England: "Homicides Soar"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The guns were banned under the theory that it would reduce gun murder. It hasn't.

I'm getting tired of pointing out to people when you are lying to them John.

We have been over this before and I have previously warned you that I would simply out you as a liar next time you spouted the same old drivel.

I shall, once again, quote Home Secretary Charles Clarke who said in Parliament, in response to a direct question relating to the effect of the ban on homicides: "The ban on handguns was a direct response to the tragic shootings at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996, which were carried out with legally held handguns. It did not purport to solve the more general problem of armed crime, the vast majority of which is carried out using illegally held firearms."

One more time John; the handgun ban was not intended to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill gun crime and was certainly not directed at resolving homicides in general.

Would it help if we made a catchy song out of it?

This is at least the third time I have given you this quote. What are people to think of you when they know you have repeatedly been made aware of the true rationale for the ban and still say, "The guns were banned under the theory that it would reduce gun murder."?

Are they to conclude you simply lack the ability to take in information or should they conclude you willfully present information you know to be false?

You are calling him a liar because the law did not have the "intentions" of something ???? Not that is a creative angle.

What about the realized activities hum??

I have not followed the UK gun ban other than to follow crime stats trends. It would seem that the "trends" and not the "intentions" support Johns position me thinks.

Also, if guns were not banned to cure crimes then why would you want to do it?

Your being lied to, but not by John IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

You are calling him a liar because the law did not have the "intentions" of something ????

No. We are all well aware a stack of pages cannot have "intentions" – but you should also be well aware that the Parliament that drafted that stack of pages certainly can. Re-read my post - I did not say the ban had any intentions. I said "the ban was not intended to have..." - ie intended to have by Parliament. Parliament is sentient; it can have "intentions". A very different statement.

My issue is that John is well aware from our previous discussions exactly what the perceived problem was that Parliament was trying to solve when they passed the 1997 legislation. He knows from our previous discussions that Parliament did not intend the 1997 legislation to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill firearms offences in the UK.

Despite this documented knowledge he still posts, "The guns were banned under the theory that it would reduce gun murder." This is the exact opposite of the truth. We can demonstrate that he is aware of the truth because of his past posting history on this subject.

He is willfully posting something which is the opposite of what we can demonstrate he knows to be the truth. What would you call that?

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Quote

John, honestly, out of curiosity, how many times does a gun intended for home protection injure or kill someone other than an intruder?

Quote:

"At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking the gun away from the victim (authors analysis of NCS data). Even these few cases did not necessarily involve the offender snatching the gun out of the victim's hands. Instead a burglar might, for example, have been leaving a home with one of the household's guns when a resident attempted to stop him using another household gun."

Source: Gary Kleck, PhD, "Point Blank; Guns and Crime in America", Walter de Gruyter Press, 1991. Data from "1975-1985 National Crime Survey", Dept. of Justice.

In other words, in 99% of the cases, the gun belonging to the intended victim either helped in self-defense, or was at worst neutral. Those are good odds in favor of the victim! And in the 1% of cases where the gun was taken, it doesn't necessarily mean that the homeowner was shot.

The odds of being a victim of violent crime are about 1,000 times more likely than the odds of accidentally shooting yourself.

That quotation and post has absolutely nothing to do with the question you were asked. You were asked how likely someone is to injure themselves with their own gun. You posted how likely someone is to have their gun stolen and used against them during a home invasion. Deliberate misinformation?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

My issue is that John is well aware from our previous discussions exactly what the perceived problem was that Parliament was trying to solve when they passed the 1997 legislation. He knows from our previous discussions that Parliament did not intend the 1997 legislation to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill firearms offences in the UK.

Quote

So help me here. What was banning handguns supposed to accomplish/fix if it was not intended to fix violent gun crime?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

My issue is that John is well aware from our previous discussions exactly what the perceived problem was that Parliament was trying to solve when they passed the 1997 legislation. He knows from our previous discussions that Parliament did not intend the 1997 legislation to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill firearms offences in the UK.

Quote

So help me here. What was banning handguns supposed to accomplish/fix if it was not intended to fix violent gun crime?

Unlike in certain parts of the states it wasn't legal to wander around carrying firearms in public. This law was passed as a knee jerk reaction to the acts of a couple of mentaly unstable people who went on couple of killing sprees. It had nothing to do really with preventing deaths and everything to do with getting a popular vote on the back of a scared public.

