Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Never said they didn't.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Alert: Pee Wee Herman defense has been deployed.
The report showed more than two-thirds of last year's murders were committed with a firearm, roughly the same portion as every year since 1999. Americans for Gun Safety, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said that demonstrated the government's inability to stop criminals from obtaining guns.
Originally posted by midnight Target
I know you are but what am I?
:p
Originally posted by ra
Nice theory. Bogus, though.
Americans for Gun Safety, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said that demonstrated the government's inability to stop criminals from obtaining guns.
Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
In July, the national unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%. In stark contrast, teenagers saw a 5% increase in their unemployment rate up to 17.6%. African-American teens experienced an increase in unemployment of over 13% and now face an unemployment rate of 37.0%. This was the fourth straight month unemployment increased for this group - an alarming 31% increase over that period.
Originally posted by lazs2
It's allright MT... even tho blacks are for more violent than whites and commit more per capita gun crimes I do not advocate taking guns away from all blacks.
lazs
Originally posted by midnight Target
I got no problem with that statement lazs, as long as you are not suggesting that their race has anything to do with it.
Originally posted by Ripsnort's articleWell there's a big freaking surprise, when there's a flood of hundreds of millions of guns, and more pouring onto the streets from thousands of gun shops. :rolleyes:
The report showed more than two-thirds of last year's murders were committed with a firearm, roughly the same portion as every year since 1999. Americans for Gun Safety, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said that demonstrated the government's inability to stop criminals from obtaining guns.
"It's not surprising that we've made little dent in the rate of violent crimes committed with firearms, because criminals continue to get easy access to guns," said Casey Anderson, the group's executive director.
Note the blanket statement. The governement can't stop criminals from obtaining guns. It's true here, despite thousands of laws on the books to prevent exactly that. It's true in England, despite laws that have banned and confiscated guns.England makes it a lot harder by NOT retailing guns in every neighbourhood, and by making possession punishable with a mandatory 5 year jail sentence. I refuse to believe that these steps do not make a difference. This is borne out by our relatively low gun homicide tally, and the fact that criminals have to resort to using imitation guns which cannot be fired. Offences in which these objects are used are still deemed to be "gun crimes", so don't be confused by the apparent increase in Britain's level of gun crime.
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no idea what the reasons are, only that in America, blacks commit violent crimes and gun crimes and especially homicides far out of proportion to their numbers.
If all blacks were instantly gone from the U.S. we would have only half the fireams homicides (about the same per capita as say... canada).
That does not mean that I advocate treating one racial group differently than another
Those blacks who do not commit gun crimes should not be deprived of their rights just because a disproportionate number of their race is to blame for the high homicide and gun crimes.
One cannot point to gun violence in America tho without bringing up the contribution to it made by blacks.
In my opinion.... this is just unfortunate... if a cause can be found we should try to rectify it. The number of gun crimes is irrelevant tho to the rights of the law abiding of any race to have firearms...
Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
Originally posted by lazs2
Most importantly... the went after us in the way that worked... known criminals are not suppossed to associate with each other... if caught.. they can get anything from a misdomeaner citation to a parole violation..
How that worked was they simply pulled over cars or groups of bikers and if they found felons or people on parole or probation.... arrested em. It worked really well. sure... some pretend "bikers" who were just kids got harrassed but....they completly squashed any real biker gang organized crime... It doesn't exist except in isolated little pockets now and never will again is my guess..
they could do the exact same thing now but it would mean pulling over cars full of blacks or other minorities that were dressed like gangbangers. sure... a few inocent minorities would get harrassed but I am sure that would be no problem right curval? Just takes the courage to do the right thing...
I make no excuses for who I was and am not whining about how I was treated back then but if you think todays group of grey beard gucci leather wearing weakend "bikers" are the problem then you have a laughable idea of "gangs" in the U.S.
No U.S. politician has the courage to do the right thing.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm... they didn't call it that when they went after us... aren't we a race? Course, like I said... they didn't get much flack from the public who tended to have very little sympathy for us poor white criminal neonazis.
criminal is a criminal... gang is a gang.. you go after em with what works otherwise you are just jerkin off.
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
they could do the exact same thing now but it would mean pulling over cars full of blacks or other minorities that were dressed like gangbangers. sure... a few inocent minorities would get harrassed but I am sure that would be no problem right curval?
Originally posted by Curval
Get rid of the bike gangs and their crimminal networks and you'd see a HUGE decrease in gun violence.
[/B]
Originally posted by Jackal1
:D Gotta love it.
Define bike gang from your POV please.
Originally posted by Curval
The drugs trade, which we agree has a great deal to do with gun crime, can be visually represented by a pyramid. You and your buddies were near the top. The blacks were/are the guys at the bottom. Notice when you draw a pyramid the bottom part is much bigger then the top.
Now, you are laying blame for gun crime on blacks that you and your buddies partially orchestrated. Connect the dots back to where it came from and you have to accept some of the responsibility yourself and not simply say "blacks are more violent than whites". That is what you said above and THAT is what I have a problem with.
Originally posted by Curval
As am I talking of the past lazs...jackal missed the point and you "got it".
Originally posted by beet1e
. This is borne out by our relatively low gun homicide tally,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Root cause people.. root cause. What is it? The root cause of urban crime isn't race, or even drugs.......... it is poverty and despair. No chance in life? Join a gang... leave your family...etc. It is the lucky and incredible few who escape and succeed out of that environment.
Black people are suffering the most poverty and despair and as a result are experiencing the highest crime rate. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Originally posted by ToadYou're obsessed with that 1996 ban, and it has bugger all to do with anything. It would have been very difficult to get a handgun before the ban, and it might have been even harder after it. I don't even know what that ban did - (something to do with calibre?) - except maybe portray Blair's government as caring, and trustworthy - :lol So if we accept for one moment (and I'm sure you'll agree) that the new legislation made bugger all difference, then what we have now as the status quo also existed before 1996/97 or whenever the hell it was.
The problem with your theory is that England had essentially the same low rate for ages BEFORE the latest ban/confiscation laws AND English rates have certainly not materially decreased since the laws. They may have trended slightly upwards since.
So much for your theory.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So MT, I agree that is a huge part of the problem, not that gun, but what can really be done?
Originally posted by midnight Target
unemployment rates.. (http://www.njfac.org/jobnews.html)
OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT: 5.4%
White 4.7%
African American 10.3%
Hispanic 7.1%
Men 20 years and over 5.0%
Women 20 years and over 4.7%
Teen-agers (16-19 years) 16.6%
Black teens 28.9%
Originally posted by Toad
Note the blanket statement. The governement can't stop criminals from obtaining guns.
It's true here, despite thousands of laws on the books to prevent exactly that.
It's true in England, despite laws that have banned and confiscated guns.
It's true in Australia, despite laws that have banned and confiscated guns.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... maybe it has more to do with the criminals. Ya think?
The ban did NOTHING to reduce your crime rate.Then why are you so obsessed with it? All through these threads, I don't think I've mentioned it once, except when replying to someone else who did.
