NationStates Jolt Archive

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."

Discuss.

absolute crap!!!


(hello btw)

There would be less crime, but probably more shootings (especially of criminals). It's better for one attempted rapist to be shot than for 3 women to be raped.

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."


Could you expand on this or tell me whose arse it came out of?

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."

Discuss.

Doesn't seem to have worked in Northern Ireland.

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."

Discuss.

Hasn't worked like that, ever.

There are cities in the US, paticuarly one in Georgia (Kennesaw) that I am thinking of, where home owners are required to own a gun *BY LAW.* The crime rate in these cities, is of course non-existant.

To quote:

This Atlanta bedroom community is about 3 miles from my
house. The mayor sponsored the non-binding ordinance in retalliation
to the Morton Grove, Il handgun ban. Though the law is non-binding
and no penalties are attached, it did have its effect. The burglary
count in the city went from 62 the previous year (average) to zero the
year after the law. It has dithered near zero ever since despite the
massive growth (Cherokee county has become the fastest growth county in
the state) and despite being adjacent to Cobb county where violent crime
is significant - at least in some parts of town.

reference (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=insubject:progunners+insubject:paradise+insubject:georgia+author:De&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=r%3Dmmtz%23%40dixie.com&rnum=1)

Crime statistics : city average vs Georgia average vs US average

here (http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx)

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."

Discuss.

We would like to communicate with you, Earthling, but we do not understand.

On what planet does more guns equal less shooting? By that reckoning places like Somalia and downtown Baghdad ought to be the safest places in the world.
Don't try to impose your own gun-crazy constitution on us - the UK escaped from the US in 1776. :D We're happy as we are, thank you.

What are the population numbers of these compulsary gun ownership towns? I think there'd be a difference between a small tightnit community where most burglaries are kids to big cities with proper crime rings.

well, in the USA the majority of shootings are accidents, so perhaps there are no houses getting robbed, but there are wives being shot i'm sure.

We would like to communicate with you, Earthling, but we do not understand.

On what planet does more guns equal less shooting? By that reckoning places like Somalia and downtown Baghdad ought to be the safest places in the world.
Don't try to impose your own gun-crazy constitution on us - the UK escaped from the US in 1776. :D We're happy as we are, thank you.
isn't TG British?

What are the population numbers of these compulsary gun ownership towns? I think there'd be a difference between a small tightnit community where most burglaries are kids to big cities with proper crime rings.
Irrelevant. The only relevant detail is the burglary rate before and after the compulsory gun ownership.

well, in the USA the majority of shootings are accidents, so perhaps there are no houses getting robbed, but there are wives being shot i'm sure.

Whenever a young lonely housewife dies, Refused Party Program also dies a little inside. :(

Irrelevant. The only relevant detail is the burglary rate before and after the compulsory gun ownership.


Statistica as of 1998:

here (http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx)

Irrelevant. The only relevant detail is the burglary rate before and after the compulsory gun ownership.


errrr anyway, the point was what works in small towns might not work in big cities.

Tink is correct, I am British, and I was making a point.

When considering public gun ownership purely on the basis of public safety, free of ideological considerations, it loses.

Arguments for gun ownership are therefore best accepted as residing in the ideological, cultural domain, as any arguments for them on the basis of improving safety are, as so many of you have put, bollocks.

Now perhaps future gun threads can stick to the area of cultural norms, and not biased statistics.

errrr anyway, the point was what works in small towns might not work in big cities.


Population of Kennesaw, Georgia is 21,690. While not large, this isnt exactly a small town either.

RUBBISH!!!! :mp5:
:sniper:

Well, we saw what happened in the Tony Martin case. 1 man with a gun suprised some burglars, they ran away, and he shot one of them in the back. Gee-whiz, that's a good thing.

Irrelevant. The only relevant detail is the burglary rate before and after the compulsory gun ownership.

Explain what this has to do with the TOPIC?

