

The link you provided is informative and discusses why it's hard to compare two different countries as the methodology for sampling, errors and cultural differences. We could compare them but most importantly what has occurred in that country and the outcomes as it applies within that country are most telling.


@Mark,

No link...no surprise, it was a simple request for U.S. murder rates increasing link, as was the request for a place where gun registration has actually lowered crime even if marginally so (no link required, just one place). Don't want to discuss this anymore?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Gun-Vi…

Murder rates have fallen in the U.S. not risen as you stated. You sir are the one attempting to compare in the hopes it will serve your point. It's not a new avenue of approach and I'm somewhat familiar with the comparisons.

Answer at least one of my questions then I'll address that "480%" higher murder rate you came up with and attempt to compare with it.

Culture of violence in UK:

Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade. The comments are interesting as well; "When the British gun ban failed to reduce crime as promised, Tony Blair said that it wasn't about reducing crime; it was about eliminating the gun culture." Oh I get it now, nothing to do with crime control, right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12…

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Chris Golden on 01/01/2014 at 5:26 PM

Re: “Actions, not words

@mark,

Link please (murder rates rising). I'm very interested.

What was the "national" murder rate in 1980 and then in 2012. How about for the past 5 years since 2008. Are those numbers at the higher end of our nation's historic murder rate or at the lowest end?

Drop down to "Violent crime rates in the United States (1960-2012)" click on year and please review the past five years (2008-2012). That is if you believe the Department of Justice who is charged with tracking this stat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_…

I caution anyone attempting to parrot MAIG's propaganda without checking it's validity but more importantly how did they arrive at that conclusion. The data ignored, is critical to observation and conclusion.

Mark, I literally laughed out loud with your opening statement; "You either have a fundamental lack of knowledge of the basics of epidemiology or you are deliberately trying to manipulate public opinion".

You sir a very funny man! Thanks for the laugh, it will start the New Year on a good note. 8)

Your irony is limitless.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Chris Golden on 01/01/2014 at 9:12 AM

Re: “Actions, not words

@mark,

"Firearm abolition is not only prudent, but inevitable."

It's been attempted but struck down as unconstitutional (Heller vs. D.C) but more importantly are the results that no gun prohibitionist desire published or known and blatantly ignore at a measure of public risk.

In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable.

No functioning firearm in a home was legal. On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.

During the 22 years in which the D.C. handgun ban and non-functional firearm law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

How about a country that did the prudent but inevitable?

In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," enacted in 1968, police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.

The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. The use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The boiling point for the nation, will be when just one more liberal SCOTUS judge reinterprets our rights so that it doesn't mean what says, as most of American's will disagree (>70%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#co…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764…

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washin…

But let's just ignore this and blindly progress forward with the incremental measures required to separate citizens form their rights. It is for the greater good, right?

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Chris Golden on 12/31/2013 at 11:47 PM

Re: “Actions, not words

@O,

No sir, not an argument if you believe the FBI data on "where do criminal guns" come from.

Straw sales and stolen firearms create the far majority of guns found on criminals or at crime scenes. Straw sales are impossible to prevent unless you are recommending the that the public be disarmed in whole. Are you? If you are, have you ever considered any benefit of gun ownership and if so who has done any serious honest investigation? Better, do you benefit and how?

If you consider clear responses with quantified support (allowing you to discredit that support) then call those responses "canned" without further debate.

That's real rich I ask a clear question and get nothing.

The question was where has firearms registration reduced crime? Is it that difficult? Surely you could pick at least one area where registration has been at least marginally successful at reducing crime. You wouldn't even need to provide any supporting references, why start now right? Or is it simple impossible? So which is it?

Really what does an M60 (7.62x59 and crew served) military machine gun or (foreign made rocket propelled grenade launcher) RPG7 have to do with registration and its impact on crime?

Get to the point.

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Chris Golden on 12/30/2013 at 7:59 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »
 

© 2014 Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation