A study of home invasions from the University of South Africa

[A Can of Man]

Wouldn't be surprised that the source of the guns were government.
Backward governments are like that. They keep the obsolete stuff and sell off a good portion of the good stuff.

 

[George]

Stats in the US is 25% of guns in crimes were stolen from the police. Gun makers sell guns to distributors, so yes...all guns used in crimes were once legally owned, so what? Just enough people get shot with thier own guns(often cops) that this silly argument gets a touch of credibility. One big gun study of prisoners in Fed & State Pens east & west, north & south was done for the Govt. The study was headed by 2 men, 1 pro gun, 1 anti gun. After this extensive survey of prisoners views of guns, laws & crime the anti gun guy changed positions to pro gun.

 

[A Can of Man]

I bet most money made illegally was made legally at some point.

 

[Bror Jace]

The Other Guy and Rob Henderson, you two are classic anti-gunners. You obviously have en emotional position that guns are 'bad' and citizens should have them ... then cling to every half-baked theory or manufactured 'fact' that supports your gut feeling.

Cold, careful analysis supports law abiding citizens having free access to small arms. It makes for a polite society.

The Mark Twain expression: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" was made the for the anti-gunners. When you record one neighborhood drug dealer who kills another neighborhood drug dealer as a "friend who killed another friend" you are intentionally misleading people.

Think about it, is it a wise move to blow several hundred dollars on a new Sig or Beretta in order to rob a liquor store? Think the return on investment is there? Of course not. That's why the arguments that career criminals buy new guns to commit crimes is such nonsense.

Most automobiles used in crimes were bought legally. I suppose we should outlaw all cars and trucks, too?

Ever notice that most mass shootings happen in schools and on school grounds? Do you know why? The nuts who cut loose don't want anyone shooting back ... they're big fans of gun control too! :thumb:

 

[senojekips]

Cold, careful analysis supports law abiding citizens having free access to small arms. It makes for a polite society.

Is this is one of those "Damn Lies" you were talking about.

Do you remember a time and place when most citizens walked about armed? It was called the "Wild" west, and for a very good reason, and it was only when those citizens were disarmed in public places that peace finally prevailed. It was recognised that having armed citizens on our streets was not conducive to a safe environment for anyone.

 

[MontyB]

Most automobiles used in crimes were bought legally. I suppose we should outlaw all cars and trucks, too?

No need to they are licensed and registered so if you commit a crime with one the police can just come pick you up, maybe the same deal with firearms?



Incidentally how can you rate people as "anti-gun" when no one is proposing banning firearms?

I disagree with your argument entirely and yet I am all in favour of law abiding citizens owning any and as many guns they want and own greater than 50 of them myself I just believe that in all cases there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that the number of raving lunatics and criminals getting them is severely limited, am I anti-gun or are you fanatical pro-gun?

Bah I got dragged into this thread.

 

[Bror Jace]

"Is this is one of those "Damn Lies" you were talking about?"

Kinda hard for me to be lying when I didn't cite a statistic. In the US, the areas with the most (legal) gun ownership have the lowest crime rates. A generalization, for sure ... but it holds up pretty well coast-to-coast.

MontyB, the difference in the USA is the 2nd amendment is a right written into our constitution ... and driving is a privilege. You abuse either gun or automobile ownership and you will be penalized ... trust me.

The biggest problem with licensing is that it is used merely as a way to discourage gun ownership. They make the process more and more cumbersome just for the sake of harassing people and discouraging people. Once the population of gun 'enthusiasts' is sufficiently small, they will ban them outright ... they have tried this in numerous places. To own a handgun in upstate New York took me a full year ... 20 years ago and it's only gotten worse.

"How can you rate people as "anti-gun" when no one is proposing banning firearms?"

They ARE for banning firearms but for the last couple of decades, openly opposing the 2nd amendment in the US is political suicide. Once the NRA mobilizes against you, your political career's days are numbered in most areas of the country.

Once more of America is sufficiently suburbanized with less and less open land to hunt and shoot, fewer and fewer people participate in the shooting sports and they will get their wish and ban it all. I'm afraid it's just a matter of a few decades. :|

 

[Rob Henderson]

Sorry, no... We're NOT for the banning of firearms... We're for the regulation and control of firearms... Just like you would register and practice with a vehicle, I think that weapons should be properly registered and routinely practiced with to ensure maximum safety.

Some guns, yes, I do think should be banned altogether. Like fully automatic rifles (which are already banned) and their like. I also believe there is no need for silencers or scopes for a self defense weapon (are you sure he's attacking you from 500 yards away?).

But I am not some lunatic who believes that society could benefit from the banning of guns... If, in a perfect world, we could make certain that every gun on the planet was destroyed, I'd be for it... But seeing as there's no way that's possible right now, I think guns are an integral part of society.

 

[bulldogg]

Here's the simple facts......which you will probably ignore.

The Police can't be everywhere all the time.

