mr2mk1g

You fail to address Nac's point - the article he linked to has nothing to do with accidental gun deaths. At least have the decency to actually read the posts to which you are replying.

Read my post. Try and remember some of my posts from the thread last time we discussed the topic. I’ve posted many times before about the influx of Yardi gangs since 1997 and the battles they have with each other and with Turkish heroin gangs. Add to them the influx of Eastern Europeans and you have a massive influx of gun culture – a culture that was not here before. And if I don’t sound too much like an old codger – we now have the odd anomaly of pistols as fashion accessories; a phenomenon which is often attributed to the depiction of them in US gangsta’ rap videos and tracks. Not me - I don't dispute the general content. I have not said that our overall risk of involvement in crime in general is less than in the US. I've tried to avoid direct comparisons unless drawn on the issue as I know it gets you Yanks so upset when you see your firearms murder rate next to ours. The only points I've made about our general crime rate is that it's DOWN since an all time high just before we banned handguns, to an all time low this year. I didn't say it was lower than the US see - just lower than before we banned handguns. Don't be mistaken that I am drawing a causal link between the reduction and the ban mind - I think it's far more complicated than that.

It's not at all odd darling - actually read the figures and you will see there is no contradiction. I said that robbery with a firearm and offences involving a handgun are DOWN since 2003. It is - see the reports. I then said that handgun crime is up since 1996. Do you understand that there is a slight difference between the year 1996 and the year 2003? Is it really that difficult to comprehend that whilst I understand that handgun crime in general since 1996 is up (though I can produce no firm figures to that effect) the recent trend shows both robbery with a firearm and offences involving handguns to be falling over the more recent past. They're two different statistics dear - they show different things. They're not supposed to be the same or they would have the same years by them see. That's what we call "different" not a "contradiction".

You mean is anybody listening?

No, not everything's gone down - I have not stated so. But I have not posted anything that is incorrect or without a clear reference. Each of those references is to an official Home Office document or study. Face it - our "failing" laws allowed 68 firearms murders this last year. Each one is one too many - that's why we're never going to convince politicians to license handguns again.

The Saturday morning drive to the DZ simply wont be the same without Home Truths. Blue skys John.

If you're getting a Wings their pud design nicely complements the choice of a ZP PC. As indicated above one of the only concerns about a ZP PC is that there is the possability that there may be an increased risk that it will slip out of the BOC. The Wings pud design makes this much less likely to happen when comparison to hacky deployment handles and IMO effectively eliminates the issue. (jmo)

Direct action's one thing but this just seems a little short sighted. Now the city simply wont have the budget to give them a raise even if they'd like to...

I've got SW England (well some of it) covered. If she shows up here I'll let you know. You shouldn't have sworn at her so much... they tend to get the hump and bugger off when you do that.

I have continually cited my figures here. They are from either the BCS, the US equivalent or from UK reported crime figures. There should have been no difficulty for anyone here to go back to the sources I quoted. I'm not quoting from abstracts or misreported nonsense from pressure groups. The document I have before me is this one: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004l.pdf It is compiled by the Home Office from both the BCS and reported crime figures. It is the most reliable source available. There's no bullshit - just Home Office figures. Now let go of the apron strings.

If someone hasn't got the intelligence to be able to figure out what report they’re reading they have no real business posting in this thread. I am not here to hold people's hands.

True, you're not PJ. I guess I used "you" to mean "people who argue we should change our laws back to the pre 97 state". As for looking things up - how hard is it to type "british crime survey 2004" into Google? I'm not here to hold PJ's hand. The BCS doesn't have the problem of completely Government produced figures - their reporting is essentially unchanged since for more than 20 years. Any changes are accounted for in their report. That's why they're a more reliable source when comparing trends.

I don't have those figures. The 96 report didn't particularise handguns unfortunately. I understand that it has risen. Pundits point to the rise of, handguns as fashion accessories, Turkish heroin dealers, Yardi gangs.

ditto

No I'm not claiming the ban caused those figures. I'm heading off the suggestion that it increased crime. If crime was higher before than it is now the ban itself cannot have increased crime as some people are claiming. What caused those decreases are likely to be a large number of different factors - possably including the removal of handguns, possably not.

I agree with pretty much all of that. Recorded crime is up. British Crime Survey shows it's down significantly. What it leaves out is all the changes in the way the crime is recorded. In 97 Blair came to power on the "tough on crime" spin he used. One of the first things his govt. did was completely overhaul the way we collect and record our crime figures. Recorded crime figures simply cannot be compared to those of a few years ago. There are even inaccuracies introduced year on year by annual changes in record keeping. The British Crime Survey has not changed in this way. That is why it shows a decrease and it is why those in the industry rely more heavily on it than on any other source. Newspapers and Shadow Home Secretaries like to rely on recorded crime as it makes good headlines.

