London: Gun Victims Treble

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Um, more people were armed before 1997 - that's the year when the guns were confiscated. That's when the gun shootings were three times less than they are now. So quit shuddering and face reality: guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens bears no relationship to the amount of gun crime.

...You argue that criminals are the problem not the legal firearms (which I agree with) however, you also seem to use this as an argument to scrap gun controls. In which case you would make firarms even more widely available in a society which has a violent culture. So you'd be arming the criminals. Also you keep mentioning the period before the gun ban without realising that handguns still had to be locked away in gun cabnets and it was still illegal to carry the firearm for self protection.

So let's see. The handguns that were owned before the ban, produced very little gun crime.

Those handguns have now been confiscated, and three times more people are being shot in London.

But you're claiming that if you gave those same people their same guns back, returning them to just as they were pre-1997, then gun crime would grow even more terrible than now?

No, I don't think so. The pre-1997 gun owners weren't a problem then, and if you gave them their guns back, they still wouldn't be a problem.

The problem is the criminals - that's what has grown in the meantime. All the criminals that want guns can still get them. Taking them away from the law-abiding has obviously had no effect upon that, as shown by the news story at the top of this thread.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Anyone that actaully lives in the UK knows the Sunday Mirror is a pathetic tabloiad known for its sensationalism. Its always better to go the official statistics and check them out for yourself:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

If you look at the number of homicide victims by shooting in 2006 it was 39.

You get an "A" for being willing to do research.

However, you get an "F" for inability to apply that research properly in comparison to the news story which started this thread.

That story was about the number of people that have been hurt or killed, not just about the number of people murdered. There's a difference. Plenty of people get shot with guns, but don't die.

So the stats you quote do nothing to prove that the story in the Sunday Mirror is sensationalism. And in fact, the numbers they quote come from the government - the same people in whom you placed credibility.

So just because you may consider this publication a tabloid for some stories, doesn't mean that this story is incorrect.

[nigel99 588]

Quote

But you're claiming that if you gave those same people their same guns back, returning them to just as they were pre-1997, then gun crime would grow even more terrible than now?

No, I don't think so. The pre-1997 gun owners weren't a problem then, and if you gave them their guns back, they still wouldn't be a problem.

Isn't the point of gun control laws that they give the police the ability to prosecute a person BEFORE they commit a crime. So by allowing legal ownership the police don't have the ability to separate the wheat from the Chav. In theory the police have an easier job preventing gun crime although something tells me that figures for prevented crime are hard to come by.

Surely you aren't arguing that by reversing the ban crime would reduce?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[1969912 0]

Quote

....separate the wheat from the Chav

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Isn't the point of gun control laws that they give the police the ability to prosecute a person BEFORE they commit a crime.

Doesn't that idea scare you when you say it? It should.

Mere ownership of a gun does not mean that someone is bound to commit a future crime, and people shouldn't be arrested who haven't done anything wrong with their gun.

Likewise, eliminating the requirement for warrants and probable cause before searching homes, could be argued to give the police the ability to stop crimes before they occur. But I sure as heck wouldn't advocate for it, for reasons of civil liberty.

Quote

Surely you aren't arguing that by reversing the ban crime would reduce?

No. It would have no significant effect upon gun crime, either way, IMO. And since said effect is negligible, people shouldn't be deprived of their property on that basis.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

OK then let' switch that to razor blades in the soles of boots, and molotov cocktails.

Showing your age now old boy

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

[Skyrad 0]

Are stabbings big over there?

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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I think Skyrad has made a good point about the UK side of things, and besides not growing up around guns it would appear that there are less "legal" outlets for gun fan's anyway. Space is at a premium and I don't know how many shooting ranges exist across the UK but I doubt there are many. I guess there is the pheasant hunting crowd but that is a small minority.

As people speculate about the gun ban - I assume it was brought in to address a growing problem and therefore you can't tell if it worked or not (would we have 10x the gun-crime without it?).

Actually you'd be suprised just how many shooting clubs there are and not just Shotgun either. I belong to a rifle and pistol club and its only one of several in London alone. But compared to the states Brits generally don't grow up around 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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Um, more people were armed before 1997 - that's the year when the guns were confiscated. That's when the gun shootings were three times less than they are now. So quit shuddering and face reality: guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens bears no relationship to the amount of gun crime.

...You argue that criminals are the problem not the legal firearms (which I agree with) however, you also seem to use this as an argument to scrap gun controls. In which case you would make firarms even more widely available in a society which has a violent culture. So you'd be arming the criminals. Also you keep mentioning the period before the gun ban without realising that handguns still had to be locked away in gun cabnets and it was still illegal to carry the firearm for self protection.

So let's see. The handguns that were owned before the ban, produced very little gun crime.

Those handguns have now been confiscated, and three times more people are being shot in London.

But you're claiming that if you gave those same people their same guns back, returning them to just as they were pre-1997, then gun crime would grow even more terrible than now?

No, I don't think so. The pre-1997 gun owners weren't a problem then, and if you gave them their guns back, they still wouldn't be a problem.

The problem is the criminals - that's what has grown in the meantime. All the criminals that want guns can still get them. Taking them away from the law-abiding has obviously had no effect upon that, as shown by the news story at the top of this thread.

While we are in agreemnet about most of what you have posted here you make an assumption that 'All the criminals that want guns can still get them.' While I don't disagree that firearms are available on the streets of Britain I disagree that all criminals that want guns can get them.
I also agree that the legal handgun owners were not large contributary factor in gun crime. However, you have repeatedly argued against ANY form of gun control. In that event any owner of a gun would be legal including the criminals that would like a gun but don't yet have one. In such an event you would most certainly see a rise in gun crime by 'legal' owners.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

....separate the wheat from the Chav

Yea, that was funny

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

However, you have repeatedly argued against ANY form of gun control. In that event any owner of a gun would be legal including the criminals that would like a gun but don't yet have one.

Not true. I'm entirely in favor of prohibiting people with violent criminal history records from legally owning guns.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Are stabbings big over there?

Criminals use guns for ~60% of homicides here. I'll look up the stabbing data.


Check out these free plans for a DIY 9mm Full-Auto Pistol


From: http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[nigel99 588]

Quote

Doesn't that idea scare you when you say it? It should.

No this is very different to "thought" crimes. By providing the police with the means to proactively deprive a violent person of their liberty they MAY avert the loss of life. Don't take this to mean that I think gun ownership is wrong and that all gun owners want to kill people. I do feel that the UK is rapidly implementing thought crime laws (the literary terrrorist is a recent example).

Criminals will find a way to arm themselves despite the law I don't think you can focus on that angle as if you purely view a gun ban from that vantage point they are truly pointless. However I do feel that it enables the police to more effectively control violent people. You may be able to control the minority through licensing regimes and the likes but that costs quite a lot of money for a small number of people to have their hobby. As Skyrad has pointed out their are rifle clubs and I am aware of a number of pheasant shoots and clay pigeon clubs where people can still play with guns there are just less guns in homes than in the US. Which on a side note having seen the damage a 0.308 round did to a 4.5" brick wall I would not want a neighbour in a terraced house to be armed as we may well get caught in the "cross fire" if they fired a weapon in doors!

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Actually you'd be suprised just how many shooting clubs there are and not just Shotgun either. I belong to a rifle and pistol club and its only one of several in London alone. But compared to the states Brits generally don't grow up around firearms.

Yeah, .50 BMG's are even allowed, unlike in California http://www.fcsa.co.uk/


How much protest was there in the UK over the Firearms Acts in '88 and '97? Are there organized groups like the NRA that fight new laws? Over here the NRA is (or was) very powerful politically, with over 4 million members.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

However, you have repeatedly argued against ANY form of gun control. In that event any owner of a gun would be legal including the criminals that would like a gun but don't yet have one.

Not true. I'm entirely in favor of prohibiting people with violent criminal history records from legally owning guns.

But you are not in favor of doing anything to enforce such a ban if it causes you the slightest inconvenience, and then you happily bray that such prohibitions don't work because "criminals will always get guns" (You wrote that just last week).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Which on a side note having seen the damage a 0.308 round did to a 4.5" brick wall I would not want a neighbour in a terraced house to be armed as we may well get caught in the "cross fire" if they fired a weapon in doors!

AFAIK .308 single shot rifles are not prohibited in England/Wales. Do people shoot guns in their houses often? Kidding. Actually, in high school a friend and I built a bullet trap so we could shoot .22's in his basement. It was made of steel and deflected the slugs downward into a stack of old phone books. Worked great, but it was a bit noisy w/o earmuffs. We used it mostly for test firing our homemade guns

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Which on a side note having seen the damage a 0.308 round did to a 4.5" brick wall I would not want a neighbour in a terraced house to be armed as we may well get caught in the "cross fire" if they fired a weapon in doors!

AFAIK .308 single shot rifles are not prohibited in England/Wales. Do people shoot guns in their houses often? Kidding. Actually, in high school a friend and I built a bullet trap so we could shoot .22's in his basement. It was made of steel and deflected the slugs downward into a stack of old phone books. Worked great, but it was a bit noisy w/o earmuffs. We used it mostly for test firing our homemade guns

Strangely enough my room in college (back in the '60s) had a big area of patched plaster on one wall. Apparently a former student, one Christopher Roads, had fired a small bore target pistol at the wall at some time, for which he got into a certain amount of trouble with the college authorities.

