Skyrad 0 #1 July 22, 2004 OK, I've changed my mind. JohnRich, Kennedy and yes, even Ol' Peaceful J himself are right! We here in the UK need GUNS! Figures released yesterday show violent crime in the UK up by 12%, in London its up by 37%!!!! Enough is enough! Fuck Iraq! Fuck Al Q and OBL too! Sort out this shithole that was once a country to be proud of Tony! Give me a gun or let me get out of this sesspit! [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074501.stm[url]When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #2 July 22, 2004 You have to wonder how that can be so, in a society where guns have been controlled for over 100 years, and in a country where you're not even allowed to use force to defend yourself. Surely it can't be so. There must be some mistake. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 July 22, 2004 Overall crime's up 1% and crime in three counties round me is down 3% 4% and 5%. I'm alright. Perhaps it's time we kicked the Yardies out of our cites... or just took their guns away... Who knows? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #4 July 22, 2004 It depends which figures you look at. I'm going by the crime reported figures. Still want a gun, A BIG GUN!!!!!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #5 July 22, 2004 I think we're using the same figures - the ones on national news this morning? Local news broke them down by county and those round Bristol ended up with a reduction in crime. Besides... BIG guns are fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #6 July 22, 2004 Hell Hath Frozen Over. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 July 22, 2004 QuoteOK, I've changed my mind. JohnRich, Kennedy and yes, even Ol' Peaceful J himself are right! We here in the UK need GUNS! Figures released yesterday show violent crime in the UK up by 12%, in London its up by 37%!!!! Enough is enough! Fuck Iraq! Fuck Al Q and OBL too! Sort out this shithole that was once a country to be proud of Tony! Give me a gun or let me get out of this sesspit! Pigs must be flying! Kennedy and Peaceful Jeffery: this must be some kind of trick. Don't trust him. He's probably just trying to infiltrate our ranks so that he can bring the pro gun-ownership crowd down from inside, and stop our quest for world domination and control. Don't let him do it! On the other hand, if this is for real, then I congratulate you, Skyrad, on facing the facts and realizing that gun control doesn't stop crime. All that was accomplished by the British gun ban was to confiscate property from lawful people who weren't part of the problem in the first place. Punishing the innocent has never stopped criminals from committing crimes. P.S. Buried in your text was the following web reference, which did not appear in your text due to a faulty html tag. I've added it here for the readers: BBC News ...and somebody tell me how this serial killer named Harold Shipman managed to murder 172 people without being caught! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #8 July 22, 2004 QuoteIt depends which figures you look at. I'm going by the crime reported figures. Still want a gun, A BIG GUN!!!!! It's not the size of the gun, it's how and if you'll use it! At least, that's what I keep telling myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #9 July 22, 2004 Hmmm… the article linked to points out that if you take away the 172 murders committed by Harold Shipman (a doc who euthanised a load of his patients) the murder rate has actually gone down… It also points out that the majority of incidents in the “violent crime” section are drunken brawls… not really the sort of crime that would be effected by people carrying firearms, at least not in a positive manner anyway. You sure Skyrad? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #10 July 22, 2004 QuoteHmmm… the article linked to points out that if you take away the 172 murders committed by Harold Shipman (a doc who euthanised a load of his patients) the murder rate has actually gone down… It also points out that the majority of incidents in the “violent crime” section are drunken brawls… not really the sort of crime that would be effected by people carrying firearms, at least not in a positive manner anyway. You sure Skyrad? Next year will be a bit better indication of this little gun experiment. Harold Shipman will no longer e running around killing people. Second the laws concerning pub hours will have changed. I am ot sure what an incredible problem binge drinking has been been in the past little while. It will be interesting to see if allowing longer hours will change the binge drinking habits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 July 22, 2004 QuoteNext year will be a bit better indication of this little gun experiment. Next year? I guess liberals have eternal hope when it comes to the efficacy of gun laws. The problem with your hope is that the gun ban went into effect in 1997, and for the years immediately following, gun crime went up. Thus, it has already proven itself to be a failure. It's a failure regardless of what happens next year. Unless you're ready to postulate some theory as to why a gun ban would have a 6-year delay before a turn-around in rising gun crime was achieved. But the logical response is to conclude that gun bans don't stop gun crime. See the attached, ever-popular chart of rising gun crime in the UK, and note what happened after 1997 when guns were confiscated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #12 July 22, 2004 Pretty sharp increase!!