It DID, however, severely impinge on the civil liberties of your law-abiding citizens. That is why it is so onerous and why any clear thinking individual would oppose it.That's BS. I'd love to see the reaction of those around you if you were to stand at Speakers' Corner in London with a megaphone, and spout that. The folks around you would laugh at you. And if I were there, I'd laugh too! :lol
If it makes NO DIFFERENCE in the crime rate... and it didn't... why pass the law that makes legitimate recreational shooting illegal? Why should any part of your population be subjected to that when it makes NO DIFFERENCE in the crime rate?It doesn't. You can still shoot legitimately for recreation - wasn't that the purpose of your trip to England last year?
As long as it's something that doesn't affect you, apparently you don't care what the government does to your fellow citizens. Nice.Hey, don't get mad at me. I never did get your POV about America's 1981 ban of headshops. I take it that ban did not affect you? (And probably made bugger all impact on US drug usage)
Let me help you Beet, since you are clearly unaware of your own nation's history of gun control.Why don't you ask someone who cares... I don't see any Brits here who have any complaints about our gun laws. But I see MANY who don't want to follow America's example. Your link looks like another of those paranoid rantings by someone who didn't actually ask anyone who actually lives in Britain for their opinion.
Perhaps if you read it all, you'll begin to grasp what Widewing pointed out in the other thread.
Actually, you can use either Franklin's or Niemoller's observation; both are correct.
Originally posted by Vulcan
Sure a criminal could get his hands on one illegally, but because they're so few and far between its a lot harder and a lot more expensive.
All I care about is this: Our homicide rate is low, and our gun homicide is even lower. Yeah, I know there are nuts with lumps of metal made to look like guns, and we need more police etc. It's after midnight, and I really couldn't give a horse's arse about The 1689 English Bill of Rights and the Right to Arms.
Originally posted by ToadWrong. That's why two thirds of "gun" crimes here are committed with replicas which cannot be fired. The perpetrator of such a crime would still be guilty of a gun crime, so avoidance of the sentence that goes with it is not the reason that replicas are used. It's because the crims cannot always lay their hands on the real thing.
Which is the entire point. The criminals can ALWAYS get their hands on one illegally. In EVERY country.
I'll see if I can get you an invite to the lunch in the Beater's Hut. You'll meet a lot of people that are EXTREMELY unhappy with your pointless gun laws....and they could all fit into that hut?
Because it shows the ban/confiscation to be pointless. Why do something that is pointless?Erm... you wouldn't be talking about American drug usage before 1981 versus after 1981, and your country's ban of headshops by any chance? Still waiting to hear from you why that ban was implemented.
Originally posted by beet1e
Wrong. That's why two thirds of "gun" crimes here are committed with replicas which cannot be fired.
BBC: Home Office figures showed that firearm offences in England and Wales have risen from 13,874 in 1998-99 to 24,070 in 2002-03.
The number of recorded crimes involving imitation weapons has tripled from 566 to 1,815 during that period.
Ms Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many gun crimes were carried out using replica firearms in the last year for which figures are available in (a) the Borough of Lewisham, (b) London and (c) England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [114082]
(2) how many people in England and Wales have been (a) injured and (b) killed as a result of modified replica weapons in the last year for which figures are available; [114080]
(3) how many modifiable replica handguns were sold last year in England and Wales; [114083]
(4) how many replica firearms the Government estimates were modified to shoot real bullets in the last year for which figures are available. [114081]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Numbers of recorded crimes involving replica firearms at London borough and police force level are not available. There were 1,201 recorded crimes involving imitation firearms in England and Wales in the year ending March 2002.
Details of recorded crimes involving modified replica weapons are not collected separately.
The number of modifiable replica handguns sold in England and Wales is not collected centrally. No estimates have been made of the number of replica firearms which have been modified to shoot live ammunition. It is illegal to modify a replica weapon to shoot live ammunition, or possess such a weapon. It is illegal to modify a replica weapon to shoot live ammunition, or possess such a weapon.
It is also illegal to sell an imitation firearm which is readily convertible into a firearm and we are currently introducing a ban on the sale, transfer, import or manufacture of any air weapon using the self-contained air cartridge system which can be converted to fire conventional ammunition.
I don't really approve of field sports.... I sometimes run into the pheasant shooters and say hello. IMO they seem a bit weird and out of place, but there you go.[/b]
my reasons for doing this are to maintain a low homicide rate.... Unfettered sales of handguns would lead to a gun homicide tally of 3000+ - as can be seen from America's example.[/b]
In 1979, in response to the growing problem, President Carter asked the DEA to draft a model anti-drug paraphernalia law which could be adopted by state and local governments. Early state laws aimed at controlling drug paraphernalia were ineffective because they had dealt with the problem on a piecemeal basis, and were so vaguely worded they could not withstand a constitutional attack. In contrast, the Model Act, which was designed by Harry Myers in the DEA's Office of Chief Counsel, was clear and comprehensive and contained a detailed definition of "drug paraphernalia." It also included lists of criteria that courts could use in order to determine if particular objects should be considered paraphernalia.
Special Agent Bob Parks posed with a 1964 Rolls Royce seized during the June 1979 arrest of 20 heroin traffickers.
The Model Act made the possession of paraphernalia, with the intent to use it with illicit drugs, a crime. Manufacturing and delivering paraphernalia was a crime, and the delivery of paraphernalia to a child by an adult was a special offense. In addition, the publication of commercial advertisements promoting the sale of paraphernalia was unlawful.
your crime is going up... ours is going down.Not with respect to homicide. If you would look at the table below, extracted from the FBI website, you can see that homicides have risen every year since 1999. As we're talking about guns, it follows that the crimes we're talking about are homicides.
BBC: Home Office figures showed that firearm offences in England and Wales have risen from 13,874 in 1998-99 to 24,070 in 2002-03. The number of recorded crimes involving imitation weapons has tripled from 566 to 1,815 during that period.... and yet if were to look at THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419941.stm) link to the BBC news archives, you would see
There were 10,248 gun crimes - 0.41% of all crime - in the year to March 2003. But only 9% resulted in injury. There were 81 homicides involving firearms compared with 97 the year before.The number of firearm robberies dropped by 13%. And the use of handguns to commit a crime dropped by 6% or 5,549 offences.
Highly unlikely. You forget the Canadian example. They have lots of guns. Their stats are very good and they haven't gone to the draconian measures that England/Australia have used.Clearly, you don't read my posts. I have already covered this in the other thread. There are TWO ingredients to a gun homicide: 1) the gun itself; 2) the idiot holding it. Places like Canada/Switzerland have lots of #1. Britain has lots of #2. The US has lots of both #1 and #2.
Clearly, there is more to it than restricted hangun supply = fewer gun homicides. Canada shows that.
Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Nah, this is the way it really works...
"07:58 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 27, 2004
WWLTV.com
Four people were found dead and another was injured in a shooting inside of a dilapidated home in the Lower Ninth Ward Tuesday night.
NOPD spokesman Marlon Defillo said the incident occurred around 9 p.m. in the 1700 block of Egania Street.
The victims included three men and one woman who were each shot several times.
Defillo said a small amount of narcotics was found inside the home, but that police had no motive or suspects at this time.
According to police, the home was boarded up and had no working electricity. "
Originally posted by midnight Target
unemployment rates.. (http://www.njfac.org/jobnews.html)
OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT: 5.4%
White 4.7%
African American 10.3%
Hispanic 7.1%
Men 20 years and over 5.0%
Women 20 years and over 4.7%
Teen-agers (16-19 years) 16.6%
Black teens 28.9%
Originally posted by JBA
Don’t get pregnant as a teen, 72% illegitimacy in black community
Stay in High school/go to college, 4% graduate from college.
These are the two leading factors to poverty.
Nobodies fault but their own.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Root cause? No. Just another symptom.
Originally posted by AKIron
Symptom of what? Prejudice? A victim mentality serves only to perpetuate victimhood.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Unless of course you are a victim.
Originally posted by JBA
Don’t get pregnant as a teen, 72% illegitimacy in black community
Stay in High school/go to college, 4% graduate from college.
These are the two leading factors to poverty.
Nobodies fault but their own.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Root cause? No. Just another symptom.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Unless of course you are a victim.
Originally posted by lazs2Nope. I just checked the US Census Bureau website. The US Population rose by about 4.7% between 2000 and 2003, but homicides rose by nearly 9% in the same period. You're still wrong.
beetle... you seem to have a problem with total and per capita.
Our crime is going down per capita and our homicide rate is going down per capita.. not much on the homicide but.... better than going up. our overall crime rate is going down.
SUMMARY
Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 10,248 recorded crimes in 2002/03. This was a two per cent increase over the previous year, following a much larger increase of 34 per cent in the previous year.
Air weapons were reported to have been used in 13,822 recorded crimes, a rise of 12 per cent compared with 2001/02. This rise may have been inflated by the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard.
Handguns were used in 5,549 recorded crimes, a decrease of six per cent on the previous year. The previous year, there had been an increase of 43 per cent.
There were 1,815 recorded crimes which were believed to involve imitation weapons in 2002/03, an increase of 46 per cent over the previous year.
The British status quo has been arrived at by a few hundred people giving up a hobby.
The national firearms amnesty which ran from March 31 – April 30 2003 saw a total of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition handed in. This compares to 22,939 guns and 695,197 rounds of ammunition during the amnesty in June 1996. The guns figure includes 6,529 prohibited firearms (including 5,734 handguns), 10,513 shot guns, 13,974 air weapons, 9,480 imitations and 3,412 assorted rifles and other guns. In addition, a total of 7,093 other weapons, including knives, swords and crossbows, were handed in.
Let's go with the 10,248 number then.Why not! You were only out by about 57% on your first try.
Note this is a 2% INCREASE over the previous year.Note the gun homicide tally showed a 15% decrease for this period.
Few hundred? BS. This only scratches the surface.Bet it's still less than the lives lost to firearms in the US - all in the name of "freedom", and the right to bear arms bought from any old gun shop on Main Street. Too bad you can't get a resupply of ammo at K-Mart. I hear they don't sell it any moore. :D
Originally posted by beet1e[/b]
Why not! You were only out by about 57% on your first try.
I'm not even going to argue with the rest.[/b]
[Too bad you can't get a resupply of ammo at K-Mart. I hear they don't sell it any moore. :D
I have already covered this in the other thread. There are TWO ingredients to a gun homicide: 1) the gun itself; 2) the idiot holding it. Places like Canada/Switzerland have lots of #1. Britain has lots of #2. The US has lots of both #1 and #2.[/b]
Originally posted by Mr. ToadLOL! And my source for the two thirds of gun crimes being committed with imitation firearms was the unimpeachable Honest Jill Labour Government spokesperson. :lol We both need to be more careful then. You could make a good start by deleting the Guardian newspaper shortcut from your personal favourites menu. :aok
Not my try at all; the source was the unimpeachable BBC!
The numbers over the years prove your increasingly strict gun laws have little to no effect on crime rates.LOL!!! How wrong can you get? :lol On the one hand you'll say something like "your gun crime has always been next to nothing", and then you come out with tripe like our gun laws are having no effect. :rolleyes: Ahem, every wondered WHY our gun crime is next to nothing? Hmmm? Erm..., erm..., oh yeah - it's those gun control laws we have, and have had for many, many years. :D But oh! They're only 97¾% effective, and in Mr. Toad's pristine white list of statutes, that wouldn't do at all. Hey, let's repeal all laws that don't work 100%. You can go back to the Wild West, and we'll invite the Romans back again. ;)
Oh, yeah, I've read it. It's what one would charitably call a hypothesis. You certainly have not proven it, but like most of your other theories you yourself accept it as unquestionably true.You got a better theory? Oh wait! Do please entertain us with your own hypothesis on American societal mores, and maybe throw in an essay on the people "who needed to be killed". :lol
Originally posted by NUKERead Nashwan's remark in my sig. Then go out with your new camera and take some pictures of trains.
You have to admit, your gun laws have not had an effect on your gun crimes. Reduce this argument to it's core and you would have to concede that point.
Originally posted by beet1e
Read Nashwan's remark in my sig. Then go out with your new camera and take some pictures of trains.
Originally posted by NUKENow you're starting to get it. :aok Our gun crime has always been low because our gun laws have always been there - (note the figurative use of "always"). Lazs 'll tell you that gun ownership dropped c1920, and that there was a "mass confiscation" under the "evil empire" of His Majesty King George V. What probably happened was that there were many service revolvers etc. still in circulation following WW1 which were redundant and were handed in once we were no longer at war. Not sure exactly what happened, and care even less.
??
Beetle, I am simply saying that your gun bans have not changed the gun crime stats. Your gun crime has always been low.
Originally posted by NUKEThey were pretty much banned long before that.
Beetle, the UK pretty much banned handguns after 96/97 didn't they?
Originally posted by beet1e
They were pretty much banned long before that.
Originally posted by beet1e
What probably happened was that there were many service revolvers etc. still in circulation following WW1 which were redundant and were handed in once we were no longer at war. Not sure exactly what happened, and care even less.
Dunno about the 1996/97 ban. All I know is that Tony Blair's Govt. is obsessed with regulating everything. Maybe the ban was a token gesture. Who cares? We already had gun control, thank Cod
....Thus the Firearms Act of 1920 sailed through Parliament. Britons who had formerly enjoyed a right to arms were now allowed to possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit.[60] Shotguns and airguns, which were perceived as "sporting" weapons, remained exempt from British government control.....
...In the early years of the Firearms Act the law was not enforced with particular stringency, except in Ireland, where revolutionary agitators were demanding independence from British rule, and where colonial laws had already created a gun licensing system.[63] Within Great Britain, a "firearms certificate" for possession of rifles or handguns was readily obtainable. Wanting to possess a firearm for self-defense was considered a "good reason" for being granted a firearms certificate....
...The British government in the 1950s left the subject of gun control alone. Crime was still quite low, and issues such as national health care and the Cold War dominated the political dialogue. Even so, the maintenance of the existing, relatively mild, structure of rifle and pistol licensing would have important consequences.
