NationStates Jolt Archive

Proverbial cookie to whomsoever points out what is wrong with this graphic:

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_ploy2.jpg

From this site here (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/effective.html) - an american pro-gun ownership page.

What the hell is a "politically correct" gun?

Wait a minute...that's an American rifle. Odd. And, yeah, the "PC" gun thing is unusual too.

Not all guns were banned or confiscated.

Hell, I doubt any of them were confiscated.

And the gun's a prop.

What the hell is a "politically correct" gun?
Ones that cause the same amount of damage to a person, no matter who they are.

Is it that not all guns were confiscated. ie for hunting, police use, military use?

Not all guns were banned or confiscated.

Bingo. Have a cookie.


Anybody know if this kind of blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying is widespread in the pro-gun lobby in America?

Shotguns werent confiscated, also guns were only removed from the hands of the general public in the UK, the military and police firearms officers still have guns.
Can I have a jaffa cake?
Edit- curses beaten to the cookie.:(

Is it that not all guns were confiscated. ie for hunting, police use, military use?


Indeed.

The rules for gun ownership in England and Wales are outlined here clicky (http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/firearms.htm), I am not sure whether they cover Scotland or not, and I know that Northern Ireland remains 'different'.*






* sidenote: it appears that Northern Ireland, with a population of 1,686,000 has 139,588 legally held firearms.

and it looks like the bullet would fall out the side with the cartridge instead of going through the barrel

Bingo. Have a cookie.


Anybody know if this kind of blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying is widespread in the pro-gun lobby in America?

I know it's common in advertising in America, regardless of political affiliation or doctrine.

Anybody know if this kind of blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying is widespread in the pro-gun lobby in America?

Slow down a minute.

First, all *hand*guns were indeed confiscated from civilians (in 1997). That's about half of all guns in the UK. (excluding illegal unregistered guns, of course, which are at this point thought to be more common than legal guns)

Second, how many legal guns are owned by civilians now in the UK compared with before the ban(s)?

The only hard numbers I can find are:
"In contrast, 1998 showed there was a 29 per cent fall in the number of shotgun certificate holders since 1988 and a 40 per cent fall in the number of firearms certificate holders since 1968." (http://www.wfsa.net/Image_Docs/The_hand_of_the_law.htm). That's a huge reduction.

Third, how many new (not renewal) permits have been issued in the past, say, year? As a percentage of the population? A totally insignificant number, perhaps?

Fourth, how many cases of guns being used in self-defense were there in the past year? (I'm sure there are quite a few but you wouldn't hear about them since they would use unregistered guns and/or will not report to the police due to a justified fear of the courts ruling against them... self-defense is very nearly illegal in the UK today).

Yes, the ad is an exaggeration, but not a huge one.

(Oh, to people who are confused as to why this was called a "PC" gun... it's because it doesn't look military, it's the kind of thing that guys in a western might use... then again those were cavalry weapons at the time. I believe this is a Marlin 336 .30-30 or similar)

* sidenote: it appears that Northern Ireland, with a population of 1,686,000 has 139,588 legally held firearms.

And how many illegal ones? Probably more than 1,686,000. And to think ,they nearly chopped them up, except they were camera shy so didn't.

Is it that not all guns were confiscated. ie for hunting, police use, military use?

Police and military doesn't count, we are talking about civilian ownership and use by definition, and there's only one kind of use that matters: self-defense.

I really, really hate hearing people talk about "sporting use", hunting or target shooting as if that mattered... those are the least important kinds of uses of guns, they are not life-and-death matters. The main use is staying alive (and keeping your family alive) when attacked.

Then again self-defense with any weapon is also (essentially) illegal in the UK, isn't it?

While all guns have not been confiscated in England, they might as well be-- since the law there requires the gun to be unloaded and in a safe when in your home, by defending your home with one, you'd be breaking the law (and probably being sued by the asshole you shot).

Britan's laws are insanely pro-criminal.

Slow down a minute.

First, all *hand*guns were indeed confiscated from civilians (in 1997). That's about half of all guns in the UK. (excluding illegal unregistered guns, of course, which are at this point thought to be more common than legal guns)

Second, how many legal guns are owned by civilians now in the UK compared with before the ban(s)?

The only hard numbers I can find are:
"In contrast, 1998 showed there was a 29 per cent fall in the number of shotgun certificate holders since 1988 and a 40 per cent fall in the number of firearms certificate holders since 1968." (http://www.wfsa.net/Image_Docs/The_hand_of_the_law.htm). That's a huge reduction.

Third, how many new (not renewal) permits have been issued in the past, say, year? As a percentage of the population? A totally insignificant number, perhaps?


Sorry, I'm a little confused by your argument here. You're saying after the 'ban' the majority of firearms certificate holders as at (long before) the 'ban' are still certificate holders. In what way was this a 'ban'? And in what way is the advert not a major exaggeration?



... self-defense is very nearly illegal in the UK today).

...


Source?

Bingo. Have a cookie.


Anybody know if this kind of blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying is widespread in the pro-gun lobby in America?
From what I saw in the last series of elections, I would argue that 'blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying' is widespread through all of American politics and isn't just restricted to the gun-nut lobby.

And how many illegal ones? Probably more than 1,686,000. And to think ,they nearly chopped them up, except they were camera shy so didn't.

Nobody knows how many illegal ones, but a good guess is double or triple the number of legal ones.

They did chop them up actually, in a rather torturous way... slot milled in the barrel, welded chamber plug and more *shudder* They could have just sold them, of course, but since they think guns are evil, they had to punish them... or something.

Slow down a minute.

First, all *hand*guns were indeed confiscated from civilians (in 1997). That's about half of all guns in the UK. (excluding illegal unregistered guns, of course, which are at this point thought to be more common than legal guns)

No, untrue. Northern Ireland (whether we like it or not) remains part of the UK and the legislation from 1997 and 1998 doesn't apply here. Similarly not *all* handguns were covered by the legisltion in Great Britain - it is still possible to legally hold handguns of particular historical or antique interest, shot pistols for pest control, and handguns used for veterinary/slaughtering purposes.

Yes, the ad is an exaggeration, but not a huge one.

So, it isn't a huge exagerration to use the word 'all' when the actual facts are that 'some' is more appropriate?

Sorry, I'm a little confused by your argument here. You're saying after the 'ban' the majority of firearms certificate holders as at (long before) the 'ban' are still certificate holders. In what way was this a 'ban'?

No, read the stats again. Basically handguns were banned completely in 1997, and since the 1970's permits for other types of guns have dropped by about 50%. Handguns are roughly half of the total. Egro 75% of (legal) guns were confiscated over time.

Source?

British Man Denied Parole, Ruled "A Threat to Burglars"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=5757

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2687311

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml
Self defence within the home was also progressively legislated against. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any item carried for defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon. Police were given broad power to stop and search anyone. Individuals found with offensive weapons were guilty until proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard legal textbook explains that "any article is capable of being an offensive weapon". The public were told that society would protect them and their neighbours. If they saw someone being attacked they were to walk on by, and leave it to the professionals.

Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal law, approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed "reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to defend property with force. According to the Textbook of Criminal Law the requirement that an individual's efforts to defend himself be "reasonable" is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".


and lots more in the same vein

No, untrue. Northern Ireland (whether we like it or not) remains part of the UK and the legislation from 1997 and 1998 doesn't apply here. Similarly not *all* handguns were covered by the legisltion in Great Britain - it is still possible to legally hold handguns of particular historical or antique interest, shot pistols for pest control, and handguns used for veterinary/slaughtering purposes.

So, it isn't a huge exagerration to use the word 'all' when the actual facts are that 'some' is more appropriate?

No, "an overwhelming majority" is more appropriate. "All" is not a huge exaggeration.

Yeah, I know about all the exceptions, but they're just exceptions... the fact is that you cannot legally acquire *any* firearm for the express purpose of defending yourself. Nor can you legally carry *any* weapon whatsoever.

Yeah, I know about all the exceptions, but they're just exceptions... the fact is that you cannot legally acquire *any* firearm for the express purpose of defending yourself.

You're doing it again: ignoring the exceptions to make absolute claims: it is possible in Northern Ireland to hold firearms with the express purpose of self-defense.

Nor can you legally carry *any* weapon whatsoever.

So what are shotguns?

more British insanity in outlawing self defense...

