London: Gun Victims Treble

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the families of the gun homicides mentioned in the Home Office report are comforted by the fact that it wasn't a LEGAL gun that killed their loved ones, as well...

OK, just as I thought, you don't really have a point, only white noise.
Bye bye.

Vale

Funny, I was just thinking that about your posts, as well.

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

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm sure the families of the gun homicides mentioned in the Home Office report are comforted by the fact that it wasn't a LEGAL gun that killed their loved ones, as well...

OK, just as I thought, you don't really have a point, only white noise.
Bye bye.

Vale

Funny, I was just thinking that about your posts, as well.

I'm flattered. Really, I am.

Vale

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Except that you can't say it won't happen "ever again" - you can only say "it hasn't happened since".

Excuse me, what is it exactly that I cannot say will happen "ever again". Just want to make sure you understand what is actually being discussed before replying to you.
Cheers,

Valentino

Can't remember what you wrote? Let me refresh your memory:

"prevent events like Dunblane and Hungerford from happening ever again."

And what exactly happened at Dunblane and Hungerford?

Vale

We all know quite well what happened there - quit playing the innocent.

It is your presumption that they "can never happen again" that is incorrect, as you well know.

Ok, since you're not playing along, I'll just state plainly what is by now quite obvious to everybody but you, apparently.
So, what happened at Dunblade and Hungerford was that a common, law-abiding citizen, went bonkers and shot up a bunch of people with his legally acquired and owned guns. As a result, legislation was passed making it illegal for private citizens to acquire and own that type of firearm.
So, as of today:

1 - all previously owned handguns have been confiscated, with no exception (gun registry)
1 - it is impossible for a private citizen to acquire a handgun legally, as no gun shop is allowed to sell them any more.OK, so by your logic there should not longer be any crimes commited using a gun there. Is that the case? Also, gun crime numbers should have decreased since then. It that true as well?

As a result of this there are no legally owned handguns in the hands of any British citizen, and this will remain so as long as this legislation is not repealed.To repeat.OK, so by your logic there should not longer be any crimes commited using a gun there. Is that the case? Also, gun crime numbers should have decreased since then. It that true as well?

So, in light of this, care to explain to all of us how the fuck a British citizen that decides to go berserk is going to shoot up a bunch of people with a handgun he, as a matter of fact, does not and cannot own? I hardly think that pointing his index finger at people and going "Pow pow!" with his mouth will have quite the same effect, wouldn't you agree?
It's quite clear that, as long as this legislation is in effect, what the legislator wanted to prevent is, in fact, never going to happen.One more time in case you did not get it..OK, so by your logic there should not longer be any crimes commited using a gun there. Is that the case? Also, gun crime numbers should have decreased since then. It that true as well?
Care to explain why you think differently?
Cheers,

Vale

You can fool yourself if you want to. I think I will keep my eyes open

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

[DZJ 0]

You've managed to completely miss the point. Both Hungerford and Dunblane were committed by licensed firearms holders who decided to commit atrocities. Now that the amount of firepower available to civilians is more tightly controlled, any gun owner who should 'snap' and go on a spontaneous rampage is unlikely to have the same firepower available to him.

Thus the 1997 legislation has succeeded in its stated intent.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

OK, so by your logic there should not longer be any crimes commited using a gun there. Is that the case? Also, gun crime numbers should have decreased since then. It that true as well?

No, that is only by your own logic, although I would hesitate to call it that. Unless you actually mean "there should no longer be any crimes committed using a legally owned gun there", in which case the statement is obviously and irrefutably true. And, pray tell, why should gun crime numbers have decreased since then? I really see no reason why they should have.
Cheers,

Vale

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You've managed to completely miss the point. Both Hungerford and Dunblane were committed by licensed firearms holders who decided to commit atrocities. Now that the amount of firepower available to civilians is more tightly controlled, any gun owner who should 'snap' and go on a spontaneous rampage is unlikely to have the same firepower available to him.

Thus the 1997 legislation has succeeded in its stated intent.

Sorry, but I did not miss the point. I understand what is trying to be said completetly. It seems you have missed or ignored mine.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You've managed to completely miss the point.

Actually, you and your fellow posters discussing Dunblane and Hungerford have missed the point. The crime being discussed in the OP and throughout the thread is, I doubt, perpetrated by law-abiding gun owners. The fact that you have the make the differentiation at all in response to the ban proves it was ineffective in preventing crime and was nothing but a "feel-good" measure.

That said, I'm sure the victims and their families are quite comforted knowing that the crimes were committed with illegal rather than legal weapons.

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, so by your logic there should not longer be any crimes commited using a gun there. Is that the case? Also, gun crime numbers should have decreased since then. It that true as well?

No, that is only by your own logic, although I would hesitate to call it that. Unless you actually mean "there should no longer be any crimes committed using a legally owned gun there", in which case the statement is obviously and irrefutably true. And, pray tell, why should gun crime numbers have decreased since then? I really see no reason why they should have.
Cheers,

Vale

By your logic, you are implying that this kind of crime will never happen again because you have remove hand guns from those who, at the time, legally could own them. And then by extension, you are implying because you have done this, this type of crime will never happen again. Also, a position constantly taken is, since you now have fewer legally owned guns, gun crime will decrease.

Conclusion? You can not say that the kind of crime you speak of will not ever happen there again nor can you show crimes committed with guns have decreased since the ban was implemented.

And you want to fault my logic?

You are fooling yourself over a feel good peice of law.

I am not saying your country should allow more gun ownership. All I ask it that you do not try to extend your faulted logic to my country. Why? Because you can not make the case

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

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

You've managed to completely miss the point.

Actually, you and your fellow posters discussing Dunblane and Hungerford have missed the point. The crime being discussed in the OP and throughout the thread is, I doubt, perpetrated by law-abiding gun owners. The fact that you have the make the differentiation at all in response to the ban proves it was ineffective in preventing crime and was nothing but a "feel-good" measure.

That said, I'm sure the victims and their families are quite comforted knowing that the crimes were committed with illegal rather than legal weapons.

OK, I swear this is my last post in this thread, as this has clearly become a complete waste of time.
Firstly, the fact that we keep bringing up Dunblane and Hungerford is because this piece of legislation was always meant to address that type of incident, and nothing else. Not gun crime, regardless of whether committed with legally held guns or otherwise, not terrorism, not world peace or anything else. I'm sorry if that's not the way you'd like it, but reality often has a tendency to dissatisfy lots of people, it's possibly one of its major drawbacks.
The legislation never had anything to do with gun crime, it was never supposed to affect the crime rate in any way and the fact that it actually didn't means absolutely NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA!
In other words, there is no connection between the "gun ban" and crime rate in the UK, except for one that has been fabricated ad hoc by JohnRich with the support of you and some other accolites. In other words, a stupid strawman. And an old, tired one at that. Maybe, as I suggested previously, it's time to ask Santa to bring you a nice new strawman for Christmas? Just a suggestion, of course.
And I won't even dignify your comment about the families of the victims with a reply as I see it, among other things, as extremely insensitive.
Merry Christmas (or holiday of you choice) to all, I'm out.

Vale

[ExAFO 0]

Poop.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Firstly, the fact that we keep bringing up Dunblane and Hungerford is because this piece of legislation was always meant to address that type of incident, and nothing else.

Then you should easily be able to show me the relevent passages in said laws, no?

Oh, that's right... said passages don't exist.

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

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Firstly, the fact that we keep bringing up Dunblane and Hungerford is because this piece of legislation was always meant to address that type of incident, and nothing else.

Then you should easily be able to show me the relevent passages in said laws, no?

Oh, that's right... said passages don't exist.

You're kidding right? Do you really expect the actual wording of the law to mention those events? You must be really out of ideas.
And I'm sure that the facts that this was mentioned probably a thousand times in the course of debate in both Houses of Parliament is not relevant for you right? Because you want it to be mentioned in the actual wording, right? Let me call up the British Prime Minister right away and reprimand him for this serious slip up!

Get real.

Vale

[rushmc 23]

Do you always get this pissed when you lose a debate?

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

[mnealtx 0]

I happen to agree with the concept that gun bans do nothing to prevent crime and solely punish the law-abiding gun owner.

Hopefully it will be remembered that the ban has NOT decreased gun crime in the UK the next time a thread comes up about gun bans in the US and the overseas contingent decides to chime in about how there's no gun crime since the ban.

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

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

I happen to agree with the concept that gun bans do nothing to prevent crime and solely punish the law-abiding gun owner.

Correct. Anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty will agree.

Pardon me whilst I clean my SKS and my Glock 36.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I happen to agree with the concept that gun bans do nothing to prevent crime and solely punish the law-abiding gun owner.

Hopefully it will be remembered that the ban has NOT decreased gun crime in the UK the next time a thread comes up about gun bans in the US and the overseas contingent decides to chime in about how there's no gun crime since the ban.

To some extent I agree with you. Nothing is to gained by preventing truly law abiding (as opposed to self-proclaimed "law abiding"), sane, responsible adults from having guns.

The problem in the USA is that we do not have effective means of preventing criminals, mentally unstable people, and plain ol' irresponsible people from having guns.

I absolutely do not believe that it is a lost cause to come up with effective ways do do this.

Throwing up your hands and proclaiming "they will always get guns" is just a cop-out. What you really mean is that you're too lazy to bother about it, and will oppose any proposal if it will inconvenience you in the slightest.

You don't prevent massacres by arming the citizenry. You may prevent massacres from getting worse by arming the citizenry, but to prevent massacres you have to make it difficult or impossible for the loonies and criminals to get guns.

So you need to see how the flow of initially "legal" guns reaches the undesirable elements of society, and deal with it.

...

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

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Do you always get this pissed when you lose a debate?

You people are incredible!
I don't know whether to laugh at you or just cry.
This has gone beyond ridiculous all the way to outright bizarre. What a waste of time and bandwidth.
Have a nice holyday, all of you.

Vale

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Do you always get this pissed when you lose a debate?

You people are incredible!
I don't know whether to laugh at you or just cry.
This has gone beyond ridiculous all the way to outright bizarre. What a waste of time and bandwidth.

Think of it as the DZ.COM version of the Court Jester.

Quote

Have a nice holyday, all of you.

Vale

Thanks, and same to you.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The problem in the USA is that we do not have effective means of preventing criminals, mentally unstable people, and plain ol' irresponsible people from having guns.

Find a way to do it that does NOT prevent the law-abiding from having available, effective means of defense and I'll be right with ya supporting it.

As for the "they will always get guns" being a cop-out argument... I refer you back to DC, NYC and the UK. All have bans, all have criminals getting guns. While the banners talk about theft from other regions (or the law-abiding) they can't prove it's the main source, or even a majority source.

Sure makes a good strawman for the next gun control law to screw over Joe Public, though.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Clearly in the Uk the supply of handguns and machine guns to the criminals is not stolen weapons from legal scorces as there is no legal semi auto handguns or machine guns in civillian ownership in the UK. Guns and drugs are easy to get into the country now and organised crime makes alot of money seeing that they arrive at the black market here ready to be sold on. Its towards organised crime that our hard earned cash should be aimed. Also at the same time trying to crush gang culture in the UK. Kid carry knifes because they are easier to get than guns and easier to hide. 2/3rds of the fatal killings of the 26 teenages in London were stabbings not shootings. Kids often carry knifes now because they are scared they are not afraid of they law because they know they can literally get away with murder. Not until they are more afraid of the consequences of carrying a weapon will they stop. Bring back the fear of the law, the police and authority. Respect is better than fear but in the absence of respect, fear is better than contempt.

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

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Think of it as the DZ.COM version of the Court Jester.

Oh, so that's what the brightly colored suits are about! I thought they were freefliers.
Ciao,

Vale

[mnealtx 0]

Again, well said....thanks, Jamile.

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

[nigel99 617]

Rather than start a new thread and as it is relevant to this - what do people think about this solution from Cincinati?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7153430.stm

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

[mnealtx 0]

Seems to support my premise from the other thread that it is societal/culture issues, rather than weapons, that drives crime.

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

[shropshire 0]

It can't hurt to try it.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome