Tomato,
I try pretty hard not to unintentionally insult people through a poor choice of words. Open-minded is an "intelligence neutral" comment don't you think?
But yes, I think any open-minded person would agree that inanimate objects
cause nothing. An inanimate object has no will, no volition, no desire, no intent.
Does a bottle of whiskey sitting on a table "cause" a drunk driver to hit and kill someone?
Does a lock pick "cause" a burglar to break and enter?
Obviously not. For any of these things to happen, there has to be a human involved. Said human must make a decision, must take action, must use the inanimate object in an inappropriate way. One cannot "blame" the object for the deed of the human.
Accountability. Responsibility. Two issues that always seemed to be overlooked when dealing with crime. It's not the bad man... it's the bad object.
Seems pretty obvious that this simply cannot be the case, doesn't it? And indeed, action against criminals has been far more successful in reducing crime than action against inanimate objects.
Gun ownership is not "responsible" for any homicide, nor is it a "cause" of any homicide.
IE: I've owned handguns and other guns for over 37 years now. Numerous guns, in fact. In all those 37 years, those guns have not "caused" me to commit any homicide, nor have they been "responsible" for anyone else using them in a homicide. Those guns have never been involved in any homicide at all.
Now, why is this so? Did the guns themselves have anything to do with that situation? No, of course they didn't. They haven't been involved in any homicides because no person ever used them in that manner. The human, not the inanimate object.
At worst, like a bottle of whiskey, a gun can only be mis-used by a PERSON. Accountability. Responsibility. Of the Person.. not the object.
Originally posted by tomato
How do you figure that E&W is ahead of the US for other violent crime categories?
By referencing the International Crime Victimisation Survey. Here's a quick summation. Please note that Australia, another "gun ban" paradise is another "leader" in this regard.
England and Wales top crime league England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
Again, I recommend reading the entire article, but the gist of it is in the opening that I have clipped.
You can also find the actual 2000 International Cime Victimisation Survey on the web.
Contrary to your assertion, gun bans have had a remarkable effect in Australia
[/b]
Don't believe me? Well, ask the Aussies then.
Australian Institute of Criminology Rates of victimisation from 1 July 1989 - 30 June 1998 have remained quite stable, fluctuating between 1.7 and 2.0 per 100 000 population, with 1996/97 and 1997/98 recording the lowest victimisation rate of 1.7 per 100 000 population
No real change over all the years before and after the ban. Quite stable, in fact.
.....and from a "pro-ban site"
Gun lobby lies In 1995-96 the proportion of homicides committed with a firearm was 21 per cent, a figure much lower than that which prevailed twenty years ago (the proportion then was around 40 per cent). The proportion has continued at that rate ever since. Thus, the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides;
Seems the Australians don't agree with you.
Bearing in mind that the FBI couldn't confiscate people's guns, it had to get creative - hence Project Exile's methods. Note, though, that its objective was to "remove armed criminals from Richmond streets" - not simply remove criminals from Richmond streets. Reducing gun-ownership would undoubtedly reduce homicides further. 
Well, it wasn't the FBI. It was a cooperative DOJ program with local authorities.
Confiscation was indeed out because of that pesky Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Indeed, the idea was to remove armed criminals. They were trying to reduce the number of homicides. Who do you think commits the firearms/weapons homicides? The "bad check writing" criminals?
It seems easy to say that "Reducing gun-ownership would undoubtedly reduce homicides further" but again, the proof of that statement simply can't be found. Not in E/W/S or in Australia, countries which have tried it.
In contrast, during that same period, homicide rates decreased significantly in the US without any registration/licensing/ban/confiscation actions by the government.
So far, the ONLY thing that has significantly lowered homicide rates is..... you guessed it....... focusing on the criminals themselves.
And if you're thinking about the "even one life" rebuttal, I'll have to ask again why E/W/S isn't banning "sharp instruments" to save even 3X as many "one lifes".
It's simply because inanimate objects aren't the problem. The problem, like it always has been since Cain whacked Able with a rock, is man's inhumanity to man.