Burglary rates have no relevance to it. Want to find the statistics that show a decrease in gun related incidents in towns with compulsory gun ownerships? On you go, run along, theres a good chap.

Well, we saw what happened in the Tony Martin case. 1 man with a gun suprised some burglars, they ran away, and he shot one of them in the back. Gee-whiz, that's a good thing.
What about all the women who've been raped because they aren't allowed to defend themselves? Oh, that's right, you don't know which ones they were. That'll be why they aren't headline news.

Sure, one little scamp got shot. But on the whole, there are less crimes in armed societies.

I think it is imperative that we not allow the young and lonely housewives to be killed and/or raped.

Explain what this has to do with the TOPIC?

Burglary rates have no relevance to it. Want to find the statistics that show a decrease in gun related incidents in towns with compulsory gun ownerships? On you go, run along, theres a good chap.
Sorry, that should have read all violent crime rather than burglaries. An increase in shootings doesn't mean an increase in violent crime. Obviously people with guns will be able to shoot each other more but this could, WILL, be offset by less knifings, beatings, robberies and rapes.

Explain what this has to do with the TOPIC?

Burglary rates have no relevance to it. Want to find the statistics that show a decrease in gun related incidents in towns with compulsory gun ownerships? On you go, run along, theres a good chap.


From the Kennesaw webpage:

...Since 1982 approx. 4,900 Part 1 Crime incidents were reported with approx. 59 involving the use of a firearm.

Analysis: Since a large portion of the town is armed, given that a very small percentage of crimes involved the use of a firearm, I would say that it is not unreasonable to conclude that increased gun ownership is resulting in fewer gun crimes.

From the Kennesaw webpage:

...Since 1982 approx. 4,900 Part 1 Crime incidents were reported with approx. 59 involving the use of a firearm.

Analysis: Since a large portion of the town is armed, given that a very small percentage of crimes involved the use of a firearm, I would say that it is not unreasonable to conclude that increased gun ownership is resulting in fewer gun crimes.

I'd say its unreasonable to take this community as a sample group to represent an entire country.

However we don't know how many shootings they've had. Most amusingly they don't tell us how many of the crimes pre 1982 involved guns? Was it lower perhaps?
Class 1 crimes, dropped by one incident, but its a loosly defined category. So burglaries have decreased, but using this system of categorising crimes it could be that gun related murders were 0 in 1981, and 59 in 1982-1998.

Statisitcs can always be read however you want :)

Edit: ooooooh, does the compulsory gun law also include compulsory gun cabinets and checkups?

I'd say its unreasonable to take this community as a sample group to represent an entire country.

However we don't know how many shootings they've had. Most amusingly they don't tell us how many of the crimes pre 1982 involved guns? Was it lower perhaps?
Class 1 crimes, dropped by one incident, but its a loosly defined category. So burglaries have decreased, but using this system of categorising crimes it could be that gun related murders were 0 in 1981, and 59 in 1998.

Statisitcs can always be read however you want :)

Of course they can. There are 3 types of lies.
1) Damn lies.
2) Damn dirty lies
3) Statistics.

However, rather than just argueing for whatever my personal views may be, I'm presenting a small sample population where gun ownership is the norm, and using it to support my arguments. The town is not ideal of course. They've had a massive population boom in the past 20 years, which of course will alter crime data. However, if you go to the city's
webpage (http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx) you will see that they have comparison averages for the year 1998 vs the rest of the state and the country as a whole, and their rate of crime is decidedly lower.

Now, if you have a similar city (and not one torn up by war. I think we can all agree that places like Baghdad do not represent a "normal" population) where a signifigant percentage of the population carries guns, and the crime and shooting rates are increased, then by all means bring it foward.

But on the whole, there are less crimes in armed societies.
More shootings, but less crime? I do not see how this would apply to non-violent crime, such as fraud, insider theft, violation of employment / envoronmental / etc regulations, and many more. And violent crime? The US is an armed sociey, and yet its murder rates across the board are sky-high compared to many other industrial countries, where knives, blunt instruments, strangulation, etc are used.