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

The clue is in the quote I posted. The legislation was supposed to help prevent Dunblane type incidents.

Here's an earlier post of mine... to John... explaining... at length... what the ban was all about. It's one of many: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2253313#2253313

Funnily enough I provide him with the above quote there too - it was only about a month and a half ago. One must wonder why he is now apparently ignorant of the information contained therein.

You'll also note I'm not actually a fan of the legislation myself...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

My issue is that John is well aware from our previous discussions exactly what the perceived problem was that Parliament was trying to solve when they passed the 1997 legislation. He knows from our previous discussions that Parliament did not intend the 1997 legislation to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill firearms offences in the UK.

Quote

So help me here. What was banning handguns supposed to accomplish/fix if it was not intended to fix violent gun crime?

Unlike in certain parts of the states it wasn't legal to wander around carrying firearms in public. This law was passed as a knee jerk reaction to the acts of a couple of mentaly unstable people who went on a killing spree. It had nothing to do really with preventing deaths and everything to do with getting a popular vote on the back of a scared public.

As you probably have gathered I am asking some leading questions to bolster an early point I was trying to make and I think you have hit it on the head.

But even if this was a knee jerk reaction, still wouldn't one assume that the "intent" was to reduce gun/violent crime? I mean from a public point of view? Why else would it be done if not for that?

Thanks for the info in any event.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My issue is that John is well aware from our previous discussions exactly what the perceived problem was that Parliament was trying to solve when they passed the 1997 legislation. He knows from our previous discussions that Parliament did not intend the 1997 legislation to have any positive effect on run-of-the-mill firearms offences in the UK.

Quote

So help me here. What was banning handguns supposed to accomplish/fix if it was not intended to fix violent gun crime?

Unlike in certain parts of the states it wasn't legal to wander around carrying firearms in public. This law was passed as a knee jerk reaction to the acts of a couple of mentaly unstable people who went on a killing spree. It had nothing to do really with preventing deaths and everything to do with getting a popular vote on the back of a scared public.

As you probably have gathered I am asking some leading questions to bolster an early point I was trying to make and I think you have hit it on the head.

But even if this was a knee jerk reaction, still wouldn't one assume that the "intent" was to reduce gun/violent crime? I mean from a public point of view? Why else would it be done if not for that?

Thanks for the info in any event.

Because since the 1920's the British Home Office has strived to ensure that the only legal firearms in the Uk are those under their control. (Excuse me while I put on my foil hat)

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The clue is in the quote I posted. The legislation was supposed to help prevent Dunblane type incidents.

Here's an earlier post of mine... to John... explaining... at length... what the ban was all about. It's one of many: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2253313#2253313

Funnily enough I provide him with the above quote there too - it was only about a month and a half ago. One must wonder why he is now apparently ignorant of the information contained therein.

You'll also note I'm not actually a fan of the legislation myself...

Thanks but I do not buy it. If this law was a reaction to a crime, what other perception would the public have of this law other than it is "intended" to reduce/eliminate violent gun crime? Regardless of what they "say" I can't see anyother reason for a public to endorce a law such as this ban.

So once again I ask, who is really being lied to here?

No inuendo intended

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

The clue is in the quote I posted. The legislation was supposed to help prevent Dunblane type incidents.

Here's an earlier post of mine... to John... explaining... at length... what the ban was all about. It's one of many: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2253313#2253313


Funnily enough I provide him with the above quote there too - it was only about a month and a half ago. One must wonder why he is now apparently ignorant of the information contained therein.

You'll also note I'm not actually a fan of the legislation myself...

Thanks but I do not buy it. If this law was a reaction to a crime, what other perception would the public have of this law other than it is "intended" to reduce/eliminate violent gun crime? Regardless of what they "say" I can't see anyother reason for a public to endorce a law such as this ban.

So once again I ask, who is really being lied to here?

No inuendo intended

Unlike in countries where firearms are widely available in the UK people do not grow up (generaly) with firearms. Hence they get their perception of them and the people that use them from films ergo most are bloody scared of them because they know nothing about them and belive that the only reason for having them is to kill people. Therefore it was easy to get the public behind a gun ban. Also for the same reason it wouldn't be a good idea to just let an uninformed and uneducated public who hold such belifes have access to totaly unrestricted firearms.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Thanks but I do not buy it. If this law was a reaction to a crime, what other perception would the public have of this law other than it is "intended" to reduce/eliminate violent gun crime? Regardless of what they "say" I can't see anyother reason for a public to endorce a law such as this ban.

Please stop redefining the question because you don't like the answer. It is really, really annoying to see someone arguing sideways like that.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Two points.

Firstly, I do not consider, (and more to the point I don't think many people consider), the slaughter at the primary school, (kids aged 4-10), in Dunblane to be terribly analogous to your average gun crime.

Secondly, John did not comment on what people think the legislature was trying to achieve with the 1997 legislation. He commented on the actual rationale of the legislature. I've posted above a quote from the horse's mouth as to what that rationale was. It specifically excludes any allusion to a theory that the ban would reduce common or garden gun crime.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Thanks but I do not buy it. If this law was a reaction to a crime, what other perception would the public have of this law other than it is "intended" to reduce/eliminate violent gun crime? Regardless of what they "say" I can't see anyother reason for a public to endorce a law such as this ban.

Please stop redefining the question because you don't like the answer. It is really, really annoying to see someone arguing sideways like that.

First, I don't have to stop anything just because you are anoyed. If you can't follow the logic then stop reading the thread and
Second, I am redifining nothing and
Third, I don't care about the answer one way or another. It is the UK after all and I could care less other than for comparisons only.

Now breath...........breath...........thats better, relax....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Two points.

Firstly, I do not consider, (and more to the point I don't think many people consider), the slaughter at the primary school, (kids aged 4-10), in Dunblane to be terribly analogous to your average gun crime.

Secondly, John did not comment on what people think the legislature was trying to achieve with the 1997 legislation. He commented on the actual rationale of the legislature. I've posted above a quote from the horse's mouth as to what that rationale was. It specifically excludes any allusion to a theory that the ban would reduce common or garden gun crime.

OK, I get your point. My point questions the stated intend vs what was actually intended. I believe, regarless of the stated intend, the actual intent was to disarm the public. I can see no other logical reason for it. Again, this is just my impression.

Second, I made no comment about what is a normal crime.

Again, I really don't care what the people do or do not acept or want in the UK. I don't think it is any of my business. I only responded to the lie comment and took it out a little farther to make a point.

Thanks for the info in any event. A logical exchange of info and ideas is fun and enlightening and I have learned something today.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

OK, I get your point. My point questions the stated intend vs what was actually intended.

You mean like a couple of recent State of the Union addresses?

[miked10270 0]

One small point on this discussion...

Surely "Homicides" don't SOAR... They'd sort of...FLOP!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, I get your point. My point questions the stated intend vs what was actually intended.

You mean like a couple of recent State of the Union addresses?

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

and , why hijack the thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

of course you would say that....don't quite see how though.....

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

One small point on this discussion...

Surely "Homicides" don't SOAR... They'd sort of...FLOP!

Mike.

Very good..

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Surely "Homicides" don't SOAR... They'd sort of...FLOP!

Does give the impression of a sort of Popeye-esque homicide by wound-up uppercut to the jaw doesn't it.

You can kind of imagine Bluto soaring off into the distance in a parabola coupled with a "sock" sound effect followed by a falling bomb type "whistle".

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

Surely "Homicides" don't SOAR... They'd sort of...FLOP!

....
a sort of Popeye-esque homicide by wound-up uppercut to the jaw...

... Bluto soaring off into the distance in a parabola...

I *had* imagined some gun-crazed, ageing politician with poor eyesight blasting away at hang-gliders thinking he was shooting duck...

But that image tends to send this thread back towards Texas.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

of course you would say that....don't quite see how though.....

You decided to take this thread down the shitter in a heartbeat now didn't you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You decided to take this thread down the shitter in a heartbeat now didn't you

I take it you dont know how to back up your statement that it is comparing apples to oranges?

[wmw999 2,602]

They told you the stated rationale for the legislation; they gave you their reasons for stating it (the reasons appear to be well-backed). They told you about British culture simply being different from the American.

They are British. They live there, understand the culture, and know that it's different from the US. I'll bet that they have a lot more exposure to American culture and mores than you have to British.

You don't believe them. You choose to believe as you wish, regardless of what is told you by people who are closer to the issue.

And I do see the parallel about "saying one thing and meaning another" between the White House and British Parliament.

There are many veiwpoints and filters in the world. When it comes to stuff like this, there isn't "truth" and "lies." Motivations are not either-or things.

Wendy w.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)