Washington Sniper Poll.

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Andrew, the communications are happeneng over a phone line. The line they are using is for a number that the sniper specified, which the police rerouted to their command post, so all he has to do is call that number. He has asked for a toll free 800 number though, so Im guessing he is tired of the long distance calls.

Actually the number was specified by the person who left the note. It remains to be seen if this is the sniper.

Yorkshire Ripper syndrome.[/QUOTE]good point, however the "sniper" has established communications before this and Im fairly certain that this one matched previous communcations about which not all details have been made public. It is a very common tactic towithhold key details to ensure proper ID later in the case. However, after some of the boo-boos these guys have made, You could still be right.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: Your definition of "extremely rare" and mine seem to be off by several ordersof magnitude [img]smile.gif[/img] I think it was Epona who was telling us that it wasn't all that uncommon. I think you might want to do a comparison with population totals and area covered totals before you go making assumptions on that. Canada for example has 1/10th the number of gun related deaths as us, however, they have 1/10th the number of total people as well.

This statement is wrong(EDIT>) very misleading. I refer you to some stats below posted in another thread: The bottom three tables totals are percentages per 100,000.

Murder rates are generally at least three times lower in Canada than in the United States. In 1999, Canada's murder rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. In that same year, the U.S. homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 population in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

	Year	Canada	US	US/CAN
Population	1998	30.2 m	270m	8.9x
Number of All Firearms	1998	7.4 m	222 m	30x
Number of Handguns	1998	1.2 m	76 m	63.3x
Guns per capita	1997	.25	.82	3.3x

Firearms Death (Rate per 100,000)*	Year	Canada	US	US/Can
Accidental deaths with Firearms	1998	0.2	0.3	1.5x
Suicides with Firearms	1998	3.4	6.4	1.9x
Total Firearms Deaths	1998	4.3	11.4	2.7x

Crime Statistics (Rate per 100,000)	Year	Canada	US	US/Can
Murders with Firearms	1998	0.5	4.4	7.9x
Murders with Handguns	1998	0.23	3.3	14.5x
Murders without Guns	1998	1.3	2.3	1.8x
Robberies with Guns	1998	18	63	3.5x
Robberies without Guns	1998	78	102	1.3x

	Year	Canada	US	Can/US
Overall Homicide rate per 100,000	1998	1.83	6.62	3.6x
% of homicides with firearms	1998	27.3%	66%	2.4x
% of firearm homicides with handguns	1998	46%	75%	1.6x

Source is here

Statistics compiled from Centre for Justice Statistics; FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada Homicide Survey; Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice (Kwing Hung) June 2001

[ 10-24-2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[250]

comparison proportion of the population is not the way to calculate crime rate. if you have two groups of gangsters who live at either side of the state (thus rarely run into each other), and many gangsters who live at the same town, crime rate will never just be the proportion. just an example.

I suspect it would increase at an exponatiate rate for a dense crowded area.

[ 10-24-2002, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: 250 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: to question 4: stricter gun-control laws comes to mind.

ot tying to start a gun debate here, but I am curious about something. Why do you think that there are not already enough laws? Did you not know, that it is already against the law to shoot someone in the face and kill them? There are many laws against murder, and yet it still happens. Why not enforce the laws that exist and make the penalties really nasty instead of cushy cells with color tv? Do you really think this guy would have been deterred by yet another piece of paper for lawyers to argue over?[/QUOTE]Exactly. So rewrite the constitution so the second amendment is gone, then you only need one law regarding guns.

1. You may not possess a gun for any reason at any time.

Easy.

[Yorick]

And what if you're a cop?

Nope. Not even then.

British cops don't have guns. Only the feds I believe. And those in Northern Ireland. Correct me if I'm wrong you British people.... (as if they need encouragement)

[Yorick]

And what if you're a hunter.

Nope. Find another hobby. One that doesn't involve destroying life.

[Yorick]

And what if you're a farmer? You need it you say?

Oh those poor farmers who ploughed the land for thousands of years before the gun was invented. Whatever did they do?

Here's a quote from an African farmer I saw interviewed after returning to his fields he left due to war:

"If I have my hoe, I can work."

Wow.

Makes you think about what we really need.

We don't need guns. At all. Period.

[Warhammer]

Yorick said: 1. You may not possess a gun for any reason at any time.

Suits me well I've always prefered bows, crossbows and... returning mallets.

[andrewas]

Yorick, mind on telling us how to not only make guns illegal in violation of the US consitution, but actualy remove them from everyone including criminals? Given the fact that its not impossible for a sufficiently resourced organisation to make there own if needs be.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by andrewas: Yorick, mind on telling us how to not only make guns illegal in violation of the US consitution, but actualy remove them from everyone including criminals? Given the fact that its not impossible for a sufficiently resourced organisation to make there own if needs be.

Buy them back off everyone. Everyone who then possesses one is thus a criminal.

Then you can arrest and imprison a criminal before they commit violent crime. For if guns are illegal and no-one has a gun, why else would they need a gun, if not to commit another crime?