Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on April 29, 2006, 11:37:20 AM
-
Of interest:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5784491,00.html
Despite increasingly stringent laws banning weapons, increasing video surveillance ("If you have nothing to hide....") and so on, violent crime seems to be mysteriously increasing.
Seems to suggest that there's a point where added restrictions start to harm. I'm thinking we've passed that point in the US a couple decades ago. England's ramp-up to authoritarianism seems to have taken place over a shorter time period, making it more noticable (boiling a frog and whatnot) to my uneducated eye. Is this an accurate assessment?
Consequently, is this a model that we can apply to the US?
Talk amongst yourselves....
-
Oh goody. Another gun thread in the making.:rolleyes:
-
o/t
Curval, gun debates will keep getting more and more fundamental until they get down to the bottom of the disagreement between those discussing it.
Isn't that as good as it gets?
-
chair... not sure how you feel about guns but I think you like socialism..
The british model is one that we need to watch... they took away firearms rights at an alarming rate... all the arguements the gun grabbers here use today were tested in england with the results you see.... the boiling frog idea...
First you regester then you ban certain unfriendly looking types of firearms... along with selling the idea that guns are useful only for hunting and that your government is much better at protecting you than you are..
once that happens... you can pretty much ban all firearms as the people of the gun culture are more and more harrassed and then... because of regestration.... you can round em all up.
Why anyone would trust or want their government to have that much power is so alien a thought to me that I can't even picture such folks as being human.
lazs
-
Lazs, I said something similar to certain people, and their implicit bottom line (as far as I could tell) was that one shouldn't be able to harm anyone else, and it was the responsibility of society as a whole to remove anything furthering that ability.
That it was a selfish and utopic idea that government could be kept small enough that people could defend themselves and keep the government respectful of them.
And that anyway, odds of situations where people truly have to have lethal defense are small enough.
-
i am english and the thought of not being able to leave the house without being violently attacked because i do not have the right to bear arms leaves me hugging myself and shaking in the corner.
i get robbed every night, and all i can do is stand there and watch because my government took my guns away and told me i cannot defend myself.
what i cannot understand is that every criminal seems to have a gun, and shootings happen every day, it seems like thousands of people are killed every year by guns.
all of my country's problems could be solved by giving everyone AK47's, then i could shoot that CCTV camera that keeps looking through my window.
:cry
-
moot... did you mention to these people that if the government has that right then the government has to enforce it by some means... the means would be.... violence against it's citizens. If the government has that power then would not the government itself be the largest threat to freedom and safety?
Has this not been proven true throughout history in that governments allways kill many times more citizens than citizens do each other? Are you not safer, historicaly, when your neighbors are armed than when your government is?
furbie.... You are young and strong and male and do not live around the people who would be a threat to you. I think that you would be in more danger if you were elderly or infirm or a small woman living in a high crime area...
That being the case.... what would you suggest that those people do to protect themselves? Call a cop? make their wheelchair or walker go really really fast?
Luckily it hasn't happened to you but what would you do if three big guys with knives or clubs wanted your money and said you had a pretty mouth?
What would you do if your government got more and more authoritarian every year until one day..... even you noticed it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chair... not sure how you feel about guns but I think you like socialism..
Where the hell does this crap come from? You know what? Piss off. Socialism SUCKS. Communism is proof that socialism is an inherently flawed and EVIL system that will only benefit the people who claw their way into power. I don't know where the )(@#&$()@#$ you get off saying that I like socialism, but you need to consider pulling your head out of wherever it is that keeps it from getting a tan, because you couldn't be further from the truth.
You know what else? I own 5 guns, my wife and I are both avid shooters, and both of my boys are being raised to appreciate the rights and responsibilities that the 2nd amendment gives us. We're both getting our concealed carries (which are one of many stupid results of well meaning but idiotic anti-gun sentiments creeping through our country like a rash) and are both ready and able to defend our family from external threats.
I think that england is screwing itself, and that we'd be blind to ignore the lessons that THEY are learning the hard way. I posted my original message as politely as possible because I thought it would be good to have a discussion about this without being labelled a troll or scaring off people with opposing viewpoints that could contribute, but your damn preconceptions just pissed me the hell off. You are your worst enemy Lazs, and maybe you should take a moment to stop and think about who else you might be putting into some convenient box without knowing the facts.
You're not man enough to apologize, and some MP might end up deleting this message because I used a bad word like "piss", but I don't care. Skuzzy & friends have made an area for us to have civil off-topic discussions, but when you ignore the message and go after the poster, you're part of the reason we almost lost this board last year and why they might lose patience and yank it once and for all.
I've gotta walk away from this before I say something REALLY stupid, but for someone who claims to hold most of the safe beliefs I do about our country and the role of government in our personal lives, you're no better than- no, not gonna finish it. I'm steaming.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think that england is screwing itself
no, the labour government has screwed england up already.
-
I don't necessarily think this is only stemming from the lack of guns. I believe it has more to do with the mentality of "Someone else will help me." Be it the police, the government...
This mentality isn't localized in Britain. You can see it all across the world. A perfect example would be those staying in New Orleans through Katrina.
-
I sense another thread lock approaching.
Before that happens, just let me state to our British compatriots the following:
You won't need them until you need them...at which point, you won't have them. Thereupon, you will convince yourselves that the need wasn't really as pressing as you at first thought.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moot... did you mention to these people that if the government has that right then the government has to enforce it by some means... the means would be.... violence against it's citizens. If the government has that power then would not the government itself be the largest threat to freedom and safety?
Has this not been proven true throughout history in that governments allways kill many times more citizens than citizens do each other? Are you not safer, historicaly, when your neighbors are armed than when your government is?
I agree with you here. I'd add to it that our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by Rome, and the 2nd Amendment, IMO, was put in place in large part to protect the Republic from itself. They weren't keen on having little Sulla's and Caesars running around. The 2nd Amendment ensures that, should our Republic ever fall, the people have the means to restore it.
What I find interesting, is that many of the people who are so against guns (at least where I live) are also the people who would be against any attempt by the government to censor, survey, or restrict us and our civil rights. What they don't seem to get, is that without an armed populace, the government can do pretty much whatever they want. So, taking away guns from the citizens will essentially be a direct path to everything else they abhor.
I don't know if I made any sense there, but that's my take.
-
And if you were told that it's society's role, not any individual's, to make life or death decisions, and therefore that guns, being by design objects of killing, do not have their place in individuals' hands?
On topic, I don't know what to suggest.. You get what you deserve, and the people of the UK are getting it. Even if it's only because they're effectively agreeing to something they don't want only by inability to get their government to do what they wish it did.
-
Originally posted by moot
And if you were told that it's society's role, not any individual's, to make life or death decisions, and therefore that guns, being by design objects of killing, do not have their place in individuals' hands?
That's an argument, but I'd say individuals make up society, or are an agent of society, whatever fits best, and to be able to make and enact those decisions as a society, the individual must therefore be trained and capable?
I'm starting to really confuse the hell out of myself and have some term papers to write. This is not a good mix.
-
chair.... as I said in private.... if I am wrong about your supporting socialism and it's candidates then I apologize.
I will say tho that anyone who get's that angry at being called a socialist is either a dishonest liberal or a man after my own heart.... I believe you are probly the latter so...
sorry chair.
moot.... that is pretty good but sorta circular...If only society has the right to kill.... then does only society have the right to defend? Is it societies stance that the strongest and most vile amoung us should be able to terriorize so long as they do it with either weapons that are legal or brute strength or.... with illegal weapons?
You might ask them then if it is their opinion that governmment be the sole protector that..... anyone whom the government fails to protect that could have done so if society had not disarmed them.... are these victims due a settlement.... a monetary rembursement for the failure of said society to protect them?
or... back to the beggining.... simply say that society cannot guarentee your safety from violence and that you are on your own?
I find that most people who have been put in the position of having to defend themselves against overwhelming odds see the folly of any societal means of protecting them on a personal basis. Those who are young and strong and live realtively comfortably.... they seem to be the most blind to these facts.
lazs
-
While the following thoughts do not relate directly to the situation in Britain, they are, nevertheless pertinent to the discussion about the responsibilities of the individual to help maintain order in society.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution apparently were of a like mind when it came to defining the responsibilities of the individual, and the line that divided the areas of responsibility of the civil populace and the government.
ALL of the rights listed in the First Ten Amendments of the Constitution were originally defined as individual rights. At that time, this was beyond dispute and no one would have thought to argue differently. The concept of the armed citizen providing, in some measure, his own security was basic and fundamental. There was no way to telephone for help in a crisis, no electronic home security devices, no police force capable of responding rapidly to a call for help. There was only the individual, who had to rely on his own two fists, his wits, and whatever tools of defence he could afford and utilize.
The very thought of disarming the civil population would have seemed ludicrous to the likes of Jefferson and Madison.
Fast forward two hundred years, and everything has changed. While people on both sides of the political spectrum have no trouble understanding that nine of the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights deal with individual rights, many of those of the left of that spectrum have been arguing in recent years that the Second Amendment does not specifically protect an individual right. Indeed, they state that it is a collective right, meant only to provide for a type of national guard.
If they are correct, that makes the Second Amendment an anomally, for it would be the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that does NOT specifically guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right.
This group believes that the individual does not bear the original responsibility for maintaining his own security; rather, they see the security of the individual as being the responsibility of the city, state, or federal governments.
So, in the last 200 years, there has been a pole change in our fundamental attitudes about the very nature of individual responsibility that is, to say the least, disturbing.
-
Laz,
Seriously guy, you were out of line on that one. I didn't get that impression at all from Chairboy in this thread nor have I in others.
Now to address the thread
I'm sure there will be more apologists for Britain and it's populace being kept by their nanny government. I really do not begrudge them their system, if they are happy with it, so be it, as long as they do not try to bring it here.
I don't want a government that decides what I can do to that level and that promises to "protect" me from other members of society. I was in that business and I know from personal experiance that the government is purely reactive and cannot, will not protect you. They will be there to clean up and write up the resulting reports but the action will almost always be over by the time any response can get there. Getting there in the nick of time is hollywierd, not reality as a matter of course. It does happen but it is purely by happenstance and coincidence.
It's just simple physics, Police cannot be everywhere all the time. The previous study (Kansas City I believe, it's been a long time since I read it)showed that when the Police presence increases in one area the "bad folks" simply move to where they aren't and it's business as usual. I've seen it in action even in my own local jurisdiction.
Having said all of that, do I feel it is absolutely necessary to have a gun all the time? No. Do I feel the need to strap one on to feel secure everytime I step out my door? No. I already know the best way to get out of trouble is to not be there when it happens and your absolute best "weapon" is your mind coupled with your senses to detect a problem before it comes to you. Cooper's 3 color conditions of awareness works.
I carried one virtually every day of my life during my career. I no longer do so simply as I just do not want to and do not have to. Does it bother me that there are people who do carry lawfully? Nope. I had a person come to my aid in the street a couple times and I was happy for it.
Now do I want to have a government tell me that I do not deserve to have a weapon, can't be trusted with one even though I have done nothing wrong with one? Absolutely not. I want to have the right to carry if I feel the need and I do not want a government dictating to me. It is supposed to be the servant of the citizenry, not the other way around.
There are people who are not nice. They are predators and predators always work freely when there is no threat to them. You cannot get rid of them, you cannot prevent them from harming others and you cannot keep them all sequestered from the general population. We try to do so for many of the most egregious offenders and are unsuccessful in many cases. We even are criticised for putting them away by those who have no clue what those folks are like.
Enough with the wall of text.
-
shukins... that is of course, the fundamental truth.... you have nailed it perfectly on the individual rights ideal.
I was avoiding that because I assumed that because moot is not American and that individual rights would not be an arguement that he could use with the people he is talking to.... that I needed to get even more basic... to show that even if individual rights were not the issue... that society could not argue that....
they could protect you...
That you did not have a right to defend yourself..
that no fight is fair and that the potential for death increases for the most vulnerable and least at fault.
that society itself could not be trusted to weild such power alone. (you did mention that)
The main thing that is interesting with chairs post is the "progressive" (ever wondered why they love that word?) nature of gun control and the proof that no amount of gun control will ever satisfy the gun control nuts. There is no appeasement and that no gun control no matter how slight is not worth fighting with all our might...
lest we end up like england.... granted.... some may like that... I do not.
lazs
-
mav... yes... I probly was wrong about chair and said as much. I said that I "think you like socialism" that was hardly a diatribe tho.
As for the rest of your post.... couldn't agree more. I like a firearm by the nightstand or when traveling... I don't feel the urge or need to carry all the time. I have wished I had one more often than wished I didn't tho.
I understand perfectly what you are saying about the people that may be out there... you can sometimes sense it... sometimes not. I know one thing tho.... the bad guys aren't as bad (most of em) around cops or when they think someone may be armed..
just as you were glad to have a citizen come to your aid.... I am sure that all of us would be happy if one citizen in 10 was armed and willing to help us.
I agree competely with your post.
lazs
-
Hahaha, Chair, you gotta admit that it is funny.
Lazs has the shortest memory... I remember you and me going back and forth in the union thread, THAT LAZS WAS IN ALSO...
And now he is calling you a socialist.
LOL.
-
the "right" to defend yourself predates all law and governments. I think that's what they meant by "inalienable rights"
-
Despite increasingly stringent laws banning weapons, increasing video surveillance ("If you have nothing to hide....") and so on, violent crime seems to be mysteriously increasing.
There are two measures of crime in Britain. The first is police recorded crime, the second is the British Crime Survey, which interviews large numbers of people to get a statistical summary of crime.
Police recorded crime has always recorded very high percentage of serious crime (murder, serious assaults) and a much smaller percentage of minor crime (common assaults, burglary attempts, criminal damage etc). That's because people are less likely to report minor crime, and the police were less likely to bother with it.
With the advent of the Labour government, the police have been recording more crime. They've been pushed into that by the government, who are obsessed with recording and "targets".
As a result, the police are recording large numbers of minor crimes they never used to bother with. That's especially the case with minor violent crime. Violent crime, as recorded by the police, includes assaults with no injury, threats to commit assault, and verbal harassment (if you shout offensively at someone, it's now recorded as "violent crime" in the UK)
The latest crime figures as recorded by the police, that the Guardian report is refering to:
violence against the person
oct-dec 2004 - 257,500
oct-dec 2005 - 259,900
So violent crime has gone up. But the most serious violent crime, those resulting in serious injuries (anything from a broken nose to death) have gone down. Less serious violence is up.
There were 73 people killed with firearms in England and Wales in 2004, that fell to 51 in 2005.
furbie.... You are young and strong and male and do not live around the people who would be a threat to you. I think that you would be in more danger if you were elderly or infirm or a small woman living in a high crime area...
Actually no. Young men are far more at risk of violent crime than the old or infirm, in both the US and UK. (apart from infant children, who have the highest murder rate)
For example, in the US, the number of violent attacks where the victim is aged 12 - 24 is about 143 per 1000 people. Where the victim is over 35 there are only 31 assaults per 1000 people. For those over 65 there are only 2 assaults per 1000 people.
It's a similar story in the UK, and women are at far less risk than men.
That being the case.... what would you suggest that those people do to protect themselves? Call a cop? make their wheelchair or walker go really really fast?
Luckily it hasn't happened to you but what would you do if three big guys with knives or clubs wanted your money and said you had a pretty mouth?
What would you do if 3 big guys with guns wanted you money and said you had a pretty mouth? They are already pointing their guns at you, so you can't draw you own.
What's the US murder rate again? Several times higher than the UK rate. What's the American rape rate? Much higher than the UK rate. What's the murder rate for US police officers? Many times the rate for UK police officers.
Somehow, it seems American's aren't able to defend themselves, and are far more likely to suffer serious crime than the UK, despite (or rather because of) the easy availability of weapons. Perhaps an armed criminal is more dangerous than an unarmed criminal?
-
I may have been wrong about chair but.... even lenin wasn't socialist enough for you urchin.
I doubt I will forget that...even with my short memory.
lazs
-
again nashwan.... your crime has increased in relation to itself. maybe we should compare your crime rate with the Swiss who are allmost all armed?
no? don't like that? why not? they have guns you do not.... if that is the only criteria that you use then it would be a valid comparison.
countries are different... made up of different peoples. The only fair way to judge the impact of firearms is within the country itself...
