Ban Teh Buttar Knive!!

[Nashwan]

For the "average" person, a gun would be more effective as a killing tool than a knife. We all know, however, that dead is dead and either tool can make you dead in a hurry.

So you accept that in most circumstances, having a criminal armed with a gun is more likely to be fatal than a criminal armed with a knife?

It seems common sense to me, but I'd just like to pin it down.

The first assumption is that you can "make people use less effective ways of killing". How do you do that exactly? Ban guns?

Not necessarily a ban. The UK had very good gun control laws before Dunblane, that stopped criminals getting their hands on guns aquired through the legal supply channel.

You folks tried that and apparently assumed that would make killing harder.

I don't think so. It was done because newspapers started one of their campaigns, and the problem of having such a free and irresponsible press is that they can sway politicans to an undue extent.

The first assumption is that you can "make people use less effective ways of killing".

The question was a hypothetical, so yes I'm assuming that you can make people use less efficient methods. Treat it like a hypothetical, if you could make people use less efficient means, do you think it would result in less murders?

It's also clear that while you may believe you have made it harder,

No, I don't think the current laws have made it any harder, or easier for that matter.

I've said in the past, and I'll say again, I think Britains strict licensing system prior to Hungerford and Dunblane was close to perfect, and worked extremely well.

I've been trying to find the old statistics page I used to use when I started getting involved in these arguments back in 2000, but I can't. It had a breakdown of crime committed with legally held guns in Britain in the 90s, iirc there were 48 murders with legally held firearms in a decade, which is obvioulsy so small it's not going to have any effect on the statistics.

England has had essentially the same homicide rate, with minor fluctuations for decades, hasn't it? Both BEFORE and AFTER the gun ban

Rather, both during the VERY tight regulations and after the EXTREMELY tight regulations were introduced.

That's the thing, you are talking as if it was a transition from a free for all like the US to a ban, it was actually a tightening of already strict regulations.

The end result? I think the US homicide rate would stay stable, just as your has done.

So you don't think the situation prior to the gun ban has any effect? You think switching from a free for all to a ban is the same as switching from tight regulation to a ban?

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense, it defies logic.

To use another example, you could say that becase airline X saw no increase in carrying capacity when switching from 737s to A320s, airline Y will not see an increase by switching to A320s, even though they currently operate small Bombardier turboprops.

For the result to be the same, the initial circumstances must be the same. There was nothing similar about the availability of guns between Britain pre 1997 and the US currently.

If I could be so bold... for the average person at close range a knife has been proven to be more effective in causing injury than firearms. No one misses with a knife. people frequently... well trained people even... frequently empty fireams at others and never hit anyone. even drive by shootings rarely hit the target but often kill or injure bystanders.

I think your chances of hitting at up to 3ft are the same with a knife or handgun, anything over that and the handgun wins hands down.

Apparently the crooks in your country count on running into your grandpa or sister a lot more than they do a metal tipped rod weilder in the prime of hios life as your "hot burglary" rate is ove 50%... more often than not.... your countrymen are home when the burglar breaks in.

In the U.S.... It is more like 10%

The US counts differently. Quite a lot of "hot" burglaries in the US are listed as "robbery" rather than burglary.

Worth reading in full, IMO.

But here's a taste for you.


Do Guns Cause Crime?

Having seen Lee Malcolm's "interpretation" of self defence laws in the UK, I would doubt anything she comes up with.

[lazs2]

nashwan... you have allways had a low homicide rate compared to the U.S. even when people were allowed to go armed more easily there.  

That does not mean that I want to live on a soggy little island with a queen at its head and cricket bats and fog and high priced gasoline and lukas electrics.

lots of things make up a country and its national identity..  guns are the least of it... both of our countries would have essentialy the same homicide rates than they do today no matter what the gun laws.

you just did what your women thought was the right thing to do and we havent..... our crime continues to fall and.... false or not... we feel a sense of security knowing that we are armed or... even if we aren't....  it is our choice to make not our governmets.... we had quite enough of your gentile government a while back.  You will never convince us that the british government is incapable of tyranny.... or ours for that matter.... you are welcome to belive what you want.

I am curious tho... you admit that gun restrictions are pretty inefective yet.... you are the most tireless defender of gun bans.  Do you hold some personal fear of firearms or have you simply bought into the "I can't prove it but common sense says that they are evil" camp?

I think that common sense is not so common.

lazs

[rshubert]

Originally posted by beet1e


{T}hat stance is like letting a 3 year old play with a book of matches, and claiming "it's not the matches' fault" when the house gets burned down, as if to say it's OK to let 3 year olds play with matches. It's really not so different from what you're saying, which is "it's OK to let nutjobs play with guns".

First, it is disingenuous to equate a three year old with a presumably responsible adult.  British common law demands a presumption of innocence, as does American law.  It also demands a presumption of competence on both sides of the legal equation, interestingly--insanity is a defense that must be proved by the defender, not disproved by the prosecution.

I digress.  In the US, it is not legal for a non-competent individual to own or possess a firearm.  Period.  Non-competent individuals are screened by an instant check system that is supposed to catch them.  Criminals that have been previously convicted of a crime are screened out by that same system.

The criminals' response has been to steal or purchase a gun from an out-of-system source or to assume a false identity for the purpose of purchasing the firearm.  It turns out that the NRA is right on this issue--someone who has already decided to break the law (rob, steal, or kill) is not dissuaded from those actions by criminalizing the process of obtaining or possession of a firearm.

Putting it simply, criminals will commit crimes, no matter what we do to try to stop them.  Violent criminals will obtain weapons for their use.  Criminalizing the possession of firearms for defense by law-abiding citizens merely sets them up as easy victims.  Live with it, those are the facts.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
So you accept that in most circumstances, having a criminal armed with a gun is more likely to be fatal than a criminal armed with a knife?

[/b]

On the surface so it would seem. Sort of depends on the criminal, doesn't it? If the intent of the crime is murder, like say a rival drug gang taking out the competitor, I think murder will be the end result.

In instances where murder isn't the original intent of the base crime, I think that would be so.
 

Not necessarily a ban. The UK had very good gun control laws before Dunblane, that stopped criminals getting their hands on guns aquired through the legal supply channel.

Perhaps; let's assume that. Point is your "very good gun control laws before Dunblane" did not satisfy the anti-gun forces did it? So you folks slipped down the slope into the confiscation/ban mode on handguns. Of course, THAT wasn't enough either as is shown by the recently posted calls for more restrictions, including restrictions on knives.

That is why I can't support further restrictions here in the US. No matter what new laws are added to the plethora already on the books, it will NEVER be enough.

The line is drawn.

Treat it like a hypothetical, if you could make people use less efficient means, do you think it would result in less murders?

Unfortunately, I think the hypothetical answer to that is that the difference would be statistically insignificant in the long run. I think people would change modalities, as they seem to have gone to the "sharp instrument" in England but the overall totals are much the same.

I think the real difference is in the nature of the society. Americans don't politely queue up like the English either. Despite our attempt to make evermore comfortable and efficient bus stops.

I've said in the past, and I'll say again, I think Britains strict licensing system prior to Hungerford and Dunblane was close to perfect, and worked extremely well.

But of course, those laws didnt' satisfy the antis. As a result, law-abiding citizens have had useless, needless and ineffective restrictions put upon them. What a waste; what a pointless exercise.

So you don't think the situation prior to the gun ban has any effect? You think switching from a free for all to a ban is the same as switching from tight regulation to a ban?

Ah, but it isn't a "free for all" here. We do have gun laws; bunches of them. Background checks, etc.

However, as you yourself realize and as England's example continually shows, criminals really don't follow the laws.

So the real situation is do you penalize the law-abiding citizen and pass pointless, ineffective laws that criminals ignore in order to pretend you're doing something?

For the result to be the same, the initial circumstances must be the same. There was nothing similar about the availability of guns between Britain pre 1997 and the US currently.

Those circumstances never were and never will be the same. So it's moot. I don't think your method has a snowball's chance in hell of working here. It's clear our border are open; we can't stop shiploads of marijuana from coming in and it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to stop arms smuggling either should we foolishly try to emulate your "Ban" route.

Your ban worked because the guns were low in number to begin with and mostly already registered. Had you had tons of guns and all unregistered, I think the story would be a bit different.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by rshubert
Violent criminals will obtain weapons for their use.  Criminalizing the possession of firearms for defense by law-abiding citizens merely sets them up as easy victims.  Live with it, those are the facts.

That may be the case in the US, but not here. Our gun laws target supply, and as Nashwan has been at pains to point out, they work pretty well. Time for you to read that sig text again!

Lazs said "our crime continues to fall and.... " Lazs, how come you never retain data that I have so painstakingly sought for you? I will repeat what I said in an earlier thread. Your crime isn't falling. Your homicide tally has gone up every year since 1999. The only way it's "fallen" is maybe because of a mass influx of law abiding citizens from south of the border, which has skewed the per capita rate. Even then, the homicide tally has grown more quickly than the population, so you're still wrong!

