An armed march on Washington? Let’s not. Update: Kokesh an anti-war smear merchant?

posted at 2:31 pm on May 4, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Before we get started on this story, I would like to take a moment to point out that you’d be hard pressed to find any point where I’ve been anything but a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, as I would hope most regular readers know. I’ve taken flack for it from a lot of people this year, ranging from family members to folks in the media. But even approaching it from that sort of position, I’ve got to say that this is a really bad idea.

A march on Washington with loaded rifles

Libertarian activist and radio host Adam Kokesh is hoping to get 1,000 people to march on Washington on July 4 — armed with loaded rifles. The plan, launched with a Facebook group today, is to gather on the Virginia side of the Potomac, where gun laws are lax, and then march across the bridge with loaded rifles slung over their shoulders into the District, where openly carrying weapons is generally prohibited.

“This will be a non-violent event,” the Facebook group warns, “unless the government chooses to make it violent.” Already, over 200 people have said they’ll attend the march.

The plan is to march over the bridge, around the Capitol building, the Supreme Court and the White House, all with loaded rifles slung over their shoulders. Honestly, it’s difficult to imagine a worse idea, particularly in the midst of a heated debate with gun grabbers in the government. Kokesh describes this as an act of “civil disobedience” but it falls well short of that goal. If he wanted to promote an act of peacefully breaking the law to make a point, it would certainly be worthy of considering. For example, you could take a large number of people to block the entrance to the main office of the A.T.F and force the police to arrest and remove you. But this is something very different.

Showing up with a thousand (or even a few hundred) people openly carrying loaded weapons and marching toward the Capitol is not something that law enforcement is going to play around with, particularly when you announce it in advance. And they’re not going to allow the march to proceed “peacefully” either. Normally I’d write this off as a bad idea that wouldn’t gain widespread support, but the problem here is that it doesn’t need widespread support. It would really only take a few hundred really upset people to get it rolling. And even if most of them intend it to be peaceful, when the officials show up to arrest them, weapons drawn, you have the potential for disaster which Rick Moran foresees.

With the furor over gun rights and the government’s efforts at gun control, this march is likely to attract enough people to make it an extraordinarily dangerous event. Who knows what kooks will be marching? Most marchers will no doubt be level headed and sincere in their desire for a non-violent event. But it only takes one unbalanced person to cause a tragedy.

Sensible gun owners, along with the NRA, are making the point that the government needs to respect the rights of law abiding, responsible gun owners and spend their time chasing the actual criminals. There could be no better gift to hand to gun rights opponents than to have a bunch of people get arrested for breaking established (if really bad) gun laws or, worse, getting in a shootout with the cops. This is not the type of representation we need in this debate.

UPDATE: (Jazz) From the Boss Emeritus. Was this all a dodge?

[Kokesh] marched in uniform in mock patrols for the anti-war movement, paraded around holding an upside-down American flag (see Jonn Lilyea for more), was arrested for defacing signs, and traveled to Germany to urge soldiers to abandon their posts and seek aid and comfort with his anti-war minions.

Kokesh, believe it or not, is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress in New Mexico. And, believe it or not, he is getting positive exposure on at least one Fox News show. He has the backing of Ron Paul, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the 9/12 Project.

The New Mexico Republican Party has its head in the sand. If you have friends and family in New Mexico, make sure they know who the real Adam Kokesh is.

He is an anti-war smear merchant in GOP clothing. Spread the word.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

mags, still waiting.
 
rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

 
Waiting at the top now.

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Ed Graef on May 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM

What is here, is at the discretion of the hosts, if this is your only source of breaking news or opinions, that’s your choice. To suggest that it is the entire commenters only source, is silly. But thanks for watching out for us.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I think he/she is watching a soccer or cricket match.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM

but I see in the news where one of our school players in Utah killed a ref with a punch.

hawkdriver on May 5, 2013 at 2:00 PM

The player is 17 yo. Self-control is part of traditional character(integrity, honesty, candor, discipline, self-control, respect, loyalty) that used to be inculcated in our children. But the progressives had to do away with it to usher in their secular-humanistic hell on earth utopia. Now we see the dividends.

tom daschle concerned on May 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM

hawkdriver on May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Britain has never had a “gun culture” like that of the United States, but there were about 200,000 legally-registered handguns in Britain before the ban, most owned by sports shooters. All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.
More than 160,000 handguns have been surrendered by their owners who got compensation .So there wasn’t a big revolt and i am sure some were hidden
This was found recently,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266958/Builder-discovers-deadly-haul-30-shotguns-pistols-hidden-false-wall-days-Dunblane-massacre.html

mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM

No, i am watching football.What you play is armoured rugby

mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Dang it, sorry! I’m going to have to familiarize myself (or google) team names before I comment. Oh, wait, isn’t that soccer by another name? Anyway, enjoy!

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Assuming the US were to legislate, reduce the volume of legally held guns, and vigorously enforce gun and ammunition control laws as is done in the UK, and given twenty years for the results to exhibit themselves:
 
Do you think the US could achieve results similar to the UK’s commendable “firearms are used in <1% of all recorded crime" status?

 
rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM

 

mags, still waiting.
 
rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

 
A yes or no will be fine, mags.

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM

An armed march on Washington? Let’s not. Update: Kokesh an anti-war smear merchant?

What would be effective is if 10,000,000 of us working folks quit paying tribute to the Federal Reserve Board.

Many of us will at least entertain the thought of a show of force, but are OK with the lifelong conditioning of being robbed every April 15th.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Do you think they even remember that people with jobs add to the revenue? I’m all for a march on DC but I don’t think we need to be armed.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM

rogerb

Do you think the US could achieve results similar to the

UK’s commendable “firearms are used in <1% of all recorded crime" status?

Are you Dr Phil? What do you think?
I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.
But it’s deeper and cultural issue i think in the U.S then here, so for me just to say yes makes it seem a really easy question and you are all stupid for not knowing the obvious right answer.

But for us to reach low gun crime we didn’t have to go through a civil war
I think to try to follow us would destroy your nation from within and probably kill more American’s,you’ve got the gun’s.

mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I wonder, when the statistics of “gun violence” are done, if they include the violence done to a thwarted perpetrator?

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Do you think the US could achieve results similar to the UK’s commendable “firearms are used in <1% of all recorded crime" status?

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Are you Dr Phil? What do you think?
I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.
 