The more you ban them the worse off you are... the more we allow people to carry concealed the better off we are. Our worst crime rates are in cities that completely ban firearms for the most part.... DC... Detroit, Chicago... NY. kalifornia cities like LA where it is allmost impossible to get a legal concealed carry permit.
In the US... 1.5-3 million crimes a year are stopped by a firearm they appear to do far more good than harm.... and... for the right people.
If I were being robbed by three guys with clubs (as sentances for armed crime go up armed crime goes down) then I would like to have a gun.... in the unlikely event that they were armed I would like to have an armed citizen intervene on my behalf..
put another way.... would you not be glad to see an armed policeman intervene? an armed citizen is allmost as good in my book and way ahead of say....you.... trying to explain their folly to them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I may have been wrong about chair but.... even lenin wasn't socialist enough for you urchin.
I doubt I will forget that...even with my short memory.
lazs
Haha, sure thing, Mr "B-B-but price gouging is ILLEGAL!".
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What would you do if 3 big guys with guns wanted you money and said you had a pretty mouth? They are already pointing their guns at you, so you can't draw you own.
Anyone can play the what if game. What would you go when surrounded by 3 big guys with knives who demand your belongings and say you have a pretty mouth and butt?
A no win situation is a no win situation. Now what did either one of these scenarios prove?
-
price gouging is illegal especially as I had said.... price fixing. I didn't make that law and as I get older I don't necessarily agree with it but it is the law.
but really... you do admit that you thought that lenin was a little soft on socialsm right? that he wasn't socialist enough?
lazs
-
Chair - First I want to emphasise that I am not in favour of the guncontrol laws in the UK - they have done nothing to reduce GUN RELATED CRIME in the UK. But here is where I think you mis-understand the real root causes in the UK that cause the crap we are in now.
1. The failure of the justice system to protect the victim - defending yourself and property in the UK has become a more serious crime than the one the criminal is committing - and I mean defnese by any means.
2. The failure of the justice system to provide a deterent to criminal behaviour.
3. The failed imigration policy which allows violent criminals into the country either via EU open borders or the failed assylum laws.
4. The lack of focus on drugs by the police - possesion of ecstasy and coke on a personal level will rarely get you more than a warning now.
5. A culture of drink embedded where a fun night out is to get completely hammered - a persons drinking ability is currency.
This is from my home town:-
The latest murder murder by Wakil Sahebzadeh (http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=845&ArticleID=1473309)
The "Campaign" to beat it :-Text messages, more lights and cameras to record what they did to you (http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/newsfront.aspx?sectionid=2222)
Notice the amount of effort on controlling drink based violence, on youth crime, and how the best you can do is expect to video what happens. This isn't a question of gun ownership - it's a matter of the crimnal facing no consequence from any source.
Lazs - aside from the personal protection issue which I basically agree with - you repeatedly run out the line that citizen gun ownership is the prime method of restriction of government control over the populace. This really is becoming the sort of thing you hear from those groups in Montana with signs on the property saying "no police" and who claim independance. SO at what point would you as an individual in todays California take up your gun to go and use it against a government institution ? When the army is lined against you what then ?? In todays America do you REALLY believe an armed uprising of the civilian population would happen ??
-
I keep thinking I should post something in this thread but decided that I really dont care about crime in england. I say let the english deal with their own crime problems.
-
sparks.... of course I do. It would not even have to be much of an organized rebellion.
let's be realistic.... have you seen our riots? have you seen the thousands of ILLEGAL aliens marching and not being arrested?
Why do you suppose that is? An all powerful government would not allow that right? what are they afraid of? I will tell you.... they still govern by our giving them that right and they know it... they know that they are outnumbered and really have no control.... That is why governments everywhere want more police and to disarm society.
Tell me... do you really believe that governments try to dissarm their people in order to make the people more safe or in order to make themselves more safe?
Do you believe that our government could function if even 10% of the 90 million gun owners in this country caused 9 million standoffs in 9 million different places? and... how many Waco's or Ruby ridges would the population put up with before they demanded a regime change?
That is all it is about... not a few miltias with some revolutionary pact all supporting some leader..... just people getting PO'd and civil disobediance till the government pandered or died.
They don't stop riots or looting or burning and they don't stop illegal marches by criminals.... they rule us only by our good graces and they know that they had better not test that theory untill they are one hell of a lot stronger and we are one hell of a lot weaker.
That is all I am saying.... besides my human right to defend myself.... It just makes good sense to keep myself strong and the government weak or.... at least a balance..
When that balance is broken.... historicaly.... governments slaughter their people..
I fear that englands balance is way off and you are just lucky at this point.
lazs
-
Anyone can play the what if game. What would you go when surrounded by 3 big guys with knives who demand your belongings and say you have a pretty mouth and butt?
A no win situation is a no win situation. Now what did either one of these scenarios prove?
Nothing, that's why I didn't bring it up. I was responding to lazs, who did.
I screwed up the quoting, so it's my fault for not being clear. fixed it now.
-
nashwan... I will admit that there are a few situations where even gawd couldn't get you out of... that doesn't mean that for the other 99% of the time you should just throw up your hands and say "what's the use?".
It is funny to me that even tho a seatbelt will probly never be used by any of you to effectively escape an injury that not having one would have caused and..... that in some cases... even having a seatbelt will not save your life in a wreck...
you are willing to not only wear them but.... make it illegal not to?
does my pointing out that there are situations where a seatbelt would do you no good make wearing seatbelts a foolish thing to do?
lazs
-
In some accidents, having a seatbelt makes no difference. In a tiny number, you're better off without a seatbelt. On average, you are far safer with a seatbelt than without.
The problem with your position, lazs, is you think that freely available guns make you safer. The evidence is, they put you more at risk. More robberies are committed (per capita) in England and Wales than in the US. Yet far more people are killed during robberies (per capita) in the US. Guns aren't saving the robbery victims.
American police officers are armed. Yet far more are killed (per capita) than British police officers. Again, having firearms isn't protecting them, because the criminals also have firearms.
On average, you stand more chance of being killed or seriously injured if you encounter an armed criminal than if you encounter an unarmed criminal. Armed criminals are common in the US because guns are cheap and freely available. Armed criminals are rare in the UK because guns are expensive and very hard to get.
-
i carry a gun and i have never been robbed, what does that do to your statistics, i think my numbers show me to be 100% victim free.
-
Chairboy previously wrote:
England's ramp-up to authoritarianism seems to have taken place over a shorter time period, making it more noticable (boiling a frog and whatnot) to my uneducated eye.
England is boiling frogs now? Boy is Chirac gonna be pissed when he finds that out! I'll bet they close the chunnel.
-
there you go again nashwan... since you banned guns.... how much safer are you? You never did have a significant homicide rate no matter what... your laws have not made you safer... they just haven't (arguably) made things much worse.. If your population makeup changes (as it appears to be on the verge of) then you may be in an entirely different situation.
now.... lets continue along the appples to apples comparisson.... in the U.S. those areas that allow concealed carry have shown a reduction in crime. So... you are far safer in the U.S. in a state that has strong gun rights than in one that did not and.... if you are in a state with no gun rights.... giving those people gun rights will drop the crime rate.
That is how it works.
Safer with a seatbelt? if you never get in a wreck it makes no difference at all.. or... never get in one that you would die in no matter what or... worse... one that you would be better off without one.
Most people feel that wearing one is simple enough tho and worth the effort.
To say that more police here are killed because they are armed is ludicrous... They would be in far more danger if they were not. They use their guns far more to stop agression than to cause it or have it happen to them... again...different countries with different people.
When I say that blacks commit over half our homicides and rapes... it sounds biggoted to some but... that is just a fact. It is not a gun causing the homicide or rape but a type of people in a type of country in a type of situation... I do not pretend to understand why but it is not firearms that are the problem....
As for robbery "victims" you are lumping the robbers in with the victims and.... you are asking us to blindly submit to robbery and hope for the best.. that is not our nature and I for one would far rather take the added chance that gunplay may not come out as I like if it means that I was not helpless.
If robbery is easier.... no one gets killed... then maybe... just maybe... that makes robbery more acceptable and explains your higher rate... your robers have nothing to fear. Not a situation that I envy...
