So, where's the concern over knives, which are a much larger problem than firearms in the UK?
There is a lot of concern, which is why they have banned the carrying of knives. Not even the politicians are stupid enough to think they can ban knives, however.
Nah, I'm going to use both. I enjoy both and there's no reason not to use both. Inanimate objects never caused any homicide all by themselves.
They're used for a lot of homicides, though.
Much easier to kill with inanimate objects than bare hands. That's why armies tend to give soldiers guns, not just tell them to go and kick and strangle the enemy.
Could man have invented firearms before he became modern man? You're putting this kind of stuff up as "evidence"?
No, I'm putting this up as showing how neccessary knives are. Ancient man didn't put much effort in to building, or making furniture, or clothes, or anything else. They did apply themselves to using knives, then learning how to make better ones.
No, not a necessity. As laz pointed out, prisoners and airline travelers get along quite well without them.
With food already prepared to be eaten without them. Try carving your turkey or a joint of beef with a 2 inch plastic knife. Try cutting a loaf of bread with a knife less than 6 inches long.
More to the point, guns are not a necessity TO YOU so you feel free to propose bans.
They aren't a neccesity to the vast majority of the world's population. You might like one, and you might use one, but you could live perfectly well without one. Trust me, 90%+ of the world's population does.
What's your position on liquor? 17,000+ alcohol related motor vehicle deaths in the US...... do we "need" liquor?
Yes, quite probably. It helps reduce the risk of many diseases, and greatly helps relieve stress for a lot of people. Used in moderation, it's very effective.
According to the US transport department, of those accidents, about 3000 of the killed weren't themselves drunk. That means the rest were victims of accidents of their own making.
3000 dead from alcohol, 8000 from firearms. I'd say firearms are used less than alcohol.
Tell you what...... you give up guns and use knives for a year and feel good about yourself. I'll use both and feel good about myself. Oh.. I bet that's "not acceptable".
You do what you want. I thought you wouldn't be able to go a year without using a knife.
I don't have a problem with you having guns. Believe it or not, I haven't started, or joined, a campaign against firearms ownership. I haven't written to politicians demanding they be banned, or the media. All I am doing is discussing wehter lives would be saved if they were.
How many is acceptable for your use of a knife?
Any number. Knives can't be banned for any practical purpose. If they could, I'm sure some countries would have by now.
Then why bother with a ban? That's wasting resources isn't it? You didn't get any result.... except a "feelgood" move for politicians. Seems kinda stupid, doesn't it?
It was stupid. Britain had perfectly good firearms laws before. The one thing you can rely on politicians for is to do something stupid to get votes.
Now, looking honestly at the statistics, which approach has been more effective? The US or the UK?
The US has put serious effort in to tackling crime. Britain has had some empty gestures, coupled with an effective reduction in real policing.
Like I said, you can't compare a gun ban in a country that didn't have a gun problem with gun control in a country that does.
So the solution is to remove any chance of the victim being able to defend himself at all?
No, the solution is to remove the weapons from everybody, so that if you are attacked, it isn't by guns. It's by fists, or at worst knives, both of which give you far more chance of escaping.
And what are those rates? Do they correlate with the overall rates per 100,000? Or are you just comparing "gross score" again?
I don't compare gross score, because it's meaningless.
US policemen are murdered at a rate of about 50 per year. You can't simply multiply Britains figures for a single year, because most years no British policemen are murdered.
Instead, assume there are 10 times as many US policemen as police in England and Wales. As the population is almost 6 times higher, that seems a good rough approximation.
Therefore, take 10 years of England and Wales figures, and compare them to 1 year's US figures.
In the last 10 years in the UK, the figure is 8. That makes US policemen 6 - 7 times as likely to be murdered, per head.
We're comparing firearm homicide rates. How many people were killed with a banana posing as a gun in E/W/S?
No, I was responding to your claim that "just as many guns were pulled".
Possibly. It may simply show that it is an unworkable idea in the Canadian (and by extension) US situation where firearms are far more numerous and far more a part of everyday life than they are/were in E/W/S.