The Police are not responsible for your personal safety....all the time.

Without some means to defend yourself against an aggressive and focused attack, chances are your going to toe tag city before the first unit even arrives on scene. Part II Taking a Taser, Pepper Spray, baseball bat or butcher knife to a gun fight is stupid and a great way to get dead.

You are responsible for your own personal safety and security. You no one else. No goverment in the world has the funds to assign personel cop's or body guards to everyone.

So that leaves you with three options.

1. Defend yourself.

2. call 911, 999 whatever and hope that Officer Friendly arrives in time to keep Mr Antisocial from doing evil things to you and yours.

3. Run, give up, cry and plead for the lives of you and yours and hope Mr. Antisocial decides to spare you.

Oh and if something happens to you and yours and you don't think that the response by Law Enforcement was rapid enough......you can't sue the PD (IN THIS COUNTRY ANYWAY) The Supreme Court has already held that we are not responsible for your personal safety 24/7/365 you are.

As far as back fires, I've set a few in my life and I'm not professionally qualified as a Firefighter. It's pretty basic math and wind direction and common sense.

:read: Worth repeating... often.

 

[senojekips]

"Is this is one of those "Damn Lies" you were talking about?"

Kinda hard for me to be lying when I didn't cite a statistic.

It can be a Damned lie, or at least a misleading distortion of the facts without having quoted any "statistics". The fact is that having everybody armed did not lead to a polite society then, nor will it now.

It was shown that once citizens were disarmed in public, that the exact reverse was true. That's why they did it, people got sick of disagreements being settled on the spot with firearms in the heat of the moment.

 

[BritinBritain]

It can be a Damned lie, or at least a misleading distortion of the facts without having quoted any "statistics". The fact is that having everybody armed did not lead to a polite society then, nor will it now.

It was shown that once citizens were disarmed in public, that the exact reverse was true. That's why they did it, people got sick of disagreements being settled on the spot with firearms in the heat of the moment.

I don't agree with you Spike.


In various states in the US, crime has dropped since the introduction of concealed carry laws, while in South Africa since the introduction of our extremely restrictive gun laws, crime has increased.


Criminals are not stupid, they don't like their victims to be armed and able to fight back. A mall in Cape Town has been hit three times in as many weeks by armed criminals, at every entrance there are “Gun Free Zone” signs. Malls are being targeted by criminals in South Africa as they are quite confident that none of the patrons or business owners are going to be armed, most criminal attacks in South Africa are becoming more and more violent. Recently 12 criminals armed with AK47's attacked a restaurant in Johannesburg (if I remember correctly), firing indiscriminately at everything that moved. One patron who was armed shot back dropping one of the attackers in his tracks, the rest of the gunmen ran for their lives thereby stopping the attack.


I have never heard of, or seen arguments settled with legally owned firearms in South Africa or the UK. The Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, despite that almost every home has an issue selective assault rifle.

 

[MontyB]

I don't agree with you Spike.


In various states in the US, crime has dropped since the introduction of concealed carry laws, while in South Africa since the introduction of our extremely restrictive gun laws, crime has increased.


Criminals are not stupid, they don't like their victims to be armed and able to fight back. A mall in Cape Town has been hit three times in as many weeks by armed criminals, at every entrance there are “Gun Free Zone” signs. Malls are being targeted by criminals in South Africa as they are quite confident that none of the patrons or business owners are going to be armed, most criminal attacks in South Africa are becoming more and more violent. Recently 12 criminals armed with AK47's attacked a restaurant in Johannesburg (if I remember correctly), firing indiscriminately at everything that moved. One patron who was armed shot back dropping one of the attackers in his tracks, the rest of the gunmen ran for their lives thereby stopping the attack.


I have never heard of, or seen arguments settled with legally owned firearms in South Africa or the UK. The Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, despite that almost every home has an issue selective assault rifle.

So which came first the chicken or the egg?

I have to admit if I lived in a third world sh*thole where everyone was armed I would probably want a weapon for self defence as well but the problem is that Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand as well as almost everywhere I have been in the United States (Chicago might be the exception) as well as about 90% of the developed world are not war zones or failed states.

Do the Swiss have low crime rate because they have lots of guns or do they have a low crime rate because they are well educated people living in a socially mature and stable nation?

You will also have a hard time convincing me that the Swiss have a history of violence that was only solved when the army started handing out automatic weapons.

 

[senojekips]

I don't agree with you Spike.

I'm not asking that you agree with me, I just fail to see how you can disagree with the facts.

The wild west WAS tamed by disarming the citizens in public places. They knew it then and it is still the case.

If we have a plague of dental decay, we do not opt to lower the cost of sweets for children, which is essentially what is being suggested here.

 

[mmarsh]

I don't agree with you Spike.


In various states in the US, crime has dropped since the introduction of concealed carry laws, while in South Africa since the introduction of our extremely restrictive gun laws, crime has increased.


