Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad. What you actually said was this:

It should be obvious even to the most leftist-minded that the above figures illustrate the fact that America has a somewhat violent culture. We like to kill each other, apparently.

And then, on the subject of killing sprees:

And yet you tacitly admit that it can still happen in the UK.

Not can, it already has - twice. Hungerford and Dunblane.

So, you're willing to deny the entire population of the UK or the US the ability to use "banned" firearms in ways that have absolutely no relationship to crime whatsoever on the off chance that you might be able to prevent a such a crime from happening?

I have already said in this thread that I'm not trying to take your guns away, and neither is your govenment. But some governments have - I've been reading Curval's posts from Bermuda. I can't claim to know the fine details of UK gun law because guns have never been an issue here and I have no interest in them.  As for UK policy, I have said more than once that I am not a socialist. Indeed, my opinion of the present government, for which I voted neither in 1997 nor 2001, is that it sucks. We pay more tax and get less service. There aren't enough police, those that we have are over burdened writing reports, and there aren't the resources needed to tackle some serious crimes. On top of that, UK prisons are bursting at the seams. Cons get light sentences here compared to there. We are way too soft on criminals here.

But one of the freedoms that I enjoy as a European is being able to up sticks and relocate to any of the other 14 European member states. And it often feels tempting!

Would you please post the homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland for each year since the ban?

Certainly, Mr. Toad. In fact the document is already attached to an earlier post on page 3 of this thread. The latest data I was able to find went up to 1999. I don't know if any later data is available.

Mr. Toad, please advise me why, using data from said document, the US murder rate for 1999 is about four times as high as that of the UK? Handguns are used in many murders, and if not being used by what were once orderly citizens, then just exactly WHO are these somewhat enigmatic gun slingers?

[Toad]

First a quick reminder. You apparently have some need to turn this into a "personal" debate.

Here's the second time I pointed this out to you:

You are not quoting me; you are quoting Rachel Lucas from a piece she wrote called Fun with guns.

As I pointed out, I offered that piece for discussion. Review the thread.
Thanks.

[Toad]

Now then.

It's not a question of whether "you" are trying to take "our" guns away. You're a non-player in that arena in any event. You're certainly entitled to your opinion there, but that's all it is. Like mine.

It's a question of whether bans/buy backs work at all. And apparently you do support bans/buy backs? Or do I have that incorrectly?

And, if you don't mind, could you supply a link to that Home Office Document? Or even the title and date on it? I'd rather get it from the HO site. I'm not in the habit of d/l'ing and opening files from any BBS in which I participate in discussions in which some folks become heated. I'm sure you understand. It would be nice if we could find 2000 data as well; I doubt 2001 is available.

Who's doing it? Well, according to the study quoted, something in excess of 75% of the murders are by career criminals with prior felonies. The second part intimates that you can add about 12% to that due to the perps being juveniles. 87% perpetrated by known criminals.

What's the percentage in Jolly Old?

You can go to 14 countries? And we have to settle for only 50 States, from Alaska to Florida, California to Maine? Geez... you lucky guy!

Firearm Related Deaths in the United States and 35 other High and Middle Income Countries

You might take a peek at this. Some pretty bright folks have this to say on page 220 (the page it was in the Journal; it's about 6 pages long):

Research findings are mixed, however, about the relationship between firearms ownership and overall homicide rates....

Firearms mortality rates may also be influenced by underlying causes of homicide and suicide that operate indepently of firearm-realted factors just described. Social factors that influence homicide rates include income inequality, low funding for social programmes, divorce, proportion of households with working women, ethnic-linguistic heterogeneity and social accpetance of violence.

Or, as the Australian government source put it:

the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides

or, "the gun ban/ buy back was clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides."

Thus, conversely, availabilty of guns isn't the sole cause of the US homicide rate. Or would you dispute that?

