11 old boy kills robber with a .45

[batdog]

Midnight.... the 2nd amendment is an 'insurance" policy for those governed. Goverments though out history HAVE changed thier nature. They raise and fall.... often certain groups are targeted for whatever reason.  If the population is armed then at least there is some chance for some sort of resistence to this.

This is certainly something that isnt going to happen for a LONG time but then again... the Jewish people didnt see it coming in the 20's ethier.


Why POSSIABLY sellout future generations for feel good, do nothing politics. The problem isnt guns... its economics. People dont just kill each other because the have a gun... there IS some motivation and its uselly tied to money in some form or manner.
We live in a material society... it drives us. Those who for whatever reason fail in the mainstream often go to OTHER avenues to obtain this.

Its not rocket science.

xBAT

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Gun ownership levels in the UK in the nineties weren't high enough for banning to have any significant impact on firearm crime.

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that banning them has had a significant effect...  firearm crime has risen something like 40% hasn't it? I'd call that a "significant impact".. just not in the direction you had hoped, eh?

The handgun ban was simply a knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane.

[/b]

Yes, most poorly thought out things like that are knee jerk reactions.  

Legaly bought guns weren't a significant problem in the UK, because unlike the US, they were registered. You couldn't sell a gun without transfering ownership to another licenced owner, so there was always a track on where a particular gun went.

[/b]

Ah, so you agree that the folks that actually FOLLOW the laws aren't the problem, correct? The law-abiding citizens are NOT the problem?

So why did you punish ALL of them for what some nutcase or criminal did?

The rise in crime in the UK (and yes, the rises are worst in London) has more to do with the lower numbers of police, the constraints placed on the police, and the very poor clear-up rate for crime.

[/b]

That's always possible. But what did banning the handguns of law-abiding citizens have to do with that?  Can you make the case that the situation would be worse without the gun confiscation? You've previously stated that gun crime was never a significant problem before... are you saying there has never been a shortage of police before?

Even then, then murder rate in London is a third that of New York, and abouth one fifteenth that of Washington DC.

Probably so, but the trend is interesting, isn't it?

Nonetheless, the International Crime Victims Survey, released by the Dutch Ministry of Justice in February, 2001 found the three countries with the most draconian handgun bans recently enacted — the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada — to be among the top five countries in the world with the most frequent incidents of criminal violence (the U.S. ranked ninth).

Beyond that, violent crime showed a declining trend in America, but the trend was found to be increasing in the U.K. and Australia.

Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm? Maybe we don't need 25 years to figure out the ending to this show.  


Bottom line.. it ISN"T the law-abiding citizens.. it NEVER WAS... and it NEVER WILL BE.

The anti's just can't grasp the concept.

They're still locked into "Punish all for the crimes of the minority."

Doesn't work.. never has, never will. Britain and Australia will now demonstrate.  

[StSanta]

Give me a gun, and I'll give you the world.

Wait a second: other way around

[N1kPaz]

Do more people die in automobile accidents than gun deaths in USA?

Do more people die from obecity related illnesses than gun deaths?

if so...why not crusade for those causes. They would stand to improve more peoples lives than taking away my right to bare my arms.

I dont know much about the subject which is why I ask? thanks.

[StSanta]

Heh just saw on 60 Minutes that one in four American children are obese.

Not fat, or chubby. Obese. As in 'excessively fat'.

Not that bad here. Yet. We're importing US food culture, so give it a few years.

That's scary. Imagine having a 7 year old that is *obese*.

Isn't that an indicator of bad parenting?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by batdog
Midnight.... the 2nd amendment is an 'insurance" policy for those governed. Goverments though out history HAVE changed thier nature. They raise and fall.... often certain groups are targeted for whatever reason.  If the population is armed then at least there is some chance for some sort of resistence to this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ----- sounds a lot more like an insurance policy to maintain a "Free State", not as protection for oppressed minorities.  

This is certainly something that isnt going to happen for a LONG time but then again... the Jewish people didnt see it coming in the 20's ethier.

Why POSSIABLY sellout future generations for feel good, do nothing politics. The problem isnt guns... its economics. People dont just kill each other because the have a gun... there IS some motivation and its uselly tied to money in some form or manner.
We live in a material society... it drives us. Those who for whatever reason fail in the mainstream often go to OTHER avenues to obtain this.

