Shooting Death in UK

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well, except that doesn't properly address what Grabo said. It's not that Grabo is disarmed that makes him feel secure, but that his neighbors are disarmed. He was very clear about that, which is why I pointed out to him that he has an active (and not passive) position on the issue.
I think that's the wool that the anti-gunners pull over the eyes of the public. That they're the passive ones. They act almost as though they are trying to preserve a right for the people (in this case, the imaginary right to feel safe). And that simply isn't true. They are actively working to revoke a right from the people.

I am the only one responsible enough to own and use firearms. I am the only one smart enough to decide how they should be used. I am the only one who has any need for firearms.

Now just imagine I am the government.

 

[kmmatney]

btw- Here is the incident that really sparked Australian gun laws. If you think Virginia Tech was bad, look at this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...ssacre_%28Australia%29

 

[kmmatney]

Some other "facts"

* In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73
people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.[8] In
comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.[9]

* In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in
the United States.[10]




8. Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Canadian Crime Statistics, Australian Crime
Facts & Figures 2004, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention - Criminal
Statistics 2004, Statistics New Zealand.
9. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
10. FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2005, Expanded Homicide Table 14,
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/...n/murder_homicide.html.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Vic

It's democracy. The people are the government and the government is the people. So ask yourself, why is your armed government disarming its people? Does that sound genuinely democratic to you?

That's a good way of putting it. :thumbsup:

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...ucks/herts/6969909.stm.

Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any guns in England. Guns are illegal there.

I'll bite...

There are far fewer guns in the UK, and far fewer gun deaths - go figure...

Your correlation does not create causation. There are other countries in the world that have outlawed guns that have considerably more gun deaths than the US (Russia, for example).

Why... you probably won't believe it, but murder and war occurred before guns were even invented!! :Q

Russia has more gun deaths than the U.S? Link?

 

[sandorski]

Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

I would not tell my neighbor if I had a gun or not unless I knew he was into guns.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Vic

It's democracy. The people are the government and the government is the people. So ask yourself, why is your armed government disarming its people? Does that sound genuinely democratic to you?

That's a good way of putting it. :thumbsup:

The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

As long as there is one criminal in this nation of 300,000,000, owning a gun is legitimate. Get back to me when crime is at 0% and I can toss the gun.

 

[nCred]

In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol

So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

1. How do you know that your neighbors don't own a gun?

2. Are your neighbors criminals? Why are you scared of them?

If they ARE criminals they don't need to care about a gun law.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: nCred
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol

Bullshit. As I've pointed out in other threads, Washington DC has 1/2 the population of neighboring Fairfax County, but has 10 times the murder rate. Guns are banned in DC but anyone without a federal record in Fairfax can walk out of a store with a handgun the same day. If availability of guns was the cause, then why aren't hundreds of people being killed in Fairfax County every year?

Also from your article:

The first research approach asks how differences
in violence across American cities are related to
variations in gun availability, controlling for
other relevant factors. These studies generally
find small positive correlations between measures
of gun availability and both felony gun use and
felony murder. However, they find no consistent
relationship between gun availability and overall
rates of violent crime

The second approach used was a comparison of two
jurisdictions. The neighboring cities of Seattle
and Vancouver have similar economic profiles and
were found to have similar rates of burglary and
assault. However, Seattle, with its less
restrictive gun possession laws, had a 60 percent
higher homicide rate and a 400 percent higher
firearm homicide rate than Vancouver. It is not
clear whether the differences in gun laws
accounted for all the variation between the two
cities in homicide rates, or whether differences
in culture were also contributing factors.

The third approach relies on cross-national
statistical comparisons. These studies have
generally reached one of the conclusions found in
studies of American cities: a small positive
correlation between gun availability and homicide
rates. The finding is difficult to interpret,
however, in view of differences by country in
culture and in gun regulations. For example,
murder rates are low in Switzerland, where militia
requirements make possession of long guns by males
nearly universal. This seems to suggest there is
no positive correlation between gun availability
and murder rates. But this interpretation is
clouded because in Switzerland access to guns is
limited: militia members are required to keep
their guns locked up and to account for every
bullet.