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad, you are wrong about me on at least one count, possibly two. You're saying that I need to turn this into a personal argument, and nothing could be further from the truth. Because once we start doing that, we no longer listen to eachother. This debate is not about winners and losers. It's not about who can  present the most compelling statistics. The only losers are those whose lives will be cut short by a gun, and the only winners are those who might avoid it by some change to the status quo.

OK, now I understand your posting technique. You include a hyperlink but also the text as well. So sorry to have to get you to point this out more than once, but hey - I've said things here two or three times here and still await a response.

Mr. Toad, I have no interest in distorting the facts, so I was somewhat surprised at your request for the Home Office link to my document. Yep, you really should have been a politician. The .PDF document can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf

You can go to 14 countries? And we have to settle for only 50 States, from Alaska to Florida, California to Maine? Geez... you lucky guy!

50 states... and ONE federal government, and ONE Dubya and ONE IRS - which maintains tax jurisdiction over you wherever you go, anywhere in the world! But let's not digress...

Thus, conversely, availabilty of guns isn't the sole cause of the US homicide rate. Or would you dispute that?

Well, Mr. Toad - you're the one who seems most capable of coming up with official statistics. Can you supply details from an authoritative source which subdivide homicides in the USA by the cause of death? I am interested to know the proportion of murders carried out by guns. I suspect it's the majority, but await your expertly compiled data on this. Some of those murders may not have involved guns, so no - availability of guns is not the SOLE factor governing the US homicide rate. But given the sheer numbers of people murdered by guns each year in the US, clearly the availability of guns plays a major part. It seems clear enough to me. For a gun to be used in a homicide, it has to be available. Duh!

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad,

Just as I strongly suspected, homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns.  Kind of bears out what I've been saying all along, doesn't it?

• Source - Bureau of Justice.
• URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
  

[beet1e]

These are the appalling stats you get if you go to the URL I gave above, and click on that chart.

The number of handgun homicides alone each year in the US between 1995-1999 is more than ten times the TOTAL number of homicides in England and Wales for those years by ANY method, not just handguns. In 1995, US handgun homicides exceeded total homicides in England and Wales by a factor of 16! And that was after New York City, former US murder capital, had been made safe(r) by the deployment of 33% more police officers.  Should an allowance be made for the fact that your population is about four times ours? I'm beginning to think not. As Fatty has stated, and as Lazs is fond of pointing out, the population in the US is much more spread out, and so it should be easier to find somewhere quiet to live. We are very crowded here, as Lazs has observed.

[lazs2]

beetle... I have seen just about every state except alaska and hawaii.    I have not spent a great deal of time in some of them but have rode through em.   In at least 20 I have spent a good deal of time.  so what?

you have shown me no reason whatsoever for the law abiding in the U.S. to give up their rights.    You have spent time in the U.S. and you have benifieted from others owning firearms even tho you appear to be unaware of the fact.   Their are neighborhoods where you will not survive if you wander into.   they will even go so far as to block your escape.   If it makes you feel better you can lock your doors tho and cinch up your seatbelt.

I have seen nothing you have said that makes any sense so far as firearms in the U.S. is concerned.   8-10K homicides... mostly criminal on criminal  or criminal on some poor unarmed sap... seem a pitance in light of all the murders, rapes and assaults that have been prevented.  Nothing at all compared to losing freedom (yeah.. i know you guys don't have such a thing and are content.. like my cat).

as for me personaly... Yeah.. I felt safe enough in london pubs.  I am careful and  I am still young and strong and big enough that I do not present a great target to  the cowardly criminal.   I know that they will chose someone a little weaker.. That won't last forever tho.  What I meant by you people rolling over for criminals is... Look at your crime.. people are simply grabbing their ankles for the criminals..  something that Americans are not comfortable with.  And...I simply don't trust a government that doesn't trust it's people with firearms.
lazs

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
And...I simply don't trust a government that doesn't trust it's people with firearms.
lazs

lazs,

Many of the pro-gun guys have said that the main reason they own guns is to protect themselves from the US government should they get "out of hand".  