Criminals are not stupid, they don't like their victims to be armed and able to fight back. A mall in Cape Town has been hit three times in as many weeks by armed criminals, at every entrance there are “Gun Free Zone” signs. Malls are being targeted by criminals in South Africa as they are quite confident that none of the patrons or business owners are going to be armed, most criminal attacks in South Africa are becoming more and more violent. Recently 12 criminals armed with AK47's attacked a restaurant in Johannesburg (if I remember correctly), firing indiscriminately at everything that moved. One patron who was armed shot back dropping one of the attackers in his tracks, the rest of the gunmen ran for their lives thereby stopping the attack.


I have never heard of, or seen arguments settled with legally owned firearms in South Africa or the UK. The Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the world, despite that almost every home has an issue selective assault rifle.

Thats not entirely true. Its true that gun control laws have an impact on the communities they impact, it they also show that gun crime INCREASES as a result in areas outside of that zone, espicially in big cities where guns tend to be pulled towards.

The fact that the swiss have no crime has nothing to do with the fact there is an assault rifle in the house. It has to do with there low unemployment, high literacy and excellent quality of life.

And lastly, BritinAfrica. I have mentioned this before. You live in an Area where law enforcement is almost non-existent, in such a scenario I would carry a gun too. But most of us live in areas where we do have a capable police force. And while its not a 24H bodyguard it does keep society relatively safe.

The point I am making, is solutions in South Africa do not necessarily apply to other places of the world.

 

[A Can of Man]

The point I am making, is solutions in South Africa do not necessarily apply to other places of the world.

This is certainly true.
Arming everyone in South Korea or Japan can only end in certain disaster!
There are more factors than just the guns.

 

[BritinBritain]

I'm not asking that you agree with me, I just fail to see how you can disagree with the facts.

The wild west WAS tamed by disarming the citizens in public places. They knew it then and it is still the case.

If we have a plague of dental decay, we do not opt to lower the cost of sweets for children, which is essentially what is being suggested here.

Then why has crime in various states in the US dropped because of the concealed carry laws? Florida if I remember correctly was the rape capital of the US, until concealed carry was introduced. The result? A sharp decrease in rapes and other crimes. As I stated, criminals are not stupid.

I do tend to agree with other comments regarding what might work in South Africa may not work in other countries, however, in the US states where concealed carry laws have been introduced, crime has dropped.

I did have the crime statistics for Australia which showed an increase in crime in various states after the gun buy back. I'll have to dig them out as I am unsure as to the figures off the top of my head.

I just dug this out of my records regarding Australia....

Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms.

The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery ­ until the ban.

Obviously as I dont live in Oz, I cannot confirm these statistics as fact.

 

[A Can of Man]

The wild west WAS tamed by disarming the citizens in public places. They knew it then and it is still the case.

I do believe it was Wyatt Earp who put that into effect.

But laws nowadays are strict and most law abiding citizens don't want to get involved with the law whether or not they are innocent or guilty. They'd only pull out their weapon if absolutely necessary or if they've gone totally Tango India.

 

[senojekips]

Then why has crime in various states in the US dropped because of the concealed carry laws? Florida if I remember correctly was the rape capital of the US, until concealed carry was introduced. The result? A sharp decrease in rapes and other crimes. As I stated, criminals are not stupid.

I can't verify what you quote, nor can I say what theoutcome would have been if gun control was introduced.

I can dig up statistics like you quoted too, however they just don't hold water, as similar figures have been quoted and disproved by the pro gun lobby, the past Federal president of which (Gary Fleetwood) is more than just an aquaintance of mine. I was not happy about it either as I am a firearms advocate also. But then again we never had people walking around armed in public either nor did we have the resultant high death rate from gun crime.

A lot of this debate is not about firearms, but about those people carrying them and their attitudes towards their use especially against other persons. To me the USA is the home of the Wild west, and a lot of people believe too much of their own Hollywood BS about it.

Whatever you say, or whatever figures you dig up, you still can't argue against the fact that disarming the Wild West led to a more civilised culture and it needs to happen again.

 

[major liability]

You live in an Area where law enforcement is almost non-existent, in such a scenario I would carry a gun too. But most of us live in areas where we do have a capable police force. And while its not a 24H bodyguard it does keep society relatively safe.

I live in upstate NY. The police, on average, take about 20-25 minutes to get to my house. That's not good enough for me at all. I'd never entrust my safety to a police force that takes that long to respond and has about a 50% chance of solving a murder if I do get killed.

 

[mmarsh]

I live in upstate NY. The police, on average, take about 20-25 minutes to get to my house. That's not good enough for me at all. I'd never entrust my safety to a police force that takes that long to respond and has about a 50% chance of solving a murder if I do get killed.

And what is the murder rate where you live? My folks had a house in the Adirondack Mountains and the murder rate could be measured in years. And again it doesnt change my point, not all solutions fit every case. NYC has 38,000 police officers and a low crime rate. Police response is measured in less than 8 minutes.