Mr. Toad said "But of course, those laws didnt' satisfy the antis. As a result, law-abiding citizens have had useless, needless and ineffective restrictions put upon them. What a waste; what a pointless exercise. " As Dowding once said - gun ownership before ban: Sod all. Gun ownership after ban: sod all. Yeah, maybe some gun owners were affected. The rest of us couldn't give a stuff.

"So the real situation is do you penalize the law-abiding citizen and pass pointless, ineffective laws that criminals ignore in order to pretend you're doing something? "

The situation is different here. Our laws are not pointless, and are cetainly not ineffective. We have fewer than 100 gun homicides a year, you have 10,000+. I think that speaks for itself.

As for "criminals ignoring the gun laws", that doesn't really apply. The supply of guns has been targeted, and it was already very difficult for criminals to obtain guns before the mid 1990s legislation. That's why fewer than 10% of our total homicides are committed with guns, and is the reason that criminals have to resort to sharp objects etc. As Nashwan has pointed out, guns are more efficient killers than swords, which is why our armies made the switch. It's also the reason that guns are used in MOST US homicides - especially handguns. But it's true - you can't have an armed society where only the law abiding had guns; they're always going to fall into criminal hands. I guess that's what was meant in that 1920 statement which said

"There can surely be no question that the public interest demands that direct control shall in future be exercised in the United Kingdom . . . over the possession, manufacture, sale and import and export of firearms and ammunition; and the only practical question for consideration appears to be how this control can be most efficiently established".

"Your ban worked because the guns were low in number to begin with and mostly already registered. Had you had tons of guns and all unregistered, I think the story would be a bit different." Well that we can agree on. Which is why we've never let the situation become irretrievable. They knew what they were talking about in 1920! :p

[beet1e]

_________________

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
That may be the case in the US, but not here. Our gun laws target supply, and as Nashwan has been at pains to point out, they work pretty well.

Actually, they pretty much do nothing. You have no "supply" to target.  

I bet your laws against little green men from mars are working very well too.

As Dowding once said - gun ownership before ban: Sod all. Gun ownership after ban: sod all. Yeah, maybe some gun owners were affected. The rest of us couldn't give a stuff.

Your touching concern for the rights of the minorities is duly noted. When the nannies ban drinking, you won't mind, I'm sure. When they ban whatever is currently Politically Incorrect, I'm sure it'll be fine with you.

Our laws are not pointless, and are cetainly not ineffective. We have fewer than 100 gun homicides a year, you have 10,000+. I think that speaks for itself.

Oh, but they are! ESPECIALLY the bans since Dunblane have been absolutely ineffective. There's been no significant change in your homicide rates resulting from those laws. I think even Nashwan agress with that.

As for "criminals ignoring the gun laws", that doesn't really apply.

Wrong again. Refer to Nashwan's point about how many UK homicides used a legally held firearm. So, most of your gun homicide is done by criminals ignoring the laws.

 

Which is why we've never let the situation become irretrievable.

It goes way back before the '20s when your upper classes feared the Bolshies.

As we've pointed out dozens of times here, the entire history of your nation with respect to firearms is vastly different than ours. We have the history of settling a continent from coast to coast;  firearms figured prominently in feeding and defending the settlers. The common man not only had a right to firearms but they were very often a necessity. Game animals belonged to the people, not some King.

England does not have that history. Your lands were settled in the age of "sharp instruments" (and you still have THAT problem, apparently ). Your game belonged to the King and they hanged commoners for poaching.

There isn't any wonder that the two nations developed differing firearms cultures. You folks basically NEVER had one and we've had one since the very beginning here.

All in all, I'm glad you enjoy being nannied. I'm glad I'm not subject to it. I think this state of affairs should continue.  

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Actually, they pretty much do nothing. You have no "supply" to target.  

LOL Toad! Did you ever see that TV commercial for Head and Shoulders anti dandruff shampoo? Guy finds girl has a bottle of it and says "I didn't know you had dandruff!" - and she replies "I don't!" . I think you get my drift: Our gun laws are a preventative series of measures.

Admittedly, the 1990s legislation probably hasn't done much - I never said it had. Our gun control was already very tight, as Nashwan has shown.

Agreed, England was not "settled" in the way America was. Well, we had visitors like the Romans and the Normans and the Vikings, but as I have said before, we had no Daniel Boones or Davy Crockets....

...and my father did not have to stand on our front porch with a rifle in his hands and a raccoon hat on his head, defending our property!

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Admittedly, the 1990s legislation probably hasn't done much - I never said it had. Our gun control was already very tight, as Nashwan has shown.

