England: "Homicides Soar"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let's hug it out bitch!

Your gun is sticking in my hip

We have already established that I do not own a gun.

He knows!!!

"Love is in the air...."

More kisses, less weapons....

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

According to you a murder rate 1/50th (sic) of the U.S. is a huge failure if the murder rate nudges up a bit.

First, a 25% increase over 10 years is much more than just a "nudge" and a "bit". I'm surprised that you take such a trend so nonchalantly.

Second, you don't measure the success of a British gun law by comparing with America - that's the proverbial "apples and oranges". The proper way to measure it is by comparing Britain before the gun law, and Britain again after the gun law, to see what changes occurred. In that respect, you have a 25% increase, as highlighted by the news story. And that certainly sounds like a failure to me.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Phew! It sure is a good thing that in 1997 they banned handguns and semi-auto long guns!

Not correct... Picture of me firing a legal semi automatic long only a couple of weeks ago in the UK.

You're deceiving people. It looks like an AR-15 type rifle, which is generally semi-auto in centerfire .223 caliber. But those are banned in England. So why don't you explain how yours is different from the norm so that it still qualifies as legal. Is it .22 rimfire? If so, then that's not really an AR-15 type rifle, and it's but a small, limited exception to the law that bans semi-auto long guns. By saying that my statement was "incorrect", you were implying that semi-auto long guns are not banned at all, that anything still goes, and that is patently untrue.

Attached: photo of .223 versus .22 rimfire. I know which caliber I'd rather shoot: the .223 is good out to 600 yards. The .22 rimfire isn't worth crap beyond 100 yards. But I guess your government doesn't trust you with anything bigger than that little gnat cartridge.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I guess powerful firearms just aren't neccesary in every day life. Unless you are a big game hunter what need do you have for a high velocity rifle or fully automatic rifle, even a pistol.

Fortunately for us, we have the option to own things beyond what is "necessary in every day life". We don't need 300-horsepower cars, or parachutes, either, but it's sure nice to be able to buy them if that's what you want. This is called "freedom".

Quote

The trouble with firearms is any faggot can pick up a gun and shoot someone.

Yes, and they can also be used by millions of people safely in sport and for self defense. This is the balancing act that freedom requires. I'd rather have the freedom to own guns and have a few "faggots" abuse it, then to not have the freedom to own guns at all, and still have "faggots" shooting people anyway with black market guns. I'd rather let responsible people enjoy guns, than to treat an entire society as if they are no better than untrustworthy criminals.

Quote

They dont even need to get close. Its very impersonal and in my opinion a lot easier. We all know soldiers find it easier to shoot at silhouettes or distant figures than if you gave them a knife and told them to slit someones throat.

Have you noticed how bad knife crime is getting in England? It would seem that, failing guns, your criminals don't worry too much about getting up close and stabbing people with blades.

Quote

Maybe you could make it your life mission to visit every single victims family of those affected by gun crime and tell them that your doing the right thing.

Should we allow crime victims to decide for everyone else what freedoms they are allowed to enjoy? Should we let the victims of drunk drivers ban alcohol and automobiles? Should we let Cindy Sheehan determine U.S. foreign policy?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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.

That's one opinion. Now all you have to do is show me that everyone else who voted for and supported the ban felt the same way, and were not motivated by a belief that a gun ban would reduce gun crime in general. Go for it!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

According to you a murder rate 1/50th (sic) of the U.S. is a huge failure if the murder rate nudges up a bit.

First, a 25% increase over 10 years is much more than just a "nudge" and a "bit". I'm surprised that you take such a trend so nonchalantly.

When UK rates are so low a small increase is a large percentage. An equivalent increase would have been less than 5% in the USA. There are cultural influences that dwarf your pet cause as factors, like the rise in youth violence on housing estates and the increase in related drug useage. When I lived in the UK *NOBODY* worried that they'd be shot, criminals don't ever imagine they'll be confronted with a firearm when committing a crime either before or after the ban, it is a non factor, this is not about deterrance. Your pro-gun jingoism just doesn't translate.

You're the one comparing apples and oranges, not me. You're trying to establish cause and effect and you don't have clue one about the culture in the place you're deriving claims from. You live in a place with a murder rate 5X higher than the UK, the majority of them firearms related and you want to pontificate about gun legislation in a place you just don't understand.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Hey now wait!

Let's say:

I make widgets at my company where I produce 1,000,000 a year with 2 defects. The next year I make the same number of widgets but there is FOUR defects.

That is a 100% increase in defects!!!

Are you saying that the percentage increase alone might not be enough for me to worry?!?!?

balderdash.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[downwardspiral 0]

lol John you are way too practiced at this debate. Your opponents cower in your shadow by arguing over side points and avoiding the main issue...do gun bans increase or decrease violent gun crimes?

What I can't help but notice is they unofficially admit the gunban's failure to decrease violent gun crime by arguing theses side issues.

I have a couple questions.....

-What was the real intention of the 1997 UK gun ban if not to curb violent gun crime?

-What is the intention of banning pointy objects?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[dorbie 0]

I'm saying poorly applied statistics can be misleading especially when you start attributing cause & effect that just isn't supported by evidence or experience.

I grew up in the UK, anyone saying a gun ban has led to the increase in homicides is clearly misguided. These bans were an inconvenience for guys like me who occasionally hunted with semi-automatics but other factors dominate violent crime in the UK.

There's increasing drug useage and related crime, youth/mob violence, the ghettofication of council estates and many other social factors. If you increased the availability of guns to that mix you'd end up with a murder rate that was higher. An external or emerging social factor can have a large impact on violent crime that would be dwarfed in the US by the sheer numbers of murders but in the UK it dominates the statistics.

The only counter argument is the suggestion that guns reduce crime through deterrance. It just ain't like that in the UK, guns are rare in the UK, always have been and thugs have never worried about encountering them, before or after any bans.

All of this is ignored or discounted because it doesn't fit a domestic agenda favoring the 2nd amendment.

[GTAVercetti 0]

evidently, SC has caused you to miss the smiley faces I applied to my post.

But then I knew that would happen. This is SC after all.

Look ---->

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,132]

I think the commonly accepted standard is that you need at least ten smiley faces, a winky after each sentence and a DISCLAIMER notice to be assured of not being taken to task for a silly reply.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

lol John you are way too practiced at this debate. Your opponents cower in your shadow by arguing over side points and avoiding the main issue...do gun bans increase or decrease violent gun crimes?

What I can't help but notice is they unofficially admit the gunban's failure to decrease violent gun crime by arguing theses side issues.

I have a couple questions.....

-What was the real intention of the 1997 UK gun ban if not to curb violent gun crime?

-What is the intention of banning pointy objects?

You don't get to see what the alternative 10 years without the bans would have been like.

Either make the claim that gun ownership is a deterrent or give it up.

Anyone arguing that gun ownership in the UK is a deterrent for criminals sounds like a blithering fool to people who actually live there. You just have no idea how out of touch you seem.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I think the commonly accepted standard is that you need at least ten smiley faces, a winky after each sentence and a DISCLAIMER notice to be assured of not being taken to task for a silly reply.

Aww shit. That last reply only had seven.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

evidently, SC has caused you to miss the smiley faces I applied to my post.

But then I knew that would happen. This is SC after all.

Look ---->

You missed the sarcasm metatag, smileys are an ambiguous protocol.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

One, it is irrelenent to the thread and
Two, I am oh so tired of that debate.

One, it is relevant, since it goes to a scenario which is almost identical in which stated intentions are questioned.
Two, the debate about the similarities of these two situations and your opposite reaction to it has not been had.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

evidently, SC has caused you to miss the smiley faces I applied to my post.

