U.S.A. violent crimes drop 3% but....

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Elfie
Beet1e you claim there were always gun control laws in Britain. In YOUR lifetime yes, but it wasnt always that way. You also completely ignore the fact that gun related crime isnt affected by gun control laws. BEFORE ANY gun control laws were in effect your country had its lowest crime rates, including gun related crimes.

Yes, I'm sure our countries' gun crime levels were lowest of all at a time when there were no gun control laws at all, ie. before guns were invented. You have to remember that legislation is introduced pre-emptively. We don't wait for a situation to get out of control and then think "maybe it's time to do something about this". By 1920 in Britain, we'd had WW1, and there were many leftover guns. Maybe the politicians of that day could see the folly of a flood of unnecessary guns (US example, shootouts like the OK Corral) and decided to act in advance. I mean you don't wait until your house is burning down to think about fire insurance, or do you?

Of course gun related crime is affected by gun control laws. If that were not true, we too would have a senseless slaughter involving thousands of lives every year. How would our gun crime figures have to have changed for you to accept that our gun control laws do work? We've been saying all along that gun crime in Britain is next to nothing. How on earth do you therefore deduce that our gun control laws are not working?

Here's a loose analogy of what you're saying: 200 years ago, there was no mains electricity and therefore no-one got electrocuted in the home. 200 years later, electricity is all around us in computers, sound systems, TV etc., and yet still almost no-one gets electrocuted in the home. Therefore, rubber/plastic insulation does not protect us from electrocution because the electrocution figures have not changed.

Mr. Toad quoted "A near-total ban on privately held handguns comes into force in Britain on Sunday" So - a partial ban became a total ban - which is what I said before. The new legislation extended gun legislation that was already in force - a codicil - and made it complete. One thing you STILL have not answered is: Before 1995, are you saying I could have gone out and bought a .44 magnum? Are you saying that I could buy a 1911/.45 semi auto for no better a reason than the fact that I wanted one? Please do tell me: WHERE could I have bought such a gun? You've talked to your beater guys; Give me the address of ONE SINGLE GUN SHOP that existed prior to 1997, and from where I could have bought a weapon such as this, legally and without difficulty.

I've made my positon clear enough and given folks the history.

You've read a lot of quotes, applied your own skewed interpretations, and now you claim to know the public mood in Britain towards guns better than I do. Oh wait, you've talked to your beater guys. What is it exactly that they beat? (Apart from themselves off) Your stance now is akin to someone having done a high level degree in French at an Ivy League university, and claiming that you know more about the French language than a guy like Straffo, who hasn't.

I think the readers of this thread and look at both sides can decide for themselves.

Well, since you said that, we have one new poster, and he's waded in on my side.  Beet1e 1, Toad 0.

[beet1e]

... not from the beginning though. I read the passage from 1689...

...and then compared it with the account presented in this account of the British Monarchy, which goes all the way to the present day and the 2002 death of the Queen Mother.

The publisher is Times Books - linked with the Times Newspaper, arguably the most unbiased and neutral broadsheet newspaper we have.

The central issue in those days was religion: Catholic v Protestant. Henry VIII had displaced the Roman Catholic Church with the introduction of the Church of England, but 1685-88 saw the reign of James II of England & Ireland (James VII of Scotland) who purported to allow religious toleration, but whose real goal was widely believed to be the restoration of Catholicism. There is no mention of firearms. Maybe it was... erm... a non-issue?

Tell me, did you really expect to find an impartial account of British history on an American website whose title is guncite.com, whose homepage is divided into about 50 subtitles almost ALL of which contain the word "GUN", and whose mission statement is

"Until the Second Amendment is treated as normal constitutional law, this web site will always be under construction... "

???

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... I am not doubting you but where did you get the population data for the U.S.?  According to that the population in the U.S.  went up a little over 1% a year from 1999 to 2003?   4.7% in 4 years?    

Lazs, if you're saying that the US population rose by only 1%, you're only adding weight to my case that US homicides per capita went up, not down.

Go to the American Facfinder link: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
There you will see the current population displayed at the top right. 294,630,193 when I looked just now.

Now open the US Census .PDF document: http://www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/2000/chap02.pdf
You'll see that the census counted 281,000,000 people.

These figures show that the increase in population from the 2000 census to right now was 4.85%.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Vulcan
What annoys me is when people try and compare NZ, Aussie, or England, and say how bad the gun laws are and how represive they are - which is simply BS.

 

Compared to us, that style of gun law is extremely repressive.

The idea, for example, that one would have to belong to some formal club to go target shooting instead of just going out on your own land and throwing clay birds or plinking with your .22 would be viewed as extremely repressive by most of us I think. Or even to keep that .22 pistol locked up down at a local club.

Or that one could not use a pump shotgun to bird hunt..... unbelievable.

Beyond that, all three countries in your example exhibit the "slippery slope" aspect of gun control. You started out with some restrictions that seemed reasonable at the time. However, NONE of those satisfied the antis and you end up with, say in England's example, all handguns banned, confiscated and totally illegal. No pump guns. No semi-autos. The list is nearly endless.

They may not seem repressive to you, but then you're already the half-cooked frog. Forgive the rest of us frogs that are not in the pot; we simply don't want to join you in becoming cuisses de grenouilles à la crème.

[Toad]

Actually, the 1920 gun laws stem from fear of the Bolsheviks. Crime aspects didn't really figure into it. Parliament (particularly Lords, I'll wager) had seen the Russian revolution and wanted no part of that. In your historical research into your own country's gun control laws, see the Report of the Committee on the Control of Firearms 2 (1918).

Beet: Mr. Toad quoted "A near-total ban on privately held handguns comes into force in Britain on Sunday" So - a partial ban became a total ban - which is what I said before.

[/b]

Poor Beet; still defeated by your own refusal to read your own history.

Here, once again for you, real slowly:

There was no ban/confisication of handguns in England until after Dunblane. Prior to that time, licenses were available. Easily available in 1920, less so 50 years later.

Then, Dunblane and the first ban by Major's government that covered handguns above .22 caliber, and .22 caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.

Then the extension of the ban to .22's by Blair's government a mere few months later (this is the one referred to in the BBC article) made Major's "partial ban" into a "total ban".

So England had no ban on handguns until Dunblane. Then Major put in a partial ban... all handguns but .22's that lasted a few months until Blair included .22's, making it a total ban.

Beet:

Before 1995, are you saying I could have gone out and bought a .44 magnum? Are you saying that I could buy a 1911/.45 semi auto for no better a reason than the fact that I wanted one? Please do tell me: WHERE could I have bought such a gun?

[/b]


You could have bought such a gun at a gun shop like the one I visited in Devonshire in 2003, if handguns weren't illegal. He sold them before the ban. You could have bought one at the shops I visited in Cambridge or London during my "Air Force" years.

But would the police have approved your "reason"? I don't know.

Remember,

The British "firearms certificate" system of 1920 had required that a person who wished to possess a rifle or handgun prove he had "a good reason."[102] In the early years of the system, self-defense had been considered "a good reason,"[103] but, by the 1960s, it was a well-established police practice that only "sporting" purposes, and not self-defense could justify issuance of a rifle or handgun license.

Could you "prove" a "sporting purpose"? I doubt it. Here's why:

Parliament had never voted to outlaw defensive gun ownership, but self-defense fell victim to what Schauer calls "the consequences of linguistic imprecision."[104] When a legal rule is expressed in imprecise terms there is a heightened risk that subsequent interpreters of the rule may apply the rule differently than the formulators of the rule would have.

And

As Police Review magazine noted: "There is an easily identifiable police attitude towards the possession of guns by members of the public. Every possible difficulty should be put in their way." The stated police position is "to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of firearms, including shotguns, in hands of members of the public."