But it’s deeper and cultural issue i think in the U.S then here, so for me just to say yes makes it seem a really easy question and you are all stupid for not knowing the obvious right answer.
 
But for us to reach low gun crime we didn’t have to go through a civil war
I think to try to follow us would destroy your nation from within and probably kill more American’s,you’ve got the gun’s.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

 
I’m unsure what Dr. Phil has to do with it, but fair enough.
 
But do you think we as a civilized nation (and world leader) could reach a similar “firearms are used in <1% of all recorded crime" rate if we enacted similar legislation and programs?
 
Not necessarily under 1% like the UK, but still low?

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The only thing “wrong” with the march is government will use violent force against peaceful people, then just set them up to make it look like they somehow acted first. They have that power.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

But do you think we as a civilized nation (and world leader) could reach a similar “firearms are used in <1% of all recorded crime" rate if we enacted similar legislation and programs?

Not necessarily under 1% like the UK, but still low?

I don’t think it would be possible to reduce the percentage of gun crimes with a ban and confiscation.

With the huge amount of guns owned here in the US, the only people (yet again) that would follow the rule of law are law abiding citizens. Considering the fact that this group of individuals are not responsible for the large amount of gun crime (many shootings are criminals shooting other criminals) we can only assume that a good percentage of gun crimes would continue to happen.

I doubt we could provide the necessary enforcement to prevent them either. We already have a wealth of anti-gun laws on the books in cities like Washington D.C., Chicago, L.A and New York City yet people continue to be murdered in the dozens every week from gun violence.

Then of course you would condemn the 200,000 to 1 million people every year that use firearms to successfully defend themselves and their loved ones. Many of these instances (last I saw it was around 5%) resulted in shots being fired. So we would conservatively estimate at least 8 in 10 legal uses of firearms don’t even result in a shooting.

The situation wouldn’t matter in general because the violent crime would just shift from guns to stabbing weapons or blunt objects. Sure, gangs might not kill each other as easily but instead of drive-by shootings you’d have them tossing pipe bombs into homes.

If people want to hurt each other, they will find a way. The question is how much are we going to prevent the rest of us from being able to protect ourselves?

Flashwing on May 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

JFKY, my point in posting has nothing to do with this march. It is concerning that hot air “breaks” a story that broke a month and a half ago and they missed most of the story when they reported what was on their limited radar. Live and learn, or don’t.

Ed Graef on May 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM

*WOW* so our complaint is that HotGas didn’t jump on this story sooner…sorry for you about that.

JFKY on May 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Also, don’t send everyone via one type of transportation. Even the dumbest fed screen-watcher will notice a couple dozen vans all converging on DC. Flying in by civilian air is right out, subway and bus maybe. And if there’s any viable water transportation (I honestly don’t know) consider that too.

MelonCollie on May 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Humvees. That’s only really manly way to make a point that doesn’t need to be made.

But if I were making the movie, I would use Rose Parade floats.

danielreyes on May 5, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I would use militarized ice cream trucks!

bitsy on May 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM

But do you think we as a civilized nation (and world leader) could reach a similar “firearms are used in <1% of all recorded crime" rate if we enacted similar legislation and programs?

Not necessarily under 1% like the UK, but still low?

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I haven’t said i know all the answers and that we have cracked it.
There is some truth in the saying,’guns don’t kill people,people kill people’
It has got to be for the people to decide that a civilized nation is one with strict gun control not just the government enforcing it.

It’s people not laws that would need to change

mags on May 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM

For mags.

Bmore on May 5, 2013 at 6:31 PM

mags on May 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM

As usual it’s the wackazoids that ruin it for the rest of us.

Cindy Munford on May 5, 2013 at 7:01 PM

It has got to be for the people to decide that a civilized nation is one with strict gun control not just the government enforcing it.

It’s people not laws that would need to change

mags on May 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM

“Project exile” was EXCELLENT gun control. Start with things like that.

MelonCollie on May 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

You guys could save me a lot of time approving your comments if you’d substitute the term for a female dog with “beeyatch” or something of that ilk.

Just saying…

Jazz Shaw on May 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM

How about “prophet”?

Nutstuyu on May 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

mags,
 
1) Thanks for sticking around and trying to support your position. The vast majority of progressives would’ve fled the thread a long time ago. You’re the only one in recent memory I can recall sticking around to actually debate a topic, frankly.
 
2) It’s always neat to see the exact moment a debate is lost.
 
Ready?
 
Just to reiterate the last few pages, the firearm-related crime rate in the UK under, per you, strict gun control:
 

Firearm offences continue to make up a small proportion of overall recorded crime. In 2010/11, firearms were used in 0.3 per cent of all police recorded offences,
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 4:05 AM

 
And your position on the violence and worse-than-lax gun control of the US:
 

The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country.
What definition of ‘control’ are you using. It’s like me saying i am on birth control but i have 20 kids.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM

 
So because of strict gun control with (paraphrased for space but quoting you directly) handgun bans, “confiscation schemes”, regulation of rifles and shotguns, strict checks including storage and separate ammo, and a greatly reduced volume of guns per this post, the UK has a crime-related firearm use rate of less than 1%.
 
Let’s write that again and bold it to single it out.
 
Per you and your citations, with strict gun control the UK has a crime-related firearm use rate of less than 1%.
 
In no small part because
 

All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM

 
Impressive and commendable. Sorry about this next bit.
 

In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
 
In 2011, there were an estimated 9,063,173 property crime offenses in the nation.
 
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

 

In 2011, firearm crimes comprised 8 percent of all violent crimes.
 
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence

 
How’s your math? You did pretty well with it here:
 

The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM

 
Ready? Look at my dot gov citations above:
 
9,063,173 property crimes
+ 1,203,564 violent crimes
= 10266737 total crimes
 
1,203,564 violent crimes
* 8% firearm crimes
= 96285 firearm crimes
 
Now we just need to find the… how did you put it? Oh yeah:
 

proportion of overall recorded crime

 
96285 firearm crimes / 10266737 total crimes = 0.0093
 
We’re not done quite yet, though. We’ve got to multiply by 100 to get the percentage.
 
0.009 * 100 = 0.9%
 
Let’s write it again.
 
0.9%
 
Know what that’s less than?
 
1%.
 
Per you, with worse-than-lax gun control the US has a crime-related firearm use rate of less than 1%.
 