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm#VIII.%20The%20Campaign%20against%20Self-Defense

Today, as a result of Parliament's 1967 abrogation of the common law rules on justifiable use of deadly force, should a person use a firearm for protection against a violent home intruder, he will be arrested, and a case will be brought against him by the Crown Prosecution Service.[173] In one notorious case, an elderly lady tried to frighten off a gang of thugs by firing a blank from her imitation firearm. She was arrested and charged with the crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm.[174]

With gun ownership for self-protection now completely illegal (unless one works for the government), Britons have begun switching to other forms of protection. The government considers this an intolerable affront. Having, through administrative interpretation, delegitimized gun ownership for self-defense, the British government has been able to outlaw a variety of defensive items. For example, non-lethal chemical defense sprays, such as Mace, are now illegal in Britain, as are electric stun devices.[175]

Other citizens choose to protect themselves with knives, but carrying a knife for defensive protection is considered illegal possession of an offensive weapon. One American tourist learned about this Orwellian offensive weapon law the hard way. After she used a pen knife to stab some men who were attacking her, a British court convicted her of carrying an offensive weapon. Her intention to use the pen knife for lawful defensive purposes (p.436)converted the pen knife, under British legal newspeak, into an illegal "offensive weapon."[177] In 1996, knife-carrying was made presumptively illegal, even without the "offensive" intent to use the weapon defensively.

Proverbial cookie to whomsoever points out what is wrong with this graphic:

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_ploy2.jpg

From this site here (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/effective.html) - an american pro-gun ownership page.

Amusing link you've got there :D

Amusing link you've got there :D

Yes, some of their other graphics are actually quite entertaining, such as the Taliban one, I'll grant them that.

You're doing it again: ignoring the exceptions to make absolute claims: it is possible in Northern Ireland to hold firearms with the express purpose of self-defense.

Are you *sure*? Does the Firearms Act (1968), § 5(b) not apply there? I'm not an expert on UK law.

So what are shotguns?

You can own a shotgun, and you can transport it between places where you intend to use it for sport or hunting (locked, and separate from ammo), but you cannot *carry* it. Do you need a definition of carry now? For crissake, you can't even carry a penknife or *knitting needle*, people have been convicted for that too.

Anyway Mr. Organs these are just nitpicks and you know it. You guys have a real problem with out-of-control crime and insane self-defense-banning politicians and police, and you know it. Fess up.

Are you *sure*? Does the Firearms Act (1968), § 5(b) not apply there? I'm not an expert on UK law.

Yup. No, there are a variety of different acts which apply here, and the PTA still is in place which means that special circumstances still apply.

Hey, uh, there is something else definitely wrong with that graphic.

Fair enough guns were banned to a certain extent. But to suggest that people in the UK have lost their civil rights? Damn. All of a sudden, I have absolutely no civil rights. When did that happen?

All of a sudden, I have absolutely no civil rights. When did that happen?

...about the time that Thatcher came to power? ;)

I really, really hate hearing people talk about "sporting use", hunting or target shooting as if that mattered... those are the least important kinds of uses of guns,

Why does it annoy you so much. I know a few people who would consider guns as hunting tools rather then self defence tools. And feel that they are more important as hunting tools rather then self defence tools.

"those are the least important kinds of uses of guns,"

Again this is dependant on the person you use as an example. Many people (most commonly landowners) in Britain rely on guns as a source of income. Not because they teach self defence or own gun shops, or anything to do with what you consider the most important use of guns. But because they organise hunts for people with money. (There was an article in, I think it was, the Guardian about this recently. Apparently hunting is becoming a popular recreation of affluent businessmen. And many hunt organisers can charge quite a lot).

There are many uses of guns, and the most important use for a gun depends on who you ask. Someone living in the middle of the country side is less likely to see it as useful for self defence, when compared to someone in Chicago (first US city to pop into my head.)

they are not life-and-death matters. The main use is staying alive (and keeping your family alive) when attacked.

I understand that pheasants can get quite vicious.

Then again self-defense with any weapon is also (essentially) illegal in the UK, isn't it?

It is currently under review. Following the case of the farmer shooting two burgulars the tories have jumped on the bandwagon that says the law should allow people to use nessaccery force and Labour is considering it (I think it may have unofficially been introduced though).

...about the time that Thatcher came to power? ;)
Then I never had any civil rights in the first place- I was born in '87. :p

Has anyone looked at the actual gun website? I see they are going for a multicultural approach. There's US weapons, UK weapons (that sten), former USSR weapons (the AK) and a Famas, which is Japanese (I think). What is this, United Against the World with their Own Weapons? :confused:

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2687311
Your telling me he should have been given a pat on the back and told "Well done for killing that person"?