But then there are counter-examples such as Switzerland.

Could it be that gun ownership is not a black and white issue? Could it be that guns =/= less crime, or more crime, automatically? That there are deeper cultural attitudes towards violence at play in the statistics? Could it be that the whole approach that people adopt at these debates is flawed?

But then, admitting to complexity is not something that takes place in NS General very often.

Of course its complex.

A quick look at the demographics tell us another couple of reasons why crime is low.

The median salary in Kennesaw is $63,115 and unemployment is 2.14%

This shows Kennesaw as being an affulent little town with bugger all unemployment. Whether these figures are 100% accurate I can't say. The official town website says nothing about unemployment, but the police are proudly annoucing they just caught a murderer :mp5: , ah wait, he didn't use a gun :p

But on the whole, there are less crimes in armed societies.

Which armed societies? Do you think the USA is some kind of crime-free paradise or something? compared to an unarmed country, say, the UK, it has higher rates of murders, murders with firearms, assaults and rapes.

More shootings, but less crime? I do not see how this would apply to non-violent crime, such as fraud, insider theft, violation of employment / envoronmental / etc regulations, and many more. And violent crime? The US is an armed sociey, and yet its murder rates across the board are sky-high compared to many other industrial countries, where knives, blunt instruments, strangulation, etc are used.
Americans kill each other with knives more than (say) Europeans do. It has more murders generally. It thus isn't fair to compare these apples and oranges. You have to compare the same place with and without guns, as above.


Could it be that gun ownership is not a black and white issue? Could it be that guns =/= less crime, or more crime, automatically? That there are deeper cultural attitudes towards violence at play in the statistics? Could it be that the whole approach that people adopt at these debates is flawed?

But then, admitting to complexity is not something that takes place in NS General very often.
Real world observations are complex because we can't isolate things like in physics, but observations of crime stats can be analysed like economics can. We look at the incentive structure and statistical data. It seems clear from studies like this and others that gun ownership deters violent crime far more than the increased availability of guns leads to more crime, a net decrease. The ONLY remainging "justification" for gun control can be for ideological reasons (big brother losing his grip?). All other opinions must be knee jerk reactions based on fear and ignorance.

Which armed societies? Do you think the USA is some kind of crime-free paradise or something? compared to an unarmed country, say, the UK, it has higher rates of murders, murders with firearms, assaults and rapes.
That isn't a scientific comparison since the USA and the UK are apples and oranges. You have to compare the same place (or very similar ones) with and without guns to get a fair comparison, otherwise the data is contaminated by other factors (poverty, gang culture, armed police, drug laws etc)

How about, instead of increasing the amount of weaponry available, we just remove all rights of any violent criminal.

Then hang them.

Also, whilst engaged in intrusive criminal activity, such as home robbery, again all legal protection of the criminal is lifted.

So you could knife the blighter whilst your dog bites him and then finish him off with the TV he wanted to steal.

If the law won't protect criminals, it would become an effective deterrent...

The issue of gun control in the UK is a moot one. After Dunblaine, handguns were banned pretty much overnight with no fuss at all. In other words, the will of the population was carried out. If it reverses, you'd have a much stronger case for re-introduction. You could argue tyranny of the majority, but the British constitution has never explicitly gave the right to own firearms like the US constitution. So therefore you're not taking away rights, you're ending convention.

Also, whilst engaged in intrusive criminal activity, such as home robbery, again all legal protection of the criminal is lifted.

So you could knife the blighter whilst your dog bites him and then finish him off with the TV he wanted to steal.

If the law won't protect criminals, it would become an effective deterrent...