1%… Say, weren’t we discussing that number earlier? How did you put it?
 

The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 12:43 PM

 
I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

 
Wait, sorry. Not that. This:
 

Firearm offences continue to make up a small proportion of overall recorded crime.

 
Thanks. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 8:47 PM

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Deluded reasoning.I told you i didn’t care or wanted to discuss U.S gun laws.If you think that was some sort of win then continue in your smugness.
All you have done is disappointed someone who thought an American was interested in someone else’s view’s.

mags on May 6, 2013 at 5:49 AM

You can’t say stat’s are good as long they have the results you want,but crap if they don’t
 
mags on May 4, 2013 at 4:52 PM

 
Say, do you know her?
 
Thanks for your help. See you next gun control thread.

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 6:44 AM

rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 8:47 PM

The highest crime of gun violence is being killed.Due to your extremely high level of gun killings you have more of a chance of being dead before the next gun thread.
There will probably been more school and mass killings and suicides.
Even in the last few days numerous children have killed their siblings with there own guns.
This is what you should be discussing and don’t reference,if you really think you have achieved anything or made any point it is a very sad reflection of your nation. All i can give is sadness and pity that this is what happened to a great nation who i thought had good people.

mags on May 6, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Keep being an uninformed boor plowing ahead in religious fervor mags. Thank God you aren’t American.

tom daschle concerned on May 6, 2013 at 7:54 AM

Even in the last few days numerous children have killed their siblings with there own guns.
 
This is what you should be discussing and don’t reference,if you really think you have achieved anything or made any point it is a very sad reflection of your nation.
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 7:42 AM

 
Wait, we were supposed to discuss individual cases?
 
But mags, you introduced the topic:
 

Violent crime is difficult to compare,but murder,gun killings and gun crime are easier
 
mags on May 4, 2013 at 7:25 PM

 
FWIW, though I, and the mags of May 4, agree on your “sad reflection” bit but in reverse if, now that you have additional data, you don’t add the new knowledge to your future gun control posts and positions.
 

You can’t say stat’s are good as long they have the results you want,but crap if they don’t
 
mags on May 4, 2013 at 4:52 PM

 
Willful ignorance and disregarding the data you’ve been shown establishes gun control as a faith-based argument no different than posting “I oppose them because God told me guns are bad.”

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

This is one of those things that’s a settled question. No room for debate here, as far as I’m concerned.

Increased legal gun ownership leads to less violent crime. There is simply no way around it.

gryphon202 on May 6, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Conceptually and ideally, I don’t see a problem with the proposal.

The second amendment should be construed to allow anyone to carry an armed weapon in public. Combining that right with the first amendment right to assemble peaceably should not be a problem.

But my guess is there’s a process to follow for such a parade in DC. They probably need to apply for a permit.

So why not apply for the permit, describe the armed march in the permit application and when it’s turned down, you suddenly have standing to sue, demanding that the permit be issued? I can’t imagine it would be hard to find funding for the suit.

EconomicNeocon on May 6, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Willful ignorance and disregarding the data you’ve been shown establishes gun control as a faith-based argument no different than posting “I oppose them because God told me guns are bad.”

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

At no point was i telling you what you should think or what the U.S should do.I thought arrogance was just a stero-type of an American.
If you think a discussion especially from different nations has to be a battle ,to manipulate a genuine good natured (i thought) exchange to this level,then i can see why you need your guns and keep shooting eachother.

I never said i oppose guns in the U.S.But you are telling me that the U.K are wrong ? Interesting

mags on May 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM

At no point was i telling you what you should think or what the U.S should do

 
Now you’re creating a scenario to argue against since you can no longer debate the 1% topic that you introduced.
 
This isn’t about you. This is about data.
 

to manipulate a genuine good natured (i thought) exchange to this level

 
Again, show the manipulation or anything other than good nature. Was it here?
 

If you have a populous that wants and can be armed with multiple weapon’s,when gun’s can be marketed at children and all this come’s under ‘law abiding citizen’…
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM

 
Or maybe here:
 

Are you Dr Phil? What do you think?
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

 
Or did you mean this:
 

I think to try to follow us would destroy your nation from within and probably kill more American’s,you’ve got the gun’s.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

 
All of which occured before I demonstrated that the US has crime-related firearm use rate of less than 1%.
 
Just like the UK.
 

But you are telling me that the U.K are wrong ? Interesting
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM

 
Link up. Quote me saying that.
 
Go one better and explain what you’re even talking about.
 
Otherwise it’s an ad hominem because you can no longer debate with evidence.
 
Like this one:
 

I thought arrogance was just a stero-type of an American.
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM

 
And this one:
 

,then i can see why you need your guns and keep shooting eachother.
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM

 
Both of which occured after I demonstrated that the US has crime-related firearm use rate of less than 1%.
 
Just like the UK.
 
Again, I’m sorry you feel the need to post things like that because I provided evidence contrary to your belief system.
 
This debate is about data, not religion.

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

O.K ,what is your definition of gun crime in the U.S Is it the same as the U.K.
A gun offence here covers,
Firearms are taken to be involved in an offence if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument
against a person, or used as a threat. Firearms covered by the Firearms Act 1968 include handguns, shotguns, rifles,
imitation weapons, air weapons and some other weapon types such as CS gas and pepper sprays.

If that data was deemed an offence in the U.S would you still have a 0.9% rate?

mags on May 6, 2013 at 1:05 PM

This debate is about data, not religion.
 
rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

 
If that data was deemed an offence in the U.S would you still have a 0.9% rate?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 1:05 PM

 
You understand how countering an argument works, right?
 
My data was posted and links provided. If you’re contesting it, I look forward to your research, links, and data on the matter.

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Just clarify this for me,on your data you have chosen 8% as the number of firearm crimes

However it is actually showing the incidence of non fatal firearm offences,i am reading that right ?
It doesn’t seem to include murders?
I await your wisdom

mags on May 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Just clarify this for me,on your data you have chosen 8% as the number of firearm crimes

However it is actually showing the incidence of non fatal firearm offences,i am reading that right ?
It doesn’t seem to include murders?
I await your wisdom

mags on May 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

 
And I yours.
 
The math isn’t in your favor.
 
I won’t even bother researching the details of my 8% link, but I will freely add the CDC’s firearm-related homicides to the 96285 in order to boost your position:
 

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

 
That gives us 107363.
 
107363 / 10266737 total crimes = 0.1045
 
That’s 1%. I’ll even round up in your favor so it’s 1.1%.
 
I’ll even double that entire number to help your argument:
 
107363 * 2 = 214726
 
214726 / 10266737 total crimes = 0.0209
 
That’s 2.1%.
 
Can you see where the math isn’t in your favor?
 
Let’s triple the FBI + CDC combined numbers:
 
107363 * 3 = 322089
 
322089 / 10266737 total crimes = 0.0313
 
That’s 3%.
 
Even adding the FBI and CDC numbers together, and then tripling them just for the fun of it and in hopes of helping your
 

I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

 

argument still gets the US at at just barely over 3% of the total crimes.

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM

rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I won’t even bother researching the details of my 8% link<
Maybe

you should of done that before claiming ‘gotcha’.
Somone told me once,

You can’t say stat’s are good as long they have the results you want,but crap if they don’

t

argument still gets the US at at just barely over 3% of the total crimes.

And in the U.K it is 0.3%,and you have spent all day saying it was less then 1 %

From your own stats,

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011. In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide

mags on May 6, 2013 at 5:48 PM

rogerb

Here are your FBI Stat’s,note they don’t record weapon data for forcible rape.
You are going have to add 19,766 suicides by firearm because that’s a crime.
You haven’t included the 55,544 non gun injuries during an assault .
Which is different to 138,336 gun aggravated assault .
You will add on unintentional gun deaths and accident which seems to be 600-800.

mags on May 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

rogerb

From FBI stat’s
In 2011, there were an estimated 354,396 robberies nationwide.
Among the robberies for which the UCR Program received weapon information in 2011, strong-arm tactics were used in 42.3 percent, firearms were used in 41.3 percent, and knives and cutting instruments were used in 7.8 percent of robberie

mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:18 PM

rogerb

How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?

mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

rogerb

Hilarious

mags on May 6, 2013 at 10:59 PM

I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.

mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM

.
“I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say” … more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would reduce ALL TYPES of crime, including criminal use of guns.
.
Law abiding citizens became . L A Z Y . after the great WWII, and en masse they gave up the responsibility and DUTY ….. to maintain possession of, and knowledge and experience with FIREARMS.

The fact that Americans in post-WWII America decided that crime would never be that great of a problem, or that citizens no longer needed to be this “sword of Damocles” over the head of a potentially tyrannical government is inexcusable.

It’s our DUTY to keep government in fear of the people. It’s not just a right.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM

I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.

Unfortunately as rogerb has been found out and fled the satistic’s are in my favour.
Less guns in the U.K high gun crime and killings
More guns in the U.S low gun crime and killings

mags on May 7, 2013 at 1:49 AM

Less guns in the U.K high gun crime and killings
More guns in the U.S low gun crime and killings

mags on May 7, 2013 at 1:49 AM

yeah so suck it you smell of boiled meat and jog off reprobate.

tom daschle concerned on May 7, 2013 at 2:06 AM

I don’t believe it’s a huge stretch to say fewer guns ,fewer gun crime/killings.

 
Unfortunately as rogerb has been found out and fled the satistic’s are in my favour.
Less guns in the U.K high gun crime and killings
More guns in the U.S low gun crime and killings
 
mags on May 7, 2013 at 1:49 AM

 
Ha. Yes, fleeing, also known as “date night” and “sleeping”.
 
You won!
 
Oh, wait. Response follows.

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 6:34 AM

rogerb

 
How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 
Quoted for significance. Thanks.

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 7:00 AM

So we’ve officially established that 3% is low. Commendable even, it seems, from your post above.
 
I just feel sort of sorry for you now.
 
Watch:
 

Not necessarily under 1% like the UK, but still low?
 
rogerb on May 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

 
It’s people not laws that would need to change
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM

 
See where I’m still within my argument?
 
So let’s begin, shall we?
 
mags, I readily embrace your numbers, all of them, without links or citations.
 
Great job. Well done. Loved the “accidents as crime” and “55,544 non gun injuries”, btw. Non-gun injuries as gun crime. Ha. That was probably my favorite.
 
But I wholly embrace your numbers and appreciate your work compiling them.

 

rogerb

 
How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 
Let’s do the math, shall we?
 
360811.548
 
10266737 total crimes
 
 
360811.548 / 10266737 total crimes = 0.0351
 

rogerb

 
How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 
0.0351
 
0.0351 * 100 = 3.5%
 
3.5%
 
With your numbers.
 
You really should check that sort of thing before you post something like that. Thanks for your help reinforcing my position, though.
 
I never expected you to make the point that America, with worse than lax laws, has a low firearms-crime (+accidents & non gun) rate.
 
I never expected to see someone lose the same debate in the same thread, either.
 
Nicely done.
 

Unfortunately as rogerb has been found out and fled the satistic’s are in my favour.
Less guns in the U.K high gun crime and killings
More guns in the U.S low gun crime and killings
 
mags on May 7, 2013 at 1:49 AM

 
Ha. 3.5% with your numbers. Good job on
 

the satistic’s are in my favour.

 
On the bright side, it turns out you were kind of right on that last bit about the UK/US rates after all (reread it).
 
Thanks again for the numbers and your help.

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 AM

John Lott’s landmark study came to the same conclusion with multiple study groups: More legally owned guns = less crime. It seems counterintuitive, but think about it. If you’re a criminal in a city that you know it’s illegal to carry a gun in, you can run wild in mayhem and not have to realistically fear any repercussions outside of arrest by professional cops, who are a small percentage of the total populace. On the other hand, if you are in a jurisdiction where you’re not sure who’s packing heat, you’ll be a lot less likely to do your fellow man harm when you’re not sure if you’re going to end up with a bullet of your own lodged somehwere in a vital organ. It’s really not that difficult a conclusion to arrive at.

gryphon202 on May 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Great job. Well done. Loved the “accidents as crime” and “55,544 non gun injuries”, btw. Non-gun injuries as gun crime. Ha. That was probably my favorite.

Can you just shoot eachother over there? What about if it’s a careless accident or even a negligent accident.
A accident could be involuntary manslaughter.Are you really saying no accidental incident’s are a crime?

Non-gun injures as gun crime

So if an armed robber robs a bank but doesn’t kill anybody then that is not a gun crime?
This is our definition of gun crime,

Firearms are taken to be involved in an offence if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument
against a person, or used as a threat.
Firearms covered by the Firearms Act 1968 include handguns, shotguns, rifles,
imitation weapons, air weapons and some other weapon types such as CS gas and pepper sprays.

mags on May 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM

rogerb on May 7

Total number of crimes reported: 10,329,135 (1,246,248 violent crimes and 9,082,887 property crimes)

Show me were you get the number of gun related crime,gun murders.

FBI says
How often firearms were used in crimes: in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911
Will you address that.

3.5%
Do you really believe if it is 3.5% I would think that was low.It’s a thousand percentage higher then here.

Only in America would that be deemed’ low’ You kept telling me less then 1% is low. Also saying ,did i think the U.S could follow the U.K to reach the same percentage of 0.3
What do you think of 0.3% here? What do you put it down too?

I will give you my mixed up comment,i only have 7 fingers and i have a child strapped to my back.
You must of recognised it was wrong to comment on it.

mags on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 

0.0351 * 100 = 3.5%
 
3.5%
 
With your numbers…
 
rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 AM

 
Can you just shoot eachother over there? What about if it’s…
 
mags on May 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM

 
Ha. You’re ready to argue minutiae again?
 
You’re just going to skip right past the 3.5% that your numbers yield and go right to the
 

Can you just shoot eachother over there?

 
approach?
 
Funny. You did that last time, too:
 

Even in the last few days numerous children have killed their siblings with there own guns.
 
This is what you should be discussing…
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 7:42 AM

 
I don’t blame you. I bet it was a bit of a surprise considering you sourced the numbers.

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Total number of crimes reported: 10,329,135 (1,246,248 violent crimes and 9,082,887 property crimes)

Show me were you get the number of gun related crime,gun murders.

 

Do you mean 360811.548?
 
It’s math from these two posts.
 

mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:18 PM
mags on May 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

 
Multiply then add.
 

FBI says
How often firearms were used in crimes: in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911
Will you address that.

 

The math? See above.
 

3.5%
Do you really believe if it is 3.5% I would think that was low.It’s a thousand percentage higher then here.

 
It’s math from your numbers. Do you want to try them again?
 
BTW, here in the US we would say “ten times higher”. We may also note that you established the US has one gun for every man, woman, and child.
 
Using your numbers the US firearm-crime rate is only ten times higher than the UK with, per you, an infinitely higher exposure to guns.
 
Good point. Thanks.
 

Only in America would that be deemed’ low’ You kept telling me less then 1% is low. Also saying ,did i think the U.S could follow the U.K to reach the same percentage of 0.3
What do you think of 0.3% here? What do you put it down too?

 
Except you typed the accusatory
 

How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 
Implying 3% is low.
 

I will give you my mixed up comment,i only have 7 fingers and i have a child strapped to my back.
You must of recognised it was wrong to comment on it.
 
mags on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

 
What are you talking about? The reversed US/UK? It was comical, that’s all. I don’t use typos as gotchas. We all make mistakes.

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Rog

Can you just shoot eachother over there?

You mocked me for including gun accidents in gun crime. You can still accidentlly shoot somebody but face criminal charges .Is that not the case,do you just say,well it was an accident?
If that’s the case can i come over there with my husband?

Using your numbers the US firearm-crime rate is only ten times higher than the UK with, per you, an infinitely higher exposure to guns.

Good point. Thanks.

If you believe a higher exposure to guns reduces firearm crime rate
why is it ten times higher?
Is there any percentage that would make you rethink beliefs?

I think we classed horn on a small issue,i do appreciate and like discussing different views with people in other countries

mags on May 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

mags on May 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

 
I’ll respond, but first I’m interested in how the UK grades students.
 
If there are 100 questions on a test and a student only misses one and scores a 99, what is his letter grade and/or phrase?
 
If another student misses four questions on the same test and scores a 96, what is his letter grade and/or phrase?

rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Hate to break it to you but being anti-war is not a bad thing. Well not if you’re a God fearing Christian. How many times has Malkin grabbed a rifle and led a patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan? Maybe she’s planning on doing it when we invade Syria, Iran, North Korea or any other of the countries we need to make “safe for Democracy” that she keeps beating the war drums for….

RightXBrigade on May 8, 2013 at 6:25 AM

mags on May 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

 

I’ll respond, but first I’m interested in how the UK grades students.
 
rogerb on May 7, 2013 at 7:38 PM

 
No?
 
Let’s try another:
 
Your doctor says you should weigh 140 pounds (using an online calculator) 10 stone :
 
Are you overweight if you weight 10.1 stone?
 
How about at 10.3 stone?

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 6:58 AM

If 0.3% women in the U.K died from breast cancer
but 3.5% in the U.S . Who decides that ten times more in the U.S still counts as low?
Even though there is such a disparity it can be seen as low,Rog has decided.
The whole point you have been trying to make is that the more guns a country has the less violent crime/gun crime/gun killings.
It was you who said less that 1% was low.

I won’t even bother researching the details of my 8% link,

I know i am going on about , but i can’t see how you reached 3.5%

Have you just added all crime together (including the numbers i gave you) and then decided that 8% of these are gun related?

The 8% i think you are still using ,related to guns used in overall violent crime that were used but non fatal.
Part of improving that statistic they site is decreasing is because of improved medical response and action’s
That is only one category ,the FBI separates it.

So 67% are used in murder.41.4 percent of reported robberies.
Please,so we can move on,how are you dividing the number of overall crimes with that of firearms?
I think you might be afraid to,if you are confident then just do it

mags on May 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Are you overweight if you weight 10.1 stone?

How about at 10.3 stone?

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 6:58 AM

Do you not do BMI in the U.S?

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report’s 35.7% of American adults as obese, and 17% of American children.So there is a measure of being overweight

If an anorexic looks in the mirror weighing 5 stones and claims she is overweight, because she thinks,that means she is?

I don’t know if you are married, but most women can and do decide what is overweight for them

mags on May 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I think you might be afraid to,if you are confident then just do it
 
mags on May 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM

 
Afraid? Confidence? Ha. Nice.
 
Except it’s probably best not to try and go on the attack when you don’t understand something.
 
Confidence? Yes, actually, since you bring it up, I was confident you had the math skills of a 12 year old.
 