The fourth approach relies on analyses of trends
over time. Studies using this method have found no
correlations between gun availability and rates of
violent crime. But trends are subject to a variety
of influences, which may mask a relationship that
would emerge in the aftermath of some new law or
other intervention that substantially reduced gun
availability. Evaluation findings about such
interventions are discussed later in this report,
but more such evaluations are needed to obtain
better answers to this question.

Sounds like a rigorous scientific investigation couldn't find any real conclusions.

Interesting "article." You read the synopsis, then you read the text, and they don't jive.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
It sounds fine to me if by "disarming its people" you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, assault rifles, etc...

A semi-automatic is different from an assault rifle?

Fact: Gary Ridgway killed at least 48 women and never once used a gun.

Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.

This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?

Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Neither does an irrational fear of one's neighbors so strong that you actively seek the force of the state to preemptively disarm them.

 

[CanOWorms]

That's what happens to you in the UK when you rescind your allegiance to the Queen.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: nCred
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol

Bullshit. As I've pointed out in other threads, Washington DC has 1/2 the population of neighboring Fairfax County, but has 10 times the murder rate. Guns are banned in DC but anyone without a federal record in Fairfax can walk out of a store with a handgun the same day. If availability of guns was the cause, then why aren't hundreds of people being killed in Fairfax County every year?

Also from your article:

The first research approach asks how differences
in violence across American cities are related to
variations in gun availability, controlling for
other relevant factors. These studies generally
find small positive correlations between measures
of gun availability and both felony gun use and
felony murder. However, they find no consistent
relationship between gun availability and overall
rates of violent crime

The second approach used was a comparison of two
jurisdictions. The neighboring cities of Seattle
and Vancouver have similar economic profiles and
were found to have similar rates of burglary and
assault. However, Seattle, with its less
restrictive gun possession laws, had a 60 percent
higher homicide rate and a 400 percent higher
firearm homicide rate than Vancouver. It is not
clear whether the differences in gun laws
accounted for all the variation between the two
cities in homicide rates, or whether differences
in culture were also contributing factors.

The third approach relies on cross-national
statistical comparisons. These studies have
generally reached one of the conclusions found in
studies of American cities: a small positive
correlation between gun availability and homicide
rates. The finding is difficult to interpret,
however, in view of differences by country in
culture and in gun regulations. For example,
murder rates are low in Switzerland, where militia
requirements make possession of long guns by males
nearly universal. This seems to suggest there is
no positive correlation between gun availability
and murder rates. But this interpretation is
clouded because in Switzerland access to guns is
limited: militia members are required to keep
their guns locked up and to account for every
bullet.

The fourth approach relies on analyses of trends
over time. Studies using this method have found no
correlations between gun availability and rates of
violent crime. But trends are subject to a variety
of influences, which may mask a relationship that
would emerge in the aftermath of some new law or
other intervention that substantially reduced gun
availability. Evaluation findings about such
interventions are discussed later in this report,
but more such evaluations are needed to obtain
better answers to this question.

Sounds like a rigorous scientific investigation couldn't find any real conclusions.

Interesting "article." You read the synopsis, then you read the text, and they don't jive.

How far to the neighbouring State where guns are available?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

One of the other consequences I never see mentioned, or maybe I'm just way off, is what would happen with the price of guns on the street.

Say a handgun goes for $200 now. After a sweeping ban or confiscation prices would go up. So say that $200 handgun is now $1000.

Now the criminal has to make that 5x increase up. Drugs, theft, etc. They aren't going to just give up on acquiring them.

Think the drug policy creates problems, wait till Joe Blow is offered a grand for a gun. Almost anyone has a price that they'd be willing to sell one illegally for if such a situation occured.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
How far to the neighbouring State where guns are available?

How far to the neighboring state where meth is legal?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

But without guns, can a civilized society come to be?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One of the other consequences I never see mentioned, or maybe I'm just way off, is what would happen with the price of guns on the street.

Say a handgun goes for $200 now. After a sweeping ban or confiscation prices would go up. So say that $200 handgun is now $1000.

Now the criminal has to make that 5x increase up. Drugs, theft, etc. They aren't going to just give up on acquiring them.

Think the drug policy creates problems, wait till Joe Blow is offered a grand for a gun. Almost anyone has a price that they'd be willing to sell one illegally for if such a situation occured.

not going to hapen. guns are being made in third world countries for pennies on the dollar. this will have no effect on the "saturday night special"

the only one who gets screwed in this scenario is the law abiding citizen.

 

[IamBusby]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...ucks/herts/6969909.stm.

Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any guns in England. Guns are illegal there.

I'll bite...

There are far fewer guns in the UK, and far fewer gun deaths - go figure...

Your correlation does not create causation. There are other countries in the world that have outlawed guns that have considerably more gun deaths than the US (Russia, for example).

Why... you probably won't believe it, but murder and war occurred before guns were even invented!! :Q

Have you got a link to show there are more deaths by Guns in Russia than in the US?

I know they have a very slightly higher homicide rate but I don't think it's because of guns.

Also Russia is a terrible example to use. The Russian Mafia still rule the roost in lots of city's and the government do a terrible job of enforcing laws such as gun ownership. The amount of people who own guns over there is probably comparable to the USA.

Making guns legal in the UK will increase the amount of gun related deaths not reduce it. Just because a few slip the net doesn't mean we should just abolish the law.

Speeding's illegal too but just because someone gets run over at 80mph doesnt mean we should just give up it as it doesn't work because some idiot didn't follow the law.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: nCred
In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol

Bullshit. As I've pointed out in other threads, Washington DC has 1/2 the population of neighboring Fairfax County, but has 10 times the murder rate. Guns are banned in DC but anyone without a federal record in Fairfax can walk out of a store with a handgun the same day. If availability of guns was the cause, then why aren't hundreds of people being killed in Fairfax County every year?

Because guns are flooding in from neighboring states, and because there´s probably at least 10 times as many violent criminals in Washington DC? You can´t just ban guns in a small area with no border controls between. But if you ban guns in an entire country then the guns will have to be smuggled over the borders. Of course the organized criminals will always get hold of guns but it will be more difficult for the average neighborhood thug since there´s less supply and higher prices.

I can also point out a few things from the text you qouted.

The first research approach asks how differences
in violence across American cities are related to
variations in gun availability, controlling for
other relevant factors. These studies generally
find small positive correlations between measures
of gun availability and both felony gun use and
felony murder. However, they find no consistent
relationship between gun availability and overall
rates of violent crime

The second approach used was a comparison of two
jurisdictions. The neighboring cities of Seattle
and Vancouver have similar economic profiles and
were found to have similar rates of burglary and
assault. However, Seattle, with its less
restrictive gun possession laws, had a 60 percent
higher homicide rate and a 400 percent higher
firearm homicide rate than Vancouver. It is not
clear whether the differences in gun laws
accounted for all the variation between the two
cities in homicide rates, or whether differences
in culture were also contributing factors.

The third approach relies on cross-national
statistical comparisons. These studies have
generally reached one of the conclusions found in
studies of American cities: a small positive
correlation between gun availability and homicide
rates. The finding is difficult to interpret,
however, in view of differences by country in
culture and in gun regulations. For example,
murder rates are low in Switzerland, where militia
requirements make possession of long guns by males
nearly universal. This seems to suggest there is
no positive correlation between gun availability
and murder rates. But this interpretation is
clouded because in Switzerland access to guns is
limited: militia members are required to keep
their guns locked up and to account for every
bullet.