(Quoted in Colin Greenwood Reviews Police Policy, Shooting Times & Country Mag., Dec. 27, 1979; Cadmus, A Question of Numbers, 18 Gun Rev. 665 (1978) (police statement in letters to gun owners who were attempting to renew certificates).


So, by '95, you'd already become a boiled frog.

You've talked to your beater guys; Give me the address of ONE SINGLE GUN SHOP that existed prior to 1997, and from where I could have bought a weapon such as this, legally and without difficulty.[/b]

I don't have the address, but I bought some dog whistles and a boot bag at the one in Devonshire. The owner was a beater at the shoot, as well. Very nice guy. He used to sell handguns and even semi-auto and pump action shotguns before the bans on same.

Of course, you'd have to get the cops to approve you for a Firearms License. And since you have no Constitution, you'd be completely subject to the whim of the officer handling those in your district with no way to appeal his decision. He'd undoubtedly turn you down as the Police are on record as trying "to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of firearms, including shotguns, in hands of members of the public."

What is it exactly that they beat?[/b]

Ah, so I'm the one that doesn't know about "the public mood" but then YOU'RE the one that has absolutely no clue about how the shooting sports are conducted in your own country? And you have to toss in a snide remark about masturbation to denigrate the people that participate in a legitimate shooting sport that's been part of your country's history since shotguns were invented and is still a major part of some rural areas economy?

Well, I think I'll let you set sail on another voyage of discovery rather than making it easy and just telling you.

You might learn some stuff and then you might even know more about how the folks in England that still use firearms view your slide down the slippery slope.

Keep score anyway you like. My method is this: Engage in civil debate and let the written words keep score. I'll let others be the judge of who knows English gun law history and who doesn't.

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad! You're probably gone by now, so I'll try to keep this post.... nice.

Actually, the 1920 gun laws stem from fear of the Bolsheviks. Crime aspects didn't really figure into it. Parliament (particularly Lords, I'll wager) had seen the Russian revolution and wanted no part of that. In your historical research into your own country's gun control laws, see the Report of the Committee on the Control of Firearms 2 (1918).

Are you suggesting that the country was poised to mount a Communist revolt against His Majesty King George V? I did a Google search on that report and found

"There can surely be no question that the public interest demands that direct control shall in future be exercised in the United Kingdom . . . over the possession, manufacture, sale and import and export of firearms and ammunition; and the only practical question for consideration appears to be how this control can be most efficiently established".

Erm... didn't see anything there about Bolsheviks, but I'll look again. I wonder why they thought that the public interest might be best served by limiting firearms? Ah, I think I have the answer.

You say that I could have bought a handgun in Britain, but then add a whopping great IF clause:

But would the police have approved your "reason"? I don't know.

I do. Believe me, there's just no way. Certain civilians I know of certainly did possess and carried a concealed weapon, but these were folks like the Metropolitan Chief Commissioner. If I asked for a gun licence on the basis that "I wanted one so I could shoot tin cans off my garden wall" or "so I can shoot the burglar should one enter my home", the police would have shown me the door (after they'd finished laughing).

But if you're saying that it was indeed possible to own a handgun like a .44 magnum prior to 1997 AND have a valid permit, how do you explain the fact that so few people did, given the "enormous" level of British crime you've been telling me about coupled with the ubiquitous threat of burglary, and given that "more guns = less crime", as I have repeatedly been told on this board? Maybe it was actually much harder to obtain a firearm than you think it was? Maybe because no-one in Britain gives a crap about guns? Maybe because you're... wrong?

And given that (as Dowding puts it) British gun ownership both before and after the "ban" was sod all, was there really a market for handguns? How many retail outlets do you think there were, Your Omniscience?

