Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on November 01, 2003, 11:45:50 AM
-
Guns and Violence the English Experiance by Joyce Lee Malcolm
I haven't finished it yet but so far.... seems pretty well researched and thought out minus the rhetoric and hysteria the subject usually brings out.
lazs
-
Haven't read it...can you give me an idea of what you have read so far?
-
Lazs, if you think it's a good book, I'll buy it and read it. It's available from Amazon UK. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674007530/qid=1067767230/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/202-7409612-6339059) If you click that link, there is a review.
Behind the passionate debate over gun control and armed crime lurk assumptions about the link between guns and violence. Indeed, the belief that more guns in private hands means higher rates of armed crime underlies most modern gun control legislation. But are these assumptions valid? Investigating the complex and controversial issue of the real relationship between guns and violence, Joyce Lee Malcolm presents a researched historical study of England, whose strict gun laws and low rates of violent crime are often cited as proof that gun control works. To place the private ownership of guns in context, Malcolm offers a wide-ranging examination of English society from the Middle Ages to the late 20th century, analysing changing attitudes toward crime and punishment, the impact of war, economic shifts, and contrasting legal codes on violence. She looks at the level of armed crime in England before its modern restrictive gun legislation, the limitations that gun laws have imposed, and whether those measures have succeeded in reducing the rate of armed crime. Malcolm also offers a revealing comparison of the experience in England with that in the modern United States. Americans own some 200 million guns and have seen eight consecutive years of declining violence, while the English - prohibited from carrying weapons and limited in their right to self-defence - have suffered a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime. This text takes a crucial step in illuminating the actual relationship between guns and violence in modern society.
The reviewer awarded the book the maximum 5 stars. But don't be misled by comparisons between declining violence in the US, and rising violence in the UK. We've still yet to have a year in which more than 100 people are killed by guns. The US still has never had fewer than 5000 gun deaths in the past 25 years. I do know of a frail old lady, now in her nineties, who was burgled while she was at home not far from where I used to live and near where 99Gatso lives (Roman Road). Arming the elderly and frail and other people like this lady would very likely lead to more incidents like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/24/nmurd24.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/24/ixhome.html). The only way to disprove my assertion that gun homicides would not rise to 1500-3000 per annum if there were to be a guns free for all in Britain is to try it out. But when the plan fails, we'd never be able to get the genie back into the bottle. Moot point because it's not going to happen. We're doing the reverse. Two amnesties with about 60,000 guns pulled in.
Lazs, didn't you say that your house was broken into while you were at work? Despite it being heavily armed? I've never had a car broken into and I've never had my house broken into, probably because I take precautions. Where I live is not crime free. A chap across from me had two cars stolen - the burglar got in through a rear door.
Britain's rising crime is due to a crap government which is not doing enough to deter criminals, but instead squanders our taxes on fatuous projects like the Millennium Dome, and other white elephants. They also throw money at our National Health Service, but have no clue about how the money will be spent. There are too few jails, and new ones are not being built. We need more jails (ones like Marion, Illinois), tougher sentencing, and a "three strikes" system as exists in the US. For my part, I've yet to get the automatic lighting installed on the outside of my house, but my friend Mr. Chubb (http://www.chubblocks.co.uk/start.html) looks out for me. :)
-
The author has gained access to a joint US Dept of Justice & British Home Office 1995 study which compares rates of crime in both countries. This study concludes that you are three times more likely to be mugged and four times more likely to suffer aggrevated burglary or "Home Invasion" in the UK , than in the United States. Why the difference ? Joyce Lee Malcolm presents evidence from a survey of convicted burglars who openly state that they will not risk burglaring a house when they believed the owner to have access to a gun. Professor Malcolm then gives us a comprehensive account of other authoritive studies.
amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674007530/qid%3D1067767230/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F2%5F1/026-2767285-8879611)
Has banning guns in the UK reduced the amount of gun deaths per year? I did'nt think gun deaths were ever that big a problem in the UK before the bans.
Something tells me that banning the guns may have led to an increase in crime.
-
Here's a very politically incorrect thought for you Beet:
Some people just need killing.
So, of those firearms deaths in the US, some are folks that needed killing.
I'd subtract those from the total.
Like I said, it's politically incorrect for a lot of folks. They probably recoil in horror at the thought.
But like a wolf among the new lambs, there's folks that just need a bullet.
Boston Herald, Boston, MA (5/11/99)
State: FL
American Rifleman Issue: August, 1999
A Heathrow, Florida, woman had endured unwanted advances and spying from a greenskeeper at her local golf course for more than six months.
In a final invasion of his victim's privacy, the stalker, armed with a handgun and a rope, found his way into the woman's home. After ordering her husband out of the way, the man confronted the woman, pushing her into a back bedroom and letting loose a volley of five shots. The wounded victim was not about to go easily, however, and fired back with one shot with a .38-cal. revolver she had bought for protection.
The shot proved fatal to the 50-year-old man whose body was found next to a backpack full of pornography.
The stalker was also under indictment for five counts of lewd and lascivious assault on a child.
-
lol...I never figured you for the vigilante type Toad.
My scooter was stolen on Friday night...probably some kids did some joyriding and then dumped it...or it was stripped for parts. Probably the latter as the back brakes were starting to cease.
If I was in Dixon, California would such a crime have warrented a bullet?
I'm a wee bit upset, but ending a life over a scooter?
The insured value was about $1,200...which I will collect.
-
Nope, not really a vigilante and a material posession is clearly not worth a life.
But my children? Yep.
If you were holding a pistol and a cell phone and someone was stabbing your child, which one would you use first?
American Rifleman : February 1996
State: GA
American Rifleman Issue: February, 1996
"THEY DIDN'T PLAN ON LEAVING WITNESSES" After saying goodbye to his wife, Mary, Brian Rigsby left their home outside Atlanta, Georgia, to pick up his friend Tom Styer for an impromptu camping trip on the afternoon of Saturday, November 24, 1990. Getting a late start and making a few wrong turns in the Oconee National Forest, the two friends didn't arrive at their campsite until well after dark. They'd chosen a spot convenient to the public rifle range in Oconee, and eagerly looked forward to some target practice the next day. By the light of a lantern, the friends pitched a tent and then built a campfire.
They were settling in for the night when they heard the distinctive growl of a diesel engine approaching. Shortly thereafter, a truck pulled up, right into the middle of the camp. Rigsby noticed that it was a work truck, with the name of a business painted on the side. Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that they were driving around to meet people and help out. Exceedingly polite, the visitors insisted on helping Rigsby and Styer cut more firewood. During their hour-long stay, the courteous duo depicted themselves as long-time residents of the area, boasting about their extensive knowledge of the surrounding woods.
Rigsby remembers feeling uncomfortable with the two men, and relieved when they finally left. He even considered moving the camp to another location. But before any firm decision could be reached, Rigsby and Styer heard the truck's diesel engine once again driving down the road toward their camp. It was the only road in. The truck stopped before reaching the camp, and its engine abruptly cut off.
In the quiet that followed, Rigsby and Styer heard the faint crackle of leaves rustling as their former visitors stole toward the campsite. When the two friends realized they were being stalked, each grabbed his gun and made sure it was loaded. Rigsby took cover behind his truck, armed with a Ruger Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine, while Styer knelt in the tent's shadow with his .45 pistol at the ready. Rigsby was shocked and filled with disbelief. "I tried to listen for the men," he recalls, "but couldn't hear much over the sound of my breathing and the pounding of my heart."
It was Styer that saw them first. One of the men slid suddenly into the light cast by the campfire, pointing his double-barrelled shotgun in Rigsby's direction. Afraid he would actually shoot, Rigsby kept his head down, and heard Styer ask the man why he came back with a gun. In reply, the man swung the shotgun toward Styer and answered, "I'm going to kill you." Styer instructed the intruder to drop his gun. Instead, the intruder fired, hitting Styer in the legs.
Rigsby remembers seeing the front sight of his Mini-14 centered on the assailant's chest. He fired twice. Quickly swinging the rifle toward the second attacker's position, Rigsby fired six or seven additional rounds, determing his point of aim by the flash from the other man's muzzle against the blackness of the surrounding forest. Partially blinded by the flash from his own muzzle, Rigsby dropped back down behind his truck. He looked underneath the frame, across the campsite. Seeing no one, he yelled for help. There was no answer. He called out to Styer, but heard no response.
Rigsby knew that the first attacker was down and no longer a threat. But the other gunman was out there, somewhere. Rigsby strained his ears, trying to hear any movement in the nearby trees. He heard nothing. He looked around the camp and beyond it into the woods, but still saw no one. Waiting a few minutes, he called again to Styer, but his friend still did not answer.
Rigsby then began to move slowly and cautiously backward, away from the camp. Seeing a light through the trees, he started toward it. Amazingly, he found a camp filled with hunters about 300 yds. away. One of the hunters hurried away to call the police, who responded and immediately placed Rigsby under arrest.
They returned to the scene of the attack and found Styer, still alive. The shotgun-wielding attacker had been hit twice and died at the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both carried 12-ga. scatterguns loaded with 3" magnum buckshot, and both had fired their weapons at Rigsby and Styer. The two friends gave statements to the police, whereupon Rigsby was released from custody and Styer was taken to the local hospital.
In his statement, the surviving gunman admitted he and his accomplice had returned to rob the campers, a crime they had planned while smoking crack cocaine following their initial visit to the campsite. The surviving gunman was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, convicted and released on probation.
Later, an officer told Brian Rigsby and Tom Styer that police were convinced the pair of attackers would have murdered both campers; when introducing themselves, the deceptively courteous men had used their real names and drove a truck owned by their employer. Apparently, they didn't plan to leave any witnesses to their crime.
Ed. Note: Although Brian Rigsby's Mini-14 was not on the list of so-called "assault weapons" prohibited by the 1994 gun ban, with a few cosmetic changes, it would meet the criteria established therein by the 103rd Congress. All magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds were banned. * Armed Citizen, p. 7
Some folks just need killing.
-
Say, it seems those two needed killin'. Too bad the job was only half finished.
-
I don't disagree that many crimminals deserve to die. ESPECIALLY if someone threatens my children.
But, I hear an awful lot on these boards about American's constitutional right to carry firearms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a wee little thing in there (The Constitution) about the right to a fair trial?
-
Hey there Curval,
I could be wrong, but I think what Toad was trying to say is that a large majority of "gun related" homocides here in the U.S. are gang or drug related shootings of fellow criminals.
Having been a police officer for 7 years in a crime infested city, I saw very few "innocent citizens" murdered with guns. The majority of our shootings (and there were a lot of them) were drug dealers and gang members shooting eachother in "turf wars" over territory.
Being a kindhearted individual, I never experienced joy or elation at a fellow human being who was shot to death. However, after dealing with these types of people for so long, I no longer considered them human. It may sound cold, but their disregard for life, and their lack of respect for themselves, let alone for fellow human beings created a strange mindset within me that I had not experienced before. When I saw one of them dead on the street, I basically felt nothing. No happiness, and no sorrow. It was just one less problem I had to deal with.
Perhaps you had to experience it to understand it, but these types of people served absolutely no benefit to society, which in and of itself would have been fine. However, the fact is that they were a complete detriment to society. Perhaps their proceeds from dealing drugs added to the local economy from their purchases of fancy cars, expensive clothes and jewelry. But any of these "benefits" were negated immediately by the people who were robbing and stealing to support their drug habits. It's a vicious cycle.
I only wish they had better aim. Perhaps that would save the occasional child who was killed in their room while playing with their blocks by a stray bullet fired by one of these scumbags at someone who was standing on "their corner".
-
Fair point Grim...but the examples cited here are more related to "home invasion" or "camp invasion" type crimes. Protection being the main impetus for owning firearms. Lazs' book speaks of crime and it's relation to owning guns.
Soon, very soon (should this thread become a biggie...again) we will hear about the enjoyment guns bring...and the reason for owning them will switch to entertainment purposes.
Who wants to bet?
-
Well, I can sympathize with gun ownership for recreational purposes. I own a shotgun and a rifle for hunting. However, I also own a pistol which is used solely for protection. The whole gun ownership argument has valid points on each side. Each side also bends statistics to support it's arguments. It's a tough one to call.
-
I agree that many people need killing in the U.S. They ruin the lives of many.
In the book the author seems to be saying that there were more homicides in england before guns than after and that if anything... guns in england don't increase the homicide rate... guns do seem to decrease the crime rate which is about what we have found here.
As beetle pointed out... my house was broke into while I was gone... it was obvious that they made a hasty retreat too.. in an unarmed society criminals break in while the home is occupied and I doubt that they would have been so eager to run.
The book does seem to be very scholorly and sensible with no preconcieved notions... she examins every statistic no matter how obvious it seems.
The American Rifleman has about a dozen or so examples every month of people fending off or killing rabid criminals. This is only a small sample tho of the 3/4 to 1 1/2 million such incidents every year in the U.S.
The author points out that english crime is up while U.S. crime continues to fall. British homicide rate stays the same no matter what era or what kind of gun control or.... none at all... haven't gotten to modern times yet but that is the gist.
lazs
-
If a person isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to have a gun then he shouldn't be allowed to be on the streets.
In the book.... one contention was that keeping people from killing each other was never the point to british gun control... the point was allways a fearful monarch who wanted to disarm potential threats to his rule. that is for up to the 18th century... that is as far as I have gotten.
lazs
-
The US still has never had fewer than 5000 gun deaths in the past 25 years
Curval, the point is that of those "gun deaths" every year, there are some that brought it upon themselves and "needed killing".
The two examples I posted are just that.. examples. Not necessarily commenting on "recreation" or "protection at all; simply pointing out that in "all those gun deaths" there are some (a few? a bunch? many?) that deserved to be shot.
There are lots of other examples. NRA has been printing "Armed Citizen" since 1958 I believe.
Saw one not too long ago that detailed the beating/rape of an old woman (seems like 80+ years old] by some dipshirt that couldn't find a hooker (I guess). She eventually got to a gun and shot him stone cold dead.
IMO, that one needed killing anyway. I take Grim's view.
I no longer considered them human. It may sound cold, but their disregard for life, and their lack of respect for themselves, let alone for fellow human beings created a strange mindset within me that I had not experienced before.
Yep. Well said.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In the book the author seems to be saying that there were more homicides in england before guns than after and that if anything... guns in england don't increase the homicide rate... guns do seem to decrease the crime rate which is about what we have found here.
The book does seem to be very scholorly and sensible with no preconcieved notions... she examins every statistic no matter how obvious it seems.
..and it just so happens to back up exactly what you think.;)
I suppose we can now take it that this book is the definative word on guns in England?
I must read it, then.
-
Can anyone point to any statistics that demonstrate a reduced murder rate or gun death rate since the gun ban in the UK?
I thought there was not much gun crime to begin with before the ban.
Now what they seem to have is the same number of gun deaths, with the added bonus of rising crime rates. Like they say... "only the criminals have guns now".
Banning guns in the UK seems to have made burglars, home invaders and muggers a little more at ease though.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
IThe book does seem to be very scholorly and sensible with no preconcieved notions... she examins every statistic no matter how obvious it seems.
Rrrrrrrrrright lazs.
Her articles are distinctly "lazs-like though".
Why Britain Needs More Guns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)
She is the like British poster child for their version of the NRA.
-
Nuke,
Dunno percentages but...........
The UK Firearms laws are dickish lol
Airgun (rifle over 12pound strength) you need a fac Fire Arms Certificate
The actual pistol and smallbore ban was A partially B defianately to do with shootings @ dunblain (spl?)
Hugerford many many yrs ago a guy goes doo-lally with a semi m16 i think ? not sure, There's obviously a lot of anguish etc so getting a FAC is even harder just due to this 1 person, Along comes the scottish spree where a ******** massacres kids etc (terrible i know) so instantly the government panicks as usual and bans certain guns (no talking with gun societies etc either)
Government pats itself on the back thinking hey we can stop all gun crime, Bollocks i say, All's they did was make it harder for everyone to own a gun since 2 guys went tits-up
Gun crime here is on the rise i can tell ya that
I am now 24 miles from birmingham in the middle of england, Hardly a week goes by without another shooting (usual **** drug gangs etc etc) hitting the local/national news
As someone said over here dicks in government have a knee-jerk reaction that shrecks all 99.999999999999999999% of law abiding people
Gun crimes here are on the up, I don't think without gun laws they would drop, You have to remember a gun is not dangerous it's the dick with his finger on the trigger that's the danger
Guns are a TOOL to be used for good or bad, To tackle "gun crimes" you have to tackle the forces leading to them, In a nutshell sort the damn legalisation of drugs or shrecking start tougher sentenses/confiscation of assetts etc etc
Like pissing against the wind having a gun-ban and expecting certain criminals to abide by it
Sort the cause of gun crime and you solve the problem of gun usage
Smack-head dealers easy way shoot em/hang em whatever but get rid of em same with coke etc etc or legalise certain ones and let say the health service benefit from the influx of taxation etc
Banning certain gun types in the uk has done shreck all except stop a sport being enjoyed by law abiding people
After scotlands sad day of gun massacre do you think it will stop some dick that's pissed off from getting a gun n shooting people ? of course not
I bet many a brit here knows or has heard how to get hold of an illegal firearm i for one know how to etc but i aint the type to fancy getting butt**cked in a jail thankyou very much while i am doing a few yrs for having a gun
You need like a medicine to cure the cause not the symptons
Guy last week gets a knife shoved into his skull slicing into his brain, Guy sentenced for it got 2 or 4 yr type of community work ! go figure, A farmer being raided by 2 thugs shoots at em killing one with a shot to his back he gets sent to prison, Shot in the back so what i say WTF were the 2 Tw@ts doing raiding his farm ? i somehow don't think they after road directions, If he hadn't of fired guess he would of been another uk victim of unsolved crime go figure
Ban guns aint done diddly here except make it almost impossible for anyone to enjoy gun sport
You might wanna read up of this governments approach to illegal immigrants (and no i aint racist or predujiced i hate all people that annoy me or cross me the same, If they are ok with me they the same in return simple as that) anyways to stop illegals in the uk all people will be given a id card containing dna data and assorted gathered data from certain records and also when they can sort it a retana scanning on top, Now to me that's going a bit OTT, Why don't they use a fraction of this money and go find the illegals etc but no it aint the brit way, As long as can screw the populas out of a large tax slice they like to waste it on knee-jerk reaction/shemes instead of letting sanity take over and do a cheaper more effective thing
Ohh and another scheme is tax paid on cars will in the future be trackable from a installed ship i guess on a car and tracked from a sat
God knows how much this would cost but wtf it's taxpayers money so lets waste it
(1/10th of uk road fund tax goes on anything remotely to do with roads etc !!!! this is the uk welcome to the mad-house)
Sheesh end of whine as i need another drink
Gotta add, Scottish parliament building estimate cost was 40 million pound, So far (not finished mind you) 400 million pound, Don't matter though as it's the sheepish err i mean british public picking up the tab
Kinda getting the pic how fubar our government is and always as such was from day 1
-
Originally posted by Curval
I don't disagree that many crimminals deserve to die. ESPECIALLY if someone threatens my children.
But, I hear an awful lot on these boards about American's constitutional right to carry firearms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a wee little thing in there (The Constitution) about the right to a fair trial?
Well, yeah, if you are a criminal and you manage to survive the act of being a potential threat to someone's life then you will get a fair trial by jury. If you don't survive it because your intended victim was able to defend himself, then you're ****ed.
Do you think victims should not defend themselves so that the criminals can finish up what they plan on doing and then get their well deserved fair trial?
-
Originally posted by Toad
- Curval, the point is that of those "gun deaths" every year, there are some that brought it upon themselves and "needed killing". She eventually got to a gun and shot him stone cold dead.
- IMO, that one needed killing anyway. I take Grim's view.
[/B]
People needed killing?
I always remember a scene from an old Western I saw on TV. There was a gun fight going on between two guys in the main street of a small township. Gunfire was blazing between the two men, while the gentrified classes went about their business - gentlemen in long tailed coats and high hats, ladies wearing elegant long dresses and carrying parasols... As the gunfight progressed, the camera passed by a funeral parlour, and zoomed in on their advertisement which read something like "We cater for victims of gunfights. Special rates for Saturday night killings!". It was the bit I've underlined that stuck in my mind!
Yes, I appreciate that there are rival drug dealers who shoot eachother, and while I don't care for those people, I don't want to see the bloodbath in Britain that we most certainly would have were guns to be freely available. It would be very un-British. To condone such killings sounds like you would like a return to the days of America's Wild West. Just remind me, do funeral parlours in the US offer special rates for drug dealers shot by rivals? :eek:
Lazs, You know me now, and you've let me shoot off a few of your guns. While I was doing that, I was looking to see what sort of mistakes I made, as these might be the kind that many folks make who don't practise much - ie. most US gun owners. I was amazed that I was able to hit that target. I think I hit it more than I missed it...(?) As the book you have mentioned is about guns and their place in Britain, I will buy a copy and read it. I'll comment on it after I've done that. Might be a wall of text though! :eek:;)
-
Originally posted by SOB
Do you think victims should not defend themselves so that the criminals can finish up what they plan on doing and then get their well deserved fair trial?
Of course the victims should be able to defend themselves...what concerned me was the tone of what Toad was saying...that's all. Sounded a tad bit on the vigilante side.
-
I vaguely remember a member of the NRA being interviewed by the BBC who were taking a highly anti-gun POV (and not just adversarial) who pointed out that the US's burglary rate was many times lower than the UK's and attributing this to gun ownership - would you enter a house if there might be someone armed inside?
Another argument is the Dunblane one. Thomas Hamilton, the killer, was using a gun he was not licensed to have anyway, so gun controls were not relevant, but consider that had there been people with firearms about, they could have engaged him directly instead of waiting for the police and having more people die.
I'm not sure there are any right answers here, only least wrong ones.
-
Allow me to be perfectly clear.
I think the world would be a much better place if the people that needed killing were killed ASAP.
For example, take someone who rapes a child and then kills the child. This sick foxxer needs killing, the sooner the better.
Rapists of 80 year old women? Haven't those women earned a peaceful twilight of life? Cripes, surviving 80 years is tough enough without that.
Hitler? That sick foxxer needed killing long before he got his hands on the switch that killed millions.
There's loads of folks that need killing. They just never "get" this life thing.
The human gene pool is huge and diverse. It won't miss the sick foxxers that need killing and get what they deserve.
Sorry, I'm not going to shed a single tear over criminals that get their axxes shot off while committing horrible crimes. I don't care if some think they should be rehabilitated; I personally believe they should be recycled.
They lose their turn on this Buddhist wheel of life; let 'em start over as a lower organisim and work back up.
-
Okay Toad...clear...clear as an unmuddied lake.
As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.
And I agree with you.
Lazs on the other hand I am not so clear about. I honestly think he believes he has provided us with an unbias bit of literature.
-
Does any author ever write in a totally unbiased mode?
-
I'd like to see someone use the facts and figures of crime, gun deaths and murders in the UK to make the point that banning guns improved ANYTHING.
At least this book seems to make a valid point based on facts.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Okay Toad...clear...clear as an unmuddied lake.
As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.
Hehe - it's *that* movie again! The bits I liked were "Shut your filthy hole you scum!" followed, almost immediately, by "Answer the Governor when he asks you a question!" and "Don't read it, sign it!". Did you see him in Battle of Britain? "Put that cigarette out! The mains have gone. Can't you smell gas?" - and then - "Don't you yell at me, Mr. Warwick!" ROFL...
____________________________
You are now in HM Prison Parkmore. And from this moment! you will address all prison officers as "Sir".
Are you aware of the white line painted on the floor directly behind you? Then your toes belong on the other side of it!!!
-
Originally posted by SOB
Do you think victims should not defend themselves so that the criminals can finish up what they plan on doing and then get their well deserved fair trial?
That's a keeper SOB
-
Originally posted by Toad
Does any author ever write in a totally unbiased mode?
No, but according to lazs this one does. I've already quoted twice where he stated she has no preconcieved notions.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hehe - it's *that* movie again! The bits I liked were "Shut your filthy hole you scum!" followed, almost immediately, by "Answer the Governor when he asks you a question!" and "Don't read it, sign it!". Did you see him in Battle of Britain? "Put that cigarette out! The mains have gone. Can't you smell gas?" - and then - "Don't you yell at me, Mr. Warwick!" ROFL...
____________________________
You are now in HM Prison Parkmore. And from this moment! you will address all prison officers as "Sir".
Are you aware of the white line painted on the floor directly behind you? Then your toes belong on the other side of it!!!
lol...I actually quote that movie alot...this time it fit...and was kinda for your benefit. I wondered if you'd pick up on it.
I saw the mention you made of the film in the General Discussion forum when you commented on Batz sig. :)
-
Beetle,
I strongly doubt that the law-abiding citizens of the U.K. would begin carrying out whole-sale slaughter of each other if the government were to allow widespread gun ownership. They would not be blood-thirsty under any circumstances. The law-abiding seldom are. You didn't feel any inclinations to massacre your fellow-man after your shooting session with lasz did you? Of course you didn't.
I suspect that U.K.'s criminal society is much smaller than that of the United States. The homicide statistics given by the FBI draw few distinctions between the people who make up those statistics. Many of those ARE the result of drug wars, while others are considered justifiable by the police. According to the last statistics that I saw, even the police are involved in 3,000 homicide shootings yearly.
How those statistics might change if private firearm ownership were eliminated in the U.S. is anybody's guess.
Regards, Shuckins
-
There we go again, another guns in UK/USA thread.
Well, in the gun armed old USA, you have many times more Armed robberies, rapes and murders than in the UK. OK?
-
The Dunblane massacre that precipitated the UK handgun ban involved legally held weapons owned by a guy who just happened to be several sandwiches short of the full picnic. The resulting ban was aimed at preventing a similar event from occuring again, and had nothing to do with tackling the problem of illegally held weapons; weapons that by and large were already illegally held *prior* to the ban coming into force.
One *could* argue that the massacre was a freak event and that the resulting legislation was a political overeaction. What however does not stand up to scrutiny is the oft made claim that there is a causal relationship between the ban and a subsequent increase in the violent crime statistics. I'd be interested to know if Ms Lee Malcolm is arguing this?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
How those statistics might change if private firearm ownership were eliminated in the U.S. is anybody's guess.
And, by the same token, how those statistics might change if private firearm ownership in the UK become unrestricted is anyone's guess. The only thing that is certain is that there would be a big increase in gun homicides. I can't see how arming everyone in the UK could reduce our gun homicide rate from 50-100 down to a single digit value. It hasn't worked in the US, and it wouldn't work here.
-
curval... thanks for the link.. I agree with her but have never read her before. She claims that she wrote the book with no preconcieved notions... she reminds me of John Lott who was also a history professor and actually thought he could prove that guns were the problem but changed his mind. If there is some fact or figure or even conclusion about either book that you find false then I would like to hear it curval. seems to me tho that you are simple twitching at the knee while holding your hands over your ears and screaming NAAA NNAAA NAAAA whenever facts about guns that don't fit your "feelings" are presented.
The book seems to point out that the english, like us, allways believed that the right to self defense and firearms was a given.. it was a duty even. monarchs that were fearful of their rule being overturned used any excuse to disarm the people. I think that history is simply repeating itself and that things like dunbane are used as excuses to pass draconian legeslation.
The book seems to say that no matter how well armed a country is the homicide rate stays about the same while, the better armed the population is the the lower the crimerate.
You may or may not prevent a nut from shooting a few people every decade or so by passing draconian gun laws but you won't change the homicide rate.
waste of time.... womanly feel good crap.... excuse to disarm the populace.,,
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If there is some fact or figure or even conclusion about either book that you find false then I would like to hear it curval. seems to me tho that you are simple twitching at the knee while holding your hands over your ears and screaming NAAA NNAAA NAAAA whenever facts about guns that don't fit your "feelings" are presented.
Okay...I will get back to you on the article, because there are a few issues I have with it...but anything on the book will have to wait until I actually read it.
Frankly though, you presented this book, as she did I guess, by stating that she basically is an unbiased source...it only took a quick Yahoo search to actually debunk that, but not because I was knee twitching but because I was actually interested.
I'm busy today, so I will respond this evening.
-
So Beetle, you are at it again,
But don't be misled by comparisons between declining violence in the US, and rising violence in the UK. We've still yet to have a year in which more than 100 people are killed by guns.
Everything has to be about the US and its problems doesn't it aszhole? This thread started about a book regarding the UK gun issue, and you immediately want to make it about problems in the US, gotta do a comparison.
You are a fxcked up individual. I am still hoping you get therapy for your problems. Maybe buy one of those donut expanding things so you can feel better about yourself someday.
Dago
-
How about curbing this one until someone else actually reads the book? The rhetoric is getting tiresome.
MiniD
-
Well guns is for hunting, but i dont do it anymore caue Im getting soft and cant kill the poor birds and rabbits anymore.
(reason is prolly I can buy anything i want in the store dammit)
A gun i dont need for defending myselve in my country, cause only 2 % of crimes in Norway beeing done by guns and that is pretty much because they know the police isnt carrying any guns either.
There was one in the late 90`s but the bankrobbers ( 1 of them)was killed by the police by one of the police snipers. And then it was over.
We have been harrassed by some tragic gun incidents but that was people that have been or was in the army and had ag3`s or m16`s with loads of ammo at home, and killed themselve and their whole family. (guess that woulda been harder with a knife).
Nah guns is not needed in normal homes unless youre a hunter or a sportsman that need a gun(meaning competition shooting).
-
Dago! Thank you for those kind words. :) I'm fine, thank you. Lazs started this thread as a discussion about a book that he's reading, as he has been to Britain and maybe has a fascination with our unarmed society. We were just talking amongst ourselves. I am always willing to try to see the opposite side of the coin. That's why I took Lazs up on his offer to shoot some of his guns. It was an interesting day, and now I think I might buy that book he's reading for myself. BTW, is that a T3 Cub in your avatar pic?
Lazs - how far have you got into that book? Has it been good so far? Do you recommend it?
