Author Topic: Simple question about guns for non-Americans and people living outside the US. (Read 6013 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #60 on:** February 05, 2004, 09:36:29 AM »

Sky rocket? Where are you looking?

According to both those graphs I'm less likely to get murdered and my girlfriend less likely to get raped over here than over there. The sky doesn't seem to be falling either. Amazing.

Tarmac · « **Reply #61 on:** February 05, 2004, 09:39:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
So my next question is... Why do you think that is then?

Because you trust your government more than you trust yourselves.

Angus · « **Reply #62 on:** February 05, 2004, 09:41:38 AM »

Ripsnort: I guess you are right about that if some states in the US have more stricter gun laws than others, it still don't work. However, it cannot easily work, for there is enough easy-bought arsenal in other states within the same country, - i.e. plenty of guns on the market.
But about the population thingie, you are not absolutely right.
Humble Greenland with less than 50K inhabitants has many time the murder rate of my country (sometimes in the 10X region), yet we are 6 times as many, - they however do have a lot of guns.
Does London have enough inhabitants to count? Or Tokyo? Well, like it or not, those cities have a lot lower crime rate than the average goes in the US.
Straffos Graph pretty much shows this as well, sadly

Momus-- · « **Reply #63 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:01:00 AM »

License them, and allow "home defence" as a valid reason for possession. This country needs more Tony Martins.

Lazs, I see you're still asserting that the there's a causal link between a crime rate that was already going up prior to the hand-gun ban and the '96 hand-gun ban itself, despite no evidence to back this up.

The argument might fit the US model but it doesn't hold for the UK, unless you're seriously arguing that a few thousand pistol enthusiasts with their weapons either stored in guns clubs or at home in a locked safe were the only thing holding back the crime wave you seem to believe has swamped us in the years since the ban.

Kisters · « **Reply #64 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:02:02 AM »

Beet1e

From Argentina, answer is : "no".

Dowding · « **Reply #65 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:27:51 AM »

He is actually suggesting that Momus, and has done so in the past.

lazs2 · « **Reply #66 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:01:00 AM »

states that enact "must issue" or, right to carry laws have large drops in crime. 37 states have adopted these laws.

beetle... hmmm... seems that "unrestricted" is one thing but...

that most seem to think that there laws are either just right or too strict. Unrestricted conjures up the image of anti aircraft guns and artillery pieces not to mention belt fed machine guns. Unrestricted is a loaded word.

My thread is much less loaded and it seems that most feel their country is too strict.

lazs

Momus-- · « **Reply #67 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:16:12 AM »

You dance well for a white guy Lazs, but answer the question; are you still claiming that any rise in UK crime since the '96 ban is attributable to said ban?

I am not disputing the US statistics, but you're commiting a logical fallacy by assuming that more guns=less crime in the US means less guns=more crime in the UK. Quite simply, you're not comparing like with like.

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:24:26 AM »

yes, I believe that the criminals knowing that they will not encounter armed citizens has contributed to your increase in crime. Do you claim that the gun ban has nothing to do with the increase. and....

why is it a feminine trait to point out that by banning something you feel is dangerous only if used in a dangerous way... that you are protecting yourselves from yourselves... seems that banning something for no other reason than you don't like it's "aura" or it just feels bad is the real feminine trait. knee jerk at the very least.

as for the U.S..... it is absolutely proven that violent crime goes down in states that allow concealed carry... the more permits issued the better the result.

I just don't understand it... you trust your fellow citizens to drive straight at you in a 2 ton car at 100+ mph but you dont trust your neighbor to have a gun in his house or a 1911 in a holster under his jacket. strange, fearful people in this world.

lazs

Momus-- · « **Reply #69 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:40:13 AM »

I edited the "femine trait" jab out as it was uncalled for. Sorry.

I think you're missing the point. I'm quite willing to accept that the '96 ban was an over-reaction. But the claim that the reason crime *continued* to rise in the post-ban period was due to a few thousand pistol enthusiasts handing-in their weapons is not supported by the evidence and fails to take into account several salient points, including:

1) Pistol enthusiasts were as likely to keep their weapons at the shooting club as at home.

2) Concealed carry was already banned prior to 1996.

3) Crime continued to rise at much the same rate as in the pre-ban period.

4) The number of pistol owners as a proportion of the population was tiny.