UK Parliament: Principles of Firearms Control

The Blackwell Committee recommended "stringent regulation" of the private possession of rifles, and of "revolvers and pistols of every kind": "the number of persons who can urge any reasonable ground for possession of a revolver or pistol is extremely small [and] the danger attending the indiscriminate possession of such weapons is obvious."

 Again, no need to look further than what's happened in America to see that this statement is completely correct.

I'll let others be the judge of who knows English gun law history and who doesn't.

And I'll let others judge the public mood in Britain towards firearms, based on ownership levels and crime patterns. I've already asked in another thread who would like unrestricted gun sales. Guys from 16 non-US countries said they wouldn't.

quod erat demonstrandum.

Oh - something for when you get back from your wild ride -



Hope all is going well, and that the knife is good and sharp.

[lazs2]

vulcan... what are automatic weapons to you?  are you talking about semi autos and pumps or only full auto machine guns?   We do not have many full auto machine guns here but some... they are rarely if ever used in crime.

I think vulcan is on the right track... highly urbanized populations fear firearms and see them only as a source of crime... right or wrong.  rural people see them as a tool for all sorts of things and as recreatrion.    

Populations increase... urban areas more and more control the vote.... if a country wishes to keep its firearms right then they need strong constitutional guarentees.

As toad points out... the gun grabbers in NZ are just waiting for an incident like dunbane to ratchet up the gun banning....  They have allready got the population used to "reasonable" gun requirements and bans.  Not possible?   who would have thought the aussies would have riolled over like little girls over one hysterical moment?    What makes yu so special?   What guarentees your right?   I sincerely hope you get to keep your rights intact but really doubt it.

We do the same here (try to ban guns in an incremental way)but many, like the NRA have drawn a line in the sand and will fight every new restriction no matter how inoccuous sounding.  

Soon... people in idaho and Utah and such will be under the same gun restrictions as those in new york city or boston if we don't put up a fight.

england and beetle are proof of how it works in only a few generations.   The british have lost their rights and simply smile and warm their thumbs up with their anus while saying how much better off they are and how the government knows best...

That is all fine untill one of em looks over here and says  " i say old chaps... wouldn't it be better if you adopted a more civilized view on guns like us over here?"

Beetle and curval both shot and enjoyed guns while they were here.... guns that were way over the top so far as their countrymen would allow...  I kinda find this hypocritical on their part as it simply contributes (curval actually contributed money to the firearms industry I believe)  .... They had fun and yet they would deny it to thier own neigbors and... if they could... would ban the activity here. (for our own good).

lazs

[lazs2]

I will admit tho that most if not all the british posters here completely buy the government line that they can't be trusted with the means to defend themselves.

I know that at least 25% of the population of their country does not agree but will concede that they do not exist on this bb.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
your crime is going up... ours is going down.  

That would have been correct - if I'd said it, not you.

Did you manage to view the US population links I posted here?

[lazs2]

no, i did not but... I will believe you on the p[opulation thing... I had heard that we were over 300 million tho.

I am correct tho... our crime is going down.... yours is going up.   We may have a slight spike in homicides but all the other violent crime is going down.

lazs

[Toad]

Getting pretty busy, Beet, but I'll take a moment.

The disaster of World War I had bred the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Armies of the new Soviet state swept into Poland, and more and more workers of the world joined strikes called by radical labor leaders who predicted the overthrow of capitalism.

Many Communists and other radicals thought the World Revolution was at hand. All over the English-speaking world governments feared the end. The reaction was fierce. In the United States, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer launched the "Palmer raids." Aliens were deported without hearings, and United States citizens were searched and arrested without warrants and held without bail. While the United States was torn by strikes and race riots, Canada witnessed the government (p.412)massacre of peaceful demonstrators at the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.

