No (more) guns please - we're British

[Dowding]

British gun crime before ban: sod all
British gun ownership per capita before ban: sod all

British gun crime after ban: sod all
British gun ownership per capita after ban: sod all

Conclusion: Gun ownership in the UK is largely irrelevant.

US gun ownership per capita: very high
US gun crime: very high

Canadian gun ownership per capita: very high
Canadian gun crime: low

Conclusion: The issue isn't 'should we ban guns in America to reduce gun crime?' The issue is "What is wrong with American society to give rise to such disproportionate crime rates compared to other gun owning nations?"

Neither the pro- or anti- types seem to be able to answer that one.

[lazs2]

spook... you got your genitals in one hand and all your "feelings" in the other and that is about all you bring to this arguement.

You have shown no data whatseover that law abiding citizens being allowed to carry concealled in any country has had any ill effects or that is has done anything but good...  All you have is your bitter view of your fellow man to make your decision by... you are the last person I would want to be a cop.   They retire out your type here.

nashwan has about the best arguement tho it is weak... outlawing guns reduces the supply... this is true but it does not reduce the suply to those who whould murder and does not reduce the murders by any study available..

and vorticons muggers are super muggers that there is no defense of... they are catlike stealth nunjas that sneak up on lone wanderers and bash them over the head in a public (but deserted) place... closest thing I know of is rolling drunks and they aren't allowed to carry concealed in any case at bars and such....

plus... by vorticons reasoning the norweigns and brit cops are doing it all wrong... what is stopping the super muggers from hitting them on the head and then getting their keys and getting the neato guns out of the police car trunk?

Lots of reasons to own guns.... recreation, defense, collecting, gunsmithing, targetr shooting, hunting and the original intent of the constitution... to protect from tyranny from within and without.

some countries realize this and trust their citizens and some don't.    Restrictions destroy the benifiets of firearms without causing any benifiets.  

In this country... we have school shootings... fully 1/3 were stopped.. ended... by armed citizens.  It would have been a higher number but the benifiets were regulated away.... no one was allowed to be armed near the school so the bad guys had a turkey shoot.

like widewing says... one incident doesn't prove anyones case... and... if you have more school shootings in the future will that mean that you made a mistake in your policy of banning firearms or simply that you didn't go far enough.... oh wait... you can't go any further can you?

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding
Conclusion: The issue isn't 'should we ban guns in America to reduce gun crime?' The issue is "What is wrong with American society to give rise to such disproportionate crime rates compared to other gun owning nations?"

Neither the pro- or anti- types seem to be able to answer that one.

Note that, unlike Spook, you have essentially admitted "it isn't the guns".

I agree with you.

As for no one being able to answer your "issue" question, I agree with that as well.

Even the sainted Michael Moore, in his otherwise worthless Bowling For Columbine, stumbled around this exact point and was unable to come up with any sort of answer.

In short, that is indeed the question.

However, it's also obvious that it isn't simply the presence of guns that causes the problem.

[lazs2]

dowding... I don't know but if moving the murder rate down a couple per 100,000 population means that we have to become a tiny little socialist island with no gun rights then I will gladly stay with what we have now.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Do you think considering the topic of the thread and the many posts within it, that I could be refering to a ....... Firearm?

  Well if that`s the case, then your statement is absurd.

 stttteeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrriiii ikkkkkkeee 2!

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
However, it's also obvious that it isn't simply the presence of guns that causes the problem.

Of course it isn't. That's why I would not be averse to an armed police force, just like most other Euro police forces.  I've said this before: The problem is the availability of guns, and the increased chances of them getting into the hands of criminals/idiots when the place is awash with them that's the problem. You can legislate against guns, but you can't legislate against idiots.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
The problem is the availability of guns,  

Sorry, beet. That's just unproven. Even the blimp known as Michael Moore showed that Canada has as many or more guns than the US and availability isn't a problem.

Yet their stats are exceedingly better than ours. It was before they tightened up their gun laws and it really hasn't change after they tightened up their gun laws.

So.... they've got more guns than the US per capita, IIRC, and they did long, long before their gun laws became significantly different from ours.

I think you're assessment of the problem is incorrect.

Again, I'll point out that Moore couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation in BFC, either... so he just left the subject hanging in his film.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, beet. That's just unproven. Even the blimp known as Michael Moore showed that Canada has as many or more guns than the US and availability isn't a problem.

Yet their stats are exceedingly better than ours. It was before they tightened up their gun laws and it really hasn't change after they tightened up their gun laws.

So.... they've got more guns than the US per capita, IIRC, and they did long, long before their gun laws became significantly different from ours.

I think you're assessment of the problem is incorrect.

Again, I'll point out that Moore couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation in BFC, either... so he just left the subject hanging in his film.

I think you're being obtuse. Guns on their own are not a problem, apart from the dangers of accidental discharge etc.  

