Election results. Dont be Gay in Texas or a gun owner in SF

[Charon]

Another good point is that this will give the "regestration is the first step in confiscation" guys a pretty good case study to point to. (not that any sensible person would dissagree)...

First thing that crossed my mind.

Charon

[StarOfAfrica2]

I like how 58% of the vote became an "overwhelming majority" of the voters.

[beet1e]

Hello Eden, and welcome to this board! This is just the latest in a long line of gun threads.

Just to bring you up to date, I have never said that the citizens of the US should be made to give up their guns. Never. And I challenge anyone to find a thread where I did. (We'll leave that to OneWordAnswer, aka Ripsnort)

I don't make the mistake of taking the UK thesis (see the Blackwell quote above) and trying to apply it to the US model. I leave that sort of mistake to guys like Lazs, who do the converse - taking the US thesis and trying to apply it to the UK model.

After all these threads, I'm aware of your gun rights, 2nd amendment and all that. So be it. Buy a gun, buy all the guns you want.

To understand the situation in Britain, you need to consider that Britain is a much older country than the US, and many of the battles/wars that naturally unfold when the territorial lines are being drawn took place at a time before guns were invented. For example, in Roman times, it was swords and pikes - no guns. Your country was settled in an entirely different way, and at a time when guns were already plentiful. There was a time when you had to have a gun to defend your property, and ownership was a right written into your constitution. Once that had been done, it was clearly going to be very difficult to tell the public "OK guys, the days of the wild west are over now. Hand in all your guns, please". So the gun ownership rights continue to exist to this day.

As for Freedom, I feel that gun ownership is only one of many parameters. I have in the past mentioned the troubled times in present day South Africa, where gun ownership is legal. Do the people of South Africa feel that the status quo offers them "freedom"? The fact of the matter is that thousands of South Africans give up their gun rights to emigrate to Britain - they are pouring in these days. How many people are going the other way? Not too many. So much for gun "freedom".

The interesting thing about the US is... WHY are your legislators trying to ban guns, as they once banned assault weapons? Why does Washington DC deny the right to defend your property with a gun? Could it be that there is concern that many people (including a small army on this board) don't feel safe to go out unless they're armed, and feel the need for fearsome looking weapons for "home defence"? Does that status quo represent Utopia? I think not.

As Lazs has now pointed out, the US homicide rate is huge compared with other, unarmed societies - more than 13,000 in 1992 alone, most of whom were killed with handguns. He is also fond of stating this somewhat misleading fact:

the death rate can't be proven to go up or down based on the amount of firearms... homicide rates stay constant... england is a good example... their homicide rate has allways been less than ours and... it never changed no matter what gun bans/laws were passed...

What guys like  Lazs just don't get is that our firearms laws were passed preemptively - that is to say that laws were passed BEFORE the situation got out of hand, as it has in the US. Prevention is better than cure, as the US is now finding out, about 90 years too late.

If you would refer to the text I quoted from the Blackwell report, you will see that in 1908-1912 there were 47 incidents in which 92 police officers were shot and 6 of them killed. This was before any real gun control existed. Now compare that with the present day, in which the UK population is much larger than it was in 1912, and with the added problems of drugs, ethnic unrest and more violent crime. Despite these unwelcome factors, only TWO police officers have been shot and killed since the beginning of 1984. And one of those was killed by a gun whose possession was legal by virtue of diplomatic immunity, and the other was killed by a former US Marine, a fugitive of Florida justice.

Two of Lazs's other favourite sources are Joyce Lee Malcolm, and John Lott - he'll be making quotes from them any minute now. I have read the JLM book, but found it to be biased. Other UK guys on this board have analysed it better than I have.

The facts are that because of the availabilty of guns, the US has a 5-figure annual homicide tally. In Britain, we've never had any calendar year in which the gun homicide tally has been more than a two digit value. Now the smartarses of this board will be quick to point out that our murderers use other methods - sharp instruments, for example. This is true, but it must be remmembered that alternative homicide instruments are much less versatile than guns. I never heard of a drive-by strangulation, or a drive-by pushing out of a window, or a drive-by poisoning - but I've heard of plenty of drive-by shootings. The fact that guns are so much more effective than other instruments of assassination is borne out by the fact that the world's militia and police forces favour guns as opposed to knives and swords.

Also, don't let your fellow countrymen con you into believing that the 1997 gun legislation passed in Britain was a gun "ban". As you can see from the text I've posted above, the gun situation was a source of great concern way back in 1918, and consideration was first given to it in 1911. The Blackwell report was followed by the Firearms Act, 1920. Even as long ago as 1903 the was the "Pistols Act". I've lived here most of my life, and I can never remember seeing gun shops that sold handguns. You had to have a police permit to own a gun of that sort, and for that you needed a damned good reason - a better reason than the fact that you simply wanted one, or because guns are "cool".

Well, that's enough for now. I like your handle! Reminds me of the plane I used to fly...

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I like how 58% of the vote became an "overwhelming majority" of the voters.

On which subject are you speaking of?