Go to your posts.
 

mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:18 PM
mags on May 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

 
Multiply to find the number of robbery related firearm crimes.
 
Add that number to your other numbers. I used 800 for accidents to bolster your argument as much as possible, btw.
 

I won’t even bother researching the details of my 8% link, but I will freely add the CDC’s firearm-related homicides to the 96285 in order to boost your position:
 
rogerb on May 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM

 
I wasn’t going to mention it the first time you quoted it as a GOTCHA!!!, but you’ve brought it up twice now as an attack and it makes a lot more sense now. You didn’t understand that I was giving you the highest numbers possible.
 
Read the bolded again that you keep leaving out when you quoted what you thought was a GOTCHA!!!. I was helping your position.
 
Your faith-based approach to the issue makes more sense now, too. The numbers are confusing, so you rely on your feelings and what people you admire tell you.
 

If 0.3% women in the U.K died from breast cancer
but 3.5% in the U.S . Who decides that ten times more in the U.S still counts as low?

 
You do. Constantly. By dodging the posts on grades and weight (nicely done, thanks), and with your own actions every day.
 
Here, I’ll prove to you why you believe 3.5% is low.
 
Ready?
 
If a magazine offered you 100,000 pounds to write one article detailing what you’ve learned as a mother, would you refuse if they phoned the next day and apologized because they could only pay 96,500?
 
Yes or no? Answer honestly.
 
And that is why you agree with me that 3.5% is low.

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM

How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?

mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Implying 3% is low.

No,you are saying firearms are ‘only used’ is 3.5% like you are proud and awaiting for an award.
You seem proud that even if it is 10 times(did you see what i did there i appreciated your conversion to stone)more you accept that level.

You must agree with me that any level even 0.3% is too much

Is there a way to comment privately ?

mags on May 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

You must agree with me that any level even 0.3% is too much

 
Faith-based emotional nonsense again.
 

Is there a way to comment privately ?
 
mags on May 8, 2013 at 3:14 PM

 
Why?
 
That seems like an odd request since they don’t close these threads. Not to mention I’m confident enough to show the debate publicly, and happy it will appear in google searches for people unaware of the small difference between the full-ban UK and the 1-gun-per-person US.
 
Thanks again for your help with that. BTW, we’re still waiting on your response to
 

If a magazine offered you 100,000 pounds to write one article detailing what you’ve learned as a mother, would you refuse if they phoned the next day and apologized because they could only pay 96,500?

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM

ROG,
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault
Total crime 1,120139

Murder with guns 9790
Robbery with guns 14635
Assault with guns 157737
Rape 751131 weapon doesn’t get reported
% gun crime 28.02%

Per population 10.46% violent crime with firearms even excluding weapons used in rape,but recording number of rapes

mags on May 8, 2013 at 4:26 PM

% gun crime 28.02%
 
mags on May 8, 2013 at 4:26 PM

 
Using the numbers listed:
 
9790 + 14635 + 157737 = 182162
 
182162 / 1120139 = 16%
 
Where is your 28% coming from? Even assuming rape at 10% (add 751131 to the total) only gives 23%.
 
I’ll readily accept your numbers, but show your work, please.

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I might be slightly off.These are just the violent crimes the FBI includes.Doesn’t seem to include suicides

Assault 751,1131
Guns used 21% =157737

Murder 14,612
Guns used 67% =9790

Robbery 354396
Guns used 41.3%= 146365

Guns 313892
TOTAL 1,120138

=28.2%

If include rape,

Rape-weapon if used not recorded(that is odd,isn’t it)
Rape 83,425 + 1,120138
Total 1,203,564
Guns 313,892
=26.08%

However since we have been doing this for so long your gun crime,gun murders and non fatal gun crime has dropped substantially in the last 10years according to Pew Research , still high to us but reassuring for American’s that something has worked.

ra83,425

mags on May 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM

So are those the numbers you want to use?

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 7:10 PM

That wasn’t a challenge, btw. I’m only interested in the data. If they’re the ones you want I’m fine with them.

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 7:41 PM

rogerb on May 8, 2013

To be honest i am numbers and stat’s weary.We will have to agree to disagree.It was never my intention to get into the minutiae of American’s and guns.
If you remember i kept explaining that i support your 2nd amendment and it’s up to you what you do with gun control.
I just joined in when as usual the U.K was mis represented.

It irrelevant to me what the numbers are in the U.S especially now when you have no interest in giving an opinion on gun’s in the U.K ,that was part of the issue i really wanted to get your perspective on
So i will leave it at that

mags on May 8, 2013 at 7:52 PM

So i will leave it at that
 
mags on May 8, 2013 at 7:52 PM

 
Not yet, please. Is that 28% closer to the number you suspected for the US?

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:01 PM

… when you have no interest in giving an opinion on gun’s in the U.K ,that was part of the issue i really wanted to get your perspective on
 
mags on May 8, 2013 at 7:52 PM

 
What are you talking about? Have you asked about this before and it got lost?

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:03 PM

You’re not going to want to leave quite yet, btw.

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Not yet, please. Is that 28% closer to the number you suspected for the US?
 
rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:01 PM

 
THE most important question of the thread.

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM

rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM

O.K, i’ll get back later

mags on May 9, 2013 at 4:28 AM

I’ll be here.

rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Not yet, please. Is that 28% closer to the number you suspected for the US?

I don’t really want to comment if you are setting me up like last time

I felt that you asked me leading question’s so you could say i was uninformed.
It was like talking to two different people,one who seemed interested and one who wanted to be overly challenging.

So not wanting to discuss this issue , but wanting to win an argument.

So, if you think 28% is a load of crap just tell me, I keep saying that this is up to the American people to decide these issue’s.

I have looked at the Pew Research data that show Americans perception of gun crime is higher then it really is.

I also know that people say the highest gun crime in the U.S is carried out on those place with stricter gun control.
Didn’t know that weapons used in rape is not recorded.Didn’t know getting stat’s in the U.S is so hard partly because of different laws in different states

However, if you think my view on this has such significance to you , i’ll say…
I never really had a number in my head. I knew the U.S has a high level of gun killings./gun murders ,gun’s used by criminals, that the number of gun suicide is higher then murder,more school shootings/mass murders and way too many kids killing kids.

The point i have been trying to say is,compare the gun violence between state’s in the U.S and argue the less guns/more crime debate.
But you can’t argue the same when comparing the U.S to Countries that show less guns/less crime

What do you think of 0.3% here? What do you put it down too?