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #13 July 22, 2004 QuoteHmmm… the article ... also points out that the majority of incidents in the “violent crime” section are drunken brawls… Maybe if you banned alcohol... I shouldn't say that. I think your government is just stupid enough to try it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #14 July 23, 2004 QuoteMaybe if you banned alcohol... I shouldn't say that. I think your government is just stupid enough to try it. If you had half a clue about the situation, you would know that they are actually doing the exact opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #15 July 23, 2004 QuoteNext year? I guess liberals have eternal hope when it comes to the efficacy of gun laws. The problem with your hope is that the gun ban went into effect in 1997, and for the years immediately following, gun crime went up. Thus, it has already proven itself to be a failure. I didn't realize I had used the word hope in my post, you must be really good at reading between the lines. Or, do you think you know what I am thinking. Just based on how many times I am typing this today, I am starting to believe that Republicans have a bit of an assumption issue. QuoteThe problem with your hope is that the gun ban went into effect in 1997, and for the years immediately following, gun crime went up. Thus, it has already proven itself to be a failure. It's a failure regardless of what happens next year. Unless you're ready to postulate some theory as to why a gun ban would have a 6-year delay before a turn-around in rising gun crime was achieved. But the logical response is to conclude that gun bans don't stop gun crime. See, that to me is not really the logical conclusions. Mainly, because I cannot accept the notion that only gun ownership has an influence on gun crimes. There are other variables at play. Doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, also doesn't mean it is right. For me, it will be interesting to see if the changed pub hours will have an influence on violent crimes related to drunkeness. But then, I don't have your fascination with guns and wether or not people can carry them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #16 July 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe if you banned alcohol... I shouldn't say that. I think your government is just stupid enough to try it. If you had half a clue about the situation, you would know that they are actually doing the exact opposite. How 'bout you don't get personal with the attacks, eh? As a matter of fact, I do have more than half a clue about what is going on in this situation. The "thinking" of your governmental superiors is that Brits won't "binge drink" if the pubs are open til later into the night. They won't be in a rush to get their "last call" at 11:30 and then pound a shitload more than they can handle. I can't wait to see how this works out. "Too much drinking going on? Leave the bars open longer!!" Fault couldn't at all possibly lie with morons who just drink too much, and then become belligerent assholes. Nope. That would put too much focus on the human causes of the problem. Surely the problem is much more likely the result of poor scheduling. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 July 23, 2004 Does that chart include illegal possession of a firearm? hehehehehe I'm sorry, but if it does (and on the face of it it should as it's all recorded firearms crime simply broken down by firearm type) of course it's going to go up after possession is criminalised.... there are more things that are "criminal". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #18 July 23, 2004 "...and somebody tell me how this serial killer named Harold Shipman managed to murder 172 people without being caught! " Google, laddie, google! He was a doctor, and was using morphine cocktails to kill some of his elderly patients. Scary stuff, but not really a crime that onwership, or otherwise, of a gun could really have changed an awful lot. "He's probably just trying to infiltrate our ranks so that he can bring the pro gun-ownership crowd down from inside, and stop our quest for world domination and control." Dayumm, we've been rumbled.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #19 July 23, 2004 Quote"...and somebody tell me how this serial killer named Harold Shipman managed to murder 172 people without being caught! " Google, laddie, google! He was a doctor, and was using morphine cocktails to kill some of his elderly patients. Scary stuff, but not really a crime that onwership, or otherwise, of a gun could really have changed an awful lot. "He's probably just trying to infiltrate our ranks so that he can bring the pro gun-ownership crowd down from inside, and stop our quest for world domination and control." Dayumm, we've been rumbled. Handgun and rifle ownership was never big in the UK anyway. In 30 years of living there I only knew one handgun owner (and he was on the Olympic shooting team) and one rifle owner (a farmer). When I was into rifle shooting, we used club guns that were locked away afterwards. Do you have any idea how many guns were actually confiscated following the new law?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #20 July 23, 2004 QuoteDo you have any idea how many guns were actually confiscated following the new law? 160,000 guns were confiscated in a population of 58 million people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 July 23, 2004 QuoteI didn't realize I had used the word hope in my post, you must be really good at reading between the lines. What you said was; "Next year will be a bit better indication of this little gun experiment." Thus, my characterization that you "hoped" for a better indication. QuoteBut the logical response is to conclude that gun bans don't stop gun crime. QuoteSee, that to me is not really the logical conclusions. Mainly, because I cannot accept the notion that only gun ownership has an influence on gun crimes. There are other variables at play. Doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, also doesn't mean it is right. In other words, no matter what action you take to try and stop gun crime, even though they don't achieve the desired effect, you refuse to declare anything a failure. Using that philosophy you can justify virtually anything... QuoteBut then, I don't have your fascination with guns and wether or not people can carry them. I didn't realize I had used the word "fascination" in my post, you must be really good at reading between the lines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #22 July 23, 2004 Quote"...and somebody tell me how this serial killer named Harold Shipman managed to murder 172 people without being caught! " Google, laddie, google! He was a doctor, and was using morphine cocktails to kill some of his elderly patients. Someone should have noticed that a high proportion of his patients were dying, compared to other doctors. Uh-oh, now we need a way to tie this discussion of doctors into the subject of this thread; "guns". Ah, here's something topical: The number of physicians in the United States is 700,000. The number of accidental deaths they cause per year is up to 98,000. That comes to 0.14 accidental deaths per physician each year. The number of gun owners in the United States is 80 million. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,000. That comes to .0000125 accidental deaths per gun owner each year. Therefore, doctors are approximately 11,000 times more deadly in accidents than gun owners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #23 July 23, 2004 QuoteHandgun and rifle ownership was never big in the UK anyway. In 30 years of living there I only knew one handgun owner (and he was on the Olympic shooting team) and one rifle owner (a farmer). When I was into rifle shooting, we used club guns that were locked away afterwards. Do you have any idea how many guns were actually confiscated following the new law? Well, I think it would be helpful to ask ourselves, "What has been the goal of the gun bans in England, particularly if they started out with such a low rate of gun violence in the first place?" In particular, I'd like someone to explain why the gun ban had to be so strict that the British OLYMPIC SHOOTERS must now go out of the country to practice shooting for competition! Was it so necessary to prevent even Olympic shooters from having guns? Were they ever a big component in your crime statistics? "Man Shot in Pub By Olympic Shooter with Olympic Rifle" Yeah, right. I think that the fact that British gun laws don't even distinguish between criminals and Olympians is a telltale sign that they are unintelligently crafted, and done in bad faith. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #24 July 23, 2004 QuoteI think that the fact that British gun laws don't even distinguish between criminals and Olympians is a telltale sign that they are unintelligently crafted, and done in bad faith. Yes. And it gets even goofier. They banned signal cannons used to start yacht races. They even confiscated a jewel-encrusted handgun worth hundreds of thousands of dollars - and the taxpayers had to pay the compensation for that. I wonder if they have an official standing at the starting line of track and field sports, who specializes in yelling "BANG" to start races? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #25 July 23, 2004 QuoteI wonder if they have an official standing at the starting line of track and field sports, who specializes in yelling "BANG" to start races? They probably just have a guy smack two paint stirrer sticks together, or maybe make a loop with a leather trouser belt and pull the ends of the loop in opposite directions to make a "SLAP!" Those silly brits! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