[StarOfAfrica2]

Beetle, homicide rates are going up worldwide.  It has nothing to do with having guns or not having them.  It has everything to do with growing pains.  The technology and information available to even the poorest people around the world, the changing job and social orders, the changing of basic family structures, are causing anxiety issues that are exacerbating exisiting issues of basic survival in uncertain times.  Add to that some people who are naturally a bit on the unstable side to start with, and you have more and more folks resorting to violence in response to problems they dont understand.  Human nature hasnt changed in thousands of years, and probably wont for thousands more.  We can agree to disagree on our different countries' approaches to dealing with the problem, but you have the same issue as many of our politicians and activists.  You focus on the tool, not the underlying cause.  You think that by removing the tool, you make the problem smaller, or more manageable.  You dont.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Wow, that didnt take long.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13124470.htm

The NRA has already filed suit against SF.  And it looks like they'll probably win.  I didnt realize the California state laws on this.  SF is in conflict with state law as well as the Constitution.  Even the nuts are conceding (except the city attorney) that the law will most likely be overturned.

Also, a look at what the SFPD has to say on it.

http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/october_05_article4.htm?id=24653

"... the POA does not support the proposed ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes."

[lazs2]

well... before beet gets too carried away on the paradise that is his little island...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

While it is true that the uk has a lower murder rate by at least 3 times (per capita)  

total crime victims are..

Uk... 26.4% of the population....    U.S.  21.1%... australia, NZ, netherlands, sweden, italy, canada, denmark and france all have higher rates than the U,S.

assualt is...

Uk... 2.8%   U.S.    1.2% of poulation

Burglaries is..

Uk.. 13.8 per/1000 population    U.S.  7.1% per 1000

Car theft is...

Uk.. 5.6 per 1000 population    U.S.  3.9 per 1000

property crime victims is...

Uk... 12.2% of population     U.S. 10%

Rape victims is...

Uk... 0.9% of population    U.S.   0.4% of population

Robbery victims is...

Uk... 1.2% of population....  U.S.   0.6% of population...

And.... while our homicde rate has been going down for decades even tho, or more likely because of, more people with concealed carry permits and just more gun owners in general in the U.S. and... a lower crime rate...

The Uk murder rate has stayed about constant no matter what gun laws are passed and... their crime rate rises.

I don't really care but in either place... if I am about to have someone attempt to victimize me.... I want to have a firearm.   I also want the bad guys to know that my government has not disarmed me.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You focus on the tool, not the underlying cause.  You think that by removing the tool, you make the problem smaller, or more manageable.  You dont.

We have.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Not by the facts you havent.  What you HAVE done is hijacked another thread.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Not by the facts you havent.  

Ahem - the FACTS are that the total number of gun homicides in the UK have never reached a triple digit value in any calendar year you care to mention. That compares with a 5-digit value (13000+ in 1992) for the US, every year.

[StarOfAfrica2]

I didnt say anything about gun homicides, I was talking about violent crime.  You still have a higher percentage of people being killed or wounded in violent crimes than we do per capita.  Your criminals just got more inventive (or primitive, as the situation warrants).  I hardly call that an improvement.  And you STILL have violent gun crime, even with a almost total ban on handgun ownership.  Sounds pleasant.  And of course you still want to focus on the smallest part of the issue, the tools used and not the motivations.  I think the popular term for what you do is called "smoke screen".  There's another term too, but I cant say it on the BBS.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You still have a higher percentage of people being killed or wounded in violent crimes than we do per capita.  

I doubt that. A homicide is a violent crime however it's committed. We have about 750 homicides a year. You have more than 10 times that, but your population is only about 4 times greater than ours. Can you explain what you meant, please.

And you STILL have violent gun crime, even with a almost total ban on handgun ownership.

This is true, but don't do a Ripsnort by saying that our gun laws "don't work" because they're only 98% effective instead of 100%. NO law is 100% effective, either here or in the US.

And remember, a huge proportion of "gun" crime in Britain is committed with replica/imitation weapons. I think Nashwan said it was about 48%. It still counts as gun crime. The 5 year penalty still applies. So ask yourself - why would a criminal use a replica when the penalty is the same as if the real thing had been carried? Answer: criminals still find it difficult (but not impossible) to obtain real guns. There are no gun shops to break into selling handguns, and there are none to steal from houses.

There ARE still homicides, this is true. But more than 90% of these are committed by much less efficient methods. There would be many more if handguns were freely available and legal.

But you're right, and the situation has gone downhill in the Tony Blair years. We have a smoke and mirrors government, which likes to massage figures and change definitions to make it look as if their actions have worked.

Is it OK with you if we keep this thread civil? We have a new member on board, and I'm sure HTC would appreciate it.

[Jackal1]

The right to own and use a gun for defense in certain circumstances has helped a lot in some problem areas.
  Take for instance, it used to be that a female was at the mercy of the male. In some cases women were beat and abused, tortured, etc, etc.
  Now we are seeing that women are using the Samuel Colt theory and evening up the odds when things reach a certain point of abuse and beating.
  That would probably be a big concern for some.