My question was well hidden.

mags on May 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

It was like talking to two different people,one who seemed interested and one who wanted to be overly challenging. So not wanting to discuss this issue , but wanting to win an argument.

 
Ah yes, unlike the capital-lettered
 

ROG,…
% gun crime 28.02%

 
Aren’t we discussing this to get to the root of the issue?
 
Your position remains that you know, just know, guns are bad, and you’ve been told the US rate is tremendously high.
 
You admitted it on page 5:
 

at the time of the killings, struck a nerve with us who were beginning to worry about the country’s gun culture

 
And again today:
 

I never really had a number in my head. I knew the U.S has a high level of gun killings./gun murders ,gun’s used by criminals, that the number of gun suicide is higher then murder,more school shootings/mass murders and way too many kids killing kids.

 
You’re operating on faith. Again, it’s a religious thing. I’m not saying that as a personal attack against you, though, and I’m not really posting these for you specifically. The entire anti-gun side operates at that level. Your mind is made up. It’s the equivalent to “God told me guns are bad”. I’m posting numbers to try to get through to people who don’t “believe” like you.
 
That’s part of why I’m glad the thread will continue to be visible in google searches.

 

I felt that you asked me leading question’s so you could say i was uninformed.

 
Goodness, why would anyone think that?
 
But don’t think it was me who set you up. You were so convinced in your faith-based 28% that you stopped before you were finished.
 
You’d reached a number that you resonated with your beliefs.

 
You left out a step because you wanted it to be 28%. It made sense to your heart and what you felt was right.
 

Guns 313892
TOTAL 1,120138
 
mags on May 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM

 
Ready?
 
28% = 313892
Total violent crimes 1120138
 
Know what’s left?
 

Firearm offences continue to make up a small proportion of overall recorded crime. In 2010/11, firearms were used in 0.3 per cent of all police recorded offences,
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 4:05 AM

 
 
Read it again.
 
See it yet? Look for the part that says “all”.
 
313,892 gun crimes / 1,120,138 violent crimes + 9,063,173 property crimes = 10,183,311
 
Sorry about this next part:
 
313892 / 10183311
 
= 0.0308241592542936
 
Rounding gives us 0.0308
 
Multiply by 100 to get the percentage:
 
0.0308 x 100 = 3.1%
 
3.1%
 
Well done.
 

rogerb

 
How can you say firearms are only used in 3% of all overall crime in the U.S?
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 
Ha. How did you put it? Oh yeah:
 

rogerb

 
Hilarious
 
mags on May 6, 2013 at 10:59 PM

 

What is this now, the third, maybe fourth time you’ve lost the identical argument in the same thread? I’ve definitely never seen that happen before.
 

What do you think of 0.3% here? What do you put it down too?

 
My question was well hidden.

 
Sorry I missed it. I remember reading it and thinking you’d left out a comma after “what” and “down” and it was an insult (“too” instead of “two” led me to think that) .
 

What do you think of 0.3% here? What do you put it down too?

 
Ethics, probably. We’ve got a 1:1 guns-to-people ratio and only a 3% overall crime rate. You have
 

All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.
 
mags on May 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM

 
And you still have 0.3%.
 
Not much else it could be.
 
Ha, just kidding. Mostly.
 
Seriously? It’s because criminals don’t obey laws.
 
Say, you never answered this, btw:
 

If a magazine offered you 100,000 pounds to write one article detailing what you’ve learned as a mother, would you refuse if they phoned the next day and apologized because they could only pay 96,500?

 
I guess we could change it to 97,000 now, eh?
 
Regardless, how about it? Would you decline the opportunity?

rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Again ,under property crime the offence of stealing weapons is classed as gun crime,this is were your criminals are getting the weapons
On average, firearms were stolen in
an annual average of about 4% of
the 2.4 million burglaries occurring
each year, in 2% of the 529,200
robberies, and in less than 1% of the
13.6 million other crimes involving
theft from 2005 through 2010
. Burglaries accounted for
58% of the 153,900 victimizations
each year in which a gun was stolen,
and robberies accounted for about
7% of the victimizations involving
a gun theft.
About 0.4% of thefts
involved the theft of a gun, yet thefts
accounted for about a third (33%)
of the victimizations in which a gun
was stolen.
Overall, about 93% of
gun thefts occurred during property
crimes.

So Property crime-9,063,173
93% Guns 94,78871
Total crime-10,183311
Total gun crime 97,92763
=96.16%

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

mags on May 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

You admitted it on page 5:

at the time of the killings, struck a nerve with us who were beginning to worry about the country’s gun culture

Yes i said following Dunblane in 1996 gun crime was going up in the U.K

This might be easier if you could just tell me what handful of crimes guns are not involved with in the U.S.
I did just the narrow ‘violent crime’,of which you don’t record weapons used in rape.
But thanks for including property crime ,you are right we had to include all crime.
This show to true America and it’s addiction to violence and guns

mags on May 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM

What is this now, the third, maybe fourth time you’ve lost the identical argument in the same thread? I’ve definitely never seen that happen before.

These stat’s are your details of your own country that you live in.
I would expect you to have a better grip and insight.
Why don’t you,is it because God told you ‘guns are good’?
American’s must have their own God,carrying 2 handguns ,3 assault rifles and ammo around his neck.
I don’t what God you are going on about or your faith to believe that God would admire the guns that slaughtered 20 children in school.

America has no moral fibre if you believe that

mags on May 9, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Nice dodging any discussion of your new 3%.
 
I certainly understand why.
 
No response to the magazine article, either. Again, I understand why.
 

Overall, about 93% of
gun thefts occurred during property
crimes.
 
So Property crime-9,063,173
93% Guns 94,78871
Total crime-10,183311
Total gun crime 97,92763
=96.16%
 
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

 
O_o
 

But thanks for including property crime ,you are right we had to include all crime.
This show to true America and it’s addiction to violence and guns
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM

 
Yikes. It would be cruel for me to joke about math skills this time.
 
You want so badly to be secure in your faith that you’re wildly latching onto certain numbers that correspond with your beliefs.
 
You may want to look a teensy bit closer at what your link actually says. I adjusted your bolded part to help.
 
Have a do-over.

rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Not yet, please. Is that 28% closer to the number you suspected for the US?
 
rogerb on May 8, 2013 at 8:01 PM

 
Thank you for unintentionally answering this, btw. Sorry it’s going to fall through again.

rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM

rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 8:24 PM

You have had a nearly a week of scrambling trying to make your claim of more guns/less gun crime.
Over and Over you have failed to have any knowledge of the country you live in and seem oblivious too.
I have given you plenty of opportunities to make your point.
Unfortunately you have failed miserably,i am sorry if you feel embarrassed but i did give you the opportunity to save face earlier today which you squandered .
I wish you well but i have things to do.

mags on May 9, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Yikes. I can certainly see why you wanted to hide the discussion earlier.
 

I have given you plenty of opportunities to make your point.
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 8:44 PM

 
And you have my sincerest thanks. I couldn’t have proved it so well or so often without your help. I could hardly believe you stuck around this long. What was this last time? Four times your worldview was shaken because of 7th grade math?
 
Five?
 
And you want to storm away angrily without understanding why your 96% is comically and completely off? Yeah, way to demonstrate that you’re interested in being informed on the issue. Thanks for that.
 
Not to mention not answering any of the questions about grades, weight, or the 100,000 pound magazine article. You really don’t realize that not answering also verifies each of them?
 

I’m sorry the low numbers of the US are difficult to take in, and I’m sorry they’re making you angry. Like I said, it’s borderline religious. You’re defensive because nothing but your faith matters. Thanks for showing it to the readers.
 
Seriously though, thanks for all of it. I couldn’t have done it without your willing assistance. Your 3% will be the most helpful, but the entire thread will be useful in the future.

rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 10:14 PM

You are correct 3% of crimes in the U.S is carried out without guns
Your violent crimes and non violent. You don’t know how funny you sound, please for your own sake,don’t go down this route because you will be a laughing stock to those who read,the same as you are here because have forwarded Roger’s theory on guns on my facebook and i’m getting some funny comments on you and your sums,ignorance and Yank DNA in general

mags on May 10, 2013 at 6:44 AM

You are correct 3% of crimes in the U.S is carried out without guns… the same as you are here because have forwarded Roger’s theory on guns on my facebook and i’m getting some funny comments on you and your sums,ignorance and Yank DNA in general
 
mags on May 10, 2013 at 6:44 AM

 
If you’re confident in your math, link to this thread.
 
Let your friends read and laugh at the data themselves.
 
You won’t, though. Because you know you’re wrong. It’s the same reason you’re lashing out angrily. This is why I joke about it being religious.
 
I know you’re angry that you’re being forced to question your faith, but please re-examine this:

Overall, about 93% of
gun thefts occurred during property
crimes.
 
So Property crime-9,063,173
93% Guns 94,78871
Total crime-10,183311
Total gun crime 97,92763
=96.16%
 
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

 
Please read it again until you understand that it doesn’t say 93% of property crime involved the theft of guns.
 
Because that’s what you’ve latched onto and it makes you look foolish. Your friends would laugh at you if you had enough confidence to link to this thread.

rogerb on May 10, 2013 at 7:12 AM

I’m not saying that as a personal attack against you, though, and I’m not really posting these for you specifically.
 
rogerb on May 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM

 

the same as you are here because have forwarded Roger’s theory on guns on my facebook and i’m getting some funny comments on you and your sums,ignorance and Yank DNA in general
 
mags on May 10, 2013 at 6:44 AM

 
BTW, this is how you prove you lost again. See a difference there?
 
Seriously, though, link this thread. I’m sure some of your friends would be interested in the actual math.

rogerb on May 10, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Overall, about 93% of
gun thefts occurred during property
crimes.

 

Please read it again until you understand that it doesn’t say 93% of property crime involved the theft of guns.

rogerb on May 10, 2013 at 7:12 AM

 
Wait, did you think it’s saying “gun thefts” as in “93% of these thefts were committed using guns”?
 
Holy cow.
 
You did, didn’t you? Ha. That’s facebook worthy.
 
(It says, when guns were stolen, 93% of them were stolen during property crime, btw.)
 
Seriously, what did you think it said? It was obviously wrong (as is the 96% that you optimistically got from it and began joking about my math with), but I’m really interested.

rogerb on May 10, 2013 at 7:44 AM

On average, firearms were stolen in
an annual average of about 4% of
the 2.4 million burglaries occurring
each year, in 2% of the 529,200
robberies, and in less than 1% of the
13.6 million other crimes involving
theft from 2005 through 2010
 
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 5:41 PM

 
You even cited the actual low number in your own post before somehow coming up with 96%.
 
Seriously, what did you think
 

Overall, about 93% of
gun thefts occurred during property
crimes.

 
meant? I’m genuinely curious in your numbers.

rogerb on May 10, 2013 at 7:52 AM

I guess we really are done. Calling names, storming away, and then badmouthing someone to friends seems a pitiful way for an adult to end an fact-based conversation. It’s a shame.
 
Hey, look at that. I’m still here.
 
And I would love to hear what you imagined the 93% meant.
 
Sorry in advance in case your friends google my name and the topic and actually read the thread. Well, read the thread and can do the math, especially since I used your numbers each time. All the badmouthing in the world can’t improve someone else’s math and reading skills:

 

I felt that you asked me leading question’s so you could say i was uninformed.
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

 
I never had any real need to say you were uninformed. All I had to do was wait for your posts.
 
BTW, posts like that show that you knew in your heart your position was wrong.
 

I don’t really want to comment if you are setting me up like last time
 
mags on May 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

 
It was never me setting you up. You did it to yourself each time. And again, a fact-based position can’t be “set up”. Numbers can’t be “set up” Only feelings can be.
 
Regardless, thanks again for your help and tell your facebook friends hi and to search for me on hotair like this:
 
“rogerb”
 
The quotation marks are the key. Otherwise google tries to separate the “b” from the whole.
 
I do hope you’ll post the link on your page, though. Here’s one you can copy and paste:
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/04/an-armed-march-on-washington-lets-not/comment-page-6/#comment-6967647
 
It goes directly to one of your posts. Not a bad one, either, but the one you believed proved your position. It would be much easier for them to find that way, and you have the added benefit of directly showing them how much and how easily you trounced me.
 
I’m confident they’d enjoy reading the thread, and it would likely be useful for their overall understanding of the topic as well.
 
Point them this way, please.

rogerb on May 11, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6