"oh sure you are a lot more likely to get robbed but less likely to get shot."
not what I want to hear.
lazs
-
Lazs - I see your arguement but disagree with some of your reasoning. I have actually seen the riots and marches - I am in So Cal at the moment on business so I've been watching and reading the papers with interest for the last weeks. I don't agree with the assertion that they haven't clamped on the illegals for fear of agitating the gun holding populace. In fact I would expect the reverse to be true - conservative independant Americans - the ones who hold arms and promote self responsibility - are precisely the ones who would welcome a leader of courage using the power given to him to protect the values he was elected to protect. What the government IS afraid of is pushing 12 million voters into the arms of the Democrats.
Tell me... do you really believe that governments try to dissarm their people in order to make the people more safe or in order to make themselves more safe?
I agree with you - to make themselves more safe - but I DON'T believe it is because of the fear of armed uprising. It is because if you have no means to protect yourself from external forces - you become dependant on them for that protection and that gives them power. This is Blairs UK. If you allowed citizens to be armed in the UK and removed 95% of the taxes then the people would become independant and the governments effect on there lives minimal. At this point they lose their power - not through fear of marches on Downing street but through no dependance.
Your picture of civil unrest - gun owners nationally carrying out acts of opposition I don't see as realistic. People individually aren't that brave and when faced with the enemy being the trained army and National Guard I think the take-up would be minimal. I could however see the rise of State militia - Independance for South Dakota ??
When that balance is broken.... historicaly.... governments slaughter their people..
agreed - China.
England - the country that I call home - is going to hell in a hand basket and there isn't a leader or group of any quality to get behind to change it. Gun control isn't the cause - it's a symptom. The lunatics are in charge of the assylum. The borders are open and the PC police are in charge.
Funny - sounds like California ............
-
very much like kalifornia.
I think you are wrong about civil disobediace.... there is an old expression here.... "one riot one ranger (Texas) one wino.... 600 SWAT."
not so much that they fear an organized uprising but simply... armed civil unrest.
We can't control the criminals we have here. The government couldn't do a thing about katrina say for days.... imagine riots in multiple cities at once and.... the more we see how powerless the government is the more emboldened the "timid" people become.
The more heavy handed the government becomes... the less people who will support it.
I am not talking everyone protesting a 60 mph speed limit here.... this would only happen for something drastic like a unified gun ban or nation wide martial law.
I do not forsee this nor do I want it but it is very much possible. The odds were much worse in 1776 and you seen how that turned out.
As for hispanics.... most are gun owners. Most will fight most are as American as I am.
Most of us are beggining to see how weak the government is... a few thousnad protesters and they fold... a couple hundred rioters and the whole city and new network pretty much shut down... Plus... there are a lot of people getting darn mad.
look at katrina... the governments first object was to disarm the citizens... why would they do that if they did not fear that some could possibly ressist martial law? If they were no threat why go door to door trying to dissarm em?
in any case.... when confronted with a tyranical government it is much better to have the means to kill them than to not would you not agree?
I don't think we are that far off but I don't think you understand how much individualism is bred into us as a people nor how weak governements really are.... just watch the news at any disaster and look at all the battered and confused victims all wondering when the "government" is gonna save em.... gonna do "something" somethimes for days or weeks or months..
lazs
-
since you banned guns.... how much safer are you?
Let me know when guns are banned, and I will tell you.
If you mean, did the latest restriction on already tight firearms laws make any difference, then no. But that's because the laws were already adequate.
now.... lets continue along the appples to apples comparisson.... in the U.S. those areas that allow concealed carry have shown a reduction in crime. So... you are far safer in the U.S. in a state that has strong gun rights than in one that did not and
No, lazs, by far the largest drop in crime rate has been in New York, not exactly the home of concealed carry.
In fact, according to the Brady org, states which allowed freer access to concealed carry had a smaller reduction in murder rate than the US average, states which restricted concealed carry had a bigger reduction. Not sure if the Brady org are wrong, but I haven't seen any figures in rebuttal, just a claim that states that allow concealed carry have a lower murder rate than those which don't (which is what you'd expect as more rural aareas tend to allow CC, urban areas tend to ban it, and murder rates are higher in urban areas in the western world)
Safer with a seatbelt? if you never get in a wreck it makes no difference at all.. or... never get in one that you would die in no matter what or... worse... one that you would be better off without one.
I'm talking about on average. On average, you are less likely to die in a car accident if you wear a seatbelt than if you don't.
To say that more police here are killed because they are armed is ludicrous... They would be in far more danger if they were not.
No, the point is more US police are killed because the criminals are armed. Though it's worth noting far more US police officers get shot with their own guns in the US than get shot at all in the UK.
When I say that blacks commit over half our homicides and rapes... it sounds biggoted to some but... that is just a fact.
You mean your underclass commits most crimes? Same here. Our underclass tends to be a mix of races, but it's the same principle.
It is not a gun causing the homicide or rape but a type of people in a type of country in a type of situation.
It's not a gun causing it, but it's a gun being used.
As for robbery "victims" you are lumping the robbers in with the victims and.
Uh, no.
you are asking us to blindly submit to robbery and hope for the best
No, not at all. I can fight back against a robbery just as easily as you can. You will fight with a gun against a gunman, I will fight with my fists against someone with at worst a knife, and probably no weapon at all.
I think I have more chance of surviving, and the statistics bear that out.
that is not our nature and I for one would far rather take the added chance that gunplay may not come out as I like if it means that I was not helpless.
I'm no more helpless than you are, I'm just less likely to die if I try to help myself. That's because your robber is far, far more likely to be armed than mine.
If robbery is easier.... no one gets killed... then maybe... just maybe... that makes robbery more acceptable and explains your higher rate.
Yes, or it could be the fact that prison sentences are so much shorter in the UK, even if a robber is sent to prison at all. And the fact that robbers in the US spend a much larger proportion of their active careers in prison, because of the length of sentences.
"oh sure you are a lot more likely to get robbed but less likely to get shot."
Actually you are a bit more likely to get robbed, far more likely to get shot.
-
I agree with you - to make themselves more safe - but I DON'T believe it is because of the fear of armed uprising. It is because if you have no means to protect yourself from external forces - you become dependant on them for that protection and that gives them power.
Whilst I agree governments want people to be more dependent on them (and the US government also does it by constantly talking up the terrorist threat, whereas ours uses the terrorist threat and the crime threat), there is a much simpler explanation for why labour brought in new gun restrictions. Thomas Hamilton killed a lot of children and the media demanded something be done.
It wasn't to stop people protecting themselves (how many used handguns to protect themselves before 1995?) it was because doing nothing would make the government unpopular, and if there had been another incident, the government would have got the blame.
look at katrina... the governments first object was to disarm the citizens... why would they do that if they did not fear that some could possibly ressist martial law? If they were no threat why go door to door trying to dissarm em?
Because rescue workers were being held up by reports of other rescue workers being shot at?
And lazs, if they came to take the guns in NO, did it bring down the government? Did the right to keep and bear all arms up to and including semi automatics, and nothing more advanced, prevent the guns being seized?
The thing is, if your government ever becomes totalitarian, they won't announce it over the radio. They won't say "we have become evil. and we're coming for your guns". They will announce a really pressing reason why some people have to be disarmed, and the rest, who cheerlead for the government, will back them.
Just as happened at Waco.
And of course, they don't allow you the sort of guns you need to overthrow the government, anyway. You can have semi autos, but try to buy something to take out the government aircraft, or the government tanks. Try to buy a nuke or anthrax or sarin. They've got them. You're outgunned.
-
nashwan... first of all you do admit that the latest gun ban had no effect.... did you know that before 1920 you had very little gun restrictions and very little gun crime.
which gun ban would you say made england the paradise that it is today?
now... the brady bunch... I am glad that you leave room for doubt about their figures... they are known to outright lie... they claim that NY had the highest reduction in violent crime rate... it did have slightly better than most but.... the average per 100,000 population violent crime rate in the U.S. is 475 theirs was twice that high... in 5 years it dropped to a little less thatn twice that just like newark NJ (another gun ban area) and DC with over 1500 per 100,000.