In Britain, the government worried about what would happen when the war ended and the gun controls expired. A secret government committee on arms traffic warned of danger from two sources: the "savage or semi-civilized tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire" who might obtainsurplus war arms, and "the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapon is the bomb and the automatic pistol."[56]

At a Cabinet meeting on January 17, 1919, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff raised the threat of "Red Revolution and blood and war at home and abroad." He suggested that the government make sure of its arms. The next month, the Prime Minister was asking which parts of the army would remain loyal. The Cabinet discussed arming university men, stockbrokers, and trusted clerks to fight any revolution.[57]

The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, predicted "a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government." "It is not inconceivable," Geddes warned, "that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour." Using the Irish gun licensing system as a model, the Cabinet made plans to disarm enemies of the state and to prepare arms for distribution "to friends of the Government."[58]
 

There are the origins of your Firearms Act of 1920. The statements are footnoted, as you can see. Were you to do your research, you can find the original documents from which they were taken.

Beet:

If I asked for a gun licence on the basis that "I wanted one so I could shoot tin cans off my garden wall" or "so I can shoot the burglar should one enter my home", the police would have shown me the door (after they'd finished laughing). [/b]

Of course they would. You're a fully cooked frog, poor lad. Your police have INCREDIBLE powers to approve or deny that defy reason. They are, in effect, Lords of their own littel precincts with no appeal possible.

That certainly doesn't mean that target shooting or self-defense are not legitimate reason to own guns. As I've shown, your own Parliament considered self-defence a very adequate reason to own a handgun when they passed the Firearms Act of 1920. You folks have just allowed your rights to be slowly eroded... like the slowly cooked frog.

Now, as my last "hurrah" before heading to MD Anderson hospital this weekend, I'm going to the same, taking my pick from the dozen or so shotguns in my safe, (amongst the various rifles and pistols), loading up my English Lab and driving out to a shooting preserve where she and I will take some chukar for the table. We'll both enjoy it. We won't have to ask anyone's permission to do so. We won't have to go to some "club" to withdraw my firearm from storage. Were I to need shotgun shells, I could stop at the K-Mart two miles away and get some for a pittance. But I have lots right here.

I'm very happy with my system.

You're happy with yours.

These countrymen of yours, however... the sort of folks you apparently know absolutely nothing about yet still claim you know their attitudes towards your gun laws..... think your laws are pretty stupid. This isn't half of the folks that were there.

[lazs2]

toad... of course you are right... If you don't have your rights spelled out in very firm and concise language (what could be more firm than "the right of the peopel to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed")  well..

you let someone else decide what you can do...  The languge needs to be strong enoug that it is the governments burden to show good reason why you can't do something.

you don't want to leave free speech open to the whim of a local sherrif say.   Or, search and seizure.

You need to have rights guranteed else you have creeping incrementalism.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
no, i did not but... I will believe you on the p[opulation thing... I had heard that we were over 300 million tho.

Well you heard wrong, if the American Factfinder site is to be believed.

I am correct tho... our crime is going down.... yours is going up.   We may have a slight spike in homicides but all the other violent crime is going down.

That "slight spike" has been growing since 1999. And I have already produced a British Crime Survey chart showing that our crime is going down. I suppose it all depends on whether you're interested in the real figures, or made up ones...

If 25% of Britons would prefer to own a gun than not, and if as Mr. Toad insists (wrongly) that getting a gun permit was easy-peasy, and if "more guns = less crime", then why do you think so few people owned guns?

Mr Toad said "Of course they would. You're a fully cooked frog, poor lad. Your police have INCREDIBLE powers to approve or deny that defy reason. They are, in effect, Lords of their own littel precincts with no appeal possible." - I'm afraid you're wrong. Or else Lazs is wrong. Or maybe you're both wrong. But what do I know? I've only lived here for the past 50-odd years. I suppose that in no way qualifies me to hold my point of view.

Mr. Toad, I hope you didn't eat any breakfast this morning...

[lazs2]

beetle... at one point a lot of brits did own guns and it caused no problems.

lazs

[beet1e]

OK, I'll make it easier by asking for your opinion in, say, 1994 - before the "gun ban". Why so few privately owned guns in that year?