The fourth approach relies on analyses of trends
over time. Studies using this method have found no
correlations between gun availability and rates of
violent crime. But trends are subject to a variety
of influences, which may mask a relationship that
would emerge in the aftermath of some new law or
other intervention that substantially reduced gun
availability. Evaluation findings about such
interventions are discussed later in this report,
but more such evaluations are needed to obtain
better answers to this question.

But the real reason I qouted that article was because it showed that criminals with guns are more dangerous then criminals with knifes, that means fewer people will die in robberies and assaults if the criminals have more difficulty getting firearms. The rate of premeditated murder on the other hand would probably not be affected.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is true, guns being illegal makes this story an impossibility.

QFT

Agreed. This is shens.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

Thats nice.
And if you ever find a Civilized Society let us know.
Meanwhile, on planet earth, we'll be dealing with our real problems in the real world.
Humans are not inherently good or noble. Our survivial instincts have kept us alive for a very long time. It is those instincts which tell us that every other human is a potential thread to our survival. It takes a lot of work for a civilization to come into existence and fight our natural instincts and get us all to work together for the greater good. And no matter what, our instincts still direct our actions. Criminals do what they do because they are less interested in the greater good and more interested in their own survival, WHICH IS NATURAL.
We as a race are not nearly close enough to being enlightened and just getting along without problems. That day might never come and even if it does it wont be in our lifetime.
We have several groups of people (nations) who try their darndest to be civilized and each one is filled with varying amounts of people (criminals) who dont want to be part of the civilization. They'd prefer to leech off their respective societies when convenient and play by their own rules.
I'm not going to suggest we round them up and ship them to Antartica or wipe them out. Thats Nazi thinking. I just want the decent citizens to have a chance against the leeches by keeping basic arms in their houses and (when needed) on their body. That is distinctly ANTI Nazi thinking.
When Hitler came into power he wanted to disarm his own people, and he never attacked a country whose citizens were armed.

The criminals in America already have easy access to many weapons which are completely illegal, namely fully-automatic pistols and rifles. I would not be so foolish as to suggest we arm each citizen with a machine gun, but if those citizens choose they should be able to arm themselves with basic protection so as to even the odds.

Which brings me to my next point:
Making guns illegal does NOT get rid of them, and it certainly doesnt take them out of a criminals hand. At no point in the history of the US, UK, Canada or Australia has passing gun control laws ever reduced crime.
It just gives the criminals a better edge. Only law-abiding citizens abide the law and turn in their firearms.

If a gun-grabber ever comes up with a halfway decent plan to take the illegal guns away from the bad guys I will be more than willing to listen.
So far all they have done is yell and shout to pass more laws, which (again) only the law-abiding will follow.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nCred
The government is armed with rocket launchers and tanks, should normal citizens be allowed to arm themselves in a similar way? You think you can fight a dictator with the military on his side with handguns? nope you get more powerful weapons smuggled in from the outside like most guerillas.

This is the most ignorant argument of all by the gun grabbers. How's that war in Iraq going?

Your linked article in your 2nd post was discredited long ago. There is no link between the legality of guns and crime rates.

Whats ignorant? I think it´s silly to believe you could fight a military with glocks, you would need a lot of weapons that are illegal in the US. With your kind of thinking every person should be allowed to arm themseleves with rocket launchers and explosives since the government is armed with such weapons.

I did not say anything about a link between gun legality and overall crime rate, I said:

In a country where guns are legal the gun availability for criminals will be greater since legal weapons gets stolen or sold to criminals. It will also make the criminals more dangerous since they know you might have a gun and therefore shoot you. Also: "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol
So it IS better if criminals are armed with knifes instead of guns.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Grabo
I don't. And I feel more secure knowing that most of my neighbours don't, either.

What kind of neighbors do you have that you would be worried if they did own a gun? I could be wrong but unless you live in a crime ridden neighborhood. Chances are low it will be your neighbors trying to break into your home.

Besides it is kind of silly to be so naive to believe because my neighbor doesnt have a gun, I should feel more safe. If your neighbor wants to kill you, he will.