Seems like many Americans who own guns don't put as much faith in YOUR government as you do.

[lazs2]

curval... that is not inconsistent with what I have said.   I want to be able to defend myself from tyranny from within and without.   I trust my government a lot more when me and fellow ciizens are armed.   Historicly this is deterence.   When the government takes away firearms from it's citizens it has gone badly for said citizens in the past eh?
lazs

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
When the government takes away firearms from it's citizens it has gone badly for said citizens in the past eh?
lazs

Not in my country's case.  

I cannot comment on the Aussie case, or the Canadian case as I have never lived in the former, and have been away from the latter for a few years.  I can, however, categorically state that the statistics that have been brought forward to prove one side or the other in these cases are essentially "full of do-do", on both sides and should be taken "with a pinch of salt".  

Any half-baked statistician can make the figures say what they want them to say.

[beet1e]

Lazs - thanks for answering my question. I see you are quite well travelled in the US. It was curiosity more than anything else. Something I would like to comment on:

you have shown me no reason whatsoever for the law abiding in the U.S. to give up their rights. You have spent time in the U.S. and you have benifieted from others owning firearms even tho you appear to be unaware of the fact. Their are neighborhoods where you will not survive if you wander into. they will even go so far as to block your escape. If it makes you feel better you can lock your doors tho and cinch up your seatbelt.

Another question: Am I benefiting from others' gun ownership today? In the US, I come and go and I don't give firearms a second thought. Same thing here in England, so are you saying there's some mysterious force at work here too? Because my sense of personal security is about the same in both countries, without a gun in either. Yes I don't disagree that there are some very risky areas, but I would not intentionally go there with or without a gun. Not with skin the colour of mine.

Just one last question, Lazs, and then the pizza map beckons. You often speak of the British as if we do not live in the free world. Apart from the whole guns issue, which as a non-owner doesn't interest me that much, what freedoms do you think you have that we don't have? I still believe that it has been a catastrophe for America to put so many guns into the hands of some demonstrably unscrupulous people. The figures in the tables above bear witness to my beliefs.

I'm not quite the anti-gun liberal you take me for, by the way. I fully appreciate the needs of law enforcement to be equipped to tackle the risks that they face daily in the line of duty. But I am anti-death. You point out that in many cases it's criminals killing other criminals, but what proportion of total handgun deaths is that?

Hey, you should have told me you were a cat person. I love cats!

Are you afraid of anything, Lazs? There's something I want to ask you to do, and I bet you dare not do it. It's nothing dangerous, and there is no risk. Just let me know if you think you're afraid of anything, if you're not, I'll ask you.

[H. Godwineson]

By the way Lasz, don't forget to mention that the homicide statistics cited about the U.S. involving firearms include ALL homicides, even those committed by the police during the performance of their duties, as well as law-abiding citizens who shoot would-be murderers and rapists.  In my opinion, those should be separate from those committed by criminals, because they are NOT the same.

Regards, Shuckins

[beet1e]

Shuckins - you're kidding, right? I thought those killings came under the heading of guns saving lives - LOL!

[Krusher]

Andijg - you missed two points from your list of liberal questions:

Could the knife wielding guy be Crocodile Dundee? (No mate, that's a knife) If so, no further action required. He's harmless. At worst he only wants to shag your wife.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Whats ironic is the real Crocodile Dundee was killed in a shoot out with the cops he tried to ambush.

[Nashwan]

By the way Lasz, don't forget to mention that the homicide statistics cited about the U.S. involving firearms include ALL homicides, even those committed by the police during the performance of their duties, as well as law-abiding citizens who shoot would-be murderers and rapists. In my opinion, those should be separate from those committed by criminals, because they are NOT the same.

Homicide statistics show unjustifiable homicide.

The figure for 2001 in the US was 13,752, excluding the 11th Sept figures.

It wouldn't make much of a difference if justifiable figures were included, however. The FBI gives the figures as 370 people jsutifiably killed by law enforcement, 215 by private citizens.

US figures are here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm