Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Animal on February 17, 2002, 10:58:13 PM
-
news (http://www.southbendtribune.com/breakingnews/posts/293.html)
Nice shot kiddo.
-
"Guns don't kill people, 11 year olds do."
hehe, ditto that Animal
-
LOL
Now you see that HL-Counterstrike is a good game to train our childs.... :D
Andreas
-
what a woild.
-
he wanted to be the first kid on his block with a confirmed kill
-
That is one sordid story, full of plenty of others, such as:
"Okay, now the Sargeant will help you fill out the paperwork."
"Name?"
"Murry Schmuck"
"OCcupation?"
"Drug Dealer"
-
One tough 11 year old.
Hope he gets through it alright. Killing someone can take its toll on ya, I hear. Also hope he doesn't follow the trend (i.e parent(s) in jail, children go to jail (eventually).
I'd like to have a gun, I can tell ya that much. Cannot keep my shotguns here, because there ain't any room for a proper safe (mandatory by law here), and I live in a very rough neighborhood.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
One tough 11 year old.
Hope he gets through it alright. Killing someone can take its toll on ya, I hear. Also hope he doesn't follow the trend (i.e parent(s) in jail, children go to jail (eventually).
StSanta, his parents or sister never had any convictions if I am reading this story right, the sister had known the robber, but never dated him. He, on the other hand, had a criminal history.
The kid had a father who taught him the rules of the road with firearms, and target shooting...sounds like the kid will be just fine.
Incidently, the shot he took was a very risky one, he got very lucky. Its gonna be tough on him living with this one.
-
ya, a very risky shot. glad it worked out for him though, I would hate to think what it would do to the kid if it hadn't worked out so well.
-
He even used the Weaver Grip and stance...dad taught him right,lol.
-
im doubting the validity of this
just seems unprofessionally written for a newspaper.
-
Originally posted by moose
im doubting the validity of this
just seems unprofessionally written for a newspaper.
http://www.southbendtribune.com
Seems like a valid link.
Anyway, my dad always pumped one thing into my head as a youngster..."if an intruder breaks into the house, shoot to kill, don't stop shooting till the magazine is empty" (He probably thought I was a terrible shot!) Of course, being 101st Airborn paratrooper, he was very strict in gun handling, and safety.
-
Statistics show you are more likely to be shot by your own handgun than you are likely to shoot an intruder breaking into your home.
Elfenwolf
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Statistics show you are more likely to be shot by your own handgun than you are likely to shoot an intruder breaking into your home.
Elfenwolf
With todays social environment in the USA? Probably so. Incidently, always posts valid links when you quote statistics, otherwise its simply your opinion. Stats can be skewed if surveyed by UCLA or by NRA, either way, you can get stats to work for your cause if you do the polling, investigation *your* way.
-
Personally,I think handguns should be banned...Being in the posession of one should = a lengthy jail sentence...Gun collectors should be able to retain thier pistols if they are registered with the trigger disabled.
Darn things are too concealable and all too often traded like drugs...It gives the crime society a big advantage when they know that packing a pistol is low risk and potential bail situation if they get caught.
Make it a automatic 5 years no parole for possession and 10 years if you carry one durring a crime...We are taking a hard line on terrorists,why can't we do the same on handgun crime?(Sawed off shotgun=Handgun)
If you like hunting,God bless you and have fun...Your rifle of choice is like my heavy action Muskie fishing rod..A tool..It is not as likely to be used in a crime because it's not concealable and takes skill to hit a target with it...
The fact that this gifted child used a pistol is moot...He could have easily gone upstairs and loaded a rifle and done the same excellant self defense shooting ...
My point being that concealable pistols give the advantage to perps...I see no purpose in them so ban them!!!
-
SirLoin,
Get ready to get flamed.
Guns are VERY, VERY hard to get legally in Puerto Rico. You need toejamloads of paperwork, and they will investigate your past and present before you can buy a 9mm.
The crime rate here is fairly high still, the criminals all have handguns, and of course, none of them got them in Walmart.
I do believe that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry them. This place is a perfect example.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
My point being that concealable pistols give the advantage to perps...I see no purpose in them so ban them!!!
At the risk of going off-topic with Animals thread, do you think the law-abiding black market will also follow with the ban? Just think...a world where a criminal would be forced to use brute force or a knife to rob you since he has no access to firearms on the black market....ahhh! Never mind, I just woke up. :D
-
Animal,I am only referring to handguns...I see no purpose for them except for concealable killing of another person...If they are treated as such(attempted murder charge for concealing one in a crime) then perhaps a hard line stance on them would be a deterrent...And nobody has ever taken a hard line stance on handguns..."It is time!!!" says the monkey to himself when he learns Simba is alive(The Lion King)..:D
-
Originally posted by Animal
SirLoin,
Get ready to get flamed.
Guns are VERY, VERY hard to get legally in Puerto Rico. You need toejamloads of paperwork, and they will investigate your past and present before you can buy a 9mm.
The crime rate here is fairly high still, the criminals all have handguns, and of course, none of them got them in Walmart.
I do believe that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry them. This place is a perfect example.
Bingo. :)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Animal,I am only referring to handguns...I see no purpose for them except for concealable killing of another person...
Yeah...ban them!!I'm sure all criminals would never break the law,and carry them anyways. :rolleyes:
Proud owner of a Beretta FS92.
-
Oops..I ranted and hijacked Animal's thread..Sorry bro..
-
Well, America has probably the loosest gun laws in the western world, and just about the highest murder rate.
Criminals in most western countries don't carry guns very often, and use them less often.
Whilst the murder rate is far higher in the US, about 6 times that of Britain's, the most telling figure is the number of murders committed during robberies of all sorts in the UK.
In 1998, it stood at 38. For all robberies, muggings, car-jackings etc combined.
Five men were convicted today for trying to steal 200 million pounds worth of diamonds in the UK.
It involved a raid on the Millenium dome, a tourist attraction, in broad daylight, using a mechanical digger, speedboat, bullet proof vests, smoke grenades, ammonian sprays, and no guns.
-
...that will be an endless discussion.... :rolleyes:
...anyway, in Germany all guns are banned, you need license to buy and this license is even you have no criminal records hart to get... only air or CO2 weapons cal. 4.5mm are free to buy with 18 years....
BUT....
you only know some poeple in a bad town area and pay 2.000 US$ and
POFF
three days later you can get your AK-47 :rolleyes:
so it is something true that if you really want a gun you get one, even in germany....:eek:
Andreas
-
Statistics show you are more likely to be shot by your own handgun than you are likely to shoot an intruder breaking into your home.
Which is why rips dad (and mine) taught to empty the magazine.
1. You may not have actually hit him the first round (his reaction could have been from surprise)
2. He may recover somewhat and continue to attack after.
3. If he does get your gun it's empty.
4. On a more cynical note, a wounded intruder gets to make up some B.S. story and probably sue you for his injurys, dead intruder= they only hear your story.
But the kid showed good judgment in breaking the rules since the guy was holding mom
-
Hmmm... not even looking up statistics, I am willing to bet the United Kingdom's deaths by violence (murder/terrorism... anything imaginable) per capita is higher than the United States. We don't have the IRA operating here and I do belive Northern Ireland counts as part of the UK, but even if you don't count them, I suspect the stats per capita aren't 6 to 1 against the US. If you limit the deaths to kills by guns and leave out Ireland, I would believe 6 to 1.
Anybody know where to get accurate, qualified statistics (as opposed to carefully massaged numbers)?
-
Nashwan,
What's the latest on violent crime and crime involving firearms in Britain since the ban on guns?
If I'm not mistaken, in the last 12 months there has been a sharp increase?
Gun Crime Rise in London (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,547456,00.html)
12/21/2001
"A report from Scotland Yard shows that gun crime in London, England, has increased by nearly 90 percent, This is London reported Dec. 19.
According to the report, gun murders in London increased by 87 percent in the first eight months of 2001 compared with the same period last year. In addition, armed robberies increased 53 percent, from 435 during the first eight months of 2000 to 667 this year.
Officials attributed the increase to organized crime and drug trafficking. Commander Alan Brown, head of the Operation Trident taskforce against "black on black" gun crime, said the increase in gun crime was "an extremely worrying development."
"The level of violence is increasing, there is no doubt about that," he said. "We have seen shootings in the West End. This is not just happening in Hackney or Brent, this is a problem for all of London." "
Is this all incorrect? Do you have any other info?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Well, America has probably the loosest gun laws in the western world, and just about the highest murder rate.
Criminals in most western countries don't carry guns very often, and use them less often.
Whilst the murder rate is far higher in the US, about 6 times that of Britain's, the most telling figure is the number of murders committed during robberies of all sorts in the UK.
In 1998, it stood at 38. For all robberies, muggings, car-jackings etc combined.
Five men were convicted today for trying to steal 200 million pounds worth of diamonds in the UK.
It involved a raid on the Millenium dome, a tourist attraction, in broad daylight, using a mechanical digger, speedboat, bullet proof vests, smoke grenades, ammonian sprays, and no guns.
Rebuttal:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=119358
-
I do believe that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry them.
Duh! They're outlaws by definition!
[And using the same logic: if you legalised everything, there wouldn't be any crime at all.] :D
As to stats (culled from www.smallarmssurvey.org (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org)):
According to that lot Gun deaths only, UK without North Ireland, is 0.2 to 6 in the US or 1 to 30. Figures are a bit old, though, so maybe UK gun deaths have risen 500% since then.
(http://members.fortunecity.com/kg200/gundeathtab1.jpg)
Here's murders:
(http://members.fortunecity.com/kg200/gunhomtab1.gif)
IIRC, Gun deaths in the England & Wales (NB - this misses out Scotland & N. Ireland) were 62 in 1998 (Govt figures), an alarming rise from 49 the year before. In the US the number was 30,708 (Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11).
As an interesting comparison:
There were 19,515 Alcohol-induced deaths in the US each year, not including motor vehicle fatalities (1998)
There were 25,192 deaths in the US from Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis (1998)
[Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis is the 10th leading cause of death in the US (1998)]
AIDS/HIV Deaths Annually: 13,426 (1998)
There were 16,926 Deaths From Drug-Induced Causes in 1998 (legal and illegal drugs)
Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11
-
From the DOJ
Average annual number
of victimizations in which
firearms were stolen
Crime in which _____________________________ _______
firearm was stolen Total Handgun Other gun
_____________________________ _______
Total 340,700 180,500 160,200
Violent crime 7,900 5,300 2,600
Personal theft 56,200 33,900 22,300
Household theft 52,600 31,700 20,900
Household burglary 217,200 105,300 112,000
Motor vehicle theft 6,700 4,400 2,400
Live and learn. I was looking for evidence that would show that handguns are more apt to be stolen, and used by criminals. Looks to be about even though.
I think where we really need to crack down is on the manufacturers of these "Saturday Night Specials". What good are these weapons except for popping a liquor store?
-
Notice that they compared it to New York of the 1980s. In general, violent crime rates have been dropping in the United States. They dropped even faster in states like my own that legalized concealed carry.
Guns are not the source of deaths: criminals, deliquents, and stupid/irresponsible people are the cause of the problem. Banning guns at best only stops the stupid/irresponsible people and slows down the criminals and deliquents.
-
Tahgut, I'm a proponent of stricter gun laws, provided we uphold the current gun laws we have on the books, which we do not. We'd first need to build more prisons, have longer sentences for offenses, which means taxes would go up to house them...which is why most of these levies fail.
Some will say "Make drugs legal and open up potential jail cells"...I say you'd only be opening pandora's box for problems regarding crime. my 2 cents.
-
Toad, all those statistics prove is that London is 90% more of a toejamhole than it was before.
And anyone who has ever been there can tell you it wasn't much good to start with. :D I hate the place.
Note you concentrate on London only, which has always attracted the most violent types for many years. Gun crime isn't a new phenomena either. Remember the Krays? They used guns regularly during the 50's and 60's, and Ronnie was convicted of killing George Cornell in 1969; he shot him in the face for calling him a poof if I remember rightly.
In terms of showing any kind of trend as a consequence of the banning of handguns I think it's far too early to tell either way. Small scale influxes of hand-guns, gangland clashes etc can all occur in the space of a couple of years and skew the data. Give it 25 years and perhaps a conclusion would be valid.
On the subject of Northern Ireland and gun related deaths, I should think only a couple of dozen would be added to the stats. Guns are generally used for 'knee-capping' over there these days, although there has been a couple of murders recently.
-
Kid's mother is in jail. Dad died of a heart attack three years before -- no word on father's criminal record or drug use.
Guy knew mother, often came by Grandma's house; grandma would usually let him in. PReviously, he declared his profession on police form as "Drug Dealer".
GUy pulled a knife on Grandma in an attempt to steal firearms.
-
11 year old shoots a robber its news.
11 year old accidentaly shoots his brother its not even news.
Just the high cost of gun luv
-
Actually pongo you've got it backward (at least for everywhere I’ve lived)
The media always comes out to cry whenever there is an accidental shooting or when something bad happens with a gun.
They really downplay anything positive involving guns or write it off as a fluke.
Plus most of the time if a gun is involved in stopping a robbery, but is not fired then you would never hear about it.
I know the time I surprised a intruder in my home (I was supposed to be out of town, just the wife and kids at home) he turned and ran when he saw the gun, I didn't fire and I didn't call the police I just locked up and went back to bed, that’s the way it usually happens, the police wont hear about it unless the gun is fired and an explanation is necessary. If you report it there is the hours of waiting up for them to arrive and take the report, plus all the questions (are your guns registered? how many do you own? and in the current anti-gun political climate I’d prefer that it not be documented that I even own guns) all for no purpose other than statistics.
-
Crime is certainly going up in London, and I also think the British handgun ban has gone too far.
The old British system was you had to have a licence, which you could get if you belonged to a gun club. With a licence, you could buy just about any handgun, as long as it didn't have a burst or automatic fire mode, ie 1 bullet per pull of trigger was ok.
The new British system, brought in after Dunblane, is it's almost impossible to have a handgun (handguns are now classified along with fully automatic weapons)
However, crime in London has got far more to do with a court case involving a murdered black man than the fairly recent all-out handgun ban.
Stephen Lawrence (the aforementioned black man) was murdered by a group of racists in London. The police bungled the investigation, initially treating it as a fight between rival gangs.
His parents brought a private prosecution, which was thrown out for lack of evidence.
There was then a high profile inquiry/witchhunt into the case, which labelled the Met police "institutionally racist" and caused a lot of trouble, with policemen almost afraid to approach young black men in case they recieve a complaint of harrasment.
The result is, street crime in London has soared.
It's not helped by the goverrnment reducing police numbers.
Sorry I got the murder rate figures wrong, it's 6.4 per 100,000 people in the US, 1.4 in England and Wales.
Northern Ireland is relatively peacefull at the moment (it hasn't had a murder rate as high as Washington in the last 30 years) and Scotland is never that bad, so the UK rate as a whole won't be above 1.5
In other words, around 4.5 times higher in the US.
However, that figure is distorted because of domestic murders, which make up around 70% of all murders in the UK.
The chance of being murdered by a stranger in the UK is less than a tenth that of the US, and as I said, only 38 people were murdered during robberies in the UK in 1998, the last year I have seen figures for. (all robberies etc, not just the chance with a gun)
As regards London, the murder rate there is 2.9 per 100,000 people, compared to New York, which is much safer than it was, at 8.6, and Washington, 49.5
-
Where, oh where, is Toad with his links to those 2 programs that are working deterring the criminal elements and thier use of firearms.... Gonna have to go searching...
Now where's my flamethrower.....
(warning: Thread HiJack in progress)
SirLion are you really that stupid???
My point being that concealable pistols give the advantage to perps...I see no purpose in them so ban them!!!
Take guns away from the law abiding citizen and you give the perps the advantage. There have been interviews with gang members where they were asked who thier preferred targets were. They said tourists because they know the tourists don't have a gun. I'm licensed to carry and I do carry. There've been a few instances where having my Colt diffused a situation almost before it started.
FYI there's a town in Georgia called Kennesaw. There's a law in this town that requires each house to keep at least 1 firearm. Granted it's been a few years since I was in that part of the world, but Kennesaw had one of the lowest crime rates for the whole state.
Deterrence.
Rip we've got plenty of laws about guns on the books, we don't need any more clouding things up worse than what they are. What we need is better enforcement of existing laws (and repeal of the "assault weapons ban" because of its broad reaching qualifiers that takes over 170 different models out) and better education for the "unwashed masses" on safety and handling.
I say kudos to this kid. And good aim!
Now, for all you anti-gun Posse Commutatis* types out there, try to get this through your thick, pansy skulls: GUNS DON'T KILL, PEOPLE KILL!
If you need a demonstration of this find a friend who owns a gun and knows how to properly handle them. Farm the kids out to someone for a little while. Have yer friend load it and set it on the table and back up. Then start trying to get that gun to fire WITHOUT touching it. You can yell every obscenity you know or can make up at it til yer blue in the face and it won't do anything.
But....
pick it up, aim it, squeeze the trigger... YOU just put a hole in something.
-
Ironically, if you took "Drug-related homocide" or "Gang-related homocide" stats and threw them out, we'd have a lower incident of homocide than London most likely.
Pongo, its just the opposite in the states, the network news or local news rarely, if at all, reports of guns being used in self-defense. Only when they're mis-used (accidently deaths or gang related murders)do they make the evening news, usually the "Top Story" locally. But if someone shoots an intruder during the night, it gets page 12 of the local newspaper, 1 paragraph.
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Rip we've got plenty of laws about guns on the books, we don't need any more clouding things up worse than what they are. What we need is better enforcement of existing laws (and repeal of the "assault weapons ban" because of its broad reaching qualifiers that takes over 170 different models out) and better education for the "unwashed masses" on safety and handling.
Cave, re-read my post above, thats what I said..enforce the ones we already have, THEN and ONLY THEN would I consider tougher legislation.
-
Im just waiting for the news to start claiming the kid played too much QUAKE.
Hint: If he had, the entire room wouldve been fragged :D
-
Originally posted by Tac
Im just waiting for the news to start claiming the kid played too much QUAKE.
Hint: If he had, the entire room wouldve been fragged :D
He probably also listened closely to heavy metal lyrics. ;)
-
Caveman, you are totally missing the point.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns.
The stats prove it.
Guns aren't scientient?? Holy crap!! Thanks that info! All along I thought the problem was hand guns went running around randomly blowing people away.:rolleyes:
Make all the rationalisations you want. The FACTS remain, more people die in the states because there are more hand guns.
-
Since my thread is already jacked, I might as well jack it again.
Interesting fact:
Did you know more people die each year of falling, than of gun accidents? This is specially so wich children. Something like 300% more kids die in falls than gun accidents.
We should outlaw running and climbing.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Im just waiting for the news to start claiming the kid played too much QUAKE.
Hint: If he had, the entire room wouldve been fragged :D
Nah. He probably played Counter-Strike a lot. And was a little squeak of a sniper that everyone hated :)
Also - basic science here: Correlation does not indicate causation. Think about that for a while. Look through this thread and what do you see? I see lots of correlation, but zero causation.
That is all, you may continue argueing.
-
Originally posted by the_hegemon
Also - basic science here: Correlation does not indicate causation. Think about that for a while. Look through this thread and what do you see? I see lots of correlation, but zero causation.
That is all, you may continue argueing.
cor·re·la·tion Pronunciation Key (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.
A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Interesting fact:
Did you know more people die each year of falling, than of gun accidents? This is specially so wich children. Something like 300% more kids die in falls than gun accidents.
We should outlaw running and climbing.
Sorry, is there already a law against firearm accidents?
-
the only gun i'd ever want to own:
(http://www.cybershooters.org/SA80/L98A1.JPG)
Them brits sure pick quality with style :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sorry, is there already a law against firearm accidents?
uuhhh... not yet... but isnt that one of the main points anti-gun people have for banning guns?
Tac,
what about this baby?
(http://www.remtek.com/arms/famas/features/court.gif)
-
I think that gun tac put up there is an airsoft gun. Those things are awesome. I'm getting one soon :)
-
AirSoft?
so you can annoy your enemies to death? :D
I was a lot into paintball, how different is airsoft, other than the cool looking guns.
How do you killed you "killed" someone if there is no paint; cant they just cheat?
-
Thats the SA-80 (Small Arms for the 80's) assault rifle. Its used by the british army & marines.
The Colombian army was thinking on switching their old GALIL to those, but the Israeli companies threatened to sue BAD if the current contract with them was broken. Being the pansy tulips we have in gov, they backed down and pocketed the money set aside for those new guns & spent it in their Bermuda vacations.
Animal: What is that one? I dont like it, looks painful to carry. You know, long, thin edges and sharp corners can injure you ;)
-
(http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/fams_sv_rt.jpg) (http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/famas_sv.htm)
-
I see no purpose in them so ban them!!!
Okay, so thats how its going to go now in the future. If Sirloin doesnt see value in something, lets ban it. He, and he alone, shall pass judgement on worth for our society?
This subject is obviously to complex to discuss in this forum, but I can't help offer a few thoughts.
1) Anti-gun types offer all kinds of "statistics" but rarely say where they come from. In the few cases a source is given, it normally turns out to be some extremely slanted organization quoted, or just flat wrong.
2) Cigarrettes are known to cause death, and the accepted statistic is that currently 400,000 people die in the US each year due to smoking related causes. Where is the outrage and the demands for banning them?
3) Passing laws against gun ownership or use is just wonderful, since after all, gun crimes are only committed by law abiding person, right?
4) At the risk of sounding like a catch phrase, if you were to ban firearms, who would actually surrender them? The law abiding citizens thats who, and they arent the ones causing the problems. Damn sure wont be the criminal element handing them in.
Lets get real here, all the desires for a gun free society in the US are just fantazies now, we have an armed population, and you cant go backwards. There are too many guns in the wrong hands to believe that could ever be eliminated from our country. At most you could accomplish is to disarm the innocent, while leaving the lawless armed and without hesitation.
That kid first mentioned in this thread understands something that many might as well learn to accept. In our world today, gun control means hitting your target. (and note, it wasnt a gun used to threaten his family).
Dago
-
Ah... gotta disagree with all the "anti-gun nuts" out there... banning the legal ownership of firearms will not reduce fatalities or injuries as a result of illegal firearms use. Criminals dont get their firearms at the local gun shop and an unregistered gun owner doesnt really pay attention to laws. :P Look at the police force in America.. most departments cant even field anything larger than a 9mm or a .38. The lucky ones get .40's. What is a police officer going to do with a 9mm Glock 17? Give someone 12 or 13 really bad bruises. Give the boys in blue something that will hurt... since when are we concerned about the health of those who would point a weapon at a police officer anyway? Guns were made for killing people - that is how they will continue to be used. It is not the gun itself we should be trying to ban - but the ownership of them but unauthorized personnel. Did you know that NRA instructors are specifically told NOT to refere to guns as "weapons?" What kind of politically correct roadkill is this? It I S a weapon! Legislators know that banning guns wont do anything to help solve the problem - its just eye and ear candy for the less educated public - much like not calling a "weapon" exactly what it is - take the banning of assult rifles - automatic weapons. Cant get em except for from southern New Mexico at abou 1:30AM right? Nope. Automatic weapons are just as numerous as they were pre-1984 - all you need is a Class 3 licence - dunno what it takes to get one? Look it up - youll be shocked - M16A2's, AK47's, MP5's... hell - you can get a friggen MG42 that will spit 1200 RPM if you want it - all you gotta do is pay for it - they are all easy to get. The problem will persist - and in the USA - you will NEVER be able to take away the right of citizens to own a handgun - or any gun for that matter. Most gun owners are not stupid people - they are well aware of the dangers and responsibilities associated with firearms ownership and use. I own several weapons but do I keep one locked and cocked around the house for defense? Hell no - better chance Ill shoot my own damned foot off with it!
Oh - and whoever posted about the AK-47, I actually own one... legally of course - much fun. ;-)
Mazz/Mike
-
The Colombian army was thinking on switching their old GALIL to those, but the Israeli companies threatened to sue BAD if the current contract with them was broken. Being the pansy tulips we have in gov, they backed down and pocketed the money set aside for those new guns & spent it in their Bermuda vacations.
Strange, most of the Colombians I worked with were armed with G3s. They saw about 2:1 usage over the Galils{at the unit I worked with}. Of course, the Galils looked much cooler;)
Of course, both were too heavy and awkward for the special forces... so they used a version of this:
(http://www.dbstaines.com/images/AR-15.GIF)
AKDejaVu
-
H&K G36
THE rifle of the new millenium.
(http://www.civiliangunner.com/images/36NEW.jpg)
(http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/images2/g36k_sm.jpg)
(http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g36/pair36.jpg)
-
"Strange, most of the Colombians I worked with were armed with G3s. They saw about 2:1 usage over the Galils{at the unit I worked with}. Of course, the Galils looked much cooler"
Were you with the army or the anti-drug police forces?
Last time I heard we used the Galil more than the G3. The G3 kicks like a mule, not good for conscripts its said. One of my friends served in the 3rd Bat. "Pichincha" for his mandatory year and all he got to use was the Galil.
It doesnt matter either way, they are both old rifles and need to be replaced.
(http://members.fortunecity.com/kg200/gunhomtab1.gif)
*sigh* We should get a gold medal for doing SOMETHING better than the rest of the world for once ;)
-
Why is it those countries that have restricted and/or banned firearm ownership are right at the top of the list with the US?
:D
Assuming the data is valid, it supports the fact that gun shooting deaths are not reduced by making laws against them.
-
The farther to the top the more developed the nation, the farther to the right , the more murders.
-
Originally posted by Animal
uuhhh... not yet... but isnt that one of the main points anti-gun people have for banning guns?
Tac,
what about this baby?
(http://www.remtek.com/arms/famas/features/court.gif)
It's a FAMAS = Fusil Automatique, Manufacture d'Armes de St. Estienne
You can throw it in mud jump on it and that little bastard will continue firing without trouble :eek: :eek: :eek: !
Plus it's deadly accurate cna throw grenade and so on ...
Concerning the handling it's not that bad it never hurted me :)
-
well all i can say is at least someone can get a decent firing solution..heheh...i cant seem to anymore !
-
Were you with the army or the anti-drug police forces?
Last time I heard we used the Galil more than the G3. The G3 kicks like a mule, not good for conscripts its said. One of my friends served in the 3rd Bat. "Pichincha" for his mandatory year and all he got to use was the Galil.
It doesnt matter either way, they are both old rifles and need to be replaced.
I worked with the army mostly, Special Forces some and Anti-drug police seldomely.
I only saw the police wearing sidearms (baretta or taurus.. never really checked). The Special Forces used all US equipment. The army had G3s and Galils (about 2:1 ratio). Saw a kid tear his finger off with a G3 while phisically checking the breach for a case with his index finger.
AKDejaVu
-
Famas.. agh its french.
Reminds me of the Shosho *G*
-
Dear Animal,
We have seen the pictures of your guns and we surrender.
-The French
-
lol
i didnt even break a sweat!
-
WTG junior, good shot. Good to see the kid has respect for firearms, his pops must have taught him well.
I never really understood the "dont have guns in the house with kids" argument. Why, so he has no respect for them and can go over to little jimmys and play with his dad's guns and hope jimmy's got enough respect for them to not let your child act a fool with it?
Teach them, take them out shooting. Let them see the stopping power and the loud crack, that will make them respect them. They are just overly curious about them. These kids who "play" with guns have probably never even heard one go off before, and im sure you all realize the more "taboo" something is the more your kids want to do it.
growing up i had shotguns and rifles around the house always (dads a big time red-neck), i never "played" with them, they were not toys to me. they are more toys to me now then they were then.
------
FAMAS, what a sexy fire-arm.
I'll settle for a nice remington 870 anyday, i love a good shot-gun.
If i had a choice of assault rifles i would have to go with a nice G36-C, thats a great weapon.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Dear Animal,
We have seen the pictures of your guns and we surrender.
-The French
LOL....quote of the week!
"Being the pansy tulips we have in gov, they backed down and pocketed the money set aside for those new guns & spent it in their Bermuda vacations." - Tac quote
Ah yes, the corrupt US government officials...we love them here 'cause they spend, spend, spend.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
Why is it those countries that have restricted and/or banned firearm ownership are right at the top of the list with the US?
:D
Assuming the data is valid, it supports the fact that gun shooting deaths are not reduced by making laws against them.
Unless you are reading it wrong.....:eek:
-
OK, here's what we do. We take that 11 year old kid, give him his .45, land him on a beach in France and the French will surrender.
Elfenwolf
-
I own a HK-91, Glock 21 and a Mosburg 590 assult shotgun. I have a old breech loaded .410 shotgun my grandfather gave me as well.
The ONLY way the government will get my legal, registered guns is to kill me.
Gun control is something the cattle allow to happen...then they moo like hell before going to the slaughter house. it never ceases to amaze me how everyone desires to point crime/murder as a gun problem. It doesnt take a friggen Einstien to see its a socio/economic problem ... that is largely based on a "material" society. Gun control is like executing that ONE rapist ayear...feel good, do nothing horseshit politics made by those useless used car sales men we call our leaders
xBAT
-
xBAT,
Where do you live?
-Janet Reno and the FBI team that got David Koresh
-
Heh...if those poor buffons are what I've got to worry about my money is on me....
I live in the sticks of Virginia.
xBAT
-
Edited because I don't wanna de-rail this thread.
-SW
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Personally,I think handguns should be banned
I don't own or use handguns, except as my job requires... And handguns were designed with only one purpose: to kill people...
I however do believe that our founding fathers were much smarter than most of us. That being said, the "right to bear arms" is one of the corner stones of American society, and should be left alone.
If we made handguns illegal, the "black market" gun sales would skyrocket... Criminals would still get them, and kill people. You, the average citizen would just be at more of a disadvantage. In a sense, legalized handguns keep the playing field level between civilian and criminal.
This Constitutional Right has worked for 200+ years... Are the handguns the problem, or could it be something else?
-
This Constitutional Right has worked for 200+ years...
Don't be so sure about that.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Don't be so sure about that.
You're posting right? Without Number 2, you don't have Number 1. ;)
-
Originally posted by BigMax
"If we made handguns illegal, the "black market" gun sales would skyrocket... "
I was going to go away on this thread but I can't resist...
YES I CAN RESIST!!!.....I believe.......that handguns.......should be banned because... they are a danger to.....AHHHHHHHHHRRRRRGGGGG!!!!.......
I reserve comment on the topic of handguns...(I know I have to take responsibility for my terrorist activity on this thread... )...:eek: ....POOF!
-
Animal, go to your room with no dinner for thinking the SA-80 is cool. Ever wonder why the SAS use M16 and M4? SA-80 is a piece of junk.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're posting right? Without Number 2, you don't have Number 1. ;)
Besides the fact that there is no way to show that your statement is true, what I was refering to was the constitutional debate over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
But please expand on how my "right to bear arms" has maintained my right to gather and speak freely.
-
why does everyone always seem to focus on the isolated instances of firearm accidents that occasionally occur? Lets think about the positive aspects of firearm ownership for a moment.
There seems to be a certain feeling of security that comes from knowing you can defend your home with lethal force if necessary.
Imagine an alarm system that gave silent warning to the sleeping occupants of the house. It could wake you up, giving you ample time to load your weapon before the burglar gets near your bedroom. Silently creeping through the house in slippers and wearing a robe, you can ambush the burlar when he turns the corner into the hallway.
A .22 revolver will do if big guns are scary. You just point it at the face of the intruder and let er rip. One 22 round might not be too bad, but I bet 6 in a row could hurt someone.
-
I don't think we are concentrating on the isolated accident, N1kPaz. I think we are cocentrating on the relatively vast number of assaults and murders, using firearms, in the US.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Animal, go to your room with no dinner for thinking the SA-80 is cool. Ever wonder why the SAS use M16 and M4? SA-80 is a piece of junk.
Screw you, I never even mentioned that piece of crap. That was Tac.
I will never praise anything made by the British.
-
Originally posted by Animal
H&K G36
THE rifle of the new millenium.
(http://www.civiliangunner.com/images/36NEW.jpg)
Is it just me, or is this rifle pink?
-
yeah it does seem to have a pink reflection... its probably being used by the French.
-
Has anybody forwarded this thread to the French yet? No doubt they'd surrender and Anamal would be named Grand Pierre.
-
Screw you, I never even mentioned that piece of crap. That was Tac.
I will never praise anything made by the British.
Gues who owns and makes Heckler & Koch?
Royal Ordinance, part of British Aerospace :D
-
Damn liar - away with your and your deceiving words!
-
Solyent Green is PEOPLE! Solyent Green is PEOPLE!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Toad, all those statistics prove is that London is 90% more of a toejamhole than it was before.
And anyone who has ever been there can tell you it wasn't much good to start with. :D I hate the place.
I've been there many times. I enjoyed each visit. Like any major city, it has places I wouldn't go in daylight, let alone after dark.
Note you concentrate on London only, which has always attracted the most violent types for many years.
So you're saying that since the confiscation in February of '98 that violent crime has only increased in London? The rest of the country hasn't seen a significant increase?
In terms of showing any kind of trend as a consequence of the banning of handguns I think it's far too early to tell either way.
Well...three years post-confiscation and the violent crime rate is up each year... seems to be a bit of a correlation rather than an abberation to me. After all, you pick up all the guns (or even just register them), you'd expect violent crime to go down right? That's what all the anti-gunners "sell" their registration/confiscation platforms on anyway. So far... not happening. It's not happening in Australia either, IIRC, since they confiscated.
-
Gun ownership levels in the UK in the nineties weren't high enough for banning to have any significant impact on firearm crime.
The handgun ban was simply a knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane.
Legaly bought guns weren't a significant problem in the UK, because unlike the US, they were registered. You couldn't sell a gun without transfering ownership to another licenced owner, so there was always a track on where a particular gun went.
The rise in crime in the UK (and yes, the rises are worst in London) has more to do with the lower numbers of police, the constraints placed on the police, and the very poor clear-up rate for crime.
Even then, then murder rate in London is a third that of New York, and abouth one fifteenth that of Washington DC.
-
Midnight.... the 2nd amendment is an 'insurance" policy for those governed. Goverments though out history HAVE changed thier nature. They raise and fall.... often certain groups are targeted for whatever reason. If the population is armed then at least there is some chance for some sort of resistence to this.
This is certainly something that isnt going to happen for a LONG time but then again... the Jewish people didnt see it coming in the 20's ethier.
Why POSSIABLY sellout future generations for feel good, do nothing politics. The problem isnt guns... its economics. People dont just kill each other because the have a gun... there IS some motivation and its uselly tied to money in some form or manner.
We live in a material society... it drives us. Those who for whatever reason fail in the mainstream often go to OTHER avenues to obtain this.
Its not rocket science.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Gun ownership levels in the UK in the nineties weren't high enough for banning to have any significant impact on firearm crime.
Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that banning them has had a significant effect... firearm crime has risen something like 40% hasn't it? I'd call that a "significant impact".. just not in the direction you had hoped, eh?
The handgun ban was simply a knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane.
[/b]
Yes, most poorly thought out things like that are knee jerk reactions. :)
Legaly bought guns weren't a significant problem in the UK, because unlike the US, they were registered. You couldn't sell a gun without transfering ownership to another licenced owner, so there was always a track on where a particular gun went.
[/b]
Ah, so you agree that the folks that actually FOLLOW the laws aren't the problem, correct? The law-abiding citizens are NOT the problem?
So why did you punish ALL of them for what some nutcase or criminal did?
The rise in crime in the UK (and yes, the rises are worst in London) has more to do with the lower numbers of police, the constraints placed on the police, and the very poor clear-up rate for crime.
[/b]
That's always possible. But what did banning the handguns of law-abiding citizens have to do with that? Can you make the case that the situation would be worse without the gun confiscation? You've previously stated that gun crime was never a significant problem before... are you saying there has never been a shortage of police before?
Even then, then murder rate in London is a third that of New York, and abouth one fifteenth that of Washington DC.
Probably so, but the trend is interesting, isn't it?
Nonetheless, the International Crime Victims Survey, released by the Dutch Ministry of Justice in February, 2001 found the three countries with the most draconian handgun bans recently enacted — the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada — to be among the top five countries in the world with the most frequent incidents of criminal violence (the U.S. ranked ninth).
Beyond that, violent crime showed a declining trend in America, but the trend was found to be increasing in the U.K. and Australia.
Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm? Maybe we don't need 25 years to figure out the ending to this show. :)
Bottom line.. it ISN"T the law-abiding citizens.. it NEVER WAS... and it NEVER WILL BE.
The anti's just can't grasp the concept.
They're still locked into "Punish all for the crimes of the minority."
Doesn't work.. never has, never will. Britain and Australia will now demonstrate. :)
-
Give me a gun, and I'll give you the world.
Wait a second: other way around :D
-
Do more people die in automobile accidents than gun deaths in USA?
Do more people die from obecity related illnesses than gun deaths?
if so...why not crusade for those causes. They would stand to improve more peoples lives than taking away my right to bare my arms. :)
I dont know much about the subject which is why I ask? thanks.
-
Heh just saw on 60 Minutes that one in four American children are obese.
Not fat, or chubby. Obese. As in 'excessively fat'.
Not that bad here. Yet. We're importing US food culture, so give it a few years.
That's scary. Imagine having a 7 year old that is *obese*.
Isn't that an indicator of bad parenting?
-
Originally posted by batdog
Midnight.... the 2nd amendment is an 'insurance" policy for those governed. Goverments though out history HAVE changed thier nature. They raise and fall.... often certain groups are targeted for whatever reason. If the population is armed then at least there is some chance for some sort of resistence to this.
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. ----- sounds a lot more like an insurance policy to maintain a "Free State", not as protection for oppressed minorities.
This is certainly something that isnt going to happen for a LONG time but then again... the Jewish people didnt see it coming in the 20's ethier.
Why POSSIABLY sellout future generations for feel good, do nothing politics. The problem isnt guns... its economics. People dont just kill each other because the have a gun... there IS some motivation and its uselly tied to money in some form or manner.
We live in a material society... it drives us. Those who for whatever reason fail in the mainstream often go to OTHER avenues to obtain this.
Its not rocket science.
LOL, it sure isn't, and you are absolutely correct. Crime is an issue of economics, not guns. Where you are dead wrong is in your argument that the right to bear arms is necessary to retain our 1st amendment rights. We are a nation of laws, and when we need to rise up against our government to the extent you are envisioning, those laws will have to have been set aside by that government. We need to look for a way out of that eventuality instead of a deterent to it. I prefer to believe there is a more civilized way to live than that. I may not see it in my lifetime, but that doesn't preclude the need to try.........and BTW I own a gun too. S&W .38
-
Originally posted by N1kPaz
Do more people die in automobile accidents than gun deaths in USA?
Do more people die from obecity related illnesses than gun deaths?
if so...why not crusade for those causes. They would stand to improve more peoples lives than taking away my right to bare my arms. :)
I dont know much about the subject which is why I ask? thanks.
Hey Zap, The only way the Government will get my pork chops and gravy is when they pry my cold, dead fingers from the plate.
Elfenwolf
-
Santa there are even summer camps for obese children in the stats. They teach them how to eat healthy and do exercise. I bet its like a concentration camp for those poor fat tards.
When they get home, Granma takes 'em to Burger King and they eat 2 Whoopers with large french fries and Cinamon Rolls to celebrate.
-
Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that banning them has had a significant effect... firearm crime has risen something like 40% hasn't it? I'd call that a "significant impact".. just not in the direction you had hoped, eh?
There has also been a ban on tobacco advertising, which is obviously also to blame. Or perhaps it's the handover of Hong Kong, or maybe the introduction of Channel 5.
Just because two events happen at roughly the same time doesn't mean they are related.
Criminals never sourced their guns from the legal market in Britain, because the guns were registered.
Criminals were never afraid of getting shot by someone they were robbing, because gun ownership was so low, particulary in big cities like London.
What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have increased crime?
Ah, so you agree that the folks that actually FOLLOW the laws aren't the problem, correct? The law-abiding citizens are NOT the problem?
So why did you punish ALL of them for what some nutcase or criminal did?
I have this terrible problem with mental blackouts and halucinations. I have memories of being a computer engineer for most of the nineties, and hae completely blanke out my time as prime minister. ;)
I agree with you, as I said it was a stupid knee-jerk reaction, an the politicians, who are allways looking for something else to control anyway, were egged on by the media.
Law abiding citizens in the UK were never a problem with guns, because you had to have a licence to get a gun, somewhere safe to store it, and couldn't dispose of it without transfering it to another licenced owner, deactivitaing it, or handing it in to the police for disposal.
In America, where there is no registration, a criminal merely has to ask a friend who has no prior convictions, and he can buy the gun. There are no safeguards as to where the gun ends up. As a result, it is very easy for a criminal in the US to get a gun.
That's always possible. But what did banning the handguns of law-abiding citizens have to do with that? Can you make the case that the situation would be worse without the gun confiscation? You've previously stated that gun crime was never a significant problem before... are you saying there has never been a shortage of police before?
No, banning handguns in the UK had no significant effect on crime one way or the other.
The numbers of police on active service in the UK has fallen in the last 5 years, with London seeing a drop of around 10% on duty at any one time.
Guns are simply an efficient tool for killing. By themselves, and used reponsibly, they are not dangerous.
However, the more freely avaiable they are the more criminals will aquire and use them.
After all, cars are licenced in America. You need a licence to use one, and you need to register your car, and register transfers of ownership.
-
Nashwan: Just because two events happen at roughly the same time doesn't mean they are related.
No, it doesn't. However, that possibility certainly and undeniably exists. And, given the nature of this "coincidence" it seems to me that it's much more likely to be linked than unrelated.
Criminals never sourced their guns from the legal market in Britain, because the guns were registered.
Totally agree. Same situation here in the states (although we don't register most weapons, we do have pre-purchase "checks" to accomplish).... criminals do NOT buy their firearms legally. They break the laws just as criminals do in Britain.
Therefore, what would be the point of punishing those who have broken no laws and use their guns responsibly?
Criminals were never afraid of getting shot by someone they were robbing, because gun ownership was so low, particulary in big cities like London.
Well, after Tony Martin they probably wouldn't have any fear at all, would they?
What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have increased crime?
More to the point, What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have decreased crime? Because what's happened instead is a 40% increase in violent crime. So, obviously the ban didn't decrease violent crime. Just one more indicator that the law abiding folks NEVER WERE THE PROBLEM... a point the "antis" never "get".
And, like it or not, there's a similar situation in Australia, which followed pretty much the same course as Britain.
And, it seems there's a similar situation now in Canada, which is following a similar course.
One? Perhaps unrelated. Two? Hmm.. maybe there's something here. Three? Well... coincidence is looking pretty unlikely.
There are no safeguards as to where the gun ends up. As a result, it is very easy for a criminal in the US to get a gun.
Nor, despite all the British "safeguards" and eventual confiscation, is it very difficult for a criminal in the UK to get a gun. I'm sure you agree.
So there you go. Ban or no ban, criminals will STILL get what they desire to have. After all, smuggling all sorts of forbidden contraband is a basic criminal activity, isn't it?
Pretty stupid to expect to disarm criminals by disarming the law-abiding part of the population. Truck, plane and boat loads of dope illegally enter the US all the time. Seems those who deal in illegal substances also have ready access to firearms. Are we going to postulate that it would be impossible to toss in a box of AK-47's with the next truck load of bales in EITHER the US or Britain? Nah, nobody would be foolish enough to make that statement.
Bottom line we are left with is that disarming the "normal" folks has basically no effect whatsoever on the criminal element.
No, banning handguns in the UK had no significant effect on crime one way or the other.
As I said, given the Australian and Canadian similarities I'd say the jury is still out on that statement.
Old friend of mine once said "If ONE guy calls you a horse's *ss, laugh it off. If a SECOND guy calls you a horse's *ss, stop and think for a minute. If a THIRD guy call's you a horse's *ss, start shopping for a saddle."
Britain, Australia & Canada. Violent crime UP in all three.. down in the US.
However, the more freely avaiable they are the more criminals will aquire and use them.
They are "freely available" to the criminal element in any country you wish to choose.
After all, cars are licenced in America. You need a licence to use one, and you need to register your car, and register transfers of ownership.
And so?
This hasn't stopped the carnage on our highways.