As the Firearms Act remained in force year after year, a smaller and smaller percentage of the population could remember a time in their own lives when a Briton could buy a rifle or pistol because he had a right to do so rather than because he had convinced a police administrator that there was a "good reason" for him to purchase the gun. As the post-1920 generation grew up, the licensing provisions of the Firearms Act began to seem less like a change from previous conditions and more like part of ordinary social circumstances....
.Under the 1967 system, which is still in force for the most part, a person wishing to obtain his first shotgun needed to obtain a "shotgun certificate." The local police could reject an applicant if they believed that his "possession of a shotgun would endanger public safety." The police were required to grant the certificate unless the applicant had a particular defect in his background such as a criminal record or history of mental illness...[94]
...The Hungerford atrocity was the only instance in which a self-loading rifle had been used in a British homicide. Punishing every owner of an object because one person misused the object might seem unfair, but two factors worked in favor of prohibition. First, the cabinet leadership observed that the number of owners of self-loading rifles was relatively small, so no important number of voters would be offended. Second, shotgun owners, who are by far the largest group of gun owners, generally decided that they did not care what the government did to someone else's rifles.[137]
Parliament responded. Semi-automatic centerfire rifles, which had been legally owned for nearly a century, were banned.[138] Pump-action rifles were banned as well, since it was argued that these guns could be substituted for semi-automatics.....
...As a result of the 1988 law, shotguns that can hold more than two shells at once now require a Firearms Certificate, the same as rifles and handguns.[141] Moreover, all shotguns must now be registered. Shotgun sales between private parties must be reported to the police. Buyers of shot shells must produce a shotgun certificate. Applicants for a shotgun certificate must obtain a countersignature by a person who has known the applicant for two years and is "a member of Parliament, justice of the peace, minister of religion, doctor, lawyer, established civil servant, bank officer or person of similar standing."....
...While the Dunblane Enquiry did recommend many new controls, the Enquiry did not recommend banning all handguns.[158] Prime Minister John Major's Conservative government had decided to accept what it knew would be the Cullen recommendations, tightening the licensing system still more, but not banning handguns. However, then Labour Party leaders brought Dunblane spokesperson Anne Pearston to a rally, and, in effect, denounced opponents of a handgun ban as accomplices in the murder of school children. Prime Minister Major, who was already doing badly in the polls, crumbled. He promptly announced that the Conservative government would ban handguns above .22 caliber, and .22 caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.[159]
A few months later, Labour Party leader Tony Blair was swept into office in a landslide. One of his first acts was to complete the handgun ban by removing the exemption for .22s
......Quote
As I said, it's an interesting read, particularly this little bit in the Conclusion.QuoteThis Essay has also identified several structural elements in the British system of government that contributed to the gradual elimination of the right to arms in Great Britain:
rights are subject to balancing against perceived government or social needs;
the government is not constrained by internal checks and balances;
there is a consensus that Parliament, which is, in practice, a few leaders of the majority party, rather than the people or the law, is sovereign;
there is no written constitution;(p.464)
the absence of a right in a written constitution impedes the growth of rights consciousness among the people.
Originally posted by midnight Target
A sure sign of a slow economy.
Poor kids without jobs tend to join gangs.
Originally posted by Mr. ToadI guess that means we must be doing something right, or that our gun control works – or both. :aok
Your gun crime always has been low.
Originally posted by beet1e
Thus, guns were effectively banned in 1920. That being the case, how could guns be banned again in 1996/1997 when they were already banned? They couldn’t. And that’s because the 96/97 legislation was not a “gun ban”. It was an addendum or codicil to existing legislation, under which guns have been “banned” for generations.
..In 1903, Parliament enacted a gun control law that appeared eminently reasonable. The Pistols Act of 1903 forbade pistol sales to minors and felons and dictated that sales be made only to buyers with a gun license. The license itself could be obtained at the post office, the only requirement being payment of a fee. People who intended to keep the pistol solely in their house did not even need to get the postal license....
...In the early years of the Firearms Act Firearms (of 1920) the law was not enforced with particular stringency, except in Ireland, where revolutionary agitators were demanding independence from British rule, and where colonial laws had already created a gun licensing system.[63] Within Great Britain, a "firearms certificate" for possession of rifles or handguns was readily obtainable. Wanting to possess a firearm for self-defense was considered a "good reason" for being granted a firearms certificate....
....The next rounds of legislative action were aimed at knives, rather than guns. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act outlawed the carrying of an "offensive weapon" and put the burden of proof on anyone found with an "offensive weapon," such as a knife, to prove that he had a reasonable excuse....
...At Jenkins' request the British government began drafting the legislation that became the Criminal Justice Act of 1967. The new act required a license for the purchase of shotguns.[91] Like the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States,[92] Britain's 1967 Act was part of a comprehensive crime package that included a variety of infringements on civil liberties. For example, the British Act abolished the necessity for unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials, eliminated the requirement for a full hearing of evidence at committal hearings, and restricted press coverage of those hearings.
Under the 1967 system, which is still in force for the most part, a person wishing to obtain his first shotgun needed to obtain a "shotgun certificate." The local police could reject an applicant if they believed that his "possession of a shotgun would endanger public safety." The police were required to grant the certificate unless the applicant had a particular defect in his background such as a criminal record or history of mental illness.[94] An applicant was required to supply a countersignatory, a person who would attest to the accuracy of the information in the application. During an investigation (p.421)period that could last several weeks, the police might visit the applicant's home.[95] In the first decades of the system, about ninety-eight percent of all applications were granted.
...The British "firearms certificate" system of 1920 had required that a person who wished to possess a rifle or handgun prove he had "a good reason."[102] In the early years of the system, self-defense had been considered "a good reason,"[103] but, by the 1960s, it was a well-established police practice that only "sporting" purposes, and not self-defense could justify issuance of a rifle or handgun license.
Parliament had never voted to outlaw defensive gun ownership, but self-defense fell victim to what Schauer calls "the consequences of linguistic imprecision."[104] When a legal rule is expressed in imprecise terms there is a heightened risk that subsequent interpreters of the rule may apply the rule differently than the formulators of the rule would have.[105]
...Thus, while self-defense was a "good reason" in 1921, in later decades the government had decided that a "good reason" did not include (p.423)self-defense. In practice, being a certified member of a government-approved target shooting club became the only way a person could legally purchase a pistol....
....The Hungerford atrocity (August 19, 1987 was the only instance in which a self-loading rifle had been used in a British homicide. Punishing every owner of an object because one person misused the object might seem unfair, but two factors worked in favor of prohibition. First, the cabinet leadership observed that the number of owners of self-loading rifles was relatively small, so no important number of voters would be offended. Second, shotgun owners, who are by far the largest group of gun owners, generally decided that they did not care what the government did to someone else's rifles.[137]
.....Parliament responded. Semi-automatic centerfire rifles, which had been legally owned for nearly a century, were banned.[138] Pump-action rifles were banned as well, since it was argued that these guns could be substituted for semi-automatics. Practical Rifle Shooting, the fastest-growing sport in Britain, vanished temporarily, although participants eventually switched to bolt-action rifles....
...While the Dunblane Enquiry did recommend many new controls, the Enquiry did not recommend banning all handguns.[158] Prime Minister John Major's Conservative government had decided to accept what it knew would be the Cullen recommendations, tightening the licensing system still more, but not banning handguns. However, then Labour Party leaders brought Dunblane spokesperson Anne Pearston to a rally, and, in effect, denounced opponents of a handgun ban as accomplices in the murder of school children. Prime Minister Major, who was already doing badly in the polls, crumbled. He promptly announced that the Conservative government would BAN handguns above .22 caliber, and .22 caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.[159]
A few months later, Labour Party leader Tony Blair was swept into office in a landslide. One of his first acts was to complete the handgun ban by removing the exemption for .22s.[160] The Home Office was unable to produce any statistics regarding the use of .22 pistols in crime.
The fact that the 1997 “gun ban” did little to influence gun crime was because it wasn’t a ban.
that prior to the 1997 “gun ban”, Britain had a policy of guns-4-all just like the US.
To enforce the gun control laws, the police have been given broad search and seizure powers. Sections 46 through 50 of the 1968 Firearms Act authorized the police to search individuals and vehicles without warrants, to require the handing-over of weapons for inspection, and to arrest without a warrant, even in a home.[246]
The principle of warrantless searches for firearms was expanded to include searches for "offensive weapons" by the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill of 1984. Since "offensive weapons" are never defined, the police have nearly unlimited authority to search and seize. African combs, bunches of keys, and tools have been considered offensive weapons.
"Thus the Firearms Act of 1920 sailed through Parliament. Britons who had formerly enjoyed a right to arms were now allowed to possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit"- ie they were as good as banned. So you contradicted yourself. Or are you seriously suggesting that in 1995 (prior to the 1997 Blair legislation) that I could have walked into a gun shop and bought a handgun like a .44 Magnum or a 1911/.45 semi auto for no better a reason than that I wanted one? What freaking use would a gun control law be that allowed that? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by ElfieI thought you would have realised that I was speaking figuratively. And in point of fact, those are not my own words. I was merely paraphrasing what Furious Styles (played by Larry Fishburne) said in the American movie, "Boyz n the Hood". His words were: "Why do you think there's a gun shop or a liquor store on every street corner? Because they want us to kill ourselves, that's why".
Beet1e you make continous references to *a gun shop on every corner*. While there are many outlets across this huge country that is the USA there is hardly a *gun shop on every corner*.
"You should read that entire article, it will take some time as it is quite lengthy, but very very informative. I suspect you won't bother to read it though since you already have your mind made up. Blah blah blah blah Free Shrek 2 DVD blah blah blah blah......"Let me get this straight. You want ME to enlighten myself by means of an article which appears on such an obviously pro-gun biased site that it calls itself guncite.com, and even uses as its caption "Until the Second Amendment is treated as normal constitutional law, this web site will always be under construction... " and then attempts to use Britain as the template for an unarmed society as a means of keeping the US wavering pro-gun sheep in the fold? You cannot be serious! :lol I started reading it, and got to the part about 1689/William III... and then I could see what it was about. It looks like an article which has been contrived to selectively pick its way through history, applying American pro-gun 2nd amendment type interpretations to something that was happening thousands of miles away. Same thing applied to Lazs's book. I read that too.
Within Great Britain, a "firearms certificate" for possession of rifles or handguns was readily obtainable. Wanting to possess a firearm for self-defense was considered a "good reason" for being granted a firearms certificate
Prime Minister Major... promptly announced that the Conservative government would BAN handguns above .22 caliber, and .22 caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.
A few months later, Labour Party leader Tony Blair was swept into office in a landslide. One of his first acts was to complete the handgun ban by removing the exemption for .22s.
Saturday, January 31, 1998 Published at 13:03 GMT
A near-total ban on privately held handguns comes into force in Britain on Sunday.
Gun owners will have a one-month amnesty to hand in weapons of .22 calibre and below without prosecution.
The ban follows last year's surrender of larger weapons after the Dunblane massacre where 16 children and a teacher were killed.
Antique weapons are excluded from the ban
Labour extended the ban on privately held guns to the smaller weapons after the party won the 1997 General Election.
Well, you are WRONG. For two reasons:Note well that when the 1920 Firearms Act was passed, wanting to possess a firearm for self-defense was considered a "good reason" for being granted a firearms certificate.
- I would not have been able to convince the police of my need to have a gun.
Parliament had never voted to outlaw defensive gun ownership, but self-defense fell victim to what Schauer calls "the consequences of linguistic imprecision."[104] When a legal rule is expressed in imprecise terms there is a heightened risk that subsequent interpreters of the rule may apply the rule differently than the formulators of the rule would have.[105] Thus, while self-defense was a "good reason" in 1921, in later decades the government had decided that a "good reason" did not include (p.423)self-defense.[/b]
Beet:[/b]
If you are saying that any desire I might have to own a gun constitutes a valid reason for having one, well that's a nonsense
The British government used the same principle as do people who are cooking frogs. If a cook throws a frog in a pot of boiling water, he will jump out, but if the cook puts a frog in a pot of moderately warm water, and gradually raises the temperature, the frog will slowly lose consciousness, and be unable to escape by the time the water gets to a boil.
I wonder if the pro-gun yanks realize that firearms "offences" in countries like England, Australia, and New Zealand can involve minor things such as air rifles, brandishing imitation pistols, failing to secure firearms, storing a loaded firearm in a vehicle etc?
NZ and Australia both have a relatively high ratio of recreational hunters and sports shooters as well. 4 Million people on a couple of islands bigger than England = lotsa happy hunting grounds. So it can't be that bad.
Originally posted by ElfieYes, I'm sure our countries' gun crime levels were lowest of all at a time when there were no gun control laws at all, ie. before guns were invented. :rolleyes: You have to remember that legislation is introduced pre-emptively. We don't wait for a situation to get out of control and then think "maybe it's time to do something about this". By 1920 in Britain, we'd had WW1, and there were many leftover guns. Maybe the politicians of that day could see the folly of a flood of unnecessary guns (US example, shootouts like the OK Corral) and decided to act in advance. I mean you don't wait until your house is burning down to think about fire insurance, or do you?
Beet1e you claim there were always gun control laws in Britain. In YOUR lifetime yes, but it wasnt always that way. You also completely ignore the fact that gun related crime isnt affected by gun control laws. BEFORE ANY gun control laws were in effect your country had its lowest crime rates, including gun related crimes.
I've made my positon clear enough and given folks the history.You've read a lot of quotes, applied your own skewed interpretations, and now you claim to know the public mood in Britain towards guns better than I do. Oh wait, you've talked to your beater guys. What is it exactly that they beat? (Apart from themselves off) Your stance now is akin to someone having done a high level degree in French at an Ivy League university, and claiming that you know more about the French language than a guy like Straffo, who hasn't.
I think the readers of this thread and look at both sides can decide for themselves.Well, since you said that, we have one new poster, and he's waded in on my side. Beet1e 1, Toad 0. :D
"Until the Second Amendment is treated as normal constitutional law, this web site will always be under construction... "???
Originally posted by lazs2Lazs, if you're saying that the US population rose by only 1%, you're only adding weight to my case that US homicides per capita went up, not down.
beetle... I am not doubting you but where did you get the population data for the U.S.? According to that the population in the U.S. went up a little over 1% a year from 1999 to 2003? 4.7% in 4 years?
Originally posted by Vulcan
What annoys me is when people try and compare NZ, Aussie, or England, and say how bad the gun laws are and how represive they are - which is simply BS.
Beet: Mr. Toad quoted "A near-total ban on privately held handguns comes into force in Britain on Sunday" So - a partial ban became a total ban - which is what I said before.[/b]
Beet:[/b]
Before 1995, are you saying I could have gone out and bought a .44 magnum? Are you saying that I could buy a 1911/.45 semi auto for no better a reason than the fact that I wanted one? Please do tell me: WHERE could I have bought such a gun?
The British "firearms certificate" system of 1920 had required that a person who wished to possess a rifle or handgun prove he had "a good reason."[102] In the early years of the system, self-defense had been considered "a good reason,"[103] but, by the 1960s, it was a well-established police practice that only "sporting" purposes, and not self-defense could justify issuance of a rifle or handgun license.
Parliament had never voted to outlaw defensive gun ownership, but self-defense fell victim to what Schauer calls "the consequences of linguistic imprecision."[104] When a legal rule is expressed in imprecise terms there is a heightened risk that subsequent interpreters of the rule may apply the rule differently than the formulators of the rule would have.
As Police Review magazine noted: "There is an easily identifiable police attitude towards the possession of guns by members of the public. Every possible difficulty should be put in their way." The stated police position is "to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of firearms, including shotguns, in hands of members of the public."
You've talked to your beater guys; Give me the address of ONE SINGLE GUN SHOP that existed prior to 1997, and from where I could have bought a weapon such as this, legally and without difficulty.[/b]
What is it exactly that they beat?[/b]
Actually, the 1920 gun laws stem from fear of the Bolsheviks. Crime aspects didn't really figure into it. Parliament (particularly Lords, I'll wager) had seen the Russian revolution and wanted no part of that. In your historical research into your own country's gun control laws, see the Report of the Committee on the Control of Firearms 2 (1918).Are you suggesting that the country was poised to mount a Communist revolt against His Majesty King George V? I did a Google search on that report and found
"There can surely be no question that the public interest demands that direct control shall in future be exercised in the United Kingdom . . . over the possession, manufacture, sale and import and export of firearms and ammunition; and the only practical question for consideration appears to be how this control can be most efficiently established".Erm... didn't see anything there about Bolsheviks, but I'll look again. I wonder why they thought that the public interest might be best served by limiting firearms?
But would the police have approved your "reason"? I don't know.I do. Believe me, there's just no way. Certain civilians I know of certainly did possess and carried a concealed weapon, but these were folks like the Metropolitan Chief Commissioner. If I asked for a gun licence on the basis that "I wanted one so I could shoot tin cans off my garden wall" or "so I can shoot the burglar should one enter my home", the police would have shown me the door (after they'd finished laughing).
The Blackwell Committee recommended "stringent regulation" of the private possession of rifles, and of "revolvers and pistols of every kind": "the number of persons who can urge any reasonable ground for possession of a revolver or pistol is extremely small [and] the danger attending the indiscriminate possession of such weapons is obvious."Again, no need to look further than what's happened in America to see that this statement is completely correct.
I'll let others be the judge of who knows English gun law history and who doesn't.And I'll let others judge the public mood in Britain towards firearms, based on ownership levels and crime patterns. I've already asked in another thread who would like unrestricted gun sales. Guys from 16 non-US countries said they wouldn't.
Originally posted by lazs2That would have been correct - if I'd said it, not you.
your crime is going up... ours is going down.
The disaster of World War I had bred the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Armies of the new Soviet state swept into Poland, and more and more workers of the world joined strikes called by radical labor leaders who predicted the overthrow of capitalism.
Many Communists and other radicals thought the World Revolution was at hand. All over the English-speaking world governments feared the end. The reaction was fierce. In the United States, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer launched the "Palmer raids." Aliens were deported without hearings, and United States citizens were searched and arrested without warrants and held without bail. While the United States was torn by strikes and race riots, Canada witnessed the government (p.412)massacre of peaceful demonstrators at the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.
In Britain, the government worried about what would happen when the war ended and the gun controls expired. A secret government committee on arms traffic warned of danger from two sources: the "savage or semi-civilized tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire" who might obtainsurplus war arms, and "the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapon is the bomb and the automatic pistol."[56]
At a Cabinet meeting on January 17, 1919, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff raised the threat of "Red Revolution and blood and war at home and abroad." He suggested that the government make sure of its arms. The next month, the Prime Minister was asking which parts of the army would remain loyal. The Cabinet discussed arming university men, stockbrokers, and trusted clerks to fight any revolution.[57]
The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, predicted "a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government." "It is not inconceivable," Geddes warned, "that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour." Using the Irish gun licensing system as a model, the Cabinet made plans to disarm enemies of the state and to prepare arms for distribution "to friends of the Government."[58]
Beet:
If I asked for a gun licence on the basis that "I wanted one so I could shoot tin cans off my garden wall" or "so I can shoot the burglar should one enter my home", the police would have shown me the door (after they'd finished laughing). [/b]
Originally posted by lazs2Well you heard wrong, if the American Factfinder site is to be believed.
no, i did not but... I will believe you on the p[opulation thing... I had heard that we were over 300 million tho.
I am correct tho... our crime is going down.... yours is going up. We may have a slight spike in homicides but all the other violent crime is going down.That "slight spike" has been growing since 1999. And I have already produced a British Crime Survey chart showing that our crime is going down. I suppose it all depends on whether you're interested in the real figures, or made up ones...
Originally posted by lazs2Ah! See! That totally goes against what Mr. Toad said. He had no doubt that I could get a licence/permit for no better a reason than to shoot tin cans off my garden wall, or to shoot a burglar coming into my home - a long time after 1920!
you lost your rights in the 20's... as was pointed out... it became allmost impossible to own a firearm.... "good cause" no longer involved "to shoot a burglar or to pot tin cans in the country whenever I feel like it" the red tape and expense made it a loser to even own a firearm.
it became allmost impossible to own a firearm....That's what I've been saying all along. I don't know how many gun shops there were before 1920. I'll ask Mum next week, but even she might not know, much less care. The point is, Lazs, you're saying that the status quo has existed since 1920. Therefore the 1997 was NOT a ban, but a codicil to a ban that occurred much earlier. :p That's what I said all along.
Originally posted by beet1e
as Mr. Toad insists (wrongly) that getting a gun permit was easy-peasy,
Beet:
Mr Toad said "Of course they would. You're a fully cooked frog, poor lad. Your police have INCREDIBLE powers to approve or deny that defy reason. They are, in effect, Lords of their own little precincts with no appeal possible."
Suitability to Possess Firearms
The police must be satisfied that you are a fit person to be entrusted with firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. The police will take into account whether there is any known history of alcohol, drug or medication abuse, violent of unsociable behavior or mental or psychiatric disorder.