It would be a fairly simple procedure to register new gun sales, and to make sure the owners didn't transfer the guns without the registration being transfered. Like already happens with cars.
Last stats by your Home Office in Beetle's old link show 1999 England/Wales at 1.45 and Canada at 1.85 with Scotland at 2.10. Tell me, why do they separate Scotland from the E/W rates?
Because Scotland has a different legal system, seperate courts, etc. The police in Scotland are responsible to a seperate authority.
Certainly doesn't look like much difference to me... certainly not "4-5 time the UK rate". Not skewing the stats are ya?
What you said was "Couple that to the fact that realistically Canada doesn't even HAVE a firearm problem. Their rate per 100,000 is lower than yours, which seems to get held up as the "holy grail"." I took that to mean their firearm homicide rate.
However, total homicide rate:
Canada 1.78 per 100,000
England and Wales, 733 in 2000, 52,042,000 people. 1.40 per 100,000 people.
However, 25 of those were re classified victims of previous years, murdered by dr Harold Shipman. Without those, the figure drops to 1.36 (the Sept 11th victims are not counted in the US figures)
Scotland had 98 murders in 2000, for an England and Wales and Scotland total of 831. Population of Scotland just over 5,000,000, for a total rate of 1.45.
Sure we can agree. Now let's see your solution to keeping the guns out of the hands of the thugs? Because the bans haven't.
British gun control did. The number of crimes comitted with real firearms is tiny. Obviously some criminals will still get guns, but very few. They also tend to be a more proffesional class of criminal. They might use them in an armed robbery on a major bank, but you don't get many crack-heads holding up convienience stores or street robberies.
In other words, the desperate with nothing to lose don't get guns.
If a typical British junkie got a gun, he'd sell it. He can get some money, then hold up the shop with a banana in his bag. He doesn't have to worry about a shoot-out with the police, or with the shop owner. If things go bad, he just runs.
Australia: Homicide rate per 100,000 from the AIC
1989-90 / 1.9
1990-91 / 2.0
1991-92 / 1.9
1992-93 / 2.0
1993-94 / 1.9
1994-95 / 1.9
1995-96 / 2.0
1996-97 / 1.7
1997-98 / 1.7
1998-99 / 1.8
1999-00 / 1.8
And this note from the chart:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also the substancial increase in homicide victimisation in Tasmania for the year 1995/96. This is due to the Port Arthur incident where 35 persons were killed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, '95-96 had an unusual, abnormal spike due to Port Arthur. A spike "pre-ban" if you will that artificially raised the trend rate.
Now look at "post-ban" years; give '96-'97 a pass, since the laws were not fully implemented then.
Clearly, the homicide rate per 100,000 has NOT been affected by the gun ban.
Really? 1.9,2.0,1.9,2.0,1.9,1.9,2.0,gun control 1.7,1.7,1.8,1.8
The four years since have each been lower than any year before the gun control.
Take out the Port Arthur killings and 95/96 was 86 killings, the same as 89, the same 1.9/2.0 trend.
A point you and Beetle simply choose to ignore. THE BAN HAD NO NOTICEABLE EFFECT on homicide rate per 100,000, the "apples to apples" comparison that even the HOME OFFICE itself uses.
No, it's quite clearly 0.2 per 100,000 people lower. In Australia, with a population of 19,500,000, that's about 40 murders per year prevented.
Now, are Scotland and Northern Ireland under the same firearms laws as England and Wales? I admit I'm not fully versed in your jurisdictions.
If so, can one of you folks determine the actual overall homicide rate per 100,000 for all four entities? So we can compare apples to apples?
Northern Ireland has far more legaly held guns than the rest of the UK, with lots of people having them for protection. I've already given you the England and Wales and Scotland figures, but Northern Ireland has a tiny population, about 1.5 million out of the total UK figure of around 60 million, so it won't change the figures much.
Again, look at Canada. From all reports as many guns floating around per capita as the US. How can it be just the guns?
From what I've heard, handguns needed licences in Canada, and handgun ownership was fairly low. In fact, much like the laws in Britain prior to the late ninties ban.