I will grant you that you are safer in the country than the city but states with the least restrictive firearms laws saw the most decline in violent crime. All those who passed concealed carry laws (right to carry) showed a reduction in violent crime higher on average than those who tightened gun restrictions.
lazs
-
nashwan... as the waco and ruby ridge events played out.... people stopped cheering and now it is near impossible to find anyone who sides with the government on this.
you are right tho... regestration should be fought to keep government from confiscating guns....
as for "types of guns" any hunting rifle will do better than the best assault rifle the government has and you can get whatever you want or need with it if that isn't the case.... even more reason to not give in to restrictions on type.
katrina? the government only took guns from the old and infirm and ultra law abiding... they didn't even get many... estimates are they got less than 1% of what was out there. I could give em a gun and still be armed. no big deal.
I will concede that in your country some of the gun bans were done at the request of the people.
That is why I am glad that we have a second amendment to keep the wolves outvoting the sheep on whats for dinner democracy from happening here.
your country is different than ours. the split was inevitable in 1776 and it is even more so now. Our people have different ideas of freedom and individual rights and how much to trust government.
you are welcome to yours. It works for you... it makes you happy and hopefully.... you are doing the right thing for you..
here we don't think the same.. our country is far different... we use a gun to maintain independence... a tool... we have more violent people here... with or without a gun they are violent and we stop between 1.5 and 3 million of em a year from commiting crimes against us..
for most of us... that is enough to make it worth it. We have hundreds of millions of firearms in this country. they aren't going to go away... the only good way to handle violent people and all the guns in the country is to make sure the right people are armed. We gladly accept the harm guns do because of the harm it would do if we couldn't have em.
lazs
-
nashwan... first of all you do admit that the latest gun ban had no effect.... did you know that before 1920 you had very little gun restrictions and very little gun crime.
which gun ban would you say made england the paradise that it is today?
I'd say it's incremental.
Guns used to be legally available before the first world war, but they were expensive. Therefore hard to get for criminals.
The restrictions on legal ownership since then have restricted supply, which has pushed the price of guns up. That means guns are hard to get for criminals.
That's why the UK didn't see the huge increase in murders that the US has.
now... the brady bunch... I am glad that you leave room for doubt about their figures... they are known to outright lie... they claim that NY had the highest reduction in violent crime rate... it did have slightly better than most but.... the average per 100,000 population violent crime rate in the U.S. is 475 theirs was twice that high... in 5 years it dropped to a little less thatn twice that just like newark NJ (another gun ban area) and DC with over 1500 per 100,000.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but New York experienced the largest drop in crime rate in the US. Certainly small areas experienced larger percentage drops (a village with 2 crimes one year, 1 the next has halved it's crime rate).
I will grant you that you are safer in the country than the city but states with the least restrictive firearms laws saw the most decline in violent crime. All those who passed concealed carry laws (right to carry) showed a reduction in violent crime higher on average than those who tightened gun restrictions.
Do you have a source that makes that claim?
nashwan... as the waco and ruby ridge events played out.... people stopped cheering and now it is near impossible to find anyone who sides with the government on this.
Right. But Clinton is still living the high life, and the waco-ists are still dead.
as for "types of guns" any hunting rifle will do better than the best assault rifle the government has
Assault rifles aren't the real firepower of the military, though. Machine guns, grenades, artillery, aircraft and tanks are.
That is why I am glad that we have a second amendment to keep the wolves outvoting the sheep on whats for dinner democracy from happening here.
What if the constitution is amended? Will you obey the new law?
And what if the constitution is re-interprated? It says "arms". That's already been restricted to semi autos. What if it's restricted further? What if, say, only bolt action rifles are allowed? If the government decides all semi autos are "assault weapons", and bans them, do you fight back then? I don't remember a fightback when "assault weapons" were banned based on looks.
we have more violent people here...
But "England" has more violent crime, surely? Isn't that what this thread was all about?
We have hundreds of millions of firearms in this country. they aren't going to go away... the only good way to handle violent people and all the guns in the country is to make sure the right people are armed.
Ah, but you don't make sure the right people are armed, you make sure almost all[ people are armed. Which includes all the wrong people as well.
We gladly accept the harm guns do because of the harm it would do if we couldn't have em.
Well, most of the rest of the civilised world has looked at the harm freely available guns do, and looked at the harm restrictions on guns does, and chosen the latter. The US has, of course, gradually restricted guns. Any radical advance in weapons of the 20th century has been banned. You are limited to 19th century technology in firearms, in effect. (no poison gas, no nukes, no guided missiles, etc)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, lazs, by far the largest drop in crime rate has been in New York, not exactly the home of concealed carry.
It IS the home of an extremely alert, pissed off and fed up populace thats conciously decided to not be beaten down by criminals or terrorists. The place has been very self-involved in cleaning itself up for most of the last decade, the mayors have a policy of zero tolerance for street crime elements. There's an interesting public policy campaign called 'If you SEE something, SAY something!' Some punk pulls a knife or gun on a train, 40 cells phones come out and others move TOWARD the source of the disturbance. NYC ain't a 'safe' place for a gang banger.
And as mav noted further up thread.. when the police increase their patrols and presence, the bad guys go someplace else. End result is that metropolitan NYC's seedy underside has moved out to the boroughs.
-
nashawn, some holes in yer logic pop out at me.. if i might observe;
Assault rifles aren't the real firepower of the military, though. Machine guns, grenades, artillery, aircraft and tanks are.
Wrong. The power of the military is the soldier. Infantry. Boots on the ground. You can't subdue a populace, control territory, consolidate, operate without troops on the ground. Those troops are armed. With automatic assault rifles.
And, an automatic assault rifle is not anywhere near being in the same leauge in caliber and range as a semi automatic battle rifle.. which, last time i checked, is what we, the people, in order to protect in imperfect union, have decided we'd rather have in the closet anyway.
Nashwan, that last time I checked the population of these United States was 295,734,134. Conservative estimates for gun ownership here are 35%. That's at least 103 million weapons in the hands of American citizens. At least!
The Army's current reported size is 500,000. there's another 700,000 National Guardsmen. They seem to be a mite buzy elsewhere right now; which, as most americans would agree, is a good thing; because an armed american soldier on the streets of baghdad is viewed as a hero by americans.. but an armed american soldier on the corner of 5th and main in Hometown, USA would be viewed as a dire symbol of a Government run amok.. and that trooper in service of a government attempting suppression of constitutional rights would be viewed as anything BUT a hero.
And, the government knows the populace outside of blue cities is less than receptive to the kind ministrations of a government that wants our guns. They can legislate, they can pontificate, but they can't get the 100+ million guns outta those closets by any other means than coming to get them.
And, frankly; the chances of this government getting those guns by force are no better than Englands were over here 230 years ago.
Lastly, since it's been debated in situ for so long perhaps a short review of the Second ammendment is appropriate.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/i]
Two parts. The first is an aknowledgement of the necessity for the government to keep an armed security force. The founding fathers, having just fought just such a force, have made it plain with the frank and uncomplicated wording in this, the SECOND ammendment that they wanted it to be absolutely clear that the PEOPLE must have the right to arms for defense against that force should it become oppressive. "The right of the people[/b] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The 'people' in contrast to the 'state'. Simple, really. And it remains the backbone of the document, the amendment that reinforced the first, and gave teeth (dental health is overlooked in england to this day) to all the rest.
;)
-
No matter how many these threads are, the UK has a loooong way to go to approach the capital crime rate (murder, rape, armed robbery) of the USA.
:p
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Guns used to be legally available before the first world war, but they were expensive. Therefore hard to get for criminals.
The restrictions on legal ownership since then have restricted supply, which has pushed the price of guns up. That means guns are hard to get for criminals.
:D
The career criminal doesn`t go down to Harry`s gun shop to acquire a gun.
-
just people getting PO'd and civil disobediance till the government pandered or died.
So what you're saying in effect is that you want a 3rd world form of government with inherent instability and tendency to revolt. :D
Why do you live in the western world to begin with?
-
Here's two Birmingham's and their rates...and the countermeasures....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/westmidlands/series5/gun_crime_states.shtml
-
And this one:
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk/810522.stm
"Home Office figures showed the murder rate in the US in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in England and Wales.
The murder rate in London is 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 8.6 per 100,000 in New York and 49.15 per 100,000 in Washington DC.
A report produced by the US Department of Justice in 1998 would appear to support the Home Office's claims.
It shows the murder rate was 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate was about three times higher.
Figures show people are much more likely to get shot in New York than London
The report also showed firearms were used in 68% of murders in the US compared with 7% in England and Wales, and in 41% of robberies in America against 5% in England and Wales.
But the rates for assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft were all lower in America than in England and Wales"
So...give them all guns, and your car will be safer while you and yer kids won't....
-
The career criminal doesn`t go down to Harry`s gun shop to acquire a gun.
No, they normally steal them, or buy them off someone who has stolen them. That's why they are so cheap, like other stolen goods they sell for a discount from retail price.
Of course, with at least 103 million weapons in the hands of American citizens it's not hard to steal a gun. They're left in cars, in drawers, under beds, on top of wardrobes, etc.
In Britain, where do you go to steal a handgun? They're not sold in the shops, so you can't steal one from there. Only a tiny number are in private hands, so you'll have to committ thousands of burglaries before you find one, and even then it will, by law, be locked in a very secure safe. Where do you steal a handgun?
-
Wrong. The power of the military is the soldier. Infantry. Boots on the ground. You can't subdue a populace, control territory, consolidate, operate without troops on the ground. Those troops are armed. With automatic assault rifles.
And when they encounter opposition, they call in real firepower.
What happened at Waco? A tank, wasn't it?
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
How do you define "arms"? Don't "arms" include fully auto weapons? Weren't certaing "arms", that looked a bit too frightening, banned for a few years? What's to stop that happening again?
-
this is kinda silly... The world is full of examples of indiginous peoples fighting off extremely well equiped and modern armies...
You could raid armories...you could get help from border countries wanting a piece of the pie for whatever reason.... Hell... a couple dozen irish guys kept the whole british army hoping for decades..
We beat the british army.
They can't sent the tanks everywhere... the Soviets couldn't win in afgahanistan with tanks... and... Are you really sure that the government here could raise an army to fight citizens?
I don't think you know us Americans... we aren't like you... that much should be apparent... the why I could never explain to you because frankly.... I don't understand you people.
Nashwan... some good books to read are "more guns less crime" by Lott and Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz studies. Lotts studies explain the relationship between concealed carry laws and crime. The Getz study deals with guns and prevention of crime
All three of these authors are former anti gun guns. The getz and Kleck study shows that a minumum of 700,000 to 2 million crimes are prevented every year here with firearms... they estimate as high as 400,000 people a year are saved because of fiorearms.
You never had a high homicide rate any time in the last century... your gun laws did nothing and at one time...you had a fairly high incidence of gun ownership...
You gave up your rights for nothing... you have not improved things a bit.
We have not become more violent as we become better armed...our crime is falling rapidly.
There is no point that we can look at an America that was not armed and say... it was better or worse but... we can look at the places that pass concealled carry (right to carry) laws and see a decline in violent crime.
I really would suggest that you read Lotts book... It is highly footnoted and with hundreds upon hundreds of footnotes all torn apart by the people such as the brady bunch and soros and UN commitees.... only one or two of the more unimportant facts have been shown to not have enough backing to be correct... one very minor study cited did not exist.
You can also go to the NRA ILA site and read up on crime.
The guns aren't going to go away... normal gun owners are not the problem they are a solution... the best efforts would be directed at allowing citizens to go armed and to punish those who would use firearms for crime... to add penalties to gun crime.
best of both worlds.. the just being armed and the unjust afraid to arm.
england proves that getting rid of guns doesn't change the homicide rate of a country..
We have no evidence that our homicide rate would decline if there were no guns at all in this country... Most believe it would probly go up. I think at the very minimum.. more of the right people would die at the hands of more of the wrong ones.
for sure here... a lot of badguys are dieing at the hands of the good guys... or... allmost as good....bad guys killed at the hands of other bad guys...how is it in england? who is killed there? bad guys or good guys?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Nashwan... some good books to read are "more guns less crime" by Lott and Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz studies. Lotts studies explain the relationship between concealed carry laws and crime. The Getz study deals with guns and prevention of crime
An interesting read on how Lott is wrong (http://timlambert.org/guns/lott/lott.html)
-
and nashwan... you are correct our gun rights are being infringed... I am sure that makes you very happy... until 1934 tho.. we could own full auto weapons without a licence... we still can with a licence..you have no doubt seen the full auto meets we have here?
you could also get 20 mm anti tank (would work great on hellicopters) guns until 1968 for a couple hundred bucks there are thousands of em still around.
I think that a ban like they have done in your country would cause civil disobedience at the very least and possibly touch off an overthrow of the government that suggested it.
A likely scenario would be widespread rioting witn the government cracking down and then rioting by Americans who resented the heavy handed government tactics... likely and impeachment would happen with the new regiem promising to get rid of all the unconstitutional laws passed by the former and then everyone would go home and back to normal.
I think most look at armed conflict as some sort of revolution that is organized with armies and battles and rounding up bad guys with the support of the populace... more like SWAT being called and then blown to bits in an ambush. people being assaisnated and...
well... like Iraq but with a hell of a lot more of the population behind it.
I don't really see this happening tho... I really see that 90 million gun owners and 60% of the population supporting the second will make gun laws see saw back and forth...the latest supreme court justices appointed will affect gun laws and second amendment rights for many decades.
lazs
-
curval.. I have read that... it says that Lotts numbers are correct but that the author doesn't believe that crooks knowing that a portion of the population is carrying concealled firearms has no affect on how they act. That is of course silly..
The author does not distinguish bettween the impact of concealled carry and the purchase of fireams... How much difference would it make if I bought one more gun to keep at the house? How much different would it be if I got a permit and carried one of the dozen or so I allready own concealled?
did you not see that reading what he wrote? it is not the amount of guns.... America is buying guns at the same rate per capita but.... it is the amount that are being carried... If this were not true then crooks would not care if you told them the area was full of plain clothes security.
lazs
-
So...give them all guns, and your car will be safer while you and yer kids won't....
I've had a CCW since I was 21, my cars, girlfriends, and now my family are all much safer because of it.
Rather than call 911 and get a recording, or wait for LAPD to get around to stopping by.. we are well protected thank you.
The trick here, and this is deep, is not to give everyone a gun... thats stupid, but theres no reason a responsible US citizen shouldnt be able to carry a gun to protect themselves because the government is inept at doing so, and has NO legal obligation to do so.
BTW, in California carrying a double edged knife, no matter what length, is a FELONY (12020 PC), carrying a gun (12031PC), a misdemanor.
If you're in Cali, carry if you want... if you legally defend youself you're looking at a fine up to $500.
The best way to do this in your car:
Place your weapon in a "seperate locked box", or brief case. Keep it open when you drive, shut it if you get stopped. It would take a search warrant to search your brief case, unless you let them... even if they tow you car for some reason, you can walk away with your briefcase and gun.
Even if I didnt have a CCW, I'd carry anyway.. a $500 fine is well worth my personal security.
-
So in effect lazs your only need for guns is your anti-government paranoia and private preparation for a civil war. :noid
-
No ripley... I like em... they are fun and a good tool.
They are living history.
They are some of the most artistic and well made things on the planet.
They are a challenge to get good with.
They are fun to work on.
reloading and balistics is a challenging and rewarding science.
I have defended my family with one before.
They are the best tool for the job in many cases.
They cut crime.
They influence government.
it is fun to meet and shoot with like minded gun aficianados and historians.
They provide a good basis for family together time at the range or plinking or hunting or maintenance.
so no.... you are wrong.
lazs
-
In Britain, where do you go to steal a handgun? They're not sold in the shops, so you can't steal one from there. Only a tiny number are in private hands, so you'll have to committ thousands of burglaries before you find one, and even then it will, by law, be locked in a very secure safe. Where do you steal a handgun?
Hand guns in the UK don't come from stolen sources and never have - here is the UK NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence service) UK threat asessment showning where illegal weapons come from :-Report in PDF format - big (http://www.ncis.co.uk/ukta/2004/UKTA_2004-05_2005-06.pdf)
A few notable points .....
7.1 There is a lack of consistent data and limited
intelligence about criminal possession and use of firearms
in the UK, and therefore the scale of the threat is not
clear. The wide disparity in previous estimates of the
number of illegally held firearms, ranging from 200,000
to 4 million (both figures having been quoted in
submissions to the Home Affairs Select Committee in
1996) serves to illustrate the problem. In response, in
2004, the Association of Chief Police Officers, supported
by the Home Office and NCIS, took steps to standardise
data and intelligence recording procedures across law
enforcement.
While the scale of illegal possession may be difficult
to estimate, the indications are that sufficient numbers of
firearms or potential firearms (those capable of
reactivation or conversion) are in circulation in the UK,
and readily available, to supply the current level of
criminal demand.
I also have a problem with this report - It is 90% cut and paste from the 2003 report and so to me would suggest the "intelligence" part of it may be somewhat ot of date .........
As far as gun availabilty is concerned - shipping via major parcel companies or personal carry via the RO-RO ferries and Chunnel I would say is virtually risk free. I have been through Harwich in my car nearly 20 times and never been stopped let alone searched. Many times the customs hall is not even manned.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, they normally steal them, or buy them off someone who has stolen them. That's why they are so cheap, like other stolen goods they sell for a discount from retail price.
Of course, with at least 103 million weapons in the hands of American citizens it's not hard to steal a gun. They're left in cars, in drawers, under beds, on top of wardrobes, etc.
In Britain, where do you go to steal a handgun? They're not sold in the shops, so you can't steal one from there. Only a tiny number are in private hands, so you'll have to committ thousands of burglaries before you find one, and even then it will, by law, be locked in a very secure safe. Where do you steal a handgun?
No. The career criminal usualy doesn`t do the stealing themselves. That is usualy the common, petty thief. They are the ones who usualy are dumb enough to get caught with a stolen, registered firearm. The career criminal buys them from under the counter or black market dealers.
In Britain things are catching up pretty fast. Black market guns are and will continue to be shipped in just as they are in other countries. I think you will see this becoming more and more the case,. Any time a government "outlaws" something it has the flashback effect of promoting illegal operations such as smuggling. Big money.
Like has been said, you are talking two completely different cultures.
As for myself, I will keep my guns and not be dependent on something that will never show until after the fact for home/property/family protectiton.
We have that right here and we plan on keeping it. :D
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
So in effect lazs your only need for guns is your anti-government paranoia and private preparation for a civil war. :noid
I find the implications of your statement/query to be kinda disengenous, considering your own nations history. Didn't your armed population mobilize and repel more than a few russian invasions? Does not your country still respect and actually reward marksmanship skills with military heritage rifles.. in fact didn't your country produce some of the finest militia weapons ever handed to a population?
henh.
-
Ah yes, once again, a "gun thread" which is awash with judgements of one society being made from the perspective of another, replete with idiots pontificating about "how it is in Britain" despite never having been here. No change there then. :rolleyes:
Why is Britain always used as the model of an "unarmed society"? Why not Bermuda, or Japan, or Germany, or Singapore, or... Qatar? Much of crime in western societies like Britain and America is drug related. Addicts steal to feed their habit. In Singapore, which is unarmed, there is ZERO tolerance to drugs and there is no drug related crime. Alcohol is freely available at bars etc., but there is no binge drinking culture, no city centre punchups on a Friday night. You can walk around in Singapore, late at night, and the chances of being attacked or mugged etc. are... zero.
In Qatar, there is no alcohol culture, no alcohol related crime, no drug culture and therefore no drug related crime, and no guns and therefore no shootings. And guess what? You can walk around in the capital city, late at night, in complete safety. There is practically NO chance of being shot, and no chance of being mugged, raped, robbed, attacked or otherwise molested.
In Britain, it is mercifully rare for a police officer to be killed in the line of duty despite many being unarmed. In America, around 50 officers are killed each year, despite being HEAVILY armed and well trained. So much for the "being armed means being safe" argument.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ah yes, once again, a "gun thread" which is awash with judgements of one society being made from the perspective of another
Geeee kinda like you .
Hello pot... this is kettle you are black.
Bronk
-
Get this into yer heads...
Gun ownership is NOT forbidden in the UK.
Even me, the Icelandic NOT-A-GUN-GUY has 3.
But, I can't buy a pistol...dang....:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Gun ownership is NOT forbidden in the UK.
does the "gun" have to kept disassembled in a locked safe/gun club separated from the ammo and is subject to search at any time?
in america they let me carry a loaded gun on the street.
-
Nashwan you might want to check the Justice Departments statistics on crime instead of quoting a blatant anti-gun web site that provides biased statistics. Last I checked the Justice Department didnt have an agenda for skewing its own stats. :)
-
One thing I have noticed in these gun threads is the Brits tend to compare their crime rates to those in America w/o comparing their crime stats before and after their gun laws came into existence. Somehow they manage to justify their strict gun laws based on American crime rates. Crime rates in Britain havent gotten better because of more and more gun control.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In America, around 50 officers are killed each year, despite being HEAVILY armed and well trained. So much for the "being armed means being safe" argument.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
Oh, horsepucky. Jeeze, beet; every single cop I know (and i know quite a few) can't hit a damn thing; lousiest 'marksmen' I've ever seen. Cops that display 'cowboy' shooting skills and 'dirty harry' mentalities are drummed outta street duty. Not one that I know has ever shot their goofy lil 9mm in the line of duty. Not one has ever been in a 'gunbattle'. And these are NY cops! Reality check.. cops wear uniforms.. and as such are targets. By far and away the majority of cops killed in the line of duty by gunfire were 'ambushed'.
Check in with Maverick or Marine.. they're both career cops with 20+ years on duty in big metro departments.. and I'm sure they'll tell yah that 'gun fights' involving street cops (not TRAINED swat ninjas) are very, VERY rare.
Sheesh, beet; yer ALWAYS wrong on guns in the USA!! LOL!
-
this is kinda silly... The world is full of examples of indiginous peoples fighting off extremely well equiped and modern armies...
Can you name one in modern times, that wasn't supported by outside military supplies? For example, the Soviets didn't lose in Afghanistan to men with Lee Enfields, or even Kalashnikovs. It was the anti aircraft weapons, portable artillery and anti tank missiles that turned the conflict against the Russians. The pre existing tribal weapons were largely abandoned in favour of the new toys the Americans were supplying.
All three of these authors are former anti gun guns. The getz and Kleck study shows that a minumum of 700,000 to 2 million crimes are prevented every year here with firearms... they estimate as high as 400,000 people a year are saved because of fiorearms.
You mean somewhere between half and 20% of all crimes would be a murder? And that the US murder rate, already several times Britains, would actually be 138 per 100,000 without guns? (more than double Colombia's, and nearly 3 times South Africa's?)
You never had a high homicide rate any time in the last century... your gun laws did nothing and at one time...you had a fairly high incidence of gun ownership...
Not last century we didn't. We had increasing restrictions on firearms ownership since very early in the 20th century.
We have not become more violent as we become better armed...our crime is falling rapidly.
It actually fell rapidly in the late 90s, it's stablised since.
and nashwan... you are correct our gun rights are being infringed... I am sure that makes you very happy
You mean am I very happy that Americans aren't allowed to freely keep and bear all possible arms? Yes. The thought of over the counter sales of chemical nuclear and biological weapons would worry me. So would unregulated sales of shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles. As for the rest, the handguns and rifles and machineguns, I couldn't care less what you buy and own.
Lazs, do you want the right for all citizens to keep and bear all arms? Would you support unregulated sales of portable anti aircraft missiles? What about chemical weapons (nerve gas etc)? What about nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line?
The trick here, and this is deep, is not to give everyone a gun... thats stupid, but theres no reason a responsible US citizen shouldnt be able to carry a gun to protect themselves because the government is inept at doing so, and has NO legal obligation to do so
Yes, the ideal situation would be to allow the law abiding to have guns, whilst keeping them out of the hands of criminals. The only way to do that is with registration and licencing and safe storage laws, and even then the more guns in circulation, the easier it will be for criminals to get them.
The problem is that criminals break the law. Telling them they can't have guns, and having large numbers of guns in circulation, is rather like telling them they can't break in to houses, and relying on the law, rather than a door lock, stopping them.
Hand guns in the UK don't come from stolen sources and never have
No, because Britain has had restrictions on handguns since before they became popular.
Criminals have never used many in crimes, either, for the same reason.
As far as gun availabilty is concerned - shipping via major parcel companies or personal carry via the RO-RO ferries and Chunnel I would say is virtually risk free. I have been through Harwich in my car nearly 20 times and never been stopped let alone searched. Many times the customs hall is not even manned.
Where would you get a handgun in France, or Belgium, or Holland or Germany?