This from thr Home office site:


Common sense dictates that there are many types of firearms, especially those designed for military use, that have no place in the sporting field or hobby of shooting. There are others, for instance some hand guns, which have been brought into the prohibited category by Acts of Parliament. All of the following weapons and ammunition are prohibited:
Section 5 (1)

(a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger.

(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges.

(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30cm in length or is less than 60cm in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus.

(ac) any self-loading or pump-action smooth bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or is less than 40 inches in length overall.

(ad) any smooth bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun.

(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus.

(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system.

(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.

(c) any cartridge with a bullet so designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb or other like missile, or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid.


To sum up; single fire crack and load shot guns, bolt action hunting rifles and 22 semiautomatic rifles are allowed in the UK providing you can show that the firearm will be used for its intended purpose.

Would you believe the UK has looser fireworks laws, I loved Guy Fawkes day. I bought a bunch if Roman Candles at the Tesco.

No, read the stats again. Basically handguns were banned completely in 1997, and since the 1970's permits for other types of guns have dropped by about 50%. Handguns are roughly half of the total. Egro 75% of (legal) guns were confiscated over time.

...

Ah, you were assuming handguns accounted for half of all legal firearms pre-'ban'; approximating 29% (the shotguns figure) to 50%, taking that as a proxy for all non-handgun figures and thus derive a figure of 75% for the overall confiscation of guns. (Implicitly assuming the reduction in the number of certificates is accounted for wholly by confiscations.) Presumably this 75% figure is equivalent to the 40% figure you quoted previously for the overall fall in certificate holders? My bad - I see your reasoning now (though I'm still a little hazy on the last point).

Will you be very upset if I ignore your quantitative arguments from now on? BWO has pointed out reservations I share on your grasp of semantics.

For crissake, you can't even carry a penknife or *knitting needle*, people have been convicted for that too.

Do you have a source for that. Not because I don't believe you, but because I think it would be amusing reading.

...and insane self-defense-banning politicians and police, and you know it...
It is the other way round. Politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. It is felt to be a minor vote winning strategy.

One amusing thing about our laws is that the British handgun shooting team has to practise in Switzerland.

No, read the stats again. Basically handguns were banned completely in 1997, and since the 1970's permits for other types of guns have dropped by about 50%. Handguns are roughly half of the total. Egro 75% of (legal) guns were confiscated over time.
Point is, the add shows a rifle and states that ALL guns have been banned. Not 75%. Not handguns. ALL guns.
So it is blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying.

Why does it annoy you so much.

It annoys me because it is much easier to pass regulations that affect sports than it is to pass regulations that result in people being helpless against criminals. People who want to ban or restrict guns more and more (here in the USA) usually don't mention self-defense, they only talk about sports. It reinforces the idea of guns being a hobby, rather than a lifesaver.

Granted, a restriction on sporting use may cause economic hardship to a few people, but a restriction on defensive use *kills* people. It's not in the same league at all.

It is currently under review. Following the case of the farmer shooting two burgulars the tories have jumped on the bandwagon that says the law should allow people to use nessaccery force and Labour is considering it.

Well, seeing as how your violent crime rate has doubled in the past few years, some backlash is to be expected. I wouldn't hold my breath though, not until things get much worse.

you're putting 303 British shells into a Winchester 30-30

No, read the stats again. Basically handguns were banned completely in 1997, and since the 1970's permits for other types of guns have dropped by about 50%. Handguns are roughly half of the total. Egro 75% of (legal) guns were confiscated over time.

Following up from The White Hats' comments: you claim that the drop in firearms permits means that guns have been confiscated. Do you have any evidence for the implicit claim here that permit applications were made, rafused and the guns taken away from their previous owners, rather than just less people making applications because they no longer want guns and so handing them in of their own accord? Indeed, it is also possible that gun ownership was much higher in the generation which would have served in WWII, and this generation is now declining in numbers, and so would no longer be making applications.

Do you have a source for that. Not because I don't believe you, but because I think it would be amusing reading.



Almost always you find with these stories, it's some idiot carrying the item to attack another with, thus falls under 'malicious intent'.

Like a friend of a friend of mine who got done after an altercation with a couple of other guys which ended with him puncturing the kidney of one with a pick axe. He was not done for wounding or GBH, because he was acting on self-defence. He was done for carrying an offensive weapon - the pick axe - because he could show no legitimate reason for carrying it. (Fair call by the police actually - he was carrying it as a weapon.)

I see they are going for a multicultural approach. There's US weapons, UK weapons (that sten), former USSR weapons (the AK) and a Famas, which is Japanese (I think). What is this, United Against the World with their Own Weapons? :confused:

Hey, we're a nation of immigrants, you know. I think people like weapons from their "old countries"... I am partial to the Mossin-Nagant, personally.

Your telling me he should have been given a pat on the back and told "Well done for killing that person"?

Yes.

In the USA, most places, he would have gotten some praise from the local chief of police, and would not have been arrested or charged with anything. (assuming it was clear the burglars had broken into his home, of course)

Yes.

In the USA, most places, he would have gotten some praise from the local chief of police, and would not have been arrested or charged with anything. (assuming it was clear the burglars had broken into his home, of course)


"Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun."

It doesn't appear that they did break in.

Well, seeing as how your violent crime rate has doubled in the past few years, some backlash is to be expected. I wouldn't hold my breath though, not until things get much worse.

I've already told you, politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. It is now legal (or will soon be) to use nessacery force to get rid of burgulars.

Which means you can act in self defence, provided you don't go over the top. Or to paraphrase a high ranking tory, you can take action if you see a boy stealing apples, but you cannot bludgeon him to death.

Following up from The White Hats' comments: you claim that the drop in firearms permits means that guns have been confiscated. Do you have any evidence for the implicit claim here that permit applications were made, rafused and the guns taken away from their previous owners, rather than just less people making applications because they no longer want guns and so handing them in of their own accord? Indeed, it is also possible that gun ownership was much higher in the generation which would have served in WWII, and this generation is now declining in numbers, and so would no longer be making applications.

That was precisely my reasoning. I have not been able to find good statistics (I wonder why, I don't think your government publishes them) but I suspect that firearms get transferred to a smaller population of owners that now have more firearms each. Most would be sold not confiscated.

WW2 firearms are common, large numbers are held (unregistered) by regular folks "just in case" (or so I am told by British expats).

Yes.

In the USA, most places, he would have gotten some praise from the local chief of police, and would not have been arrested or charged with anything. (assuming it was clear the burglars had broken into his home, of course)
Yay, lets glorify killers.

Wait, we already do that.

Almost always you find with these stories, it's some idiot carrying the item to attack another with, thus falls under 'malicious intent'.

Like a friend of a friend of mine who got done after an altercation with a couple of other guys which ended with him puncturing the kidney of one with a pick axe. He was not done for wounding or GBH, because he was acting on self-defence. He was done for carrying an offensive weapon - the pick axe - because he could show no legitimate reason for carrying it. (Fair call by the police actually - he was carrying it as a weapon.)

This is insane. Carrying a weapon is not in and of itself malicious intent. To think so is tantamount to not recognizing a right to armed self-defense. If you need to defend yourself but cannot carry a weapon, what the hell are you supposed to do, look around for a rock?

I think you guys have collectively gone off the deep end.

...but I suspect that firearms get transferred to a smaller population of owners that now have more firearms each. Most would be sold not confiscated.



This seems strangely at odds with your earlier claim that "Egro 75% of (legal) guns were confiscated over time." You now appear to be saying that 75% of legal guns weren't confiscated over time. Maybe I'm just not following your argument correctly?

WW2 firearms are common, large numbers are held (unregistered) by regular folks "just in case" (or so I am told by British expats).

The thing is I'm fine with the idea of people having firearms, wether for hunting or self defence or what every.

But there does seem to be a dangerously high level of paranoia [sp] in some pro-gun people, which is disconcerting at best.

This is insane. Carrying a weapon is not in and of itself malicious intent. To think so is tantamount to not recognizing a right to armed self-defense. If you need to defend yourself but cannot carry a weapon, what the hell are you supposed to do, look around for a rock?

I think you guys have collectively gone off the deep end.

The situation is that cases are viewed on their individual merits: one man might be arrested for carrying a sheath knife, but the case dropped when it is made clear that it is used in his everyday work, while someone else may be arrested for carrying a screwdriver, and the case would go to court and it could be classified as an offensive weapon (say, for example he took it to a football match).

The thing is I'm fine with the idea of people having firearms, wether for hunting or self defence or what every.

But there does seem to be a dangerously high level of paranoia [sp] in some pro-gun people, which is disconcerting at best.
Perhaps at least some of that paranoia is well-founded? Let's just say that you had a prized automobile, and that there were a number of organizations and people who were bound and determined to take it away from you. Would your response seem a bit paranoid to those who didn't own a car?

Do you have a source for that. Not because I don't believe you, but because I think it would be amusing reading.

pen-knife:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm#VIII.%20The%20Campaign%20against%20Self-Defense

knitting needle:
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

It is the other way round. Politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. It is felt to be a minor vote winning strategy.

Good, if true. "To go halfway to hell and stop is rare indeed".

This seems strangely at odds with your earlier claim that "Egro 75% of (legal) guns were confiscated over time." You now appear to be saying that 75% of legal guns weren't confiscated over time. Maybe I'm just not following your argument correctly?

Er, nitpicks again. "Confiscated or otherwise removed from civilian ownership"... some confiscated, some through voluntary turn-in programs, some sold to dealers and eventuall exported, etc etc. Although it looks like roughly half were confiscated outright.

Perhaps at least some of that paranoia is well-founded? Let's just say that you had a prized automobile, and that there were a number of organizations and people who were bound and determined to take it away from you. Would your response seem a bit paranoid to those who didn't own a car?

Maybe a better analogy would be if you owned a tank, and there were organisations which didn't want to take it away from you, but were prepared to let you keep it provided the weaponry was disabled... oh hang on, that analogy goes far too close to the actual matter at hand...

Perhaps at least some of that paranoia is well-founded? Let's just say that you had a prized automobile, and that there were a number of organizations and people who were bound and determined to take it away from you. Would your response seem a bit paranoid to those who didn't own a car?
I'm fine with paranoia, which is why I said "dangerously high levels of..."

By "dangerously high levels of..." I mean the tendency of some pro-gun lobbyist to think that banning guns will cause a facist/communist/*ist take over of the country.

Tony Martin shot someone in the back with an illegally held shotgun, which is why he got arrested. Because the force was unnecessary as the victim was running away. If he shot him in the front with a legal gun he would have got off. As for gun control I think it’s a good idea and is probably why we only have about 22 deaths as a result of gun’s whereas the USA has over 10000 deaths

:mp5: = deaths

Er, nitpicks again. "Confiscated or otherwise removed from civilian ownership"... some confiscated, some through voluntary turn-in programs, some sold to dealers and eventuall exported, etc etc. Although it looks like roughly half were confiscated outright.

Hardly a nitpick really: given that the original graphic under discussion is claiming 'confiscated' (ie. taken away against their owner's will), and to use stats which make no differentiation between guns given up voluntarily and guns given up involuntarily blurs the issue markedly.

As for gun control I think it’s a good idea and is probably why we only have about 22 deaths as a result of gun’s whereas the USA has over 10000 deaths

:mp5: = deaths

~cough~

Switzerland?

~cough~

The situation is that cases are viewed on their individual merits: one man might be arrested for carrying a sheath knife, but the case dropped when it is made clear that it is used in his everyday work, while someone else may be arrested for carrying a screwdriver, and the case would go to court and it could be classified as an offensive weapon.

Yes, I know that is how your insane laws work ;)

The law tries to distinguish between weapons and non-weapons based on intent. This is obviously impossible, but even so, you completely fail to explain why it is necessary to ban weapons instead of simply banning attacks. Weapons in and of themselves do not hurt anyone. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate reason to carry a weapon.

I've already told you, politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. It is now legal (or will soon be) to use nessacery force to get rid of burgulars.

Which means you can act in self defence, provided you don't go over the top. Or to paraphrase a high ranking tory, you can take action if you see a boy stealing apples, but you cannot bludgeon him to death.

The current laws require a 'porportionate' amount of force-- which means you can't grab a knife if they're using their fists, and if they're using a knife you can't grab a gun.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is mind-numbingly stupid.

I'm fine with paranoia, which is why I said "dangerously high levels of..."

