vpozzoli

I say let 'em kill each other off. They shouldn't even be listed a homicides. Similarly, how many murder victims are particularly innocent? Should a couple drug dealers killed in a shootout be considered murder victims? I'm not sure how far it should go, but many victims put themselves at risk by their behavior. Yep. And women who get raped often are really asking for it, don't you agree? I mean, why weren't they safely in their homes instead of out in the street where they were attacked? Ciao, Vale

Would that possibly be a issue? Sure sounds like it to me. The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society. Yeah, and stray bullets never killed any bystander. I mean, the US has smart bombs, I'm sure they have smart bullets as well. And I won't even address the "as long as it's not my problem, it's not a problem at all" attitude. Cheers, Vale

Yeah, right. Of course one should only look only at the absolute number for murders and not adjust for population, right? I mean, the fact that there were 300 million people in the US in 2005 compared to slightly less than 200 million in 1967 should have absolutely no effect on the absolute number of homicides per year, right? The fact that the homicide rate was 5.6 in 2005 against 6.2 in 1967 should be completely disregarded as it is clearly meaningless, in the sense that it does not support your conclusions so it must not be taken into account. By the way, you keep referring to your conclusions as your premise, I think you got those concepts a bit mixed up. Your premise is that we have more killings today than we had 40 years ago, a statement that is clearly false if you do your math properly (regardless of the brand of CPU you use, it's still garbage in-garbage out). As a matter of fact, there are fewer killings today than there were 40 years ago. As for your conclusion, well, for a start it is based on a false premise, and even if this weren't the case you are still willfully ignoring a very important variable, therefore your conclusion is unsupported. Wanna guess what that variable might be? Ciao, Vale

OK, so now handguns are not a type of gun. Point taken. OK, so your initial premise was, in your own words: I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Actual data shows that 40 years ago there was exactly the number of killings that you have today, so care to explain how that does not prove your initial statement false but rather, as you claim, supports it? Ciao, Vale

Ooops, wrong link! Here is what I actually meant to link http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm There's a ton of different sections that break it down by different factors such as gender, race, circumstances etc. etc. Definitely very interesting reading material. Cheers, Vale

You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale I'm not getting your point. Could you say more about his statement and your reply and than just "You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements"? thanks. Sure. He claims that 40 years ago it was easier to get your hands on a gun (possibly true) but there were fewer killings than there are today. If you look at the actual data, you see that the actual situation with regards to homicide trends in the last 40 years is much more complex and, incidentally, the homicide rate today is exactly the same as 40 years ago. Further examination of the data shows that handguns played a significant role in the homicide rates over time, but please keep in mind that I'm in no way claiming it is "only about guns". He claims that I do, but that's just another strawman. I'm merely pointing out the fact that guns are a factor, not necessarily the only one. That, and that his initial premise is manifestly false. Cheers, Vale

Who's saying it is ONLY about the availability of weapons? So far as I can tell, you are. Google strawman if you don't know what it means. And you still haven't commented on your initial premise being completely false. Ciao, Vale

You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale Number of murders in the 1950's and into the 1960's were below 10k/year, and started climbing in the late 60's. If it were all about the guns as some claim, the numbers should have been high and started dropping in the late 60's and beyond as availability of guns decreased. It shows again that the availability of guns isn't the issue....thanks for the supporting info. You're a riot. Have you checked the link I sent you? How do you explain the sharp rise in the 70's and 80's, especially if you cross reference the number of homicides per capita with the breakdown by weapon type here? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Guess what, the sharp increase in homicides during that period is entirely attributable to homicides by handgun. Homicides by other weapons have actually been declining steadily ever since. The same can be said about the sharp decline in the late 90's that is entirely due to the sharp decline in the number of homicides by handgun. Incidentally, the rate of homicides today is the same as in the second half of the 60's. Guess what, the second half of the 60's is 40 years ago, which completely falsifies your initial statement. Care to comment on that or would you prefer to ignore this basic fact? Tell me, do you think that guns are easier to come by today than they were, say, in 1980 or is the exact opposite true? This is too easy. Ciao, Vale

Except that's a completely made up fact. Trust me on that. I wonder what else they fabricated in this story, curiously enough all the stories I found about this incident are just reprints of the same Reuters piece, thus preventing any form of verification. Cheers, Vale

You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale

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

They made a judgement based on current law? I thought that was what courts where supposed to do? Why don't you tell me why it is stupid, instead? It's called respect towards other peoples, something you obviously lack. Have a nice day. Vale

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

And here come the British, always highly respectful of other people's cultures and customs (not to mention bodies of law). Why should I be tolerant of stupidity? Forgive me, oh mighty judge of all that lies under the sun. Vale

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

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

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

And here come the British, always highly respectful of other people's cultures and customs (not to mention bodies of law). Cheers mate, Vale

You have no idea how hard that really is. It actually requires a presidential decree, seriously. Cheers, Vale

Apparently, in Texas it is. But the execution has to be carried on on the spot so that it can be called "self defense". Cheers, Vale Incorrect - as are most of your posts on the subject. Wow, I only made one post on the subject, and already you're making quantitative assessments on their (its) quality. BTW, I couldn't care less what you think of them. Vale

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

Apparently, in Texas it is. But the execution has to be carried on on the spot so that it can be called "self defense". Cheers, Vale

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

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. 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. 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. Care to explain why you think differently? Cheers, Vale

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