Its not rocket science.

LOL, it sure isn't, and you are absolutely correct. Crime is an issue of economics, not guns. Where you are dead wrong is in your argument that the right to bear arms is necessary to retain our 1st amendment rights. We are a nation of laws, and when we need to rise up against our government to the extent you are envisioning, those laws will have to have been set aside by that government. We need to look for a way out of that eventuality instead of a deterent to it. I prefer to believe there is a more civilized way to live than that. I may not see it in my lifetime, but that doesn't preclude the need to try.........and BTW I own a gun too. S&W .38

[Elfenwolf]

Originally posted by N1kPaz
Do more people die in automobile accidents than gun deaths in USA?

Do more people die from obecity related illnesses than gun deaths?

if so...why not crusade for those causes. They would stand to improve more peoples lives than taking away my right to bare my arms.

I dont know much about the subject which is why I ask? thanks.

Hey Zap, The only way the Government will get my pork chops and gravy is when they pry my cold, dead fingers from the plate.
Elfenwolf

[Animal]

Santa there are even summer camps for obese children in the stats. They teach them how to eat healthy and do exercise. I bet its like a concentration camp for those poor fat tards.
When they get home, Granma takes 'em to Burger King and they eat 2 Whoopers with large french fries and Cinamon Rolls to celebrate.

[Nashwan]

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that banning them has had a significant effect... firearm crime has risen something like 40% hasn't it? I'd call that a "significant impact".. just not in the direction you had hoped, eh?

There has also been a ban on tobacco advertising, which is obviously also to blame. Or perhaps it's the handover of Hong Kong, or maybe the introduction of Channel 5.

Just because two events happen at roughly the same time doesn't mean they are related.

Criminals never sourced their guns from the legal market in Britain, because the guns were registered.

Criminals were never afraid of getting shot by someone they were robbing, because gun ownership was so low, particulary in big cities like London.

What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have increased crime?

Ah, so you agree that the folks that actually FOLLOW the laws aren't the problem, correct? The law-abiding citizens are NOT the problem?

So why did you punish ALL of them for what some nutcase or criminal did?

I have this terrible problem with mental blackouts and halucinations. I have memories of being a computer engineer for most of the nineties, and hae completely blanke out my time as prime minister.

I agree with you, as I said it was a stupid knee-jerk reaction, an the politicians, who are allways looking for something else to control anyway, were egged on by the media.

Law abiding citizens in the UK were never a problem with guns, because you had to have a licence to get a gun, somewhere safe to store it, and couldn't dispose of it without transfering it to another licenced owner, deactivitaing it, or handing it in to the police for disposal.

In America, where there is no registration, a criminal merely has to ask a friend who has no prior convictions, and he can buy the gun. There are no safeguards as to where the gun ends up. As a result, it is very easy for a criminal in the US to get a gun.

That's always possible. But what did banning the handguns of law-abiding citizens have to do with that? Can you make the case that the situation would be worse without the gun confiscation? You've previously stated that gun crime was never a significant problem before... are you saying there has never been a shortage of police before?

No, banning handguns in the UK had no significant effect on crime one way or the other.

The numbers of police on active service in the UK has fallen in the last 5 years, with London seeing a drop of around 10% on duty at any one time.

Guns are simply an efficient tool for killing. By themselves, and used reponsibly, they are not dangerous.
However, the more freely avaiable they are the more criminals will aquire and use them.

After all, cars are licenced in America. You need a licence to use one, and you need to register your car, and register transfers of ownership.

[Toad]

Nashwan: Just because two events happen at roughly the same time doesn't mean they are related.

No, it doesn't. However, that possibility certainly and undeniably exists. And, given the nature of this "coincidence" it seems to me that it's much more likely to be linked than unrelated.

Criminals never sourced their guns from the legal market in Britain, because the guns were registered.

Totally agree. Same situation here in the states (although we don't register most weapons, we do have pre-purchase "checks" to accomplish).... criminals do NOT buy their firearms legally. They break the laws just as criminals do in Britain.

Therefore, what would be the point of punishing those who have broken no laws and use their guns responsibly?

Criminals were never afraid of getting shot by someone they were robbing, because gun ownership was so low, particulary in big cities like London.

Well, after Tony Martin they probably wouldn't have any fear at all, would they?
 