-
Toad, every time I see a Chevy 4x4 pickup complete with rebel flag license plate, rear window pissing-kid decal (you know, the one that says "I piss on Spitfires" , driven aggressively by a drunk amazinhunk spurred on at the urging of his two equally-drunk buddies and bolstered by the presence of his 30-30 lever action in the gunrack, I think the question goes way beyond gun control, alcohol control or even car control- We need to focus on genetic control.
Elfenwolf
-
Midnight
Yea...LETS HOPE it never comes to that. History tends to repeat itself though. Its a LAST resort for sure but then again history is FULL of those situations is it not?
xBAT
-
More to the point, What is the mechanism by which banning handguns in the UK could have decreased crime? Because what's happened instead is a 40% increase in violent crime.
None. I'm not defending the handgun ban in Britain, which I think had no effect on gun crime, one way or the other.
That's why I asked for the mechanism that banning handguns could have caused the increase in crime, as you are alledging.
I have given some reasons why violent crime has gone up, namely the police numbers being reduced, the police having to be more "aware" of race issues, reduction in the clear up rate of crime etc.
What is it about banning handguns that you feel has caused crime to go up?
Totally agree. Same situation here in the states (although we don't register most weapons, we do have pre-purchase "checks" to accomplish).... criminals do NOT buy their firearms legally. They break the laws just as criminals do in Britain.
I don't agree.
If I wanted to buy a gun, I would have to find a specialist black market dealer who operates out of some pub I wouldn't go in even if escorted by an entire gang of football hooligans.
If I lived in America, all I would have to do is ask a friend who hasn't been caught yet to buy the gun for me.
Or I could go to a gun fair, where somebody who bought the gun earlier in the week can sell it to me for a nice markup, because he knows I would fail the background checks at a regular gun shop.
However, forget all that.
Where did you get the figure of violent crime rising 40%? Over what period?
I've just been searching the web for figures, and I've found the British Crime Survey, which is used by the government to estimate crime trends.
It shows that the number of offences reported in most categories, including violent crime, has risen, (although it's fallen in things like theft from vehicles and burgulary) , but that the actual rate of violent crime has fallen by 36% between 1995 and 2000.
I also found a usefull little table, which shows the number of offences in which firearms were used to cause injury, by type of firearm.
Handguns started from a low of 160 in 89, rose sharply to 393 by 93, declined to 279 in 96, went up to 317 in 98, down to 239 in 99, and up to 352 in 2000.
Of the 3100 odd firearms crimes in which injury was caused, 2000 were by air gun, 350 by handgun, 100 by shotgun, 750 by other weapons.
Note, however, that the police define injury as "by the weapon being fired, used as a blunt instrument, or in a threat", so if someone suffers shock after having the gun pointed at them, that is a firearm injury.
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-7.htm
The number of fatal injuries by handguns in the UK in 2000 was 42, shotguns 19, air guns 0, other firearm 1.
Serious injury was 53 for shotguns, 95 for handguns, 171 for air guns, 52 for other firearms.
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-8.htm
In total, handguns were fired on 315 occasions, rifles 934 occasions, shotguns 164, air guns 9,600
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-6.htm
Rate of firearm use in crimes 1989 - 2000
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-3.htm
The handgun ban came in in 97, that year there was a drop of around 700 in the numbers of handguns used in crimes.
The figure remained at roungly that level until 2000, when it went up by nearly a thousand.
This one's particulary interesting for people who believe there has been an explosion in gun crime in the UK
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/img/tab3-2.gif
Firearms used in robberies, 10.2% in 89, down to 4.7% in 2000
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-1.htm
This one shows the numbers going up, meaning the levels of each crime going down
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3d.htm
Shows the number of people killed by offence type, and wether the gun was legally owned.
Guns (all types) were used for 417 murders in the 6 years between 92 and 98. 45 were legally owned.
118 people were killed in that period involved in organised crime
96 in domestic incidents
52 during robberies or crimes of gain
71 in arguments or revenge
80 in other incidents
Number of policemen killed with firearms in 1989 - 2000
5, 1 each in 1989, 90, 92, 93 and 95
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3c.htm
All these and more only at http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-03.htm#1
Anyone got similar figures for the US :D
-
What is it about banning handguns that you feel has caused crime to go up?
The fact that Britain, Australia and Canada ALL experienced somewhat sharp increases in violent crime AFTER they either confiscated or heavily restricted firearms.
Seems way more than coincidental to me.
You discount the idea that these restrictions may have emboldened criminals.... but I do not.
My numbers?
I was looking at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College August 2001 report. Should be able to find it on the web.
Also the Feb 2001 Dutch Ministry of Justice 2000 International Crime Victims Survey.
Those were where I saw the numbers I used.
There is a "standardized" crime report format used I think by most countries.
For US numbers, look here:
Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/)
From that site:
"Justice statistics from the United Nations
The United Nations (UN) is the principal source of comparative crime and justice statistics. The UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) promotes research and collaboration, studies new and emerging forms of crime, and produces documents to assist in the global fight against crime and drug abuse.
Within the ODCCP, the Centre for International Crime Prevention (CICP) maintains the Internet-based United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network (UNCJIN ), which includes crime statistics and publications. This site provides an extensive list of links to the United Nations agencies and other research organizations and universities in Portable Document Format (992 KB).
The Center also supports the work of intergovernmental bodies which set out an international strategy and measures to prevent crime and promote stable criminal justice systems. United Nations documents relating to these intergovernmental commissions and congresses are available online."
UN Statistics and Research Sources (http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/statistics.html)
D/l'd a chart off the Home Office site that
(using financial year: 6 The collection of recorded crime data in England and Wales changed to a financial year basis from 1 April 1998, which coincided with a change in the counting rules for recorded crime. Due to this, the data shown for 1998-99 and 1999-00 are not comparable.)
showed:
"Offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used:
United Kingdom (Great Britain only)
1997 = 14,424
1998-99 = 15,784
1999-00 = 18,719"
Looks like it jumped after confiscation, doesn't it? Same trend in Australia. Similar in Canada after their new restricitions. Yes, I think it is related.
-
Toad, I'd like to know the mechanism that could account for it.
I am also intrigued how a handgun ban can have so much effect on the other types of hun crime, for example the largest increase were in air guns, which are defined as firearms if used in a crime in the UK.
-
I bet there's a whole lot of real smart guys with lots of letters after their names that would like to know as well. :)
I bet there are thousands of rabid antis that are desperately searching for the as yet undiscovered plausible explanation.
I don't have the definitive answer for you either. :)
At this stage it's the observation of a phenomenom and the postulation of causes.
The observation is clear. After restricting handguns severely, violent crime rose... significantly... in all three countries.
Causes? I think the ones offered so far lean heavily on individual biases towards firearms.
It will be very interesting to see if this trend continues, won't it?
I'm actually happy that Britain, Australia and Canada have volunteered to do the lab work for us. ;)
-
Having stumbled across this link,I had to come back and post this.Interesting read.
London Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/24/do2401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/02/24/ixopinion.html&_requestid=280328)
-
Originally posted by Sox62
Having stumbled across this link,I had to come back and post this.Interesting read.
London Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/02/24/do2401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/02/24/ixopinion.html&_requestid=280328)
:( :( :( :( :( :(
-
Errr I'm VERY pro-gun but did this guy just say err write "very litttle burglery in America?" I must live in a different one than he's writing about,lol.
xBAT
-
Interesting things Toad forgot to mention about his UK figures:
1) The Centre for Defence Studies at King's College August 2001 report was commissioned by (ie paid for by) the
Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting - a sort of UK NRA.
2) The inconvenient figures for 1992 & 1993 Handgun crime, which could be used to either show a 8.5% or 14% drop in handgun crime respectively, or, more realistically IMHO, no discernable trend other than a steady drop in shotguns used for crimes (there's not enough data yet, if you ask me).
3) The inconvenient bit where they say that the study defines handguns as:
• Revolver;
• Pistol – normally a semi-automatic handgun;
• Disguised firearm – Those that are capable of being discharged with one hand such as the mobile phone gun or the key-fob gun;
• Illegal Conversion – adapted from blank firing or replica revolvers or pistols or, in recent cases, air weapon systems;
• Illegal reactivation - can be either a revolver or a pistol.
• Imitation or replica - can be either a revolver or a pistol.[/B]
• Illegally manufactured – such as those known as zip-guns.
4) The bit (just under the table) where the report says:"Over the last nine years the level of crime involving handguns, as shown in Table 2, has not deviated very far from the average for the full period shown therein. It has in fact shown a remarkable consistency. The small percentage reduction in the use of handguns between 1996 and 1998/9 has not been maintained in 1999/00 and this is particularly noteworthy when one considers that the Firearm (Amendment) Acts of 1997 removed in excess of 160,000 lawfully held handguns from personal possession. The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time but the short-term impact seems to indicate that levels of the unlawful use of handguns may not have been directly linked to their lawful ownership." ie - not enough data to draw any conclusions or link it one way or other.
Full PDFs http://www.foresight-cfs.org.uk/additional/ifuk/index.html (http://www.foresight-cfs.org.uk/additional/ifuk/index.html)
That shocking table in full:
-
hehae,,seen them picks of guns,,thought i would post a pick of the only gun i want!!,,,im sure many will be jelous!!,,jk
-
No, didn't know who sponsored the study. So? Do the numbers conflict significantly with the UN numbers? I think they're pretty close IIRC.
Originally posted by -dead-
2) The inconvenient figures for 1992 & 1993 Handgun crime, which could be used to either show a 8.5% or 14% drop in handgun crime respectively, or, more realistically IMHO, no discernable trend other than a steady drop in shotguns used for crimes (there's not enough data yet, if you ask me).
Thought we were discussing the effect of confiscating the guns... that didn't happen in '92 '93... but it's late and I'm tired so maybe I've missed your point. What, that occasional spikes happen? Still seems a bit more than coincidental that Britain, Australia and Canada ALL had spikes immediately after they confiscated/highly restricted.
The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time but the short-term impact seems to indicate that levels of the unlawful use of handguns may not have been directly linked to their lawful ownership." ie - not enough data to draw any conclusions or link it one way or other.
[/B]
No, I think you need to read that again....
"the short-term impact seems to indicate that levels of the unlawful use of handguns may not have been directly linked to their lawful ownership"
Seems like they're saying the lawful gun owners were never the problem... like most folks with common sense have been saying for years.
So why confiscate if the lawful owners aren't the problems and there's no direct link between unlawful use and lawful ownership?
-
Interesting thread, with people being very respectful of each other. Nice to see.
Re SA-80/Lee Enfield: My best friend is in 2 Para (he's Canadian also, just thought it would be more fun in an actual Parachute regiment than the PPCLI here). He loathes his issue weapon. To the point of carrying it in his ruck and packing confiscated arms while in Macedonia. A UK General was sacked over trying to get it replaced he told me, and there has been quite a brewhaha over this rifle.
For a Canadian outlook, in 2000 there was 843 deaths from firearms. 751 were suicides. There was over 300,000 violent crimes, and our property crimes are 1.5 % higher than the USA at the moment. I agree with Thrawn, people with guns kill people (or, more precisely, the bullets do). However, who is it that is being killed? Take into consideration that of the less than 100 deaths that were not suicides, in all likelyhood a sizeable percentage in 2000 were Police shootings. The Gary Mauser report from UBC stated that civilians used guns up to 60,000 times in a 3 year period for self defence, whether it be from animals or people.
My old man is a 30 year cop, and x president of the Canadian Police Association. Here is some of the stats he gave me:
40% of Police officers are shot with either their own firearm, or that of another officer. 12% of shots fired by officers strike their intended target.
I'm not saying the police should be disarmed, but for people to feel it's reasonable for the cops to carry and bear arms, but not for the populace at large, something seems amiss to me. Since the cops are not on every corner, and have no legal obligation to protect individual joe blow's, why not allow the populace to take care of this on their own, if they so choose.
Our gov't wants the people in Canada to believe that the guns are the root of all crime and problems, and that fighting back is NEVER an acceptable option. Granted, some controls are needed, and I'm all for individual licencing here, and proper training and safe storage.
Since bill C68 came into effect here, violent crimes have increased significantly. :\
If this 11 year old had shot this intruder here in Canada, someone would have been charged with improper storage of a firearm, in addition to manslaughter or worse. It may have been dropped or plead out, but the charges would have been made. Folks up here aren't very able to defend themselves, partially through our attitude, and partially due to legislation removing the means.
As for the USA having more deaths per 100,000 by firearms than Canada, that stat is likely fairly accurate. However, look where the deaths mainly occur. States with CCW and friendly law enforcement outlook on civilian ownership/use have far lower rates than Canada as a whole. States, and in particular cities such as LA, Chicago, and New York have by far and away the highest rate of crime commited with firearms, while having the strictest rules. Less guns in law abidding civilian hands, more crime, or so it seems to me.
Gun confiscation up here is just around the corner, give them 2 years and it'll be just like Australia. So before all the Canadian anti-gun people start chearing hurray, take note. The Aussies paid for the gun grab with a hike on income tax. If I have to give away my guns (well, more of them, since 2 had to be turned in already), at least I'll know that the anti-gunners will be paying me for them.
-
"Offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used:
United Kingdom (Great Britain only)
1997 = 14,424
1998-99 = 15,784
1999-00 = 18,719"
Looks like it jumped after confiscation, doesn't it? Same trend in Australia. Similar in Canada after their new restricitions. Yes, I think it is related.
Still seems a bit more than coincidental that Britain, Australia and Canada ALL had spikes immediately after they confiscated/highly restricted.
There is a slightly different picture if you look at detailed statistics:
Firearms used in crime
Year Handgun Shotgun other airgun
1996 3347 933 1783 7813
1997 2648 580 1676 7506
1998 2636 565 1702 7902
1999 2687 642 1880 8665
2000 3685 693 2465 10103
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-3.htm
Handgun crime went down during the year of the handgun ban, and remained well below the pre ban levels for 3 years. Only in the last year has handgun crime risen to pre ban levels.
The actual "immediate increase" was in airgun crime, and it's not hard to see why:
Armed Police Raid 11th Birthday Apr 10 2001
The Journal
Roland Hopper will never forget his 11th birthday party - after an armed police team arrested him as he cut his cake.
Officers stormed the birthday bash and arrested Roland after he was seen playing with his new pellet gun.
He had been playing with 12 friends at his home in Red House, Sunderland, as he celebrated his big day. But as he showed off the new pellet gun his mother had bought him, armed police surrounded the house.
The quiet street was sealed off as two armed response patrol cars and a riot van surrounded the house.
Two officers wearing bulletproof vests stormed in and demanded to know where the weapon was.
Mum Andrea Davies, 29, said: "He had all his pals round and was having a brilliant time with them.
"It should have been the best day of the year for him, he had been looking forward to it for weeks.
"The police burst in just as he was cutting his cake. He had blown out his candles and everyone was standing around waiting to give him three cheers. The two policemen who came in didn't seem to be armed but they said they were with the armed response unit.
"I looked outside and the place was crawling with them. I just couldn't take it in.
"Instead of getting a round of applause as he cut his cake Roly ended up being walked out of the house in tears by the police in front of all the neighbours.
"It was so humiliating for us, I don't know whether Roly will ever be able to forget it.
"Birthday parties are so important when you are a kid and you could hardly imagine a worse one.
"I could understand the police reaction if someone had been in danger but they weren't.
"Roland went into the back yard with a few of his friends to show them his new gun. But someone must have seen them with it and assumed the worst.
"They were firing at a target against a shed and were pointing in the opposite direction to the nearest houses.
"Then the next thing we know there were two police officers running into the house demanding to know where the weapon was. I was pretty shocked. I just wanted to know what was going on.
"We looked out of the window and they were swarming around like storm troopers in bulletproof vests.
"I couldn't believe how over-the-top they went. And on top of everything else they confiscated the gun. Roland was in tears."
Roland was questioned for two hours in connection with criminal damage after allegations that a pellet hit the window of a neighbouring house.
But Andrew denied that any damage had been caused to a neighbour's house, adding that the gun did not have sufficient power or range to cause the breakage complained of.
He was bailed to report to police on April 28, and the £39.99 air gun was confiscated.
Sgt Paul Henry of Northumbria Police said: "We can confirm that there was a suspected firearms incident on Saturday.
"Whenever it is believed that firearms are involved there are certain procedures that must be followed."
Roland, a pupil at Hylton Red House Primary, was arrested and taken to a police station. The other youngsters were sent home in tears as the birthday party came to abrupt end.
Roland said: "It was the worst birthday party I've ever had."
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=11018615&method=full
That is registered as a firearms crime in the statistics.
Given the media/political/police hysteria over guns in the UK, I'd take even the last years rise in firearm crime with a pinch of salt.
However, even the last year's rise can be put into perspective when you compare handgun crimes over the last decade:
1989 1983
1993 4237
1996 3347 (last year before ban)
99-00 3685
Now, I wouldn't claim the handgun ban had more than a very marginal effect on gun crime in the UK, because legally held handguns were held in too small numbers anyway. But it really does seem the pro-gun lobby are clutching at straws trying to make out that banning guns is responsible for a rise in gun crime.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thought we were discussing the effect of confiscating the guns... that didn't happen in '92 '93... but it's late and I'm tired so maybe I've missed your point. What that occasional spikes happen?
Exactly - Gun Crime rose a huge amount in 92 and was highest (out of these figures) in 93 - and without the aid of tighter gun legislation. So it's just possible that the same mechanism may be at work in the 1999-2000 data. There isn't enough data to work it out.
As to the nice para under the table - you read that first bit again:
Over the last nine years the level of crime involving handguns, as shown in Table 2, has not deviated very far from the average for the full period shown therein. It has in fact shown a remarkable consistency. The small percentage reduction in the use of handguns between 1996 and 1998/9 has not been maintained in 1999/00...
Now it seems to me to say that Handgun crime has stayed pretty much the same, legislation or no. There was a small percentage reduction after the legislation, then a rise - which may or may not have anything to do with it - but the figures do not say.
Here's some interpretations of the rise:
1. Legal owners of guns do not commit crimes using guns, and criminals are now much less scared to commit crimes with guns because of the lack of deterrent.
[cultural note: in the UK? Where guns had to be kept unloaded in a locked cabinet that was checked by the police?!?]
2. Since owning a handgun is now a crime, there would be more crime dealing with handguns - as you can be done for both armed robbery & illegal possession of a handgun.*
3. As shotguns & handguns are even less easy to get hold of, people use replicas more - and handgun replicas are cheapest - so handgun crime figures (which include replicas under the category of handguns) soar.**
4. Gun enthusiasts no longer have legal outlets for their gun fetish, so they sign up as gangsters in order to get some trigger time, and then go nuts - gun crime rates soar.
*Before you laugh at that one - look at the table attached (from the same study), which seems to show very little increase in firearm robberies - certainly not close to 40% (yes I know it's not the whole story - I just can't bothered to check all of them - it's merely a daft hypothesis).
**That would explain the gun crime table up top nicely
Who knows which if any of these is correct - the figures can be used to support any of them.
As far as I see it, this pro gun report didn't really come up with any significant data one way or the other - merely the foggy assertion that their customer was probably right, surprise, surprise (although earlier on in the same report they trash these same government figures as being too inaccurate to draw any solid conclusions from).
The end result of these gun studies is much the same as the drug studies - all the pro-drugs or pro-guns studies have pro-drugs or pro-guns findings, and all the anti-drugs or anti-guns studies have anti-drugs or anti-guns studies (surprise, surprise).
A further interesting parallel with the pro-drugs lobby is that most people only want to legalize the weapons they like. So for example - the NRA is much less pro people who want to own their own grenades, landmines, nerve gas, cluster bombs, nuclear or biological weaponry - they only go as far as AP rounds & fully automatic... which is strange, considering "the right to bear arms" ammendment doesn't specify what sort of arms - surely all arms should be legal, including NBC suit stuff [Actually I'm guessing on that one - but I have yet to see Chuck Heston try to push this bumper sticker: Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people].
But, I digress. I would reckon confiscating guns will have very little short term effect, and at best a mild long-term effect. Violent crime existed long before guns, but guns DO make violent crime much more easy and accessible, and are therefore desirable to have if you want to do a violent crime. Without a gun, murder is a lot more tricky - with a gun it's the familar point & click interface. :D
-
IIRC, the gun confiscation in Britain took place during the '97-'98 time frame? After the law was passed?
Here's a few of the "high notes" from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey.
Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey (http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/key2000i/summar.pdf)
"The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders’ experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992,
the third in 1996 and the fourth in 2000. Surveys have been carried out in 24 industrialised countries since 1989, and in 46 cities in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with seventeen industrialised countries which took
part in the 2000 ICVS.....
Car-related crime
— The risk of having a car stolen was highest in England and Wales (2.6% of owners had a theft), Australia (2.1%), and France (1.9%). Japan, Switzerland, Catalonia, the USA, Finland, and the Netherlands show risks of 0.5% or less.
Motorcycle theft
— Highest risks of motorcycle and moped theft were in Denmark and England and Wales (4% of owners were victimised).
Burglary
— The proportion of households who had a completed or attempted burglary was highest in Australia (7%), England and Wales (5%), Canada, Denmark and Belgium (all 4%).
Theft of personal property
— Thefts of personal property will be heterogeneous in nature, but the highest risks were in Australia, Sweden, and Poland (about 5%-6% of people were victimised).
Contact crime
— An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims.
Robbery
— Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%).
Sexual incidents
-Women in Sweden, Finland, Australia and England and Wales were most at risk of sexual assault.
Assaults and threats
— Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults orthreats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%).
We corrected the victimisation rates for crime seriousness to see how countries fared on a crime count taking seriousness into account. It did not greatly alter the ‘burden of crime’ picture from other measures. Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden still remain most pressured by crime.
Trends in crime
— The picture in North America differs from that in Europe. Crime levels are lower than in 1988.
In the three European countries with four ICVS measures (England and Wales, Finland, and the Netherlands), crime levels are still higher than in 1988.
Compared to 1991, risks also fell more in North America than in five of the seven European countries showing falls."
Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmm".
-
Victimisation rates - The Charts and Graphs (http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/key2000i/h2.pdf)
Slow loading, but here's the bar graphs for the various categories they looked at.
-
I agree, you are far more likely to be attacked in Britain.
However, fewer attacks result in far more murders in America.
Now, what could account for a far higher proportion of robberies leading to murder in America?
-
Obviously, Nashwan, we look at this issue in completely different ways.
You seem to be looking at it as saying "more guns = more murders". Possibly so.
However, the English, Australian and Canadian experiments can also be read as "Restrict lawful firearms ownership = MORE violent crime".
I'm looking at it from a different side........
What do law-abiding gun owners have to do with reducing the rate of violent crime and/or murders?
Apparently, nothing at all.
Because when England and Australia confiscated the firearms of law-abiding gun owners and Canada imposed stronger restrictions on law-abiding gun owners... their rates of violent crime and/or murder went UP.
It may well be that the larger number of firearms in the US leads to more murders....... however, it also would appear from the example set by England, Australia and Canada that confiscating the firearms of law-abiding gun owners or further restricting firearms of the law-abiding US gun owners would make it WORSE.
Now, what could account for a far higher proportion of robberies leading to murder in America?
The nature of US criminals contrasted to the nature of English/Australian/Canadian criminals? Can it be that our criminals place a lesser value on taking life than yours do? Can it be that ours are more brutal than yours? Can it be that movies do have an effect on behavior? I'm sorry.. I don't have the absolute answer for you.
Whatever you pick, it still appears that ownership of firearms by the law-abiding part of the populace has nothing to do with "a far higher proportion of robberies leading to murder in America."
Just as confiscation of the firearms of a law-abiding citizen has nothing to do with making the overall populace less subject to violent crime. In fact, (again) it appears that confiscation may very well have the opposite effect.
-
Things that make me go "hmmm"
Using Toads new figures -
Check out Japan's violent crime figures - very low. Japan has one of the lowest per capita firearm ownership rates in the world, and some of the most restrictive legislation. Japanese Gun Law (http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Japanese_Gun_Control.htm)
So - Low gun ownership & highly restrictive gun laws = very little violent crime
"Restrict lawful firearms ownership = MORE violent crime" scores No points in Japan
Now check out Finland's crime figures: also very low (although contact (ie violent) crime is high). Finland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the US, and gun legislation that while tighter than the US, is much less restrictive than Japan or the UK. Finnish Gun Law (http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Laws/finland)
So - High gun ownership & mild restrictions on gun ownership = very little crime, but high violent crime
"Restrict lawful firearms ownership = MORE violent crime" scores very few points in Finland either.
This seems to me to show that gun ownership rates and gun legislation bear very little relation with levels of violent crime, when we compare countries. In some countries with low gun ownership violent crime is very low, in others it's high. The same applies to countries with high gun ownership. Likewise with gun laws. Score nothing for either the pro-gun or anti-gun lobby.
As to the burglary, car theft, motorcycle theft rates - well I fear the relevance here is mostly perceptual: I would have thought most criminals would just wait until the owners weren't there/asleep, so whether the owner or the criminal has a gun or not is fairly irrelevant. (See AKDejaVu's tragic Acura tale, and tell me how his owning gun would have prevented his Acura being stolen.)
The only thing that appears to be directly related is more guns owned = more gun deaths, but many of those deaths are suicides, and so that relationship is both obvious to the point of redundancy, and useless in a pro/anti gun argument. Certainly no one can accurately say how many of the suicides would not be suicides if they didn't have a gun.
So being pro or anti guns is really only opinion based - there are no hard facts, just statistics - no black & white, just shades of grey, no simple answers, just opinions (surprise surprise :rolleyes: ).
My own opinion is that - along with grenades, electric rotary cannons, nerve gas, howitzers, anthrax, nuclear weapons, land mines, cluster bombs, jet aircraft and karaoke machines - people are IMO on average too stupid, evil to each other and irresponsible to justify their being able to own something as dangerous as a gun.
Strangely enough, none of the figures on violent crime (with or without guns) provided so far have succeeded in doing anything but strengthening that opinion... :D
PS - Surely the "is it the movies" hypothesis would only be viable if one were either to ignore the evidence & assume people in Australia, Canada & the UK don't ever see any US TV shows or movies, or one were to assume that only Americans are gullible enough to have their behaviour affected by movies. Shome mistake, shurely?
-
Given the relatively recent example of Britain, Australia and Canada, it appears that restrictions on the owning of firearms by law-abiding citizens (and quite obviously the criminals just ignore gun laws.... in any country) doesn't reduce violent crime. In fact, these examples show an opposite trend. I believe most would say these three societies are a bit more similar to that of the US than either Japan or Finland.
It will be interesting to watch the statistics over the next five years and see what happens to the trend.
-
Finish stats just proove that education work better than law ...