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't deny the US stats but trying to make the US thesis fit the UK model doesn't work.

lazs2 · « **Reply #70 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:47:21 AM »

wasn't the laws for even shotguns at home tightened up at about the same time? I believe that burglars would be far more likely to break into old folks homes when they were present if they knew that they (the burglars) were in no danger of facing an old codger armed with a double barrel.

I don't believe that you can take what works in the U.S. and apply it to the U.K. either (nor the reverse) but there are some studies about england that I find interesting. At the very least, the studies seem to point out that citizens in england owning guns does no harm.

lazs

Momus-- · « **Reply #71 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:53:25 AM »

AFAIK shotguns aren't banned but you need a good reason to own one - this doesn't include home defence.

beet1e · « **Reply #72 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:51:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Momus--
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't deny the US stats but trying to make the US thesis fit the UK model doesn't work.

LOL Momus! Yep, that's Lazs all over, bless him.

Lazs -

Quote

beetle... hmmm... seems that "unrestricted" is one thing but... that most seem to think that there laws are either just right or too strict. Unrestricted conjures up the image of anti aircraft guns and artillery pieces not to mention belt fed machine guns. Unrestricted is a loaded word.

I think that most people will have realised that I meant "unrestricted" in terms of quantity available, and not unrestricted type of weapons. Certainly, that is how I meant it. Very few people I know of have aspirations to own anti aircraft guns or belt fed machine guns.

Tarmac

Quote

Because you trust your government more than you trust yourselves.

No mate. That's not the reason. That is one of the reasons you justify your own gun ownership in the US - in case the government loses its marbles. But I ask you - what use would a .45 semi auto be against cluster bombs and cruise missiles?

Keeping guns for use in defence in case the government flips its lid is not going to work. Just look at Zimbabwe in southern Africa. It is run by a corrupt regime headed by Robert Mugabe, himself a criminal who has siphoned off millions of $ of his country's wealth to fund an empire of hotel chains.

My girlfriend, Tomato, is from Zimbabwe originally. Here she is with Lazs, shooting off his .45 semi auto. Guns are allowed in Zimbabwe. Tomato could have bought one to keep in the car or in the house, but didn't. And most of the (white) farmers there had guns. But what's the use of that when Mugagbe sends a possé of about 25 guys to forcibly evict you from your farm? You think that maintaining a siege situation with a shotgun and a semi auto is going to make it so that you get to keep your farm if you're a white Zimbabwean farmer? You think the situation would be any different in Michigan if your government were to flip its lid?

Keeping guns "just in case" your government flips its lid is a concept based in the 18th century, and has no basis in the world of today.

Lazs & Tomato, Oct.2003

Tarmac · « **Reply #73 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:59:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
You think the situation would be any different in Michigan if your government were to flip its lid?

Hey! Why you picking on me?

Pei · « **Reply #74 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:13:48 PM »

Guns are not banned in the UK and never have been. Handguns were banned (at least breach loading ones) after 1996 but Momus makes the right point: the ban effected very few people: pistol owners were the minority of firearms owners before 1996. Firearms owners have always been a tiny minority of people: less than 1 in 100 I would guess.
The rules for shotgun ownership and licensing were not changed in any practical way at all.
Most farmers will have a shotgun license: it's pretty normal in the country.

The figures show three things:
1) The change in UK law in 96 had no effect on the crime rate.
2) The UK: a country with low gun ownership has significantly lower crime rate than the US with high gun ownership.
3) UK crime continues to rise at a steady rate, while US crime is dropping (this may or may not have anything to do with the introduction of concealed carry laws).

Guns have never had a great effect on UK crime: the number of guns in the population is so low that the have never been a major factor.

Is it possible to have lots of guns around and a low crime rate? Yes: look at Switzerland where almost every house has a gun (because the men of the house are required to serve in the army). But I would suggest that has more to do with cultural factors.

In short don't use the UK as comparison for gun law and crim rate: there is no comparison.

Point 2 above means I don't support liberalization of the gun laws in my own country.

As to the point about how Australians feel about guns (I can answer this because I currently live there). Aussies tend to feel the same way as the Brits: in country areas people accept gun ownership as necessary for the purposes of hunting and pest control. Handguns are not normal because they are not seen as having legitimate uses (though they are not banned).
The Aussie laws tend to be a bit more liberal probably because there are more rural and remote areas and there have been no incidents like Dunblane to cause a change in the law.

Both Brits and Aussies do not generaly accept the ownership of guns for self defence: we prefer to have few guns in society instead. Both Aussies and Brits tend to find the US attitude to guns very strange.

[EDITED for numerous typos]

Aces High Bulletin Board