Longest Signature Block Competition!

[lazs2]

yep trotsky... banning things for everyone in order to keep them out of the hands of a few criminal is pointless.... better that you allow citizens to be armed and increase the penalties for commiting crimes with firearms... you then have the best of both worlds... The prevention of crime that firearms cause in the U.S. combine with the fact that the law abiding will be better armed than the crooks.   If you simply ban the means for the law abiding to protect themselves you end up with this....

"Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian

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.

The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.

The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.

The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.

People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.

The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.

Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault "

the result of the backward thinking of the home office is the brutalizing of its helpless citizens... helpless to defend themselves against the strong and the vicious... a trajic example of "form over substance"... "let them eat cake" The lawless run england... In America... 3,000,000 such crimes are prevented by firearms each year... citizens have freedom and dignity one good thing about englands crime rate.... they have, obviously by necessity, learned to care for the traumatized, humiliated and injured victims...guess that's something

[NUKE]

Originally posted by -tronski-
What have you lost if you are a criminal and have a large bag of heroin?

Nothing both ways, till your caught with it, and then you don't get to use your blockbuster card for ten years.

 Tronsky

So heroin was legal there, then banned?

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by NUKE
So heroin was legal there, then banned?

hmmm....who were you calling a moron again?

 Tronsky

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad!

Tronski is commenting on your signature, I believe, not the quality of your arguments.

Oh, well that makes sense. Because I haven't been arguing in this thread. I haven't needed to. Nashwan has got all bases covered. And as he said further up, a gun ban in Britain is not going to have much of an effect on UK figures because we had no gun problem before, relatively speaking - around 50 firearms related homicides annually. The figures are too low for any percentage change to be noted without being distorted by year on year fluctuations. I believe Nashwan cited the example of banning skiing in Jamaica- wouldn't have any effect at all! My belief is that the gun ban was enacted by this Government (for which I did not vote) as a means of being seen to have done something in the wake of the 1995 Dunblane Massacre. There are just too few guns out here for a change in the law to make a difference, or as I said in an earlier thread, bugger all difference! It's like introducing a law requiring that seatbelts be worn in cars travelling in Sark, one of the 6 Channel Islands.  No lives would be saved because cars are not allowed on Sark!

[Toad]

Originally posted by -tronski-
IF something was stable and not increasing , could that not be seen as working?
Also what is the breakdown of the AIC stats? The causes, types of homicides, social groupings etc. etc.

Well, if there's no change..... and there isn't...... before and after the ban I'd say common sense would see it as having had no effect.

Particularly since homicide rates were dropping significantly, on the order of 20% over the same 5 year period in the US without any bans. THAT'S working... not having something "relatively stable".

Breakdowns are all available at the AIC sight. Well, a lot of different breakdowns. Check it out and see if they have what you want.

If you have a legitmate reason, you still can have a firearm.

IF your reason agrees with Nanny's reason. In any event, the convenience level of just going hunting has dropped incredibly. All that for no perceptible gain.

I guess we will still have to rely on the police to do our justifiable killing.

So, private citizens saving themselves 176 times is insignificant?

I view it as having about 1/2 again as many legitimate Law Enforcement actions. It's proof once again that the cops can't be everywhere when needed.

But you go ahead and dial 911.    To each his own.

[Toad]

Beetle.

Ah. So England's and Australia's bans were pointless wastes of resources? "like introducing a law requiring that seatbelts be worn in cars travelling in Sark"?

Glad you agree.

However, from this you extrapolate that they will work for the US?

My smile for the day.

At least they've solved the alcohol-related vehicle slaughter on Sark, eh? Perhaps the rest of the UK will follow that wise example.

Surely you can use the same argument for that that you use for the US and guns.

[beet1e]

The Labour Government (for which I did not vote) specialises in wasting resources - the Millennium Dome, the M4 Bus Lane to name but two. I was only vaguely aware of a gun ban when we started talking about it in these threads. It made "bugger all difference" as far as I was concerned. :p

As to everything else you've said to me in the last 2 days, it's all been covered in earlier threads.

[Nashwan]

Toad, I seem to remember it was the anti gun control crowd who brought up the "bans" in Britain and Australia as evidence that a "ban" would have no effect in America.

Fact is, the ban had no effect whatsoever in the UK, which had some of the tightest firearms laws in the world anyway. In Australia, which had fairly tight rules on the types of firearms most used in crimes, the rate has reduced by about 30 murders per year.

Neither country is a good example for America, because neither country had the sort of free-for-all on handguns that the US has.

Lazs, what is to stop you filing the serial number off one of your handguns and selling it to your neighbour?

Do the police know how many guns you have bought? If so, have you always had to register each gun?

Are you allowed to sell your gun to a friend? Do you have to register the transfer, and make background checks to see if he has a record?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Neither country is a good example for America, because neither country had the sort of free-for-all on handguns that the US has.

So now you're down to trying something in the US that has never worked anywhere else? While agreeing that the US is a totally different situation and it would be an untested hypothesis?

Another incredibly expensive experiment based on a hypothesis with no support whatsover?

Doesn't make much sense when you consider that in 5 out of the last 6 years our homicide rate has dropped dramatically. Something like 20% until you hit the ~2% increase in the latest stats.

I think we'd better keep using our resources in was that work for us, instead of wasting them like you folks did on ways that didn't even work for you.

Please excuse me if I prefer to continue what we're doing before trying something that hasn't worked anywhere else.

As I've said before, I would be interested in exploring measures to weed out the criminal element from US firearms ownership.

The problem here is that the "anti" forces have made it clear that they will not rest until banning/confiscation is accomplished. You need only to research the recorded statements of the folks that run Handgun Control to verify this.

As a result, there are few gun owners here that don't see any move in that direction as the "camel's nose in the tent". I don't see how any law protecting gun owner's rights will change that perception, either. After all, people argue over something as clear as the 2nd.

[lazs2]

nash... it is difficult if not impossible to file of the numbers in such a way that they would not be recoverable.. it is also a huge waste of time..  we have plenty of firearms floating around... Our criminals are not super slueths ...Most guns used by criminals are stolen weapons in any case..   Yes... you have to go through the whole background and regestration fiasco even if you sell your gun to your mother.  It must be done by a licenced dealer to be legal.  you must go through a licenced dealer for any firearm purchase.  

But.... I don't get the point... what is it you want us to do?   What EXACTLY do you believe that we... in this country... should do about our right to keep and bear arms?   What laws would you enact in the U.S. and why do you feel that they would be effective?   How do you propose to make up for the allmost 3,000,000 crimes that are prevented by firearms  each year?   Are you prepared to just let the U.S. citizen be victimized by criminals and if so.... why?   what good would it do?   do you have any proof whatsoever that banning firearms would save lives?   What about the several hundred lives that are saved by citizens who defend themselves with firearms each year?  Are you prepared to sacrafice these people for a policy that has no decernible effect on the amount of homicides that would occur?  

I get the feeling that most of you gun control nuts are not really speaking to us on the board... you are speaking to your girlfriends or wives...

most of all... no gun ban ever did a thing... not even reduced gun homicides or gun crime..... by itself.   There was allways a penalty involved... I mean... the guns didn't just go away... they are still out there ...  the government didn't just put everyone on their honor to longer own firearms..    What it did was, in every case, make it prohibitively expensive for the criminal to use a firearm in his crimes.... it was the penalty not the ban.   You would get exactly the same results if you simply increased the penalty for gun crime without reducing the availability.    No matter how available... if the penalty is high enough you will see huge reductions in gun crime including homicide.   It would also be a tool for reducing gang related crime.   You would at least get the worst of em off the street for a much longer period of time.
lazs

[Nashwan]

Toad, Britain has had gun control for 70 years or more. It's worked, in that very few people are killed with guns, and Britain has one of the lowest murder rates in the world (despite having one of the highest crime rates in the world)

Most guns used by criminals are stolen weapons in any case

Doesn't that prove the point, that criminals get their guns via legitimate owners, wether by onward sales or stealing doesn't really matter. If the law abiding citizen didn't sell his gun, or leave it lying around, the criminals would find it much harder to get guns.

Yes... you have to go through the whole background and regestration fiasco even if you sell your gun to your mother.

What if you don't? What if you simply report the gun lost or stolen, or simply don't report the change in ownership at all?

Do the police check that you still have the guns you bought?

From a couple of quick net searches, it doesn't seem very difficult to remove the serial from a gun. Seems thre are quite a few people out there buying guns, removing serials, then selling them to local criminals.

What EXACTLY do you believe that we... in this country... should do about our right to keep and bear arms?

Do whatever you like. I've never even been to America, what you do with your guns doesn't affect me in any way.

What laws would you enact in the U.S. and why do you feel that they would be effective?

I wouldn't enact any laws. That's a  politicians job, and I've never wanted to be one of those.

What I think you could do to make a differenc to firearms crime is register handguns, and licence the owners. Lose a handgun, lose your licence to buy any more. Sort of like the old British system, where anyone who wanted a gun licence, who wasn't a: insane, or b: a convicted criminal, could get a licence, and buy as many guns as he wanted. He had to have a safe place to store them, like a proper gun safe.

If he lost a gun, he would be deemed too irresponsible own them, and would lose his licence. Given that a child can find a lost gun, that sounds fair enough to me.

If he wanted to sell it, he had to transfer ownership to another licenced owner, and the gun would still be tracked.

It ensured guns couldn't get sold to unlicenced users. They were rarely stolen, because of the proper gun safes that were a prerequisite for owning a gun.

Are you prepared to just let the U.S. citizen be victimized by criminals and if so.... why?

They are already victimised by criminals. Certainly some crimes are stopped by guns, but many more are comitted with guns, and many people are killed with guns.

Who's more victimized, the woman walking down the street who has her bag snatched by a man who runs past her, the woman who has a gun pushed in her face and is forced to hand over her bag, or the woman who is shot by a mugger?

Street robberies are common in Britain, but in most cases they consist of bag snatching.

Robberies with firearms are common in the US.

In the UK in 2000. 34 people were murdered during a robbery or other theft.  In the US, which has around 6 times the population, the figure was 1,200

There was allways a penalty involved... I mean... the guns didn't just go away... they are still out there

No, they aren't. What happened in Britain and Australia was guns were bought back, and destroyed. There are simply less guns out there.

it was the penalty not the ban. You would get exactly the same results if you simply increased the penalty for gun crime without reducing the availability.

No, criminals break the law. That's what they do. If the severity of the punishment was the determining factor, the US, with the death penalty, would have one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Do you think the guy who shot his friend over the beer was thinking about the consequences? Do you think a crack head, desperate for a fix, is thinking about the prison time he might get? If criminals thought about consequences, they wouldn't be criminals anymore.

America's longer prison sentences work not because of the deterrent effect, buit because the prisoners are behind bars where they can't commit crimes against society.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Toad, Britain has had gun control for 70 years or more. It's worked, in that very few people are killed with guns,

The US has had gun controls for a long time as well. Certainly back in to the '20's or '30's when fully automatic weapons were restricted. After Kennedy, we got a lot more gun control. It's been successful as well. Look at the drop in our homicide rate in the past 6 years.

What I think you could do to make a differenc to firearms crime is register handguns, and licence the owners.... Sort of like the old British system, where anyone who wanted a gun licence, who wasn't a: insane, or b: a convicted criminal, could get a licence, and buy as many guns as he wanted.

That right there is essentially the system we have now.

He had to have a safe place to store them, like a proper gun safe.

If he lost a gun, he would be deemed too irresponsible own them, and would lose his licence....

If he wanted to sell it, he had to transfer ownership to another licenced owner, and the gun would still be tracked.

These would be new additional provisions for us.

And here's why they would be vehemently opposed by most gun owners in the US.

You folks did all this and you did it when guns were not particularly a problem anyway.

Then you had a media gun incident or two and these provisions were no longer enough.

You went right on from relatively common sense restrictions to banning & confiscation. That's where all those licenses and registrations really came into play, isn't it?

The bottom line is this: No matter what US gun owners agreed to do to help out, it would never, ever be enough.

We'd end up right where your law-abiding gun owners did...... without most of our guns and with an incredibly complex and inconvenient system of owning and using the ones nanny decided to let us keep.

As I said, I think all of us realize the "camel's nose" aspect of the anti's.

And that's why the line in the sand will always be drawn and why it will always be such a vehemently argued problem.

There is simply no pleasing the anti's until they get their bans and confiscation.

The UK example should show this beyond doubt. As you said, you didn't really even have a gun problem and the ban was stupid. Yet it was implemented anyway.

Anti's win. Game, Set, Match.

Not here.

[Kieran]

And as he said further up, a gun ban in Britain is not going to have much of an effect on UK figures because we had no gun problem before, relatively speaking

+

Neither country (England, Australia) is a good example for America

+

America's longer prison sentences work not because of the deterrent effect, buit because the prisoners are behind bars where they can't commit crimes against society.

=

Clarity

[lazs2]

nash.. toad said most of it but... I don't believe that if you lose a gun through no fault of your own you should be deemed "irresponsible"  that is like saying that if you lock your car in your driveway and a kid steals it you lose your right to drive because you are irresponsible...  more kids are killed by cars than guns.

So... you have no idea what we should do here but... it sounds like you think an outrighrt ban is a good idea?   3,000,000 crimes a year are stopped by firearms... many that would be fatal... You claim that 1200 people are shot a year due to criminals with guns... I would point out that the "robbery" and assault is gang related in most cases  not a citizen being assaulted byu a criminal... ...  They are also mostly convienience store robberies too.. Bet most of them are gang related... bet yuou would get most of them off the street with tougher gun crime laws and penalties. A woman is FOUR times more likey to not be harmed if she resists with a gun than if she doesn't resist.   You seem to favor punishing the law abiding (lose your firearm and be punished) where I favor punishing the criminal (use a gun in a crime and rot in jail)..   I think my idea is more effective.... certainly it is the more effective if you wish to (as we do) continue to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights.

you say that criminals will continue as ever if the penalties are increased and the availabiltiy remains the samd... that is proven to be false.. wherever penalties go up for gun crime it goes dwon... wherever gun availability goes up violent crime goes down.   Are you saying that if there was a death penalty for commiting a crime with a gun that the rate wouldn't go down?  how bout life in prison?  how bout adding 10 years mandatory?  chopping off a hand?  No... crime goes down when the penalty goes up espedcially crime that sees no profit... yu make no more money in crime using a gun or not using one...

Nope... well meaning ideas nash but the math is against you... More guns does indeed mean less crime here.   I say that more severe penalties means less gun crime too.   do you disagree?
lazs

[Thrawn]

Toad,

After about 15 seconds of google I found the Canadian stats for attempted mure.

Took about 30 mins for me to track down the British stats.

But unfortunately it looks like the US puts it's stats for attempted murder in the set for aggravated assult.

Too bad.