I live in sweden, if the criminal breaks into your house, grabs your tele, then slips on your icy path on his way to "liberating" your TV. He can sue you for not keeping your path safe to walk on. Also in this socialist-country-heading-straight-down-the-shitter it's not a crime to escape from prison. As swedish criminals do on a regular basis...

Irrelevant. The only relevant detail is the burglary rate before and after the compulsory gun ownership.

Why is it that the only relevant detail is the one you like? Why is the nature of the place irrelevant? If the nature of the place is irrelevant, I would like to quote the example of the city of baghdad where gun ownership was pretty low and crime very low under the dictator saddam hussein.

The number of guns kicking around increased dramatically during a small war, and the crime rate has never looked back. Since the only relevant detail is the crime rate, my point is proven.

That isn't a scientific comparison since the USA and the UK are apples and oranges. You have to compare the same place (or very similar ones) with and without guns to get a fair comparison, otherwise the data is contaminated by other factors (poverty, gang culture, armed police, drug laws etc)

Am I tripping, or did you not post a while back that the other factors are irrelevant and all that matters is the crime rate with guns and the crime rate without?

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."

Discuss.

There is no need for discussion. This is clearly a logical error of the grandest kind.

Am I tripping, or did you not post a while back that the other factors are irrelevant and all that matters is the crime rate with guns and the crime rate without?
You're not tripping, just misunderstanding.

What about all the women who've been raped because they aren't allowed to defend themselves? Oh, that's right, you don't know which ones they were. That'll be why they aren't headline news.

Sure, one little scamp got shot. But on the whole, there are less crimes in armed societies.

No, there aren't. On the whole, some armed societies are relatively safe eg Switzerland, and some are extremely dangerous eg South Africa.

And women are allowed to defend themselves against rape with all sorts of weapons.

You're not tripping, just misunderstanding.

enlighten me

ever since the Gun ban in the UK
from 1997 gun crime here in the UK has gone up
alarmingly.

ever since the Gun ban in the UK
from 1997 gun crime here in the UK has gone up
alarmingly.

In 1997 tony blair was elected. This might have had a lot to do with it, although personally I think gun crime has increased because The Chemical Brothers' Block Rockin Beats got to number 1 in 1997.

ever since the Gun ban in the UK
from 1997 gun crime here in the UK has gone up
alarmingly.

Gun crime doubled in England and Wales '97-2003 however its slowed down, and last year only rose by 1%.

For having 22,000 odd gun offences in 2002/3, only 81 people were actual killed. And one of them was with an airgun.... :confused:

Most of these probably has more to do with the fact we don't have any police due to President Blair, rather than gun control

I'm British, and I regularly rob peoples' houses. I do it unarmed, but if it was legal to own a weapon then maybe I'd take a gun with me just in case, but more likely I'd give it up as I wouldn't want to risk getting shot by a home-owner.

I'm not really a burglar, but if I was, this is how I'd think. Whoever said 'In an armed society there are more shootings but this is offset by a decline in other crimes to give a net decrease in crime' I agree with.

I think it should be legal to own a defensivly-designed firearm (such as a revolver) provided safety checks, character references and the like are done but there is no justification for a private citizen to own an automatic pistol, MG, SMG or even a semi-automatic rifle except the bolt-operated variety. Double barrelled shotguns (not automatics or large capacity pumps), single shot rifles, bolt operated rifles with <5 round magazines, revolvers and handguns should be legal to own provided you are a trained, responsible citizen of the country.

The general population is trusted with cookers, cars, alcohol, so why not defensive weapons? I know they can be used offensively, but anyone thinking about doing so can get one illegally anyway.

In 1997 tony blair was elected. This might have had a lot to do with it, although personally I think gun crime has increased because The Chemical Brothers' Block Rockin Beats got to number 1 in 1997.

Yes and Yes. Good work, comrade.

Crime had dropped in the UK ever since the Labour government banned guns, and so guns should stay banned.