Originally posted by beet1e[/b]
That totally goes against what Mr. Toad said. He had no doubt that I could get a licence/permit for no better a reason than to shoot tin cans off my garden wall, or to shoot a burglar coming into my home - a long time after 1920!
Beet:[/b]
If I asked for a gun licence on the basis that "I wanted one so I could shoot tin cans off my garden wall" or "so I can shoot the burglar should one enter my home", the police would have shown me the door (after they'd finished laughing).
Of course they would. You're a fully cooked frog, poor lad. Your police have INCREDIBLE powers to approve or deny that defy reason. They are, in effect, Lords of their own littel precincts with no appeal possible.
Beet:
Therefore the 1997 was NOT a ban, but a codicil to a ban that occurred much earlier. :p That's what I said all along.
you lost your rights in the 20's... as was pointed out... it became allmost impossible to own a firearm.... "good cause" no longer involved "to shoot a burglar or to pot tin cans in the country whenever I feel like it" the red tape and expense made it a loser to even own a firearm.And Toad said
Dunblane resulted in the banning of all handguns. The history is there and prior to those incidents and the knee-jerk reactions they generated in Parliament, there were no bans.Oh OK. Now I get it. Guns weren't banned. They were just impossible to acquire because we'd lost our ownership rights. Big freaking difference. Thanks for explaining that, guys. :aok So the pro-gun 1995 mantra would have been "Guns aren't banned - you just can't have one". :lol
beetle... at one point a lot of brits did own guns and it caused no problems.OK, I'll type it out again... :rolleyes: There are two precursors to a gun crime. #1 is the gun, #2 is the criminal holding it. The US has lots of both #1 and #2, hence gun crime is out of control.
Originally posted by beet1e[/b]
Now I get it. Guns weren't banned. They were just impossible to acquire because we'd lost our ownership rights.
To enforce the gun control laws, the police have been given broad search and seizure powers. Sections 46 through 50 of the 1968 Firearms Act authorized the police to search individuals and vehicles without warrants, to require the handing-over of weapons for inspection, and to arrest without a warrant, even in a home.[246]
The principle of warrantless searches for firearms was expanded to include searches for "offensive weapons" by the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill of 1984. Since "offensive weapons" are never defined, the police have nearly unlimited authority to search and seize. African combs, bunches of keys, and tools have been considered offensive weapons.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Devonshire or Devon, a maritime county, bounded on the N by the Bristol Channel,
For example, when I was there in the late 70's, a recreational shooter obtaining a Firearms Certificate was certainly not unusual. No, wrong again. They were not impossible. They were relatively easy to obtain through the '50's. It became incrementally harder through the later years up to the knee-jerk reactions to Hungerford and Dunblane.
For example, when I was there in the late 70's, a recreational shooter obtaining a Firearms Certificate was certainly not unusual. I shot skeet and trap with Englishmen who got them just for clay shooting sports during my deployments.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Originally posted by Nashwan
(Incidentally, despite the "ban" on handguns, they still make up 3% of the legally held firearms)
The number of new certificates granted (not renewals) went up by 21% in 2001, and by 20% the previous year.
Special exemptions from prohibition of small firearms
Slaughtering instruments.
Firearms used for humane killing of animals.
Shot pistols used for shooting vermin.
Races at athletic meetings.
Trophies of war.
Firearms of historic interest.
The difference, being that we have a Constitution, is that Padilla's case will eventually be worked through the courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court will rule and that will be that pretty much forevermore.
I don't personally agree with some of the recent powers granted to the government in the Patriot Act.
In short, I know it will work out correctly.
What appeal do you have to the incredible search and seizure powers your Police have?
What Constitutional right do you have that ensures that they won't eventually decide to summarily revoke all Firearms Certificates?
You might have a HungerDunFordBlane and the Parliament may decide to round up everything that shoots. Pretty clear they can do that kind of thing anytime a knee needs jerking.
Just what was the number of new Firearms Certificates granted in 2001?
What was the number of new Firearms Certificates granted in 2000?
I take it the 3% of legally held handguns fall under these exemption categories then?
Special exemptions from prohibition of small firearms
Slaughtering instruments.
Firearms used for humane killing of animals.
Shot pistols used for shooting vermin.
Races at athletic meetings.
Trophies of war.
Firearms of historic interest.
Or are there "regular" revolvers and semi-automatic pistols in the hands of mere citizens? Sau a 9mm Beretta for instance?
Seems to me the opposite of the rights I take for granted, ie that the government cannot incarcerate me without due process.
Ironically, while the British government believes that it functions just fine without a written constitution, the British government only grants approval to shooting clubs if they are "a genuine target shooting club with a written constitution."[273]
What topsy-turvy priorities for a body politic: Safety dictates that the law must demand "a written constitution" from each approved shooting club; but there is no "written constitution" demanded for the British government--which is vastly more important, and more dangerous than all the gun clubs put together.
Padilla is being held simply because your executive has decided it has the power to hold him.
Personally, I'd be worried about living in a country where I could be held without charge or even due process for 3 years.
How does he get the 3 years back?
If the police in the UK want to search your home, they have to get a warrant. Again, same as in the US.
Today the practice that police may inspect private homes without a warrant is being established by the "safe storage" provisions of the gun laws. In many jurisdictions the police will not issue or renew a firearms or shotgun certificate without an in-home visit to ensure that the police standards for safe storage are being met.
The police have no legal authority to require such home inspections, yet when a homeowner refuses the police entry, the certificate application or renewal will be denied.[249] The 1989 extension of the safe storage law to shotguns--a reasonable concept in itself--has added several hundred thousand more British homes to those to which the police consider they have the authority to demand entry without a warrant.
Finally, the gun control laws have helped teach that laws in practice are made by police administrators or London bureaucrats, rather than being the exclusive creation of Parliament.
What's to stop a redefinition of "assault weapons" to include any firearm? How about just having a handgun ban? If "assault weapons" can be banned without recourse to the constituion, why not handguns, rifles, etc? [/b]
Originally posted by Nashwan
I very much doubt races at athletic meetings,
... handguns have gone from strictly regulated to extremely strictly regulated. (And I've said all along that I don't agree with the changes made after Dunblane.)
Originally posted by Toad who was quoting Lazs who quoted Ben FranklinHah! Didn't quite work out like that, did it, old chum? Safety? LOL - More than 14,000 homicides in the US last year, AND the year before that, AND the year before that. :eek: Sure sounds "safe" :lol Incidentally, I hope you don't mind the somewhat informal and familiar form of address of "Chum". I thought you might approve, because Chum is a brand of dog food over here, as I'm sure you already know, owing to your omniscient local knowledge of Britain. :aok
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
You're trading for temporary safety. Checked your sharp instrument crime stats lately?No need! The US has more gun homicides in twelve months than we have in about 140 years, including those of about 70 heavily armed and highly trained cops who enjoyed the "essential liberty". Didn't do them much good though, did it? :( As for sharp objects, that's your field of expertise. You are a former captain of the industry that banned them. Ooops - I said the B-word. :D
October 03, 2004
Police forces are also concerned about the increase in knife crime. Government figures showed offences involving possession of weapons have risen 36% since 1999. Murders with sharp instruments rose from 200 in 1997 to 272 last year....
...An internal Metropolitan police report showed that a crime involving a knife is committed every 25 minutes in London.
Originally posted by Toad
Chickensbornbonelessskinlesso nstyrofoamplateland.
Sharp instrument murders up ~ 35% since the handgun ban. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm.Are you saying that this increase comes as a RESULT of the gun "ban"? Then you do agree that the gun "ban" is having an effect?
I've made my positon clear enough and given folks the history. I never had any intent of changing your mind. However, I think the readers of this thread and look at both sides can decide for themselves.Since he said it, the score has now reached Beet1e 3, Toad 0.
Originally posted by beet1e[/b]
Don't you have to pay for it or anything?
On sharp instruments, I see you've gone back to your old trickery of quoting percentages when referring to British stats,[/b]
Originally posted by ToadYou should have listened to Dowding when he said
Your homicide rates per 100,000 have remained essentially the same both before and after the ban. In other words, the annual rates for say 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 are amazingly close to the rates for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002.
So while you banned handguns, semi-auto and pump rifles and shotguns your homicides per 100K remained about the same before and after the ban.
So, with all these guns removed from the dangerous hands of the public, how did the people die in order to keep the homicide rate about the same?
Gun ownership before the "ban": sod all. Gun ownership after the "ban": sod all.So when you talk about "all these guns removed from the dangerous hands of the public", the truth is that there were probably very, very few. This would also explain Lazs's conundrum - how did the 1920 legislation sail through parliament without a protest? Why did "all those" gun owners meekly surrender their weapons? Answer: there weren't as many as Lazs thought...
Oh... one other thing. You seem to focus on "posters" rather than "readers".
As I said before, I'll let the readers decide for themselves.
Originally posted by lazs2Let's break your post down.
lets break it down...
you never has any rights so far as protectiing yourself...Wrong. An Englishman's home is his castle, as the saying goes. Which means we can use "reasonable force" to defend ourselves. What is "reasonable force"? Last month, a judge decreed that "reasonable force" had been used when a farmer shot an intruder with a shotgun.
Another thing is that you are overpopulated. limiting weapons to shotguns is allmost allways the first sign of overpopulation...You have said, repeatedly, that we lost all our rights in 1920, since which we could own only shotguns. Were we overpopulated in 1920? And was that the reason we "lost all our rights"?
The truth is that there is a percentage of people in entgland who would like to freely own firearms that can't... pistols, revolvers and center fire rifles kept in their home and used to protect them and their family.... and neighbors.That percentage is nowhere as big as you'd like to think it is. For your statement to have any validity, you need to provide a source - or is this just another of those tidbits that you "heard"?
your crime is up because of itWrong. Twice. 1)Our crime is not up - it is down. Read the British Crime Survey provided in that Home Office report which I posted further up. Toad posted a link to the same document. 2) If our crime had gone up, as you erroneously suggest, it would not have been because of guns. Our gun homicide tally came down last year by 15%.
your police and your criminals will be armed.... soon.. the only people not armed will be the law abiding.Wrong. There may come a day when all police are armed. When that day comes it won't be true to say that "the only people not armed will be the law abiding". The police are, in general, a law abiding bunch.
The truth is that there is a percentage of people in entgland who would like to freely own firearms that can't... pistols, revolvers and center fire rifles kept in their home and used to protect them and their family.... and neighbors.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm
as can be seen... your crime is higher than ours in every case and is trending higher in allmost all
lazs
Originally posted by Excel1I read about half of that police report posted by Vulcan. One thing that amazed me was that 73% of gun deaths are suicides.
Thorp's recomendations were always going to be for tougher gun laws because the premise for making the report is that we have a gun problem, which is bollocks, and the government knows it. Thats why the< Arms Amendment Act No2 >(the registration of all firearms) has not made it into law yet, because the goverment can't justify it on the piddling amount of gun crime in NZ.
lastly.. we report homicide differently... we report all gun crime not just those that can be solved.
This brings us full circle... a basic difference in national personalities... we detest our criminals and fight them with the best tools we can get... you seem to think that a lot of crime activity is fine so long as less people get hurt.
we would rather kill or be killed.
We all wear those stupid and uncomfortable seat belts for hours a day even though the chance of them ever saving our lives is extremely small.... yet, To keep a single action 1911 45 on the nightstand is considered paranoid?
to me... the logical and fair solution is to stop all the possing and hand wringing and simply take the best of both worlds.... increase the penalties for gun crime while at the same time making it easier for any law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms.
it really is that simple.
nashwan... how do you get a licence for a center fire rifle?
here you gto fill out the paperwork that says you aren't a convicted fellon on parole or crazy or drug addicted and wait (depending on state) so many days and then pick up your rifle and however much ammo you want to buy....
I buy ammo mail order in 1,000 round lots... how bout you? My rifles are in my home. yours? I only have to fill out paperwork on that rifle ever agin if I sell it.
I can shoot on any land I have permission to so long as it is outside city limits and the direction I am shooting is so many yards away from any building. How does it work there?
Originally posted by lazs2I don't find seat belts uncomfortable at all. I always used one since I started driving in 1971, long before they became mandatory on 1st January, 1983. As for the "extremely small" chance of having one save your life, it depends which way you look at it. Yes, most of us have never been in a situation in which a seat belt would have saved our lives. But at the same time, belts cut our road death toll from around 5000 per annum to about 3000 - a drop of some 40%, so clearly they do make a difference to overall statistics.
We all wear those stupid and uncomfortable seat belts for hours a day even though the chance of them ever saving our lives is extremely small....
Originally posted by beet1e
I read about half of that police report posted by Vulcan. One thing that amazed me was that 73% of gun deaths are suicides.
I appreciate that the amount of gun crime in NZ is "piddling", but don't you appreciate the pre-emptive value of legislation? I've always been one to look at how things turn out in other countries to try to gauge how the same issues might pan out here. It's not an exact science, of course, which is why some of those American studies into British gun ownership rights fall down.
Perhaps Thorp's stance is that he doesn't want to wait for there to be a torrent of gun crime before doing something about it.
Originally posted by lazs2
Like I said... minus the black population our homicide rate is 2 per 100,000 that is not a big deal for all the benifiets of lower crime rates and the freedom to defend yourself.
lazs
Originally posted by Excel1Gun crime NIMBYism. Besides, Nashwan produced some official figures which cast some doubt on Lazs's assertions.
Why do you subtract Blacks fron US crime statistics ?
Dont they count as Americans ?
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why centre fire rifles? AFAIK, they are available to anyone with a licence.
Originally posted by Vulcan
Toad, I think you just don't get it, NZ has survived happily on its gun laws for about 20 years now without changing them much.
Have a read here: http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/
Recommendations
Part 4.3 The arguments against further controls - the "firearms debate"
1 That the new Firearms Act specifically provide that self-defence is not a legitimate purpose for the acquisition of firearms.
Part 6.1.1 Restricting the availability of high-risk firearms
Restricted Weapons
2 That all restricted weapons be permanently disabled.