England: Murder Rate Soars

[rushmc 23]

Here is some commons sense good news






New York City Lawsuit Against America's Firearm Industry Dismissed


Wednesday, April 30, 2008


Fairfax, VA-The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act proved the basis for today’s dismissal of a lawsuit by the City of New York against the American firearms industry. This lawsuit by the City of New York and Mayor Michael Bloomberg sought to hold manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms.

“Today’s dismissal of this bogus lawsuit against America’s firearm industry is an important victory,” declared Chris W. Cox, executive director for the National Rifle Association (NRA). “New York City’s lawsuit was a politically motivated attack by an anti-gun mayor to bankrupt a lawful industry.”

The Manhattan-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which NRA helped pass into law in 2005, is constitutional and that Judge Jack B. Weinstein erroneously interpreted that law in his district court ruling. Similar suits have been dismissed in the Seventh Circuit, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and in other courts throughout the country.

"We think Congress clearly intended to protect from vicarious liability members of the firearms industry who engage in the 'lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale' of firearms," noted Judge Robert J. Miner, writing for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

This decision represents another setback to Mayor Bloomberg, who has also been publicly rebuked by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for his unlawful “sting” operations against firearm retailers in several states.

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

How does the 2007 UK homicide rate compare with the 2007 USA homicide rate? I'd hate to think JR was throwing stones from a glass house.

Speaking of glass houses....find those Koch postulate proofs yet, Professor?

Why, are you planning to compare guns to anthrax or bubonic plague?

...

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

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

...
In order to appear more informed you may want to scan back to see why he really posts these kind of articles. It really has nothing to do with the (defensive parranoid) UK

Quote

It really has nothing to do with the (defensive parranoid) UK

It has not???

OK, well, then ...... must've been my old glasses.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Over roughly the same time period the number of alcohol-related deaths more than doubled from 4,144 in 1991 to 8,758 in 2006.

I'm thinking more guns is definitely what we need.

Well spotted.
Cheers

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[James.UWE 0]

Im guessing that the murder rate in proportion to population numbers in the US in a lot bigger than in the UK.

We dont need guns. Its fucking stupid, if you give everyone the right to have a gun, more people will get killed. Its quite simple.

I cant see us english (well most of us) ever agreeing on this matter with you guys. You've all been brought up with guns everywhere and dont know any different.

At least the whole topic gives us a bit of transatlantic banter

[vortexring 0]

John, you once mentioned your motivation for bringing such posts to our attention was:

"I'm worried about the mass ignorance about the lack of effectiveness of gun control laws, and the erosions of personal liberty and safety caused by those who don't understand that fact and want to keep trying gun control anyway."

You now further mention:

"It's too bad they didn't figure this out until after all the privately held handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated."

I get the impression you feel that the 'soaring' rate of knifings and shootings in the UK is primarily through our gun control laws? Would I be correct in assuming you'd also believe these rates to be considerably lower if we had less strict gun control?

If my assumptions of your thought process are correct, your speculation is misplaced, in the sense that gun ownership within the UK was very low throughout the general population prior to the new laws.

I suppose this leads to further speculation. If the UK gun laws had not been introduced, what would the percentage of gun owners be now, in comparison? I'd guess it's likely that we'd see perhaps a small increase, but nothing of much significance. I also think we'd see similiar rises of crime rates, gun law or not.

Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[rehmwa 2]

That's a good point. And in agreement with JR.

Restrictions have not helped one bit. Other than that "small percentage" that wishes to own the property were denied their right to do so for absolutely zero reason.

Instead of being outraged, it seems people want to ignore the logic and use emotive reasons for supporting their own oppression.

that's all

sounds a lot like this

"I'm worried about the mass ignorance about the lack of effectiveness of gun control laws, and the erosions of personal liberty and safety caused by those who don't understand that fact and want to keep trying gun control anyway."

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

That's a good point. And in agreement with JR.

Restrictions have not helped one bit. Other than that "small percentage" that wishes to own the property were denied their right to do so for absolutely zero reason.

Instead of being outraged, it seems people want to ignore the logic and use emotive reasons for supporting their own oppression.

that's all

sounds a lot like this

"I'm worried about the mass ignorance about the lack of effectiveness of gun control laws, and the erosions of personal liberty and safety caused by those who don't understand that fact and want to keep trying gun control anyway."

Its amazing isn't it?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How does the 2007 UK homicide rate compare with the 2007 USA homicide rate? I'd hate to think JR was throwing stones from a glass house.

Speaking of glass houses....find those Koch postulate proofs yet, Professor?

Why, are you planning to compare guns to anthrax or bubonic plague?

You were the one posting 'studies' comparing guns to disease epidemics, not I.

I await your proofs.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings.

No, it isn't. It *has*, however, deprived British citizens of the most effective form of self-defense against the criminals that ARE knifing and shooting people in the commission of crimes.

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

[vortexring 0]

I recognise your point in regards to the 'small percentage', but I also think it likely we'd have more shooting incidents if it wasn't for such a law. Exactly how much so, well, that's anybodies guess isn't it? We'd certainly have increased weapon proliferation which is what brought me to my earlier point.

Still, it's interesting speculation nonetheless, especially when taking into account the criminal mentality. Strict gun control over the populace is ideal in such cases, considering they'll always manage access. So maybe it's this area that needs the address; how the fuck can you reduce weapon proliferation amongst 'criminals' - if private firearm ownership is illegal?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I recognise your point in regards to the 'small percentage', but I also think it likely we'd have more shooting incidents if it wasn't for such a law. Exactly how much so, well, that's anybodies guess isn't it? We'd certainly have increased weapon proliferation which is what brought me to my earlier point.

Still, it's interesting speculation nonetheless, especially when taking into account the criminal mentality. Strict gun control over the populace is ideal in such cases, considering they'll always manage access. So maybe it's this area that needs the address; how the fuck can you reduce weapon proliferation amongst 'criminals' - if private firearm ownership is illegal?

I don't think it's possible to stuff *that* genie back in the bottle, mate.

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

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings.

No, it isn't. It *has*, however, deprived British citizens of the most effective form of self-defense against the criminals that ARE knifing and shooting people in the commission of crimes.

Perhaps, but then why did the vast majority of the UK populace remain unarmed prior to the stricter gun laws?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings.

Concur. Presence or absence of liberal gun rights does not correlate directly with incidence of violation. They're independent variables.

Otoh, one potential causal factor is lead.

There’s been observed a link (definite correlation … possible causation) between increase in violent crime and lead poisoning in US cities in the late 1970s & 1980s and with the accompanying decrease in crime in the 1990s as exposure to lead has decreased (via elimination of lead in gasoline & paint). Similar lag observed in Canada. Lead … not gun availability or gun control. (See attached graphs.)

And this is contrasted with violence levels in the UK, which did not begin eliminating lead until the mid-1980s and early 1990s and saw increase in violent crime in the 1990s. Hypothesis is to look for a corresponding decrease in violent crime in UK by 2015.

Popular press accounts and links to primary data here.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings.

No, it isn't. It *has*, however, deprived British citizens of the most effective form of self-defense against the criminals that ARE knifing and shooting people in the commission of crimes.

Perhaps, but then why did the vast majority of the UK populace remain unarmed prior to the stricter gun laws?

Perhaps they felt they didn't need it... until it was too late.

"When your life hangs in the balance of the next few seconds, isn't it reassuring to know the police are only hours moments away?"

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, you once mentioned your motivation for bringing such posts to our attention was:

"I'm worried about the mass ignorance about the lack of effectiveness of gun control laws, and the erosions of personal liberty and safety caused by those who don't understand that fact and want to keep trying gun control anyway."

You now further mention:

"It's too bad they didn't figure this out until after all the privately held handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated."

I get the impression you feel that the 'soaring' rate of knifings and shootings in the UK is primarily through our gun control laws?

You were on the right track there until that last sentence.

No, I'm not implying that there would be less crime if the citizens still had all their guns. I think it would be about the same. Crime isn't caused by guns - it's caused by criminals. And that last sentence was in regard to the focus being directed towards more police, more prisons, etc. - in other words, actually targeting the criminals who cause crime, rather than innocent people who just happen to own guns. That's what was a breath of fresh air.

[vortexring 0]

How remarkable. That should lead us to consider the numerous other polutants that have been removed or discouraged from general use from around the same time and their possible effects; as well as the developing countries which still maintain their general use.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun control isn't the reason for soaring UK knifings and shootings.

No, it isn't. It *has*, however, deprived British citizens of the most effective form of self-defense against the criminals that ARE knifing and shooting people in the commission of crimes.

This is a red herring I'm afraid mate. Legal gun owners weren't carrying firearms for self-defence before the ban, and keeping them unlocked at home would violate the terms of their licence, which require firearms to kept securely.

[JohnRich 4]

News:

America's 'safety catch'

Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life...

To many foreigners - and to some Americans - the tolerance of guns in everyday American life is simply inexplicable...

Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?

Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.

"It seems so nice here," they quaver.

Well, it is!

What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime...

Source: BBC

[vortexring 0]

Fair enough John, but over here if you own; for example, a shotgun legally, there isn't really any issues. If you own a handgun, that is illegal, therefore the targetting of innocent gun owners isn't an issue, and has therefore never been the focus.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

How remarkable. That should lead us to consider the numerous other polutants that have been removed or discouraged from general use from around the same time and their possible effects; as well as the developing countries which still maintain their general use.

Yes & no. Lead is conclusively known to be a particularly pernicous cause or irreversible neurological damage, as well as renal disease, cardiovascular effects, and reproductive toxicity.

By removing lead, a major -- if not *the* major -- biophysical cause can be eliminated. And, at the same time, there are non-leaded substitutes available that don't carry a significant cost burden.

Arsenic in drinking water is another example. While arsenic isn't associated with neuro-development, it will just kill you. And has been a major problem in parts of Bangladesh and India.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I recognise your point in regards to the 'small percentage', but I also think it likely we'd have more shooting incidents if it wasn't for such a law.

you feel you'd have more shootings....

despite your earlier statements that were the real thinking that it didn't matter much before vs after the laws were in place

feeling vs thinking...and that's the essence of the issue, isn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[vortexring 0]

Fascinating. I take issue with this though:

"Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.

"It seems so nice here," they quaver."

They quaver!!! Hilarious! For Mr Webb who wrote the article; Fuck off.

Still, this point begins to highlight a key issue:

"One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none.

I have never seen a group of drunk young people in the entire six years I have lived here. I travel a lot and not always to the better parts of town."

It's an area of American culture which originally was quite a pleasant surprise - even in Cancun during the spring break! (
Getting back to the point though; if you consider British drunken 'yob' culture, or hoodie culture, or whatever it is you might wish to name it, less strict gun laws would only serve to exasperate the situation.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I recognise your point in regards to the 'small percentage', but I also think it likely we'd have more shooting incidents if it wasn't for such a law.

you feel you'd have more shootings....

despite your earlier statements that were the real thinking that it didn't matter much before vs after the laws were in place

feeling vs thinking...and that's the essence of the issue, isn't it?

Well, no. Perhaps I should explain myself better. I'm positively sure we'd have more shooting incidents.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Can't wait till 2015 to see if the study proves to be correct.

Do you really believe it could be this simple though?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'