But then I knew that would happen. This is SC after all.

Look ---->

You missed the sarcasm metatag, smileys are an ambiguous protocol.

I should use JSON notation instead. I am trying to get better at it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Scoop 0]

What do you mean ban pointy objects? If you mean knives then yes. They are prohibited and dealt with as bladed articles. Why does a person need to carry a dirty great big knife in the UK? Not like your surviving in the wilderness. I fail to see the relevance of this point. I assume that the carrying of knives on a person is also illegal in the US.

The purpose is so that when we search people and find a bladed article they are arrested and the article is seized. Its desired effect is to kurb knife crime and it has worked to a tremendous effect despite recent media publicity. The power to stop and searc and prosecute people carrying is an amazing tool at keeping our streets safe. As it happens, in all the searches I have conducted I have never found a knife and only ever arrested one person in posession of a knife who was walking down the road with a very real intent to use it there and then. Thats in 3 years, oh and as for firearm, I don't think many officers see a gun on the streets in their whole career

[SpeedRacer 1]

this points out the problem with applying the effects of gun laws in UK vs the USA. it's just different, and there are too many other factors.

a gun ban wouldn't work here in the USA, because there are already so many guns here. a ban won't make them magically disappear, nor will it have any affect on the ability of a criminal to obtain one.

But I can't say what would be appropriate for the UK.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

One, it is irrelenent to the thread and
Two, I am oh so tired of that debate.

One, it is relevant, since it goes to a scenario which is almost identical in which stated intentions are questioned.
Two, the debate about the similarities of these two situations and your opposite reaction to it has not been had.

Sighhhhhh

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

. I assume that the carrying of knives on a person is also illegal in the US.

It varies a lot from state to state and there are several factors:

http://www.thehighroad.org/library/blades/knifelaws.html

Kinda funny considering some of the comments about banning pointy things in the UK.

[Scoop 0]

Laws seem very similar to what we have in the main. Funny that we get criticised for it

[downwardspiral 0]

Wow....again you avoid my questions. Why are you even here? IF I didn't know better I'd think that you were calling anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a blithering fool. Clearly you are the smart one with evidence that the gunban is successful yet you deny us. Why deny us?

I defy you to bring forth your evidence that we are but misguided children that know nothing of the ways of the world.

I kill me

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Wow....again you avoid my questions. Why are you even here? IF I didn't know better I'd think that you were calling anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a blithering fool. Clearly you are the smart one with evidence that the gunban is successful yet you deny us. Why deny us?

I defy you to bring forth your evidence that we are but misguided children that know nothing of the ways of the world.

I kill me

Well I guess I'm not here to answer your questions.

I've posted a clear and reasoned position. You don't get to see the alternative and are left comparing apples to oranges while selectively ignoring other factors in a culture you know nothing about.

Your other issues ain't my problem.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Laws seem very similar to what we have in the main. Funny that we get criticised for it

In a lot of places yes. Scroll down a bit, check out South Carolina, SC
Of course there are some really draconian laws in places, if you actually get caught with a weapon. In Texas if you're caught with a bladed weapon in a bar it's 25 Years hard time. Land of the free baby!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

That's one opinion.

No; that's an official statement from the head of the department of the Government that introduced and used their overwhelming majority in the legislature to pass the legislation in question.

(Remember this legislation was passed by a system of Government which uses Parliamentary party politics, cabinet responsibility, and the strongest whip system the English Parliament has ever known).

What that one man says goes. He's not just someone expressing an opinion; he's a member of the cabinet, and the minister in charge of the department that actually drafted the legislation in question.

The statement he made was made in the House of Commons in response to a written question by another Minister of Parliament. In that capacity he is speaking as the voice of the Government elect.

It's not just one man's opinion. It is the authoritative statement on the matter by the spokesman for the body which conceived, drafted, and passed the legislation in question.

There is a very good reason why I used that statement above all others.