Take a look at America and its obsession with the right to gun possession. There are more murders compared to in the UK. There are 5.5 murders per 100,000 population in the US and only 1.4 murders per 100,000 population in the UK.

And the solution to gun crime in the US is? Mass imprisonment, and the creation of a police force the has unconstitutional powers. There are now more than 2,000,000 people in US prisons, and it is getting worse.

The US is facing a sociological timebomb, because more prisons will lead to a higher prison turnover. Because 64% of prisonsers re-offend, the higher turnover will lead to higher crime. The problem will grow until the police, army and prisons can no longer suppress it.

Prisoners who are in jails for a long time will re-offend because they know nothing of how to behave in the outside world, and the other prisoners teach them nothing except about how to commit crimes.

Crime has gone up in britain, probably every year since Britain was formed 300 years ago... It has accelarated under Labour.

All the info is in there.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

I'm braking in on a conversation...again.

Look anyone who says that more guns in Britain will reduce crime is a an idiot. If everyone owned a gun then there would be more deaths.
Think about.

The London where everyone owns a gun: Every criminal has a gun, becauseit is legal. The innocents(I like that word. I meann people who aren't criminals) who try to deffend themselves by playing policeman and shooting the bad guys end up being shot by the criminals who try to defend themselves. For nearly every criminal shot, an innocent is killed.
And meanwhile, there are people getting shot by accident. There are people who pull the trigger out of anger and those who pull it whilst playing around with the gun. Which means that more innocents- dead.

We all know what Britain is like without guns(or rather with out them being legal) It's not great but it's better than a Britain with legal guns. It is good that you want to reduce crime, but this is not the way. By the time crime is reduced everyone would be dead.

So I say "NO" to the legality of guns.

*edit*

Quite onb the contrary to these results! Crime has fallen slightly since Labour came to power(read any newspaper and they should say the same). I'm not for labour. I think they're annoying. But I'm worried that they are the best option at the moment, but that another story.... Don't get me wrong though. I'm not one of Tony's.

...those who pull it whilst playing around with the gun. Which means that more innocents- dead.


There are Darwin Awards for people who manage to shoot themselves. :headbang:

Accidents do happen, but if you shoot yourself while playing around with a gun, you have no one to blame but yourself and you probably have it coming.

Crime has gone up in britain, probably every year since Britain was formed 300 years ago... It has accelarated under Labour.

All the info is in there.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

And yet... 300 years ago most people in the UK had guns.

[Dramatic chord]

Crime statistics depend upon reporting. And what is defined as a crime. Twenty years ago you couldn't legally be raped within marriage. On the other hand, 50 years ago all homosexual unions were illegal. 200 years ago you could be hanged for damaging Westminister Bridge, consorting with gypsies, impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner and going bankrupt.

And yet... 300 years ago most people in the UK had guns.
.

Are you taking the piss? People running about with flintlocks?
If a private individual had any sort of weapon 300 years ago it would be a sword or a bow. Gun ownership wasn't, and still isn't, anything the masses dabble in.

Look anyone who says that more guns in Britain will reduce crime is a an idiot. If everyone owned a gun then there would be more deaths.
Think about.

Yes, but more deaths means less people to commit crimes and have crimes committed against them. Thus crime goes down.
Think about it.

"If more people had guns in the UK, there would be fewer shootings."

Discuss.
maybe if more people had big knives there would be less stabbings

And yet... 300 years ago most people in the UK had guns.

[Dramatic chord]


[Dramatic chord turns into comedy wah-wah-waaah noise]

No they didn't.

Even in the armies of the 1700s pikemen outnumbered musketeers.

ever since the Gun ban in the UK
from 1997 gun crime here in the UK has gone up
alarmingly.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the gun ban. Since practically nobody had any guns before the ban, banning them hasn't made any real difference, except stopping highly irresponsible gun nuts from building a private arsenal.

On the other hand, 50 years ago all homosexual unions were illegal.

Not all homosexual unions - only those involving males.