The fact that most of the "guns" recovered by police in the UK are converted replicas, which are almost as dangerous to the criminal as to the victim, suggests that real handguns are hard to get hold of.
the problem with smuggling is you first have to arrange supply outside the country. That usually costs money. Then you have to smuggle handguns in, average weight (with some ammo) about 1kg. Then you have to sell to distributors, then street dealers. All want a large markup. The end result is handguns costing a lot of money, and you still make only a small profit compared with smuggling drugs (and the risks are as high, or higher). You will of course have a market amongst mid and higher level drug dealers, who need protection from each other, but the guns are priced out of the reach of street criminals.
No. The career criminal usualy doesn`t do the stealing themselves. That is usualy the common, petty thief. They are the ones who usualy are dumb enough to get caught with a stolen, registered firearm.
That actually describes nearly all criminals. But it is of course the stupid, low ranking criminal who's more likely to kill his victim in a robbery or burglary, or carry out a drive by and kill innocent bystanders.
In Britain things are catching up pretty fast. Black market guns are and will continue to be shipped in just as they are in other countries. I think you will see this becoming more and more the case,.
Number of people murdered with a firearm in England and Wales:
2002 - 95
2003 - 80
2004 - 73
2005 - 51
Any time a government "outlaws" something it has the flashback effect of promoting illegal operations such as smuggling. Big money.
How much do you think a handgun will sell for on the street? £1000? (that's about $1800). At that price it's already out of the reach of low level criminals (junkies etc). Now, out of that £1000, the foreign supplier has to get paid. Assume it's really cheap, at £100. The importer, the distributor and the dealer all have to get paid. There just isn't enough money in it compared to drugs.
As an example, Jamacians are often paid to smuggle drugs in to the UK. They get several thousand pounds, and their airfare paid, and carry one or two kilos of drugs. With costs like that, it's just not cost effective smuggling guns.
Drugs, of course, are worth smuggling because they sell for so much more. Heroin has a street price of about £50 a gram in the UK, so a kilo of heroin nets £50,000, split up between all those involved. Even canabis, which doesn't carry very stiff penalties, generates about £3000 profit a kilo. If guns are priced that high, they are out of the reach of low level criminals, who would sooner sell a gun for their next hit than carry out a robbery with it, because they would make far more money from selling the gun (low level criminals are not noted for far sighted financial planning, or for investing in tools of the trade)
Nashwan you might want to check the Justice Departments statistics on crime instead of quoting a blatant anti-gun web site that provides biased statistics.
I have. They appear to support Brady's claim, but there's a lot of data to wade through. That's why I've looked for a counter amongst the pro gun lobby, but I haven't actually found one. In fact, the closest thing I've found used in rebuttal is that concealed carry states have lower crime, which is true, because they tend to be rural. But I haven't found any credible sources claiming that crime fell faster in concealed carry states than non concealed carry states.
I'll tell you what, though, if you can give me a list of states that you consider have relaxed concealed carry laws, and when they were implemented, I'll try and correlate with the FBI murder rate.
One thing I have noticed in these gun threads is the Brits tend to compare their crime rates to those in America w/o comparing their crime stats before and after their gun laws came into existence.
The problem is our strict gun laws started ust after WW1, and society was very different then.
Check in with Maverick or Marine.. they're both career cops with 20+ years on duty in big metro departments.. and I'm sure they'll tell yah that 'gun fights' involving street cops (not TRAINED swat ninjas) are very, VERY rare.
So are gun fights where citizens protect themselves. The problem is, lazs seems to have the impression that any encounter with a criminal will allow him to shoot first. The chances are, of course, the criminal will shoot first.
-
Actually... I've seen some fairly convincing arguments that the rapid drop in crime in the 90's could be attributable to Roe V Wade.
After all... criminals who were never born can't commit crimes.
-
I have. They appear to support Brady's claim, but there's a lot of data to wade through. That's why I've looked for a counter amongst the pro gun lobby, but I haven't actually found one. In fact, the closest thing I've found used in rebuttal is that concealed carry states have lower crime, which is true, because they tend to be rural. But I haven't found any credible sources claiming that crime fell faster in concealed carry states than non concealed carry states.
You are right that the Justice Dept. has a ton of stuff to wade through, tryed that myself heh. You might try the NRA's website for an opposite viewpoint from brady.org. Granted some of their stuff is probably biased as well, but I do believe they take their statistics from the Justice Dept w/o altering them to fit their views. I'm not convinced brady.org does the same.
There are 33 states with relaxed right to carry laws, Florida was the first and has large cities as well. Alot of those states implemented their right to carry laws in the '90's also.
*edit* Nashwan you might check out the Armed Citizen section of the NRA's website also. That gives example's of Citizens defending themselves and sometimes others against criminals. Most of those instances the citizen isnt harmed because they had a lethal weapon to defend themselves and their property with.
All of the incidents in the Armed Citizen are actual accounts taken from various newspapers around the country. At the end of each incident the source is listed, usually a newspaper. You can verify the NRA report with the appropriate rag. :)
*edit again* Nebraska is the latest state to enact a right to carry law, bringing the total number of states to have done so to 34 now. Looking for a list of states with right to carry laws right now Nashwan.
-
States with *shall issue* laws pertaining to concealed carry are:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Missisippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming and the latest, Nebraska.
List is taken from http://www.packing.org/state/report_shall_issue.php
17 of those states honor permits from other states or issue permits to non-residents, the others dont.
*edit* Seems I was a bit behind the knowledge curve on this one, total tally is 37 states now according to the list.
That list should get you started in the right direction Nashwan, not sure on exactly when each state enacted their own laws, Florida was the first to do so, either in the very late 80's or very early 90's, Nebraska was the last to do so in that list. The law was just signed by the Governer this month.
-
So are gun fights where citizens protect themselves. The problem is, lazs seems to have the impression that any encounter with a criminal will allow him to shoot first. The chances are, of course, the criminal will shoot first.
You jump way off on the extremes nashawn, so does beet.. and often Laz.
me too for that matter. ;)
But.. reality dictates some basic credence be given to the untrackable deterrent that a gun provides the citizen.
Any stats on how many rapes and robberies were deterred by the simple showing of the intent to defend via weapon fire if necessary? Certainly, some idea of gun use in robberies or rapes can be garnered from victim reports... but I'm pretty sure the average thug foiled in his developing plot by a concelaed carry gun owners simple 'reveal' of a gun butt in a waistband or holster is not a reported incident to the police.. by the gun owner or the thug.
I know of more than a few home invasion / robbery attempts that were foiled by the sound of a cocking shotgun on the other side of the door. Any stats on those?
Probably not.
But, nonetheless, the 'statistics' game is fertile ground for those that profess that gun crime is a massive problem here.. when it's not.
lastly.. I'm not a gun owner because i'm afraid of thugs. i'm a gun owner and NRA member because i'm well aware that during the normal operation of our peaceable society there has in the past and may very well occur in the future circumstances where the 'police' or the 'local authority' may decide that my rights are subserviant to their deisres. That cannot be tolerated. Down through history there echoes of the cry "Who then, guards the guardians?"
We do.
balance of power, right down to the streets, my english friend. we prefer it that way, our nations founders intended it to be that way, and as long as we have more guns than they do, it'll stay that way.
-
Hangtime you are correct, except the russians were not stopped by 'armed populace' or 'militia' at all. It was the mobilized army run by the government.
My criticism was to lazs's aspirations for a volatile type of society where trouble is solved through a civil war instead of a democratic process. I would never want to live in that kind of society.
As stated earlier, I love to shoot guns too and have nothing against registered gun ownership. However I'm extremely strongly against handing out permits to people with any kind of criminal records or especially mental history. Controlling that requires registration - and that's something where lazs also disagrees strongly because of his paranoia of the government and potential 'collection of weapons' scenario. :rofl
Did you know that after the peace agreement in finland a group of officers organized a weapon hiding program all over the country? They hid hundreds of thousands of light weapons and ammo, mines, bazookas etc. to the forests and house basements. They are so plentiful that new caches are discovered even today although they're already rendered useless in most cases. They were preparing for a guerilla war in case the communists would overpower the country after the peace agreement.
The difference with me and lazs is that we're both prepared for armed combat if need be, I just don't see my government as my enemy but something across the border instead.