You can't have it both ways. We keep getting told on here that gun ownership is linked to the reduction of crime. We're told if we had guns people wouldn't get burgled as they'd be affraid of being shot. We wouldn't get mugged as we could shoot them. We wouldn't have our cars nicked as we could shoot them as they tried to hotwire it. Now I show statistics which indicate that since just before we banned handguns our overall crime rate is much much lower, and all kinds of different crimes have been slashed. Yet people still want to argue that the gun legislation has caused crime to increase and decide not to rely on figures for overall crime.

Evidence presented to the Cullen Enquiry in 1996 stated that in 1994 there were 3,000 offences where a firearm was stolen from a private residence. Each of these offences may have involved the theft of more than one weapon. That was upwards of 3000 weapons per year going onto the blackmarket. That source is now gone.

Hmm... would have been one idea... guess what - CRIME'S DOWN. Law stays. Cheers for the idea though.

That's cool - show me some figures. I've just shown you official figures which say that not only are you wrong - you're wrong by a looooong way. Remeber - someone whacked up on LSD can be confident they can fly... any fool can tell them they're wrong though.

No they're not - see above. Go read some actual reports yourself instead of simply blindly swallowing the propaganda your gun mag's feed you.

The three options on this poll which are next in popularity to keeping everything the same are for people to be armed and carry the weapon. If you allow people to arm themselves you also arm people who have no criminal record but have criminal intent. Do you have a magic mind machine which can tell which people are going to commit a crime at some time in the future? Are you able to exclude them from owning a gun on that basis? In the absence of such a magic mind reading machine you end up licensing people to carry who have criminal intent or maybe even have committed crimes but have yet to be caught. That’s what it has to do with the argument. You provide a licence and unsavoury people will obtain that licence as it’s far from easy to tell who is an unsavoury person. Wow betide anyone who prevents “Bob” from owning a dozen hand guns when he’s not ever been convicted of something – it’s his right after all. Every criminal has to commit his FIRST offence – till he’s caught for that he’s free to own right? You better believe it buddy. That’s right – our “rampant” gun crime means we had 68 people IN TOTAL murdered in this country in the last year. Guess what dude... that figure's DOWN! As for a link, I don’t have one. I have the actual report sat on my desk. It’s the British Crime Survey 2004 – published last week. It’s one of the reports that started this thread Jeffrey; DO pay attention. I’m sure you can find it yourself if you take 2 minutes to look – it’s a government report, it’s out there. I’ll summarise the parts which indicate just how bad it is over here for you if you like... The report says: We had 68 firearms murders IN TOTAL this last year! That’s 15% DOWN on the previous year! Armed robbery with a firearm is DOWN 13% from the previous year! There were 7% FEWER offences involving a handgun than the previous year! ONLY 0.4% of offences against the person involve the use of a firearm! Since just before we banned handguns overall crime has FALLEN by 39%! Since just before we banned handguns vehicle crime and burglary has been CUT IN HALF! Since just before we banned handguns violent crime has FALLEN by over 33%! Since just before we banned handguns the risk of being involved in crime has FALLEN from 40% to 26% - the lowest level since our records began nearly 25 years ago! You’re right Jeffrey – our crime rates are spiralling out of control, we’re falling into the depths of an abyss the likes of which the world has never seen… and it’s all due to our banning handguns. WAKE UP! LOOK AT THE STATS - THEY DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENTS! And most importantly - QUITE WHINING!

Give us some figures we can put to our government that will show how arming everyone, (including every single person with criminal intent), will cut the number of people killed by firearms from the giddy hights of 68 people in this last year down to a much lower figure.

HAHA - your right. There are times though when political discourse and critique of certain countries does deteriorate into the kind of vitriol which ought never be acceptable... for those occasions the rules should be flexible enough to punish those who have done something reprehensible. I’ve seen a couple of such examples against various countries in the last week. Perhaps you're right that a firm rule is not necessary but on occasion I believe a response would be in order. But then… I don’t run this place .

I take it you meant “isn’t” there as opposed to “is”… ? I think insulting an entire nation should be a banning offence. If I were to insult all black people or women or homosexuals, knowing I’m talking in a thread started by and posted to by blacks/women/homosexuals, I’m damn sure I would be banned for a long while. I personally don’t see why insulting a nation – and thus vicariously insulting each and every poster from said country who reads that insult – is not just as bad as a direct insult against a specific poster. As far as I’m concerned, they’re both just as bad.