We've talked about this before, and this might also answer Dowding's query: There are TWO ingredients necessary for a gun crime to occur. One is the gun, and the other is the idiot/criminal  holding it. Places outside the US with high gun ownership (Canada, and parts of Scandinavia and Switzerland) don't have a huge crime problem because they don't also have the large criminal underclass. That's why the availability of guns might not be a problem in those places, but from what I've heard, most of the legally owned guns in Switzerland are not handguns, and are therefore not suited to criminal use. I've never been to Switzerland (can't afford it - lol), but I wouldn't mind betting that there are no drug gangs and turf wars going on there. OK, Britain is multicultural, but only in certain areas. But even so, we don't have a significant level of gun crime as you yourself have observed in this thread. It takes both ingredients to produce the explosive mixture which results in widespread gun crime. Britain has only one of these ingredients. Switzerland has the other. The US has both. Notice how your "availability of guns isn't the problem" stance only works outside the US, in relatively law abiding societies. The availability of guns IS the problem in the US, and WOULD BE the problem in Britain if we weren't careful.

Like I said, in the war against gun crime, you can't legislate against idiots/criminals, but you can do the next best thing, which is to legislate against the guns that they would like to get hold of.

30-40, your serve.  I think I'll take a strawberry break.

BTW, did you hear the positive wave I sent?

[TalonX]

He wrote:  "So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple. "

This is not substantiated by any real facts.   The crime rate in Washington, DC (NO LEGAL GUNS) is far higher than in other parts of the US where guns are commonplace.

While murder rate is lower in England, most other violent crimes exceed the US.

The Brits still can't grasp the Bill of Rights.  The point is moot until an amendment is made to the constitution.

While I generally love the Brits, I can't stand liberals.   Makes me glad we kicked their butts in the 1700's.

Have a nice day!

[TalonX]

I think we should eliminate cars, because cars kill people.

Oh - wait - I don't NEED my guns?   Who are you to say?  I want them.  Owning them is my RIGHT.

Holding guns accountable for killing people is the same as holding a pencil accountable for any math error you make with one.



Get real - anti gun nuts never speak with facts or reason.

Have (still) a nice day!!!!!

[beet1e]

Like I said, we can't legislate against idiots. ^

I'll leave this one to Spook.

[lazs2]

well... this just keeps getting more confusing.... if longguns are not suited to criminal activity then why the ban on so called "assault weapons"?

If there is a "criminal underclass" then wouldn't it make sense for the people who weren't criminal to be armed?   And isn't that exactly what happens?  I mean... when you arm the law abiding the criminal is less effective.

And.... if there is no differense in gun crime before or after bans in countries like england and australia.... what is the point of removing peoples freedom in the first place unless it is simple pandering?

And... doesn't it seem likely that even with a total ban on handguns that gun crime will continue to rise in england as we all become more of a "global community" and drug use and gangs increase?

lazs

[beet1e]

Hey Lazs, y'ole willy-woofer!

"If there is a "criminal underclass" then wouldn't it make sense for the people who weren't criminal to be armed?   And isn't that exactly what happens?  I mean... when you arm the law abiding the criminal is less effective."

The problem about arming the law abiding is that no matter how hard you try, you can never achieve a situation in which ONLY the law abiding are armed. Put a gun shop in every mall, every street corner (and every bank -  ) and there's absolutely no way to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. That's just the way it is. In the US, they try to pretend otherwise (fool's paradise), and that's why they have a gun homicide tally of 10000+ annually.

"And.... if there is no differense in gun crime before or after bans in countries like england and australia.... what is the point of removing peoples freedom in the first place unless it is simple pandering?"

A pre-emptive measure? To stop a bad situation from being much worse? I heard that Australia's crime dropped sharply. I'll find a URL for next time.

"And... doesn't it seem likely that even with a total ban on handguns that gun crime will continue to rise in england as we all become more of a "global community" and drug use and gangs increase?"

As I said before, our "next to nothing" gun homicide tally is too small to provide adequate sampling for accurate trend analysis. The tally has ranged between 50 and ~100 for many years, with fluctuations in both directions.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Chortle
Abso-shrecking-lootly, yer sick deviant.

You have discerned the opposite of my jest, the lack of an emoticon was its failing.

[Nashwan]

It takes both ingredients to produce the explosive mixture which results in widespread gun crime.

Exactly right.

Guns don't turn ordinary people into dangerous criminals but they do turn criminals into much more dangerous criminals.


For anyone interested, the latest firearms crime figures for Engalnd and Wales were published today. Why the Telegraph tried to preempt them, I don't know.

However, the figures:

10,590 firearms offences, up 3%

Shotguns, 690, down 2%

Rifles, 60, up 15%

Handguns, 4910, down 10%

Imitation guns, 2560, up 35%

Serious injuries 430, unchanged

Fatal injuries, 70, down 15%

Actual firearms used in crimes (shotguns, rifles, handguns) 5660, down by 570 or 8% from last year.

Imitation firearms, 2560, up 35% from last year.

Certainly looks like criminals are having difficulty getting guns in Britain, if they're having to turn to imitation weapons.

And it's not for a fear of the sentence, either. Imitations are considered firearms by the courts, as indeed is any object disguised as a firearm.