Chris Roads went on to be a member of the UK Olympic team, then deputy director of the Imperial War Museum and producer of the BBC documentary "The Gun" (and author of its associated book). He was also the driving force behind turning Duxford Airfield into Europe's largest aviation museum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

But you are not in favor of doing anything to enforce such a ban if it causes you the slightest inconvenience, and then you happily bray that such prohibitions don't work because "criminals will always get guns"


Criminals will always get guns if they want them. Consider England as an example. They are much less homicidal than us, and don't have anywhere near the per capita gun possession that we do (6/100 people v. 90/100 people). Also, they have had strict national licensing, etc. since at least the 1930's. All legally owned guns in the country were registered if required, so when some guns were later banned, there was a high compliance rate. Additionally, the British citizens were likely much more willing to accept more restrictions the us. Should be easy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, right? Well, since the 1988 and 1997 restricions their firearm murder rate has not undergone a statistically significant change in either direction, and criminals are still getting guns. People can get them illegally by mail, locally through the black market, or whatever. People are even converting BB guns into .22 Cal rifles. Ditto for blank sports starting guns and even deactivated (chamber/barrel welded in) firearms.

Considering the homicidal nature of US criminals and the huge supply of weapons here, I can't think of what might work. I don't know the details of your proposal, though, so fill me in.


EDIT: Ooops, just found the thread with your proposal.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

But you are not in favor of doing anything to enforce such a ban if it causes you the slightest inconvenience, and then you happily bray that such prohibitions don't work because "criminals will always get guns"

Criminals will always get guns if they want them.

QED

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But you are not in favor of doing anything to enforce such a ban if it causes you the slightest inconvenience, and then you happily bray that such prohibitions don't work because "criminals will always get guns"

Criminals will always get guns if they want them.

QED

What does Quantum Electrodynamics have to do with it? Are you saying that my analysis/example is "Feynman-esq"? Possibly worthy of a Nobel Prize?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Strangely enough my room in college (back in the '60s) had a big area of patched plaster on one wall. Apparently a former student, one Christopher Roads, had fired a small bore target pistol at the wall at some time, for which he got into a certain amount of trouble with the college authorities.

Chris Roads went on to be a member of the UK Olympic team, then deputy director of the Imperial War Museum and producer of the BBC documentary "The Gun" (and author of its associated book). He was also the driving force behind turning Duxford Airfield into Europe's largest aviation museum.

Guns and booze are a great combination for college parties


Sounds like an interesting guy. His book is out of print, but available on the used market.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Strangely enough my room in college (back in the '60s) had a big area of patched plaster on one wall. Apparently a former student, one Christopher Roads, had fired a small bore target pistol at the wall at some time, for which he got into a certain amount of trouble with the college authorities.

Chris Roads went on to be a member of the UK Olympic team, then deputy director of the Imperial War Museum and producer of the BBC documentary "The Gun" (and author of its associated book). He was also the driving force behind turning Duxford Airfield into Europe's largest aviation museum.

Guns and booze are a great combination for college parties


Sounds like an interesting guy. His book is out of print, but available on the used market.

We had lots of interesting students at Cambridge in the '60s, like Eric Idle, Graham Chapman and John Cleese, Stephen Hawking, Brian Josephson, Arianna Stassinopoulos (now Huffington), Sonia Antonia Maino (now Ghandi), most of Pink Floyd, and me. I was the only one that took up skydiving, though.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Are stabbings big over there?

Here's some info:


2004 Data

Total 100% 14,121

Firearms: 66% (9,326) [7,265 Handguns]

Knives: 13% (1,866)

(clubs, hammers...) 5% (663)

(hands, fists, feet...) 7% (933)

Poison (11)

Explosives (1)

Fire (114)

Narcotics (76)

Drowning (15)

Strangulation (155)

Asphyxiation (105)

Other 6% (856)

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, you have repeatedly argued against ANY form of gun control. In that event any owner of a gun would be legal including the criminals that would like a gun but don't yet have one.

Not true. I'm entirely in favor of prohibiting people with violent criminal history records from legally owning guns.

But you are not in favor of doing anything to enforce such a ban if it causes you the slightest inconvenience, and then you happily bray that such prohibitions don't work because "criminals will always get guns" (You wrote that just last week).

How's that gun ban working out in DC, Professor?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, you have repeatedly argued against ANY form of gun control. In that event any owner of a gun would be legal including the criminals that would like a gun but don't yet have one.

Not true. I'm entirely in favor of prohibiting people with violent criminal history records from legally owning guns.

But you are not in favor of doing anything to enforce such a ban if it causes you the slightest inconvenience, and then you happily bray that such prohibitions don't work because "criminals will always get guns" (You wrote that just last week).

How's that gun ban working out in DC, Professor?

Could be better, but for the presence of Virginia a mile away.

As I wrote previously, a patchwork of different laws is absolutely useless, which is why you gun enthusiasts are so adamantly opposed to actually doing anything about it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.