Author Topic: UK gun laws a failure (Read 1172 times)

ra · « **Reply #15 on:** January 03, 2003, 08:19:15 PM »

Quote

To reuse the motoring analogy, that's like pulling a guy over for running a red light, and then saying that because speed was not a factor in that particular incident, that the speed limit along that stretch of road is ineffective and should be abolished.

There's no need to reuse the motoring analogy, it was unconvincing the first time, too.

To say that gun crime would have increased at an even faster rate if gun laws had not be tightened is utter speculation, the kind of fallback position a politician would take. One could just as easily say that handing a .44 to every citizen would reduce the gun crime rate to zero.

But to say that tighter gun laws did not prevent an increase in gun crime is fact.

We see the same thing here in the US over and over, where states and municipalities tweek their gun laws from time to time. There has never been any evidence that loosening gun laws leads to an increase in gun crime, or that tightening gun laws leads to a reduction. It's the crime, not the gun, and unfortunately easy answers don't work, something no politician will ever admit.

ra

Nashwan · « **Reply #16 on:** January 03, 2003, 10:02:09 PM »

It's an undeniable fact that Britain has had very strict gun laws for years, and has a very low rate of gun crime. It also has a very low murder rate.

That's despite the fact Britain has a very high crime rate overall.

beet1e · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2003, 04:01:49 AM »

ra/john9001 - well sorry you didn't like my analogy. But once again, I note that there is a sense of proportion lacking from yonder side of pond.

America sees many thousands of gun deaths every year - many more than in England or in any other unarmed society, and more than 300,000 in the past 25 years. This tally is dismissed by the gun nuts of the US as "a small price worth paying for the continued right to bear arms", or a "pittance", to quote you know who. In Britain we've never had more than 100 gun murders in any year. But then when we have a tragedy like the hair salon case, in which two, yes TWO people were killed, those same people are jumping up and down saying that our gun control "doesn't work".

I never said it was perfect, and in my view we need more police/enforcement - that was the conclusion reached in that Telegraph editorial whose link I provided above. But say what you like about gun control law. If I had been sleeping with a loaded .44 Magnum under my pillow, it would not have prevented the hair salon tragedy.

You started two new threads about our gun control laws being a failure, as a result of TWO deaths. With thousands of murders in the US each year, are you, by the same logic, saying that the US laws against murder have been a total failure? Should those laws be repealed?

StSanta · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2003, 08:05:42 AM »

I have a quicke question to Americans. Please be honest in answering it.

Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result? Had he not had a gun, he'd punched you on the face and that would be it.

This is what I fear about releasing guns wide open - that emotionally charged situations that leave someone with a black eye today would end up with someone with a bullet to the head tomorrow. It's clear from statistics that a good deal of gun related deaths is caused by emotional distress rather than pure cold calculation.

And that's about the only think I got against an utterly free gun owernship policy. IMHO, it shouldn't be impossible to get a gun, but one should have to go through a certification process - like with cars. You get a drivers license before you get to drive, so you don't needlessly endanger other people. if the same applied for guns people would be able to get one and in the process some education on how to handle, store etc it.

Kieran · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2003, 09:17:19 AM »

The point is, if the emotionally unstable neighbor wants you dead, the lack of a gun isn't going to stop it from happening. There's as much a chance you'll wake up in the middle of the night with the neighbor standing over your bed with an axe.

Sox62 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2003, 09:28:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I never knew that Vermont was the state with the most relaxed gun laws. But whereas Lazs might say that's the reason why it has some of the lowest levels of crime, I would disagree, and point out that Vermont does not have any large cities, and is virtually devoid of race related issues and relatively free of drug problems and other ghetto related issues.

Check out Vermont's crime rate per capita.

Also note that Vermont borders a state(N.Y.)with one of the highest crime rates.

ra · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2003, 09:29:35 AM »

Quote

You started two new threads about our gun control laws being a failure, as a result of TWO deaths.

I call it a failure because it has not prevented the murder rate from climbing. UK citizens agreed to have some liberty taken away from them, and they have nothing to show for it. Certainly if murder rates had declined you'd be calling the gun laws a success.

Quote

With thousands of murders in the US each year, are you, by the same logic, saying that the US laws against murder have been a total failure? Should those laws be repealed?

This analogy is convoluted to the point of sounding like quantum physics. If there was no law against murder, the murder rate would be zero by definition. We are talking about gun laws, and their effectiveness in controlling crime. A law against owning guns is sold to the public as a way to reduce murder, and it fails every time. Some of the areas in the US with the highest gun murder rates have gun laws which are stricter than those in the UK. Also, a generation ago all crime in the UK was lower than in the US, now only murder rate rernains lower, and it is climbing despite strict new gun laws.

Quote

Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result? Had he not had a gun, he'd punched you on the face and that would be it.

Short answer, I'm not worried about it, and I don't know anyone who is. Granted, we are used to high rates of murder (mostly from the big cities), so maybe when we read in the news about some nut using a gun to kill his office mates, we don't panic. I assume many if not most people in my town own firearms, and I assume some of them are 'unstable'. I do not fear gun crime at all, and on those rare occassions where there is a gun crime in this area it is usually by a criminal with an illegally owned weapon, not by a law-abiding citizen who flips out. If you can't trust your fellow citizens, no law can help you.

ra

Sox62 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2003, 09:32:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
I have a quicke question to Americans. Please be honest in answering it.

Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result?

Maybe.But I guarantee that I will never be worried about anyone threatening me at my own front door with a knife.

lazs2 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2003, 09:52:10 AM »

nash... I believe that if you take out the black on black murder in the U.S. that the overall murder rate is about the same, per capita, in the U.S. as in limeyland.. It matters not what tool is used except.... when firearms are legal and easy to come by.. and... there are no special penalties for using them in a criminal manner then... they become the tool of choice for murder. But... since they are out there they also prevent a huge amount of crime so...

while the U.S. (excepting black on black) has about the same per capita murder rate as limeyland they have lower rates of other crimes because their citizens are much more free to defend themselves and others with firearm. There are anywhere from 1-3 million crimes prevented by firearms in the U.S. every year. Crimes that are quite common in england, like "hot" burglaries, hardly exist here.

Soo... the best of both worlds would be very liberal right to carry laws and.... tougher penalties for actual crime with firearms. The law abiding would be armed and the criminal wouldn't be. Being deprived of the tools needed to defend yourself from violent criminals is not freedom.
lazs
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2003, 09:58:39 AM »

stsanta. I would be very cautious confronting anyone... especially at their home. But to answer your question... No. I am not the least bit worried. What you are talking about is every bit as rare as if the guy tried to run you down or beat you to death or chopped you up with an axe. There is no law against being insane in the U.S. but there are laws against owning a gun if you are. Certainly they don't allways work but that has nothing to do with the gun itself.

I do feel safer tho knowing that burglers know that there are about half the people in the neighborhood who are armed. The result of that is that we have very few "hot" burglaries in the U.S. Criminals are not brave. Some are crazy... some get shot every year.
lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2003, 10:15:26 AM »

Sorry guys I'm not going to go over this yet again. ra, it is quite fatuous to say that if there were no law against murder, the murder rate would be zero. Murder is still murder, whether there's a law against it or not. My question was that - a question, not an analogy. I think you're just in here to troll/argue/bait - or whatever the vogue word is for what you're doing.

So long, guys. This thread is dead, and I'm outta here.

Toodle-pip.

Creamo · « **Reply #26 on:** January 04, 2003, 10:17:00 AM »

There's as much a chance you'll wake up in the middle of the night with the neighbor standing over your bed with an axe.

Now there's a bedtime story for the kids!

Kieran · « **Reply #27 on:** January 04, 2003, 10:20:12 AM »

Yes, and with some of the kids I deal with, don't doubt for a second the thought has occurred to me...

NUKE · « **Reply #28 on:** January 04, 2003, 11:47:43 AM »

Look at what the Brits are saying in the talking point section of the BBS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2624539.stm

A lot of the people seem to realise that gun laws do not effect the ability of criminals to get and use guns.The "Beet1e" types are not in the majority it seems......

A couple of Beet1e types posted, here's one:

Quote

Owning a gun implies an intent to commit murder. Make the penalty for ownership fifteen years, and introduce an aggressive stop-and-search campaign in affected areas. I suspect living the "gangsta" lifestyle will become suddenly unfashionable

...... carry on

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 04, 2003, 11:59:09 AM »

nuke... that guy is addmitting that gun laws are useless... it is the penalty that stops crime not the availability. Make the penalty as the guy describes but... allow law abiding citizens the right to own and carry firearms. If you commit a a crime with one welll.... then the penalty needs to be severe...
lazs