-
Your quite welcome for my kind words, and I do hope you do get the help you need since you obviously have issues.
Despite your fixiation and beliefs, the USA is not the root cause of all things evil, everything in this country is not hosed up, we don't all run around carrying guns and killing each other, we are not all drunk drivers, and our government doesn't control everything in our lives.
You just choose to get on this forum and act like it.
The aircraft in my avatar is a Naval Aircraft Factory N3N-3.
I help maintain it, and occasionally fly it.
dago
-
I dont care anything about the topic but this is \for beetle
Yarbles, Great Bolshy Yarblockos to you. I'll meet you with chain, or nudge, or britva, any time, I'm not have you aiming tolchoks at me reasonless. It stands to reason, I won't have it.
-
curval.... how did your yahoo search "prove" that her research was "biased"??? The article was after the book and her statements were what she had found to be true during her research.... I haven't ever heard of her before but a yahoo search can find no instance where she had any preconcieved (before doing the book) notins.
beetle... I obviously know very much less than you do about british history and law but the book is facinating to me in that regard. it starts out with the medieval. It is amazing to me how our laws decended from yours so closely. It is also facinating how you changed paths but how we believe in the same rights that you did all the way up to modern times.. so.... for an American it is facinating reading. It might be old hat to you but.... I would be interested in your take on the actual facts and conclusions she makes. I don't think the book will bore you... Oh... I picked up a used copy of "more guns less crime" by lott that I will send you when it get's here so email me yur address or place you want it sent.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval.... how did your yahoo search "prove" that her research was "biased"??? The article was after the book and her statements were what she had found to be true during her research.... I haven't ever heard of her before but a yahoo search can find no instance where she had any preconcieved (before doing the book) notins.
No time to do in depth research on it lazs...but good point. Faact is though she wrote ALOT of pro-gun stuff before the book you are reading.
To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right
Author: Joyce Lee Malcolm, April, 1996
Manufacturer: Harvard Univ Pr
She wrote this one, published in 1996. Haven't read it but wanna make a bet she has her opinions firmly rooted on the pro-gun side?
I cannot find out definatively where Joyce is from...but so far what I have read points to the fact that she is an American. If so she sure is obsessed with British gun control.
Sounds like someone else I know. ;)
Maybe she is a hottie lazs...the two of you might make quite a couple. Can't see it last though...she seems a bit strong willed for ya.
-
curval.. knew she wrote the other book (it is in her jacket blurb on the current book)... I have no idea what is in that book tho... I will finish this one first. I thought she was from england but could be wrong.
Still.... I guess I would like to see some british subjects read and tell me their opinions of the book as I don't really fathom the british culture and.... it seems that her research is pretty cut and dried... when the stats are unclear she gives the best and worse case scenarios for why they would say what they do.
It does appear that in all countries homicide is a given rate per culture and that weapons vary.... most being hands and feet or blunt objects.. You can cut down on firearms homicide with draconian laws but you don't cut down on overall homicides.
Like they say.... would you rather they all be pushed out windows?
The whole concept of people giving up their right to defend themselves and their familys and fellow men from theives, pshychos and monarchs is simply unfathonomable to me. I thought that the book would help explain why, say, the british would do so but so far it seems to point out that the brits feel much as we do about self defence and tyranny..
Seems most of the excuses for disarmming people were fear of the people by the monarchy or..... fer chrisakes..... Poaching! We forget what a little isle england is with our vast resources.... perhapsm poaching was worth putting people to death for in 17th 18th century england.... even then... simply possesing a firearm was no crime while possessing traps was.
anyhow.... interesting book and it doesn't seem to force any conclusions.... I think you would still be free to consider yourself better off without guns after reading it.
lazs
lazs
-
Oh... and I only like to be around strong willed people.... it's no fun pushing wussies around.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
Despite your fixiation and beliefs, the USA is not the root cause of all things evil, everything in this country is not hosed up, we don't all run around carrying guns and killing each other, we are not all drunk drivers, and our government doesn't control everything in our lives.
Now you know I never believed that.
-
Lazs..don't forget in the 17th and 18th centuries England was a fuedal society. It only stands to reason that the Kings and the nobles didn't want armed peasants running about the place...those in power kept it that way by force..brute force.
Starvation was a weapon used by the nobility in those days and poaching was dealt with swiftly and brutally. Land ownership was the cornerstone of wealth...and everything on that land BELONGED to the person who owned it...including the peasants.
-
Now you know I never believed that.
If I wasn't too lazy, I think I could do a search of threads you have started and put your statement in doubt.
dago
-
Beetle,
With all due respect, how can you contend that the only thing that is certain is that there would be a big increase in gun homicides if the gun ban were lifted in Britain? What do you base that on? According to previous statements that you have made, gun homicide was almost non-existent in the U.K. before the ban went into effect. The mere presence of guns does not automatically lead to increased violence and mayhem. There quite a number of nations across the world that allow widespread gun ownership which do not suffer from high gun homicide rates, such as Sweden and Switzerland. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there is no verifiable corelation between the presence of of guns and gun homicide.
As I said in my previous post, the law-abiding do not feel an inclination to slaughter their fellow-men because of the mere presence of a weapon.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I believe that the author points out that during the peaks of gun ownership by private citizens there was also a decrease in both homicides and crime. Gun homicides may go up somewhat but homicides in general continue to go down..
lazs
-
As Momus pointed out the handgun ban in the UK was precipitated by the Dunblane massacre. The laws were brought in to prevent another massacre like that. It was demanded by the public and the media and the govenment of the day could not afford to ignore the mass of public opinon. It was an overreaction but in point of fact nothing like that has happened since and only a brave politican would try to repeal it. The paranoid argument that you need guns to protect yourself from the government is strictly an American or even an NRA idea. The truth is most people in Britain see no reason why anyone should own a handgun. So they are banned, period! If crime is on the increase the attitude is that the government should do more and the police should crack down harder. Every incident out of America, like Columbine, employees shooting their co-workers, disgruntled client's trying to shoot their lawyers convinces, them of the wisdom of gun control. What happens in the US heavily influences public opinion all over Europe. That attitude will not change.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the increased gun crime in the UK is nothing to do with the gun laws. Partly it's to do with drug pushers and partly to a rise in gang rivalry among British blacks pushed in part by the 'Gansta Rap' culture imported from, you guessed it: The USA! I know, blame the US for everything.
Again I've made this point before and it was pointedly ignored by everyone. If guns are not the issue and there is a case to be made for that. Then the problem must lie elsewhere. If thousands upon thousands of crimes are prevented every year by gun owners in America.
What does that say about the society you live in?
That story by Toad 'They didn't plan to leave witnesses' is not very reassuring. The idea of killers out there in the countryside with guns, so much so that you need a Mini 14 to protect yourself is very scary indeed.
If I'm to believe the NRA then should I ever go to America to live then I would definitely need a gun for protection even if I lived in a nice safe middle class area.
If guns are not the issue then it must be the people who have access to them?
Isn't that the underlying issue to all this. Is America a more fearful place to live than the UK? Or is it simply that America has the balance wrong. It does seem to me that there are vested interests like the gun manufacturers who want to maintain the status quo. It always seems odd to me that in a litigation happy country like America that gun manufacturers and dealers never seem to get sued. Sure, the victiim of a gun attack sues the makers of the Grand Theft Auto PC game but not the manufacturer of the guns used to attack them or even the dealer who supplied them?
Can someone answer that question?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It always seems odd to me that in a litigation happy country like America that gun manufacturers and dealers never seem to get sued. Sure, the victiim of a gun attack sues the makers of the Grand Theft Auto PC game but not the manufacturer of the guns used to attack them or even the dealer who supplied them?
Can someone answer that question?
What does a gun ( an inanimate object) do that can cause someone to feel like going on a crime spree?
If I get attacked by someone with a baseball bat, can I sue the manufacturer?
I prefer short, simple, yet strong points.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What does a gun ( an inanimate object) do that can cause someone to feel like going on a crime spree?
If I get attacked by someone with a baseball bat, can I sue the manufacturer?
I prefer short, simple, yet strong points.
Ok in line with your philosophy, short, simple. Why not? They sold the bat to a criminal who used it to hurt you. Airplane manufacturers have been sued when the pilot runs it out of fuel. The 911 relatives are suing Boeing. What makes gun dealers and manufacturers immune?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Ok in line with your philosophy, short, simple. Why not? They sold the bat to a criminal who used it to hurt you. Airplane manufacturers have been sued when the pilot runs it out of fuel. The 911 relatives are suing Boeing. What makes gun dealers and manufacturers immune?
The manufacturer sold the bat to a distributer who then sold it to a store. You gonna sue the store? Are bats illegal to buy? Under what circumstances could you conceive of the bat manufacturer being responsible for what the bat was later used for? How would the manufacturer be responsible?
What about a rope manufacturer? Can you sue them if someone hangs a person using the rope they produced?
What if a guy used a chainsaw to kill someone ( has been done), would the chainsaw maunfacturer be liable? LOL!
As for the 911 folks suing Boeing? I'd love to see the argument .
Maybe somone could sue God being hit by lightning.
-
Originally posted by Dago
If I wasn't too lazy, I think I could do a search of threads you have started and put your statement in doubt.
dago
You were the one who portrayed Britain as a nation of drunks. I did some research on alcohol related road deaths and incidence of cirrhosis of the liver, and found that America's difficulties with alcohol are worse than ours. I don't see anything anti-American about setting the record straight.
Curval - yes, those were brutal times. I've just watched a two-part serialisation about Henry VIII, and I'm glad I was born when I was, and not back then at a time you could be burned at the stake for having religious beliefs which differed from those of the King. Henry was a self-indulgent stunninghunk. He had his second wife, Anne Boleyn, beheaded. Her only crime was to bear Henry a daughter instead of a son, and then a stillborn son. As a result, she was tried for treason, found guilty by the usual Henry-ordained kangaroo court, and executed. The daughter became Elizabeth I (1558-1603).
Where I live is on an old coaching route from London to the west. It was notorious for its highwaymen, and gentlemen riding the coaches that travelled along this route (now known as the Bath Road, the Old Bath Road, the Great West Road or simply the A4 in places) were advised to carry their sidearms!
