At least one rapist likes the idea of gun control.
Jerome McCorry organized a protest against a gun show, claiming that the gun show made it too easy to buy guns. Why did that worry him? Perhaps because because the easy availability of guns might have made his career as a rapist more dangerous.
Yeah, but that’s just one rapist. But, in England/Wales rapists seem to enjoy the benefit of gun control to ply their trade. In civilized, peaceful England/Wales the rate of rape is over double that in the U.S.
This is a spreadsheet of crimes detected in England/Wales 2010/2011. There were 54,982 sexual offenses reported, but this web site belonging to a UK rape crisis group indicates that the British Crime Survey indicates about 80,000 rapes per year. (As in United States, there are many rapes not reported to the police, which show up in surveys of victims.) The current United Kingdom population is 56.1 million. That would mean about about 142 rapes/100,000 population.
Table 1 of Uniform Crime Reports for 2011 shows the United States has a reported to police rape rate of 42.8/100,000 rapes. The 2010 National Crime Victimization Survey shows 188,380 rapes in the U.S.; the U.S. population in 2010 was 308 million. That gives 61.16 rapes per 100,000 population, our about 43% of the British Crime Survey victimization rate.
Reading this I began looking for the old “Samuel Colt made people equal” quote. One of the things I found was a column in Time magazine with this tidbit of wisdom form 1999:
Cultural historian Richard Slotkin of Wesleyan University debunks it forever in a recent essay, “Equalizer: The Cult of the Colt.” “If we as individuals have to depend on our guns as equalizers,” says Slotkin, “then what we will have is not a government of laws but a government of men–armed men.”
Amazes me how supposedly intelligent educated men come up with such idiocy. We already have a government of armed men. Did Slotkin and Rosenblatt, the author of the column, some how reach adulthood without attaining the knowledge of thousands of armed law enforcement members and military? I guess we should excuse Slotkin because he’s not a military historian.
Nothing makes people fully equal, but the small of stature, feeble, weak and elderly certainly have a much greater chance of protecting themselves successfully when armed. The Democrats don’t like an armed populace because it’s harder to force them to submit to the government to which they all belong.
This video of Michael Bloomberg shows the kind of armed protection he thinks he deserves but would deny us a fraction of that level of protection.
BTW, the cop probably lies about his “security jurisdiction.” But, as Steve pointed out yesterday in the case of the anti-Muslim video, the law only applies to those whom the authorities wish it to.
The aristocracy knows an unarmed proletariat is easily controlled. Once we are defenseless we have no protection from an ever-encroaching government. BTW – the aristocracy is also exempt from the ACA – that should tell you exactly what THAT is worth, as well.
I’ve long since given up arguing the gun issue in general, but please: “the Democrats don’t like an armed populace because it’s harder to force them to submit to the government to which they all belong”? I can’t figure out which is more absurd: the notion that Democrats want to disarm people in order to control them, or the image that some people seem to have of themselves as plucky, valiant defenders of freedom, resisters of a tyranny that also exists only in their imagination. You guys stay strong, DADvocate and FIREBIRD: when the rest of us are groveling at our Overlords’ feet, you’ll still be free.
Too many people are already groveling. Protect me! Care for me! Keep me from smoking, eating too many trans fats. Stop me from drinking sugary soft drinks. Help me please. I can’t be trusted to control myself.
Bloomberg sends agents in to other states to make illegal gun buys. No problem. The law is just for the little people. I can’t figure out what is more absurd: The refusal of people like you to see the naked truth or happy willingness of people like you to be serfs to the aristocracy.
If my life is that of a serf to the aristocracy, then I guess serfdom isn’t so bad: it comes with cable and internet! As I said, we can’t all be self-reliant freedom-fighter types like you and FIREBIRD; I’m actually one of the “small of stature, feeble, weak, and elderly” that you referenced. But I’m with you this far, DADvocate: if anyone comes for my sugary soft drinks (Cherry Pepsi), they’ll have to pry them from my cold, dead, over-caffeinated hands.
cable and internet
That’s pretty much all it takes to make the sheeple happy. It was either the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that generated the most phone calls to Congress up to that time.
“Better starve free than be a fat slave.”
- Aesop’s Fables
I do all my shopping at “Sheeple ‘R’ Us”.
That was baaaaaaaaad.
Steve
The two states in the US with the highest rate of forcible rate, are Alaska and South Dakota, both states with significant gun ownership. Average incidence around the world is 4.9/100,000. For the US, 27/100,000. Japan, which has almost no guns, 1.4/100,000. New zealand, with a rate of private gun ownership about 1/4 of ours, has a rate of 31/100,000.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
“The aristocracy knows an unarmed proletariat ”
Who is pushing for that?
Steve
Good job of cherry picking, Steve. I knew I could depend on you. As I said, you’re up there with Eliana Johnson.
You chose the UK. I linked to the whole page, of available countries while you just offered one country. I guess I could have gone down the whole list, but you can if you want. At any rate, I offer two states and data for three countries to your one. You could at least say cherries. You could also learn to research and link to and maybe read some kind of comprehensive list when it is relevant rather just pick one country to try to prove some point.
Steve
Why didn’t you choose Chicago where gun ownership is essentially outlawed and the incidence of rape is 50.4/100,00 last count? Interesting about Alaska though.
Because you were citing the UK, an area that encompasses cities and rural areas. A comparison with a large US state seems most appropriate. Maybe I should have cited Cincinatti where the rate is 62/100,000 or Columbus where it is 72/100,000? Lowest among large cities is Fresno at 10.2 and highest is Minneapolis at 100.1. (Minnesota is a shall issue state.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Steve
If most gun-control folks wanted to be logically consistent, they could just admit this would be the first step in using laws to create the gunless society they’d like to see.
There was also the matter of shamelessly putting children out there to hustle for Obama.
Sad when any politician resorts to that.
I’d be okay with a gun-free society, but I can’t speak for “most gun-control folks”…
Guns are too easy to make for there ever to be a “gun free society.”
The ONLY way to really seek to reduce gun ownership overall (which is different than reducing gun violence or even reducing the access of felons to guns) would be to disarm our Military and Police.
Theoretically it COULD BE done. There is a wide array of non-lethal weapons available (very suited to law enforcement…not as well suited for Military action), but that would be one way to demonstrate government’s REAL concern over guns and gun violence.
Moreover, we have to acknwoledge that “all violence isn’t equal.” A store-owner or homeowner shooting an intruder is engaging in legitimate self defense. A stick-up artist who kills a gas station attendant in the course of a robbery is a murderer.
Moreover gun control ISN’T the same as violence control. The worst Grammar School mass murder was the Bath School bombings back in 1927, one o the worst mass murders in NYC was carried out with a small container of gasoline and a wick (the Happyland Social Club fire, which killed 89).
Violence control could only be effected by the most draconain of police states, one that would become a virtual hell for even the non-ivolent mentally ill, as they’d have to be continually scrutinized if we were to really put violence control above all else.
Violencce is a very intrinsic part of the human condition. Like it or not (and many don’t…when they consider it) we are all pretty much primarily responsible for our protection and that of our property. The police are designed to respond AFTER the fact.
Good points as usual, JMK. Maybe if we talk about “violence control” and try to look at all the factors involved, then gun owners wouldn’t feel singled out. You’re right of course that “violence is a very intrinsic part of the human condition,” and we’ll never put a stop to it; but perhaps we can develop strategies to diminish it. In the immortal words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?” (Sadly, the answer seems to be No, but we need to keep trying.)
???? There are almost 300 million guns in the country. They arent going away. If we enacted the current bills, people could still own as many guns and have as much ammunition as they want. If you follow the polls, even most gun owners favor some measures like better background checks. However, many of us who own guns realize that picking one crime out of many, from one country out of many, is not the way to make an argument.
Query- We already have laws that limit access to some guns. They have been on the books for many years. Why hasnt that lead to the confiscation of all guns? Why have we seen gun laws liberalizing access to guns?
Steve
I am not pointing a finger at DAD and Firebird as such. We weren’t in communication a decade or so ago. I am just curious when our real freedoms were taken away with the various laws such as the PATRIOT act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security were passed. For the most part, not a peep from the “Obama is taking our freedoms” crowd. When convicted criminal and acknowledged agent of a foreign power Elliot Abrams was organizing the spy on your neighbor program, where was your crowd?
The Patriot Act & the establishment of the DoHS were bipartisan affairs.
IF there were a sizable body against those things, the current President wouldn’t have gone to court no less than 3X to protect and extend the NSA Surveillance Programs, would not have vigorously fought to extend the provisions of the Patriot Act and continue to fund the DoHS (it could be broken up with the stroke of an Executive pen tomorrow…IF there was the will.
There isn’t.
Now I supported all those things when the previous administration initiated them and I support them now and am very glad that the current administration has ccontinued them and has largely followed the “Bush Doctrine” even though I have my doubts over how effectively our (inanely) competing Intel agencies are able/unable to communicate and cooperate with one another.
Your data sleuthing is a bit awry I am afraid. The British crime survey asks about sexual assault, which is way way different from the FBI definition of rape. A mere touch can be considered an assault in the survey whereas the FBI demands there is penetration.
Here is some properly comparable data from the UN based on police data in each country.
Figure 5 shows that U.S. rape incidence is way above that seen in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland.
http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Hakapaino_final_07042010.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1266335656647&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdfcountries
The differences in definition and data collection between the figures I used and the ones you use are such that making a valid comparison is near impossible. This is included in the data you cite: “““Data includes sexual assaults, i.e . any physical
sexual contact (includes touching) with a person
against their will or without proper consent and
may or may not include sexual intercourse.”),” Hardly a definition of rape.
Well the data you used are clearly not comparable because of the survey method in the UK which does not actually ask about penetrative rape but the wider area of sexual assault. The police data on rape is likely to be more comparable though many rapes go unreported in both countries. The U.S. definition excludes statutory rape and male rape (according to the FBI’s UCR Handbook) whereas rape in England can include both sorts. The UCRH also tells us that if 4 boys each rape 3 girls in a hotel room (i.e. 12 cases of unlawful intercourse) this is counted as only 3 instances of rape. God knows why, but it must keep the numbers down a bit.
From the article I cite:
UPDATE: A reader says that the British Crime Survey figure that RapeCrisis uses is, not contrary to their claim, a count of rapes, but all sexual assaults (which would include unwanted touching of a sexual nature). I don’t find that claim implausible, because groups that call themselves whateverCrisis are not generally terribly objective, but RapeCrisis make a clear distinction between sexual assaults in general and rape in particular:
Around 400,000 women are sexually assaulted and 80,000 women are raped each year (British Crime Survey).
You should at least compare like with like. Remember of course that the England and Wales (EW) is, population-wise, 5.5 times smaller than the the US.
US rapes recorded by police 83,425 *
EW rapes recorded by police 14,624 **
* FBI UCR But remember, these rapes exclude so called “statutory rape” where the victim is underage.
** Home Office stats. In Britain there is no separate offense of “statutory rape” so all assaults on females are classed as rape if they include sexual assaults amounting to rape on under people under the age of consent.
It is hard to compare stats from one jurisdictions to another. In America, if four boys each rape three girls each three three times in the course of one evening it is counted as three rapes. In Sweden the same event would be counted as 36 rapes.