[eskimo2]

Eden, I do not support the gun ban and am not trying to prove it right.  I do want to clarify how I interpret their thinking however.

I don’t think that all pro ban folks see guns as evil; they just think that banning guns will prevent murders.
 
Banners think that banning guns will reduce gun crimes.  To a certain point, they may be right.  Many criminals are very lazy and don’t think things through.  We’ve all read lot’s of stories about stupid criminals who fail to make the simplest basic plans.  Many of these criminals would be less effective if they didn’t have such easy access to guns.  

The pro ban folks have blinders on however, because that’s all that they can see.  Clearly any criminal who plans at all will still be able to easily get a gun.  Pro ban folks also fail to recognize that many crimes are prevented or stopped cold by law abiding gun owners defending themselves with their guns.  If I were an armed burglar or robber in Britain I would feel pretty safe about not getting shot by an armed homeowner.  In the US, however, you never know who you are up against or how heavily they are armed.  Who knows how many crimes are prevented simply because many would be criminals are wise enough to realize that they could die in a robbery attempt?  

The real question should be: In modern America: for every crime (or murder) that is prevented by a gun ban, how many crimes (or murders) will be caused by a lack of unarmed defensive citizens?  Has their ever been a good unbiased study that answers this question?  

The NRA would have us believe its 1:5; the pro ban folks would have us believe its 5:1.

eskimo

[Nashwan]

I didnt say anything about gun homicides, I was talking about violent crime. You still have a higher percentage of people being killed or wounded in violent crimes than we do per capita.

No.

The rate of murder and manslaughter (ie being killed in a violent assault) is much higher in the US, 5.5 per 100,000 compared to 1.7 per 100,000 (and the rate for England and Wales of 1.7 per 100,000 includes negligent manslaughter, the US rate doesn't)

The police in England and Wales break violence down into more serious and less serious. More serious includes "homicide, threats or conspiracy to murder, serious wounding and other acts endangering life."

The FBI records "aggravated assault", which they define as: "an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

More serious wounding England and Wales: 88 per 100,000
Aggravated assault, US: 291 per 100,000

Laz's figures are, well, suspect.

total crime victims are..

Uk... 26.4% of the population.... U.S. 21.1%... australia, NZ, netherlands, sweden, italy, canada, denmark and france all have higher rates than the U,S.

So the rest of the world is more violent, but the US has far more murders?

assualt is...

Uk... 2.8% U.S. 1.2% of poulation

Hmm. Odd figures.

The US DOJ crime survey says 8% of Americans were victims of violent assault last year. The British Crime Survey says 4.7% of people in England and Wales were.

The police in England and Wales recorded just over 1 million violent assaults, which works out to about 2% of the population, but that includes all assault, even those with no injury. The FBI records only more serious aggravated assault.

Burglaries is..

Uk.. 13.8 per/1000 population U.S. 7.1% per 1000

Those are quite close for police recorded burglaries.

The UK rate last year was 11 per 1,000 (it's falling fast, so those could be accurate figures for 2003 or 2002), the FBI recorded rate was 7.3 per 1,000.

However, a far higher proportion of burglaries in the US are domestic, with a rate of 4.7 per 1000. In the UK most burglaries are commercial, and the domestic burglary rate is much closer to the US rate, at 6.2%

(burglary is falling fast in the UK, down 20% last year alone)

Car theft is...

Uk.. 5.6 per 1000 population U.S. 3.9 per 1000

The England Wales and Scotland figure for 2003 is 4.9 per 100,000, the US figure for 2003 was 4.4. (both countries are falling, the US saw a drop of 2.9% last year, the UK a drop of just over 10% 2002 - 2003)

property crime victims is...

Uk... 12.2% of population U.S. 10%

Police recorded crime is of no use here, as the FBI only record a small percentage of property crimes.

The US DOJ figures say 16% of Americans were victims of property crime last year. The British Crime Survey gives the same rate, 16%.

Rape victims is...

Uk... 0.9% of population U.S. 0.4% of population

Yet another odd figure.

The police recorded figures:
US 29.5 per 100,000
England and Wales: 23.2 per 100,000

Robbery victims is...

Uk... 1.2% of population.... U.S. 0.6% of population...

Police recorded figures:
US: 136.7 per 100,000
England and Wales: 167.3 per 100,000

And.... while our homicde rate has been going down for decades

It's actually been going down for one year, having fallen in 2004, but risen in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Prior to that, it rose sharply up to 1990, fell in 1991, rose in 1992, then fell sharply from 1993 - 2000. Since 2000 it rose, then fell last year, and is at the same rate as 2000.

The Uk murder rate has stayed about constant no matter what gun laws are passed and... their crime rate rises

No, the UK also saw a rise in murder rate throughout the 20th century, the same as the US. Our rise was much smaller, though, and over the century it went up by about 1.7 times. The US started the century with a similar homicide rate, but increased it tenfold, and now stands about 5.5 times higher than it was at the begining of the 20th Century.