Of course, we don't do that now. But I don't recall anyone in my parents' generation or my grandparents' generation harking back to the "good old days" when we had guns.
_________________________
Knickers, cabbages... it hasn't got a beak!
-
Thanks for the sig material, beetle. Two whole pages and no one found it amusing.
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by NUKE
The manufacturer sold the bat to a distributer who then sold it to a store. You gonna sue the store? Are bats illegal to buy? Under what circumstances could you conceive of the bat manufacturer being responsible for what the bat was later used for? How would the manufacturer be responsible?
What if a guy used a chainsaw to kill someone ( has been done), would the chainsaw maunfacturer be liable? LOL! [/QUOTE]
Maybe but I bet someone has sued a chainsaw manufacturer when they accidentally cut their own arm off. So why not sue a gun manufacturer when you shoot yourself in the foot? If you can sue McDonald's when you spill coffee in your lap or for making you fat you can sue anybody. Gun manufacturers are immune somehow, odd that??????
Here's a point, all guns in the hands of criminals must have started of as legitimate. The gun manufacturer sold it to a gun dealer (unless he "lost" it) who sold it to a 'law abiding citizen'. Who either lost it or had it stolen or sold it to a criminal. This means people have to buy a gun from the same manufacturer who made the gun that threatens them. Talk about a win win situation for manufacturers. Fear of criminals with guns means big profits for everyone in the gun trade. Paranoia and gun crime is good for business.
Conspiracy theory anyone? Think of all those dealers and manufacturers going out of business if gun control took hold.
No one answered my other questions either, too uncomfortable and too close to the bone I think.
Edit: I saw this on the other gun thread. It seems I'm not such an original thinker.
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archiv...lackmarket.html
-
Maybe but I bet someone has sued a chainsaw manufacturer when they accidentally cut their own arm off. So why not sue a gun manufacturer when you shoot yourself in the foot? If you can sue McDonald's when you spill coffee in your lap or for making you fat you can sue anybody. Gun manufacturers are immune somehow, odd that??????
You don't get it. If a guy cuts off his arm because the chainsaw was defective, maybe he could sue the manufacturer.
If McDonalds is negligent and serves coffee at 200 degrees and somone gets scalded, they can be sued.
If a gun manufacturer made a defective gun that somehow caused somone injury, maybe they could be sued.
But you can't just sue a manufacturer just because someone uses the product in a crime . Could somone sue GM because somone uses one of their cars to plow into people on a sidewalk?
Can I sue Sony if somone throws one of their monitors off a building and it hits me?
-
It appears that homicides fall in britan even durring times o lax gun control but that when gun control is strict, crime rises. beetle blames one adminestration for burglars and pickpockets.
Early england had no police force and relied... no, insisted... that ever citizen be armed and resist crime. It was a justifiable homicide to kill someone who was commiting a felony. Not attempting to stop crime was punishable by death in some cases.
In england... the reasons for gun control were never to stop rampant gun homicides but were to stop poaching (believe it or not) and because the current monarch feared his subjects. Latter laws were passed in spite of dropping crime and homicide rates.
When the peoples rights were taken away and they were told that criminals were not to be bothered.... crime went up
A forty car pileup with dozens of deaths doesn't bring on draconian laws because the monarch son't fear automobiles (much) ... they look at the stats and decide if it is an unavoidable anomally.... not so with guns..... one crazy person goes on a rampage and they don't look at anything but the incident and then... not even that.... they look at the gun.... they claim the gun killed those people and that the only way to prevent insanity in the future is to ......
disarm the ehtire populace.
seems the monarchs of england haven't changed much over the years. They still piss on their subjects and tell em it's warm rain.
lazs
-
firearms manufactures and ammo manufacturers have been successfuly sued many times for defective products.
Gun manufaturers are not that powerful... they do have one of the most dillegent recall programs of all U.S. history... about on a par with auto makers. But.... they produce time tested products, some of which have been in contiuous production upward to 200 years... pretty hard to sue em if they use good manufacturing practice and materials.
plus... there is a pride in gun manufacturing that is sadly lacking in so many other products.
lazs
-
That's right Lazs. Old Elizabeth Queenie is just like Henry VIII - I went to the burning of a Catholic heretic the other week, and the week before that I watched the public maiming of some evil miscreants who had happened to poach a rabbit from Her Majesty's divine acreage.
Anyway, this book is written by a women, ergo it's not worth reading. She probably votes and everything. Disgusting.
-
Hmm... I thought that your royalty was just for show these days... something for the tourists... Perhaps you should look toward your government and ask them what exactly was the reason for all the gun control and who they were afraid of. certainly the occassional loony wasn't the reason?
And what have they accomplished? higher crime rates? Maybe you don't even notice anymore and that signs to watch out for pickpockets and theives seem normal to you? You took a nothing homicide rate and kept it the same but you increased crime overall. What was the point? For this you took away peoples right to defend themselves?
lazs
-
You were the one who portrayed Britain as a nation of drunks
Maybe you missed this one important fact in our little pissing match.
I only posted anti-English nonsense in response to your anti-American nonsense posts.
When you originated stupid crap about the USA, I responded. When you posted about drunk driving in the US, I responded about drunks crawling out of Pubs. etc etc.
You start this nonsense, you start these type of threads for no reason, just to be an asz, and some of us respond.
Britain as a nation of drunks
Not really wrong anyway. hahahahahah now, off to your pub for breakfast. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Beetle,
With all due respect, how can you contend that the only thing that is certain is that there would be a big increase in gun homicides if the gun ban were lifted in Britain? What do you base that on? According to previous statements that you have made, gun homicide was almost non-existent in the U.K. before the ban went into effect. The mere presence of guns does not automatically lead to increased violence and mayhem. There quite a number of nations across the world that allow widespread gun ownership which do not suffer from high gun homicide rates, such as Sweden and Switzerland. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there is no verifiable corelation between the presence of of guns and gun homicide.
As I said in my previous post, the law-abiding do not feel an inclination to slaughter their fellow-men because of the mere presence of a weapon.
Regards, Shuckins
Sorry, Shuck - I've only just see your post.
Gun homicides were indeed almost nonexistent for many years. By "almost nonexistent", I mean fewer than 100 and closer to 50. That's bad enough, although a tally of many thousands has been described as a "pittance", a small price to pay for the freedom to keep guns. So "almost nonexistent" is a relative term.
The reason that Britain would have increased gun homicides if guns were made freely available here is because like America, Britain has a problem with racial tensions, and ethnic gangs and drug related feuds. It has been said many times on this board that the vast majority of US gun homicides involve criminals, particularly drug dealers, many of whom belong to ethnic minorities.
I have never been to either Sweden or Switzerland, but I doubt whether either is a melting pot of different races in the way that Britain and America are. How many people/immigrants of ethnic minorities live in Switzerland? Very, very few would be my guess.
Now you could say that a gun is an inanimate object/guns don't kill people blah blah blah... but the fact is that a gun has to be present for a gun crime to occur. We try to keep the lid on it by eliminating the presence of guns, but it's not a perfect system.
I hold my beliefs because there are parallels between crime in Britain and crime in the US - racial crimes, drug dealing, territorial disputes etc. - but which are far less prevalent in countries like Sweden and Switzerland.
-
You said the monarchy hasn't changed much. Apart from losing absolute power and ceding control of the country to the elected parliament you're probably right. They are still inbred.
This 'explosion' in crime is due to the banning of guns? Not only have I not noticed more crime, I'm incredulous at the suggestion that the presence or lack of guns makes any difference at all in Britain. Very nearly no one had them before, and now no-one does. I don't think I can convey the rarity of firearms before the ban to a Yank - I don't think you can imagine it. I was more likely to see a flying saucer than a firearm and would be equally surprised by either sight.
-
It seems to me that the author poses a testable question of fact. In other words, rather than engage in some hocus pocus historical analysis of gun control in Britain, it's entirely possible to gather up enough information to run a statistical time-series analysis of violent crime rates to determine any relationship to gun control or other British trends.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Not real sure what you said DMF but I think the author does attempt to look at the statistics and draw conclusions... perhaps dowding and a few others might read the book?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not real sure what you said DMF but I think the author does attempt to look at the statistics and draw conclusions... perhaps dowding and a few others might read the book?
lazs
Sorry to be obscure. There are statistical techniques for measuring relationships between variables recorded over time -- namely violent crime and gun control laws.
The problem with simply looking at data over time centers around drawing eroneous conclusions due to spurious relationships. It's the classic case where one can link violent crime to ice cream sales. Naturally, ice cream sales don't actually cause violent crime, but rather an unmeasured third variable -- say the temperature -- increases both. Cold weather tends to put a damper on all sorts of criminal behavior as law-abiding citizens and hoodlums alike stay in their heated homes.
Along those same lines, the author requires more than simply looking at one set of anothers and comparing it in a similar timeline to another set of variables. Time-series analysis allows scholars to remove the trending and random elements from variables to measure the actual relationships between them over time. And I suspect that the author of this book has not performed such analyses despite the resources available to do so. So while her historical research might appear interesting, without actual quantitative data analysis to back up her claims, I'm dubious. Who's to say a third, unmeasured variable -- say urbanization or population density -- isn't driving violent crime? Or that gun control has actually mitigated the level of such crime given predicted levels based on population density?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I've ordered my copy from http://www.amazon.co.uk
Lazs - I've sent you an email with my home address on it so you can send the John Lott book.
-
Your logic astounds me Lazs; crime is up since the handgun ban therefore the handgun ban is the direct cause. :rolleyes:
Your inference is that prior to the ban the relatively small number of pistol owners (approx 60,000?) were somehow singlehandedly holding back a major crimewave. Some points you might like to consider:
i) Prior to the latest ban concealed carry was already illegal.
ii) Prior to the ban, a large proportion of pistol owners were obliged to keep their weapons on gun-club premises.
Given the demonstrably non-existent effect legally held weapons were having on the crime rate prior to the ban, the hypothesis you're suggesting, namely that in the UK model less guns=more crime, makes about as much sense as claiming that less guns=more teenage pregnancies, given that the stats for teenage pregancies have also increased over the same time-frame.
A major for the rise in gun related crime in the UK is a significant drop in the price of illegal weapons; fuelled mainly by an increase in supplies from increasingly redundant paramilitary stocks in Northern Ireland (where they are often exchanged for drugs thus reinforcing the firearm/drug gang connection). Supplies are also coming in on the back of increased trade from the former eastern bloc countries.
However, I have to concurr with Cpxxx; if I lived in the US I would feel obliged to own a weapon for the protection of myself and my property. It's nevertheless a mistake to think that arguments that are valid on the US model will fit that of the UK.
-
The last thing a criminal wants is to get shot. Most won't take the risk if they think you might have a gun.
There are some ways to avoid attack also. Probably the most important one is to make it look like you are aware and doing what you do, or going where you're going with purpose.
They're not looking to get in a fight or confrontation. They'll move on to easier pickings.
If you do find yourself in a situation, it's probably best to not resist if they have the drop on you. Nothing you can do about that, unless you're willing to kill someone with the pistol you're carrying in your pocket.
Thing there is, no one knows what they would do in that situation. Carjackers would do it. Better to let them have the car if you're the only one there, and hope they don't take you along.
It would be hard to do something like that. In Alabama, carjacking carries the death penalty. That means it's considered self defense to kill someone carjacking your car, even if you shoot 'em in the back.
Les
-
DMF.. not obscure... just over my head.. If I understand your explanation tho... I think that the reason she took one country was to weed out things like weather and borders and culture... she even takes into consideration war and peace and the effect that young people off to war or returning soldiers may have... She uses London mostly for population centers and the stats are in per 100,000....the variables seem endless to me but I certainly would welcome your opinion on the book if you could find the time to read it.
I have said here many times that each country is a set of conditions unto itself... that is why I like this book which concentrates on one country... just as I like Lotts book "more guns less crime" which also concentrates on one country. Even at that... It is interesting to note that things like white middle class homicides with guns are about the same in both Canada and the U.S. Those segments of the repective populations are very similar.
In any case... we got our laws and our culture from england and so the book is interesting to me... I like the path we chose more than the one they did and I like a big ol country better than a tiny one but.... I wanted to hear from the people who live there... I really wanted to hear opinions on the book more than opinions on my opinions and....
I welcome the learned types of analysis like DMF. I allways figured you can't learn anything listening only to people you agree with.
momus... read the book... it is about british history and not just the most recent ban. I understand that media can whip stupid, womenly and emotional people into a frenzy of witch hunting.... that is not news to me.... what is interesting is how england let itself get that way with such a proud tradition of individual rights.
Can't wait for a book on australia...
lazs
-
yes momus... you wouldn't understand because you have never had the freedom but... in the U.S. criminals know that homeowners are likely to be armed and the criminals think (rightly or wrongly) that the homeowners will gleefully fill them full of holes and that the police will give their blessing. better to just try to rob when no one is home...
If a burglar does go into a "hot" home... he is probly rabid.. like a skunk in the daylight... he needs to be shot. He is up to more than simple burglary.
Soo.... jsut like putting the "club" on your steering wheel won't stop a determined criminal from stealing your car... it will make him change his habits or move on to easier prey. even maybe make him get a job if crime becomes too risky, dangerous and unprofitable.
lazs
-
If a burglar does go into a "hot" home... he is probly rabid.. like a skunk in the daylight... he needs to be shot. He is up to more than simple burglary.
A criminal who wants to steal but not hurt anyone or risk getting caught will only break into an empty home. If he choose to break into a home knowing people are at home, he has through his actions stated he is perfectly willing to hurt or kill the occupants.
These are the ones you want to be armed against.
dago
-
I’ve read a few chapters of this book, but not in the order they appear. Much of the beginning of the book is material about Britain in the middle ages, and is not relevant to armed crime in Britain today. There’s also a great deal of historical data which while interesting does not relate to the title of the book. So I skipped ahead…
It has been said that some folks on this BBS have got a hard-on for America, by which it is meant that some people are obsessed by American issues. By the same token, it has to be said that Joyce Lee Malcolm has got a wide-on for England. Instead of providing an objective analysis about crime patterns in our (relatively) unarmed society, she appears to have started out with the conclusions, and then goes in search of historical facts to substantiate them.
If the object of her analysis was to prove that guns don’t cause crime, then a more objective analysis would have been to consider other unarmed societies – Japan, France, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, Bermuda – we have guys from all those places on this BBS who are satisfied with their country’s unarmed status and do not want to see a proliferation of weapons where they live.
The book attempts to make a correlation between unrelated facts. For example, despite a gun ban, Britain has seen an increase in crime in a period when US crime has gone down. The author points to this fact and tries to draw the conclusion that “guns don’t cause crime”. But in another passage in the book, the author herself presents the reasons why American crime levels have decreased while British crime levels have increased. And that’s because America has enough police who are efficiently deployed, with greater crime detection rates, adequate jail accommodation and tougher sentencing. Here, we have too few jails, not enough police therefore lower detection rates, not enough jails, and over lenient sentencing. The guns issue does not enter into the equation.
The book also makes comparisons between Britain and America using relative values. For example, the author mentions a “dramatic increase” in British crime, and a “dramatic decrease” in American crime. As the theme of the book is gun violence, one is entitled to assume that the crime under discussion is gun crime. If Britain were to see a doubling of gun homicides, the figure would still only be about 120. A paltry figure compared to the American tally, but a doubling would be dramatic. By the same token, the dramatic fall in American crime means that unlike 1992 in which more than 13,000 people in America were victims of gun homicide, the total now is only about half that. But despite changing crime levels (Britain’s “dramatic” increase and America’s “dramatic” decrease), American levels of gun related homicide per 100,000 population continue to be many, many times greater than Britain’s. The author avoids the issue by discussing the issue in relative terms and by avoiding actual statistics.
There is interesting material within the pages of this book. It covers a lot of our history and is interesting if off topic. Marks out of ten? Right now, I give it a 5. But I’ve not finished reading it.
-
beetle.. I believe it is you who read the book with preconcieved notions... least it appears that way.. I believe the book mostly points out that gun in britan never caused an increase in homicides... an increase in homicides is what you and the people on this board claim to see as the reason that you should give up the basic human right (the right you in britan allways preeviously believed in) ....
you gave up your rights over... over womanly hysteria and no real logic... for your troubles it appears that you got an increase in some particularly humiliating crime... people breaking into your "castle" while you were there and you being not only defensless but.... bound by law to act in a cowardly way... to run and hide.
I have argued in another thread that your legal system is releasing far too many criminals... Have been told that no... we are arresting too many in the U.S. you can't have it both ways.
I believe the premis of her book is that no matter what... arming the citizens of a country does not increase homicides (the reason most stated by tyrants and women for neuttering the populace)... the rate stays about the same with or without guns... they hysterical scenaarios of people shooting each other over fender benders or killing their kids who arrive home late never happen.
A lot of people in the U.S. don't have guns and are protected under the umbrella of the ones who do... same for concealled carry... that is why crime goes down. Some people in the states never see a gun other than on TV or movies their whole life.
The amount of crime stopped with guns per year in the U.S. does not mean there is more crime here so much as it means that less is completed than would be without guns.
To say that you feel safe and crime free in england is silly to us... you were saying how my locks on my house were inadequate... I have a door lock and deadbolt. In big cities with no guns they have 5 or six deadbolts and steel lined doors... you would be proud.
who is living in fear?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle.. I believe it is you who read the book with preconcieved notions... least it appears that way..
You would have said that to any Brit who did not completely agree with the book.
I have never suffered a break-in or even an attempted break-in, and I don't live in fear. I've never even had a car broken into. But since moving house in Sept., I have had two Chubb locks fitted to the front door. :) My reasoning is that a burglar would not waste time on my house, but would go to one of the other houses that does not have 5-lever locks like mine. I have argued in another thread that your legal system is releasing far too many criminals... Have been told that no... we are arresting too many in the U.S. you can't have it both ways.
No, I agree with you. Not enough criminals get jail sentences, and the jail sentences that are handed down are too short. We need the kind of prisons like you have at Marion,IL and also that place in CO where the WTC bomber (1993) is banged up. We have many opportunist burglars because they know they're unlikely to go to jail even if convicted.
The cause of thousands of gun homicides in the US has two ingredients, each of which in isolation is not necessarily dangerous. Those ingredients are 1)social deprivation of poor minorities and ethnic groups leading to surviving by trading drugs and the turf wars that go with it, and 2)the availability of guns. Guns on their own are not dangerous, given proper handling - eg. Switzerland - plenty of guns, but no ethnic mixing/large scale drug problems etc. Social deprivation/drugs/ethnic minorities on its own will not lead to thousands of gun homicides without guns being present - that's what we have in Britain. Unfortunately, the US has both.arming the citizens of a country does not increase homicides
Well then how do you explain that the US has at least 50 times the number of gun homicides than countries like Britain, France, Spain, Japan, Iceland, Ireland, Bermuda, New Zealand...................... ...............
-
someday in twenty years everyone is gonna have a pistol that can only fire inside their house. sensor on gun and sensor on house. gun used only to defend house from criminal. maybe when everyone have id chip civilian gun only work within twenty yds of convicted felon and not work if cop within twenty yds.
-
beetle... you did no that the rate of blacks incarcerated in the U.S. per 100,000 is six times that of whites.... we incarcerate all other minorities at the rat of double the amount of whites per 100,000 these figures are for people incarcerated on any given day...
while your rate of people incarcerated is less than ours.... the figures for black vs white are guess what? 6 times higher per 100,000 for black vs white and double for all other minorities per 100,000 vs white.
if you incarcerated all those you should be.... you would have pretty much the same situation as we do i betcha. except... we have more prisons... you would have to build more.
The cause of thousands of gun homicides in the U.S. has nothing to do with guns.... the lack of thousands of homicides in your country has nothing to do with guns.... you gave up your rights for nothing.
lazs
-
we incarcerate all other minorities at the rat of double the amount of whites per 100,000
Lasz...does this apply to Indians (I mean people from India - not Native Americans)?
Being one, I'd be curious to know. (serious question)
cheers
Ravs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The cause of thousands of gun homicides in the U.S. has nothing to do with guns.... the lack of thousands of homicides in your country has nothing to do with guns.... you gave up your rights for nothing.
Why does the US have about 50 times as many gun homicides than Britain?
-
DMF:
If you want to see a lot of statistical analysis on this particular issue then John Lott is your man.
Hooligan
-
raves... that statistic includes all "other" minorities combined... east indians and woo woo indians would be part of that statistic but it is not broken down... my guess is that more east indians would make up the british figure tho but I have no data.
beetle.... firearms or not... we allways kill people at a higher rate than you do per 100,000 be it with fists or knives or guns... the amount of guns makes no difference or... seems to actually decrease the amount of homicides.
you have given up basic human rights for nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle.... firearms or not... we allways kill people at a higher rate than you do per 100,000 be it with fists or knives or guns... the amount of guns makes no difference or... seems to actually decrease the amount of homicides.
Wrong. Only about 60 people a year in Britain are victims of gun homicide. That compares with many thousands in the US. Can you please explain why?
-
you have given up basic human rights for nothing.
lazs
Owning a gun is not a basic human right. Only a right granted to you by an accident of history. No other country has the same right in a written constitution.
You can be glad of that I suppose.
Remember the only rights you have are those granted to you by other people. Except perhaps the right to life but even that right is flagrantly violated all the time.
-
The right to own a gun is part of the basic human right of self defense. The right to self defense is almost uniformly recognized throughout the world. And anyplace this right is not recognized is not likely to be a pleasant place to live.
The way our government is supposed to work:
People have inalienable rights. The government has powers granted to it by the people. In practice this has hardly turned out to be uniformly adhered to. Nonetheless, the results of this philosophy of government seem much more attractive than the competing philosophy of state supremacy over the individual.
Hooligan
-
beetle.... your country has a homicide rate per 100,000 and my country has a homicide rate per 100,000....
That rate does not change if you or we have gun laws or not... in fact ... the homicide rate may actually go down in states that have enlightened gun policies (no laws to speak of)...
If you are simply concerned with the method of homicide then.... you have succeeded.... less people kill each other with fireams in your country now.... they use other weapons.
u have given up your right to defend yourself for nothing.
lazs
-
Lazs, you're babbling. Yes, I'm fully aware that government agencies use a crime rate per 100,000 population to assess that crime. And per 100,000 population, gun homicides in the US are many times greater than in the UK. We've never had more than 100 in any year - the annual tally is normally about half that. That's less than 2,500 in the last 25 years which itself is less than half the US tally for any ONE year in the last 25.
So why is the US gun related homicide figure so much higher than the equivalent figure for any other civilised country? Could it just be possible that the availability of guns has something to do with it?
-
but beetle... even when you had lax firearms laws you didn't see any increase in overall homicides.... you did not see any overall decrease in the amount when you gave away your freedoms either.
we don't see an increase in homicides when a state has no gun laws but we see a slight increase in (overall) homicides when draconian ones are enacted.
you gave up your rights for nothing unless you just don't like certain ways of dying over others. In fact... you not only gave up your rights for nothing but you may have made overall crime worse.
but you can say that gun homicides have dropped... for now.
no more or less people get murdered in the uk no matter what the gun laws are. you gave away your rights like women.... for nothing and because you let the government and your women make you hysterical.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no more or less people get murdered in the uk no matter what the gun laws are.
You're missing the point. Or, more likely, evading it. Forget what laws are in force because law abiders do not commit homicides with guns. The gun related homicide rate is in direct proportion to the number of guns in circulation. Some years, the US has seen more than 10,000 people killed by guns. Do you think that might just have something to do with the availability of guns?
-
you are missing the point.... would you rather that they were all pushed out windows? the states with the least laws have the least OVERALL homicides.
OVERALL homicides is all that counts. If you eliminated guns entirely you would just have an increase in stabbing and bludeoning to take up the slack.... like you do in the UK
your government took your rights away from yu with the help of your women and..... for nothing.
what did you gain besides a rising crime rate and the knowledge that as economics decline and drug use go up you will simply be left defenseless?
you gave up your (and your fellow mans) rights for nothing.
laz
-
Some years, the US has seen more than 10,000 people killed by guns.
Practically every year since the 60s, I think.
The US homicide figures are often misrepresented. The FBI gets reports from local police forces. Usually those reports include details of the victim, method of killing, probably reasons (where known) etc. However, not all homicide reports come with that supplemental detail.
The FBI publishes the overall figure, and also the figures broken down into weapons, race, motive etc. However, the figures are raw figures only, and don't take into account the homicides for which they have no supplemental data.
For 2002, the FBI lists 16,204 homicides (not counting negligent homicide)
However, when you look at the detailed table, Murder Victims by Weapon, they show a total of 14,054 homicides, 9369 by firearm. That's a rate of about 66% murdered with a firearm. If you apply that 66% to the total figure, including those where the FBI haven't been informed of the method of killing, you get 10,694 homicides with a firearm.
Note, this does not mean counting deaths where the cause is uknown or unclear, only homicides where the cause, along with other details, hasn't been reported.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
OVERALL homicides is all that counts. If you eliminated guns entirely you would just have an increase in stabbing and bludeoning to take up the slack.... like you do in the UK
Wrong again. A minority of homicides in Britain are committed with a gun, whereas most homicides in the US are carried out with guns. We have about 750 homicides a year, out of which about 60 are shootings. That 750 is still a lot less than 10,000 tally that the US has seen some years. Even scaling it up to allow for the smaller population brings us nowhere close to the US homicide rate, and certainly not the gun related homicides.
I wonder why there are so many shootings in the US. Do think the availability of guns might just have something to do with it?
-
beetle... if you could magically remove all the guns in the uk... you would not have 60 less homicides per year... you would have 60 less gun homicides a year.
if you could remove all the guns from everyone in the U.S. you would not have 9,000+ less homicides a year... you would have 9,000 less firearms homicides a year and..... a growing crime rate.
if there even are any people in the U.S. who would murder with a gun but would not murder by any other means.... they would be a very small amount and not worth the increase in crime and loss of freedom that silly laws like yours have caused.
you gave up your rights for nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
if you could remove all the guns from everyone in the U.S. you would not have 9,000+ less homicides a year... you would have 9,000 less firearms homicides a year and..... a growing crime rate.
Britain has the same social deprivation/ethnic related powderkeg as the US. If all the guns that were removed from the US were distributed here, our homicide rate would skyrocket, which to me sounds like... a growing crime rate. I think the availability of guns might have something to do with it, don't you think?
Nashwan - what are your sources? I can't find much data since about 2000.
-
no beetle... that is the whole point... if it was raining guns in england the HOMICIDE rate would not go up... yu may find this hard to believe but.... england has been a "powder keg" in the past and had no fireams restrictions... the homicide rate stays steady regardless of firearms availability.
you gave up your rights for nothing...
lazs
-
Lazs,
Back in the middle ages (the period you refer to when we did have guns) there were no socially deprived ethnic minorities and no gangs dealing drugs and no drug dealing/gang related turf wars. Modern Britain is very different. I don't agree that the homicide rate would remain unchanged if those people got guns. I mean - just look at America...
... I think it could be something to do with the availability of guns. The British (and other governments) seem to agree. What do you think?
-
I think that except for going down slightly in the rate of homicide in areas of the U.S. that have no or less restrictions of firearms ownership and carry laws.... I think that that other than that....
There is no difference. if it were raining firearms it would make no difference... your 1996 ban has not made a difference. Guns don't make people kill. They don't even make people more likely to kill..
The homicide rate stays the same... it would stay the same no matter what gun laws were enacted or recinded (with the possible exception of minors and insane people)
I think..... you gave up your rights for nothing. justify it any way you want.
lazs
-
Beetle, the best source for the US crime figures is the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
The 2002 figures have been released in the last few weeks.
The overall homicide figure:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html
Victims by weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t210
Note the lower total figure, which represents only those homicides where additional data is available.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
There is no difference. if it were raining firearms it would make no difference... your 1996 ban has not made a difference. Guns don't make people kill. They don't even make people more likely to kill..
But the majority of homicides in the US are achieved by handguns. Why's that then? Might it just be because of the availability of guns?
-
Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was all pushed out of windows?"
-Archie Bunker
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But the majority of homicides in the US are achieved by handguns. Why's that then? Might it just be because of the availability of guns?
Hey Beetle checkout the race stats in Nash's last links.;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
People needed killing?
I always remember a scene from an old Western I saw on TV. There was a gun fight going on between two guys in the main street of a small township. Gunfire was blazing between the two men, while the gentrified classes went about their business - To condone such killings sounds like you would like a return to the days of America's Wild West.
Note,
I grew up in the "Wild West"......
My family emmigrated in the 1800s from Wales, and settled in Southern Idaho. And while one of my Grandmother's cousins made a name fo himself robbing trains and Banks actual shootouts were rare to non existant, most of the westerns seen in the movies and on TV are just propaganda...much like romantacised tales of Tirante lo Blank, Amadis of Gaules or Percivale and the Green Knight. The actuality of the old west was that armed Bandits were met by an aroused and armed Population, and rather than shooting they genrally just made for the hills. and with the exception of "Uncle" George no one in my family ever saw a Gunfight.......
As for Unca George he made it out of Bolivia with an unheard of amount of gold and silver and retired in Canada in the 1920s. Also of note the old west shown in the movies lasted till after WW I and hasent died out yet, and wear a funny hat
Gunns
-
Storch,
I have been debating this topic on this board for months. Looks like you've only just started, and need filling in with the background. Let me help you out. Look at the Swiss, they are fully armed, fully free and have avoided involvement in all 20th century conflicts, any gun related homicides in switzerland, never read about them. Hmmmm.
Many if not most gun homicides occur where there is social depreivation/ethnic unrest/drug dealing/drug related turf wars. NONE of those traits applies to Switzerland. I've never been there, but I understand it's mainly white, wealthy, high standard of living, and does not need to sully itself by becoming part of the European Community, adopting the European currency, or by participating in any armed conflicts. I think these factors might have some bearing on the situation in Switzerland, especially the absence of racial tensions and drugs. You also should consider the per capita rate, not the 5000 vs 750 homicide numbers, I'm not sure but i believe the US might possibly have a larger population than the whole of the UK, Canada and Australia combined.
That 750 is for ALL homicides, of which only about 60 are gun related in a typical year. In the US, MOST homicides involve guns, and handguns at that. The figure just for gun homicides in the US is some years has been as high as 13,000. So we're not comparing 5000 with 750 on a per capita basis, we're comparing 13,000 with 60 on a per capita basis.
The very fact that in addition to the 60 gun homicides we have each year there are about 690 homicides committed by other means demonstrates that people are having to go to great lengths to commit their wrongdoings by other methods, and that if guns were freely available, our annual tally of homicides would rise from 750 to perhaps as many as 3000. But those other methods are much less efficient than guns. You have to get close to wound or kill with a sharp object; a gun can kill at long range. Just last month I fired Lazs's .44 Magnum - a weapon of awesome power. I can only imagine that a single shot to any location of a human torso would be sufficient to cause death. The killing process is made so much easier and more efficient by the use of a gun, hence the handgun being a killer's chosen instrument where available.
But you made some good points. Away from high risk areas in America, I feel completely safe. In California last month, we never felt threatened or at risk. I mean please send any available weapons to help our allies blah blah blah, who were so sheepish as to allow their gov't (more people have been killed by their own gov't than by virus or bacteria) to disarm them without so much as a muted complaint.
That situation predates me, but I don't recall my grandparents (all of whom were born in the Victorian era) lamenting the absence of guns. My guess is that there were never many guns in the first place, and that regulating the supply of guns was to avoid a disaster which was only too apparent in America - the wild west of the 1800s, followed by the gangster years of the 1920s.
-
Our rate is about 5.5 per 100,000 for all homicides and going down.. about 51% of those are by a very small portion of the population (minorities) Our white homicide rate is allmost exactly like Canadas.
england has about half of that and is going up. They imprison blacks and minorities at the exaact same rate as we do... 6/1 ratio black/white and 2/1 ratio all other minorities/white.
it matters not if guns are allowed or not... the homicide rate stays the same or... goes down with firearms freedom.... crime goes down with enlightened or nonexistent gun laws...
you gave away your rights for nothing and it will bite you in the butt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
england has about half of that and is going up. They imprison blacks and minorities at the exaact same rate as we do... 6/1 ratio black/white and 2/1 ratio all other minorities/white.
Two errors. Our homicide rate is about 750 a year, with a population of about 58,000,000. In fact that's the whole population, including Scotland, whereas the crime stats usually focus on England and Wales, with Scotland separate. Even so, that value comes to a rate of about 1.29 which is NOT about half of the US rate. In fact it's less than a quarter.
The other error is that you said your homicide rate is going down. If you would look to the FBI link that Nashwan posted above ^^ you will see that the US saw a 1% increase between 2001 and 2002.
I sleep well at nights. There hasn't been a murder in this town in the 21 years that I've lived here. As someone once said on this BBS, I feel "as threatened as I might at a Church bingo night". Can you remember who said that? ;)
And because I feel as threatened as I might at a Church bingo night, I don't mind not having a gun. Any blacks around here sound like Alec Guinness anyway. :D
You, however, need to keep that .45 semi-auto next to your bed when you go to sleep, loaded with one in the spout. Do you also have the hammer back to minimise the trigger load for when something bad happens?
Now here's the thing. I don't blame you for doing that, if you feel threatened as clearly you do. After all, the chances of that something bad happening are far higher where you live than where I live. Do think the availability of guns has anything to do with it?
-
looks like you're not going to get a repeat invite, beetle...;)
Ravs
-
rave... you would be wrong again... beetle, or you are welcome to visit me any time... bring your women.
beetle... nice dodge... you left out my homeland? with Scotland... your rate is about half ours per 100,000 if you leave out black and minority homicides in the U.S. then it is close enough to not get excited (or smug) about. your crime rate is going up while ours is going down.
you gave up your, and worse, your fellow mans, rights.... for nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle... nice dodge... you left out my homeland? with Scotland... your rate is about half ours per 100,000 if you leave out black and minority homicides in the U.S. then it is close enough to not get excited (or smug) about. your crime rate is going up while ours is going down.
you gave up your, and worse, your fellow mans, rights.... for nothing.
I guess you still haven't looked at the FBI links provided by Nashwan. US crime up 1% between 2001-2002. But... if you leave out black and minority homicides in the U.S. then it is close enough to not get excited (or smug) about.
Nice massaging attempt. How about if we also leave out black and minority homicides in the UK so that we're still comparing like with like? Most of the shootings I've heard about in the UK this year were of blacks/gang/drug related. They include two teenage girls shot dead at a hair salon (apparently the killer was the brother of one of the girls) and a seven year old girl who was shot in the back to prevent her bearing witness to the shooting death moments earlier of her drug dealer father. These shooting deaths both here and in the US seem to arise out of the same thing...
... do you think the availability of guns might have something to do with it?
-
LOL beetle.... 1%? It went down the year before a variation of 1% is pretty much no variation.
storch... none of those things are possible in england... they were in the past but they are outlawed now.
beetle and rave.... so how much has your homicide rate gone down since the draconian 95-96 gun ban?
you gave up your rights for nothing.
talked to a sherriff rangemaster 20 minutes ago... he can't believe what girly men you are all scared of firearms and all.
lazs
-
Storch. We have gun control, and no-one is supposed to have guns. The law is like any other law, and cannot be expected to be perfect. There are transgressors. I don't know where criminals get handguns. Blackmarket supply would be my guess. Our laws contain the annual homicide toll to about 800. It's bad, but not as bad as 6000+.
I've never encountered a mad dog and probably never will. I don't think it would be worth carrying a gun just to guard against something that's never happened to me or to anyone else I know. Smacks of paranoia.
Ah yes, the old chestnut about the government going over the edge. :rolleyes: Your remarks don't belong in this century or even the last. How would you handle it? A possé of like minded pot-bellied civilians dressed in jeans and Harley Davidson T-shirts with reverse baseball caps waving handguns in the direction of Washington? Oh puhleeeze... Gimme a break...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle and rave.... so how much has your homicide rate gone down since the draconian 95-96 gun ban?
I think it was 1997, but it was in response to a Columbine-style mass shooting at a school in Dublane in your familty seat of Scotland. The ban was pretty transparent to me as I had to take no action. Would have been like banning cigarettes - I don't buy them anyway.
I guess our government along with those of many other countries too numerous to list believes that if there were a limitless supply of guns, then it would be inevitable that they would find their way into the wrong hands - the hands of criminals.
But even if gun homicides in Britain were eliminated overnight, that would equate to a drop of about 60. You would consider that to be a very small number considering you think that 6000+ dead is a pittance worth paying for the right to have guns.
Wonder why there are so many unarmed societies around the world. Their governments seem to want to keep the lid on crime, and fear it would skyrocket if policy were changed. What do think their concerns are based on? Do you think the availability of guns might have something to do with it?
-
talked to a sherriff rangemaster 20 minutes ago... he can't believe what girly men you are all scared of firearms and all.
Now we get to the nub of it. There is something masculine and virile about owning a gun. Lasz...we have made a choice to ban guns in public circulation here. That is not the same thing about being 'afraid' to own one. As I said on an earlier post, I fired plenty of guns in school and I do not find the thought of owning a gun scary in itself. I have never met anyone here who is frightened of firearms as such.
What we are concerned about is making those firearms available in general circulation and so far it has worked for us.
This 'girly men' thing you have in your head really needs to be addressed. The fact that we have chosen not to have widespread gun ownership has nothing to do with individual courage (both male and female). We have as much of that here as there is anywhere else, I'm sure.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by storch
Where are the brit criminals getting their guns ? Do the law abiding citizens have a means of self defense ? What if a mad dog tries to attack you while out for a stroll ? What if your Gov't goes completely over the edge ?
This deserves a reply as it points to the cultural gulf between the US and the UK.
Brit criminals get their guns either by activating replicas which sounds really dangerous and by smuggling them in often on the back of drug shipments.
Law abiding citizens do have a means of self defense. Anyone can own a shotgun or even a rifle as long as they meet whatever requirements the police want. But in any case a baseball bat or in England a cricket bat does very nicely thank you as most criminals are in fact unarmed.
No mad dogs, rabies is non existent.
As for the British government going over the edge. LOL As an Irishman I can claim to be unbiased. I just can't imagine a British government going over the edge in anything and hasn't done so since Cromwell or Henry VIII. It's just not in the British character.
-
if all the criminals are so easy to deter with a bat or fists.... how do yu explain the huge amount of burglaries where the house is occupied? the increase in violent attacks and rapes? Perhaps better bat training?
If your homicide rate is unchanged weather there is a firearms ban or not then the only explanation for a ban is womanly hysteria or .... something more sinister by the government.
yu gave up your rights for nothing.
lazs
-
womanly hysteria
There it is again...
-
Whenever i think of gun control, i think of bad drivers. How many fuggin idiots are on the road that are unable to comprehend how to drive? Now think if every one of those fuggin idiots was able to own, and use firearms.
No thanks, its fine here just the way it is. The people that need to carry guns do so.
-
So what if all of a sudden the miccosuki and seminole with military gear decided to reclaim their land. :rolleyes:
-
LOL Storch! You talked me into it. On the strength of that one incident in 1984 which happened about 4000 miles from me, I will carry a gun in case it ever happens to me!
-
furball... no offense but the reason that you think of people as just a bunch of good drivers and bad drivers is because.... you don't think... you "feel"... the facts don't support your fears.
yu guys gave up your, and your countrymans, rights for nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
furball... no offense but the reason that you think of people as just a bunch of good drivers and bad drivers is because.... you don't think... you "feel"... the facts don't support your fears.
yu guys gave up your, and your countrymans, rights for nothing.
lazs
but people here dont want to own fire arms? we have no need.
there is nothing to hunt here, no guns needed to defend ourselves from other's with guns.
and I didnt give up our rights, people here havent had firearms for years.
-
Originally posted by storch
u guys are hopeless go to your trough and feed sheep
and that just show's your typical ignorance.
-
there are no people in england that would like to own, shoot and collect firearms?
worse than I thought.
lazs