[/b]

And yet you folks seem determined to head further down the path of do-nothing laws that only restrict the law-abiding folks. The current blather about further restricting knives as the case in point. (Or is it the "case in pointless"?)

Agreed, England was not "settled" in the way America was....and my father did not have to stand on our front porch with a rifle in his hands and a raccoon hat on his head, defending our property!

But here a gun was an integral part of survival, providing food, clothing, trade items (furs, etc.) and also a means of defense.

Face it, we're just different from you folk and always will be. It's why we tossed you out of here to begin with. If we wanted a nanny, she'd be a voluptuous Swedish girl dressed in a naughty upstairs maid outfit.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
But here a gun was an integral part of survival, providing food, clothing, trade items (furs, etc.) and also a means of defense.

Face it, we're just different from you folk and always will be.  

Indeed, indeed. Which is why the Joyce Lee Malcolms of the world should butt out!

By the way - I sold that JLM book on eBay. It fetched a whopping £2, which is a measure of what the UK eBay community thinks it's worth - or maybe a measure of how much they care?

[lazs2]

beet..  the latest FBI and crime stats show that crime has fallen in the U.S. in allmost every single catagory.

Why do you ignore toads obvious statement about incrementalism?   You give up more each time you pass laws.  

you ask why we are against "sensigble" gun restrictions...   "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  well.... we have stayed pretty far from that in my opinion.... I feel pretty damn well infringed.... what citizens are saying is that nothing is ever enough so it is time to draw a line in the sand and say "no further"  In point of fact, we want a lot of silly gun laws removed.   We just removed som klintononian ones.    Hopefully we will remove some more.

nashwan says that the laws in your country were "perfect" before yet...  you now have even more restrictive ones with no possible benifiet... you didn't get any benifiet from the "perfect" laws either.

your "common sense" tells you that guns kill people and if you take away the guns the people who would only murder with a gun won't commit a murder.   Who are these people?   Who are these people who only contemplate murder when they own a firearm?   What kind of common sense is that?   Are you saying that the sociopath will not kill if he has no firearm or it is more difficult to obtain?   that is your common sense?

lazs

[beet1e]

Lazs

beet.. the latest FBI and crime stats show that crime has fallen in the U.S. in allmost every single catagory.

But not homicide, and as we're talking about guns, it follows that the main crime under review is homicide. Your homicide tally has risen by more than the population increase every year since 1999.

Why do you ignore toads obvious statement about incrementalism? You give up more each time you pass laws.

First we have Toad telling us that our gun laws do nothing, and then we have you tellings us that their effect is to curtail our freedoms. I haven't given anything up. So which is it?

you didn't get any benifiet from the "perfect" laws either.

We certainly did, and we continue to. That's why our gun homicide tally is less than 100, and yours is 10,000+.

Are you saying that the sociopath will not kill if he has no firearm or it is more difficult to obtain? that is your common sense?

I'm saying that it makes it a damn sight harder to commit murders. We hear of drive by shootings, but we don't hear of drive-by-strangulations or drive-by-pushing-people-out-of-windows. Sure, our criminals look for alternative methods, but are often thwarted in their attempts.

[lazs2]

I would say that that is allmost every single category wouldn't you?  the rise in homicide rate per capita is statisticly insignificant.   The white murder rate (commited by whites) has fallen.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
I would say that that is allmost every single category wouldn't you?  

Don't know, Lazs. I'd have to research it if I wanted to know. But your homicide tally is headed North.

As for Brits giving up their freedoms - what has made/is making big news is the revolt at Nanny Blair's ban on fox hunting. A few years ago, we had the Countryside Alliance descend on London for a mass demonstration.

As for when new gun legislation was passed - I don't think anyone even noticed. I certainly don't remember any protests...

You have to understand that for the vast majority of Brits, guns are not an issue.

[Toad]

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS

For Release December 13, 2004

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS
January-June 2004 Collectively, law enforcement agencies throughout the United States reported a decrease of 2.0 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first 6 months of 2004 when compared to figures reported for the first half of 2003.

The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes nationwide from January to June of 2004 decreased 1.9 percent  when compared to data from the same time period in 2003.

Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Because the level of participation differs among agencies reporting the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft and those also reporting arson, data for arson (also a property crime) are not included in the property crime total. Figures for the first half of 2004 indicated that arson decreased 6.8 percent when compared to 2003 figures.

{The charts show Murder down -5.7%}

You have to understand that for the vast majority of Brits, guns are not an issue.

[/b]

So, is the rest of this sentence "so we have no problem with totally ignoring the wishes of the minority"?

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

Ben Franklin said "We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."

Sooner or later the nannies will come knocking at your door to take things you value away from you.

For your own good, of course.