What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have increased crime?

More to the point, What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have decreased crime? Because what's happened instead is a 40% increase in violent crime. So, obviously the ban didn't decrease violent crime. Just one more indicator that the law abiding folks NEVER WERE THE PROBLEM... a point the "antis" never "get".

And, like it or not, there's a similar situation in Australia, which followed pretty much the same course as Britain.

And, it seems there's a similar situation now in Canada, which is following a similar course.

One? Perhaps unrelated. Two? Hmm.. maybe there's something here. Three? Well... coincidence is looking pretty unlikely.

There are no safeguards as to where the gun ends up. As a result, it is very easy for a criminal in the US to get a gun.

Nor, despite all the British "safeguards" and eventual confiscation, is it very difficult for a criminal in the UK to get a gun. I'm sure you agree.

So there you go. Ban or no ban, criminals will STILL get what they desire to have. After all, smuggling all sorts of forbidden contraband is a basic criminal activity, isn't it?

Pretty stupid to expect to disarm criminals by disarming the law-abiding part of the population. Truck, plane and boat loads of dope illegally enter the US all the time. Seems those who deal in illegal substances also have ready access to firearms. Are we going to postulate that it would be impossible to toss in a box of AK-47's with the next truck load of bales in EITHER the US or Britain?  Nah, nobody would be foolish enough to make that statement.

Bottom line we are left with is that disarming the "normal" folks has basically no effect whatsoever on the criminal element.

No, banning handguns in the UK had no significant effect on crime one way or the other.

As I said, given the Australian and Canadian similarities I'd say the jury is still out on that statement.

Old friend of mine once said "If ONE guy calls you a horse's *ss, laugh it off. If a SECOND guy calls you a horse's *ss, stop and think for a minute. If a THIRD guy call's you a horse's *ss, start shopping for a saddle."

Britain, Australia & Canada. Violent crime UP in all three.. down in the US.  
 

However, the more freely avaiable they are the more criminals will aquire and use them.

They are "freely available" to the criminal element in any country you wish to choose.  

After all, cars are licenced in America. You need a licence to use one, and you need to register your car, and register transfers of ownership.

And so?

This hasn't stopped the carnage on our highways.

[Elfenwolf]

Toad, every time I see a Chevy 4x4 pickup complete with rebel flag license plate, rear window pissing-kid decal (you know, the one that says "I piss on Spitfires" , driven aggressively by a drunk amazinhunk spurred on at the urging of his two equally-drunk buddies and bolstered by the presence of his 30-30 lever action in the gunrack, I think the question goes way beyond gun control, alcohol control or even car control- We need to focus on genetic control.
Elfenwolf

[batdog]

Midnight

Yea...LETS HOPE it never comes to that. History tends to repeat itself though. Its a LAST resort for sure but then again history is FULL of those situations is it not?

xBAT

[Nashwan]

More to the point, What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have decreased crime? Because what's happened instead is a 40% increase in violent crime.

None. I'm not defending the handgun ban in Britain, which I think had no effect on gun crime, one way or the other.

That's why I asked for the mechanism that banning handguns could have caused the increase in crime, as you are alledging.

I have given some reasons why violent crime has gone up, namely the police numbers being reduced, the police having to be more "aware" of race issues, reduction in the clear up rate of crime etc.

What is it about banning handguns that you feel has caused crime to go up?

Totally agree. Same situation here in the states (although we don't register most weapons, we do have pre-purchase "checks" to accomplish).... criminals do NOT buy their firearms legally. They break the laws just as criminals do in Britain.

I don't agree.
If I wanted to buy a gun, I would have to find a specialist black market dealer who operates out of some pub I wouldn't go in even if escorted by an entire gang of football hooligans.

If I lived in America, all I would have to do is ask a friend who hasn't been caught yet to buy the gun for me.

Or I could go to a gun fair, where somebody who bought the gun earlier in the week can sell it to me for a nice markup, because he knows I would fail the background checks at a regular gun shop.

However, forget all that.

Where did you get the figure of violent crime rising 40%? Over what period?

I've just been searching the web for figures, and I've found the British Crime Survey, which is used by the government to estimate crime trends.

It shows that the number of offences reported  in most categories, including violent crime, has risen, (although it's fallen in things like theft from vehicles and burgulary) , but that the actual rate of violent crime has fallen by 36% between 1995 and 2000.

I also found a usefull little table, which shows the number of offences in which firearms were used to cause injury, by type of firearm.

Handguns started from a low of 160 in 89, rose sharply to 393 by 93, declined to 279 in 96, went up to 317 in 98, down to 239 in 99, and up to 352 in 2000.

Of the 3100 odd firearms crimes in which injury was caused, 2000 were by air gun, 350 by handgun, 100 by shotgun, 750 by other weapons.

Note, however, that the police define injury as "by the weapon being fired, used as a blunt instrument, or in a threat", so if someone suffers shock after having the gun pointed at them, that is a firearm injury.

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-7.htm

The number of fatal injuries by handguns in the UK in 2000 was 42, shotguns 19, air guns 0, other firearm 1.

Serious injury was 53 for shotguns, 95 for handguns, 171 for air guns, 52 for other firearms.
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-8.htm

In total, handguns were fired on 315 occasions, rifles 934 occasions, shotguns 164, air guns 9,600
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-6.htm

Rate of firearm use in crimes 1989 - 2000
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-3.htm
The handgun ban came in in 97, that year there was a drop of around 700 in the numbers of handguns used in crimes.
The figure remained at roungly that level until 2000, when it went up by nearly a thousand.

This one's particulary interesting for people who believe there has been an explosion in gun crime in the UK
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/img/tab3-2.gif

Firearms used in robberies, 10.2% in 89, down to 4.7% in 2000

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-1.htm
This one shows the numbers going up, meaning the levels of each crime going down

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3d.htm
Shows the number of people killed by offence type, and wether the gun was legally owned.

Guns (all types) were used for 417 murders in the 6 years between 92 and 98. 45 were legally owned.

118 people were killed in that period involved in organised crime

96 in domestic incidents

52 during robberies or crimes of gain

71 in arguments or revenge

80 in other incidents

Number of policemen killed with firearms in 1989 - 2000
5, 1 each in 1989, 90, 92, 93 and 95
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3c.htm

All these and more only at http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-03.htm#1

Anyone got similar figures for the US

[Toad]

What is it about banning handguns that you feel has caused crime to go up?

The fact that Britain, Australia and Canada ALL experienced somewhat sharp increases in violent crime AFTER they either confiscated or heavily restricted firearms.

Seems way more than coincidental to me.

You discount the idea that these restrictions may have emboldened criminals.... but I do not.






My numbers?

I was looking at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College August 2001 report. Should be able to find it on the web.

Also the Feb 2001 Dutch Ministry of Justice 2000 International Crime Victims Survey.

Those were where I saw the numbers I used.

There is a "standardized" crime report format used I think by most countries.

For US numbers, look here:

Bureau of Justice Statistics

From that site:

"Justice statistics from the United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is the principal source of comparative crime and justice statistics. The UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) promotes research and collaboration, studies new and emerging forms of crime, and produces documents to assist in the global fight against crime and drug abuse.

Within the ODCCP, the Centre for International Crime Prevention (CICP) maintains the Internet-based United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network (UNCJIN ), which includes crime statistics and publications. This site provides an extensive list of links to the United Nations agencies and other research organizations and universities in Portable Document Format (992 KB).

The Center also supports the work of intergovernmental bodies which set out an international strategy and measures to prevent crime and promote stable criminal justice systems. United Nations documents relating to these intergovernmental commissions and congresses are available online."


UN Statistics and Research Sources

D/l'd a chart off the Home Office site that

 (using financial year: 6  The collection of recorded crime data in England and Wales changed to a financial year basis from 1 April 1998, which coincided with a change in the counting rules for recorded crime. Due to this, the data shown for 1998-99 and 1999-00 are not comparable.)                                    
showed:

"Offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used:


United Kingdom (Great Britain only)

1997 = 14,424

1998-99 = 15,784
         
1999-00 = 18,719"

Looks like it jumped after confiscation, doesn't it? Same trend in Australia. Similar in Canada after their new restricitions. Yes, I think it is related.

[Nashwan]

Toad, I'd like to know the mechanism that could account for it.

I am also intrigued how a handgun ban can have so much effect on the other types of hun crime, for example the largest increase were in air guns, which are defined as firearms if used in a crime in the UK.