By "dangerously high levels of..." I mean the tendency of some pro-gun lobbyist to think that banning guns will cause a facist/communist/*ist take over of the country.
That's a new one on me. My primary complaints against banning guns from private ownership are:

1. It's unconstitutional.

2. It disarms the innocent and creates a vast crowd of potential victims.

3. It takes no account of historical ( and current! ) examples of how the inability of average citizens to defend themselves leads to loss of freedom.

pen-knife:
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm#VIII.%20The%20Campaign%20against%20Self-Defense


One American tourist learned about this Orwellian offensive weapon law the hard way. After she used a pen knife to stab some men who were attacking her,

Well done her. I doubt I could do that, not from any squemish tendancy. But because I was pissed off once and stabbed a bag of flour, which caused the blade to close and cut my finger open (which is why my current one has a lock on). So it is a case of once bitten twice shy.

knitting needle:
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

Well, she wasn't found guiilty of carrying an offensive weapon :p


But "..it is the duty of society to protect them." Generally I think most people would be more comfortable with protecting themselves, because society doesn't always stop a crime (I know this first hand, someone tried to mug me mid day on a fairly busy street, did anyone interfer? No, I ran possibly the fastest I ever have in my life)

This is obviously impossible, but even so, you completely fail to explain why it is necessary to ban weapons instead of simply banning attacks.

I believe the reasoning here is that if people are permitted to routinely carry weapons then they will be much more likely to be provoked into using them and thus carrying out attacks than if they are not routinely armed.

The current laws require a 'porportionate' amount of force-- which means you can't grab a knife if they're using their fists, and if they're using a knife you can't grab a gun.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is mind-numbingly stupid.
Yes, the Now Show had great fun with that.

Perhaps at least some of that paranoia is well-founded? Let's just say that you had a prized automobile, and that there were a number of organizations and people who were bound and determined to take it away from you.

Eutrusca, that may be a bad simile, since most people are worried about their lives, not about property.

Here in LA there are some areas in which your chances of being the victim of serious violent crime (rape, murder or aggravated assault) in any given year is about one in ten, higher if you're female. That's a damn good reason to be concerned. (although I should mention that in most of the city that chance is one in several thousand: crime is very localized)

I believe the reasoning here is that if people are permitted to routinely carry weapons then they will be much more likely to be provoked into using them and thus carrying out attacks than if they are not routinely armed.

Reasoning which is completely unsupported by the facts.

There is a tiny pecentage of people who commit most violent crime. They tend to be repeat offenders. For whatever reason they have not learned moral restraint in childhood, and so they remain amoral (and liable to commit violent acts) throughout their adult life.

Most ordinary people have almost zero probability of committing any violent crime regardless of provocation.

Picture this for a moment... in some parts of the US about one in ten people you see on the street is armed, typically with a high-power handgun with hollowpoint bullets. Sound scary? Well, those tend to be the safest places, with violent crime rates well below the European average.

That's a new one on me. My primary complaints against banning guns from private ownership are:

1. It's unconstitutional.


You obviously don't need me to point out here that the actual intent of the amendment remains up for deabte, given mention of 'a well regulated militia'...

Picture this for a moment... in some parts of the US about one in ten people you see on the street is armed, typically with a high-power handgun with hollowpoint bullets. Sound scary? Well, those tend to be the safest places, with violent crime rates well below the European average.

Yes, I made mention of Switzerland earlier in response to someone who was trying to draw a simple correlation between privately held guns and deaths by gunfire.

Ah, you were assuming handguns accounted for half of all legal firearms pre-'ban'; approximating 29% (the shotguns figure) to 50%, taking that as a proxy for all non-handgun figures and thus derive a figure of 75% for the overall confiscation of guns. (Implicitly assuming the reduction in the number of certificates is accounted for wholly by confiscations.) Presumably this 75% figure is equivalent to the 40% figure you quoted previously for the overall fall in certificate holders? My bad - I see your reasoning now (though I'm still a little hazy on the last point).

Precisely. Handguns were about half of pre-ban guns, that's from another source. Also correcting for population change, etc. Okay, so it's a convoluted calculation, but it's not my fault that better numbers are not available.

Will you be very upset if I ignore your quantitative arguments from now on?

Whatever ;) I don't care if it's 75% or say 68%... makes no difference. Thegovernment is clearly trying to remove guns from civilian hands, and particularly to crack down on any self-defense use.

Police and military doesn't count, we are talking about civilian ownership and use by definition, and there's only one kind of use that matters: self-defense.

I really, really hate hearing people talk about "sporting use", hunting or target shooting as if that mattered... those are the least important kinds of uses of guns, they are not life-and-death matters. The main use is staying alive (and keeping your family alive) when attacked.

Then again self-defense with any weapon is also (essentially) illegal in the UK, isn't it?
well hell, if guns are made to specifically kill other people, why the fuck havnt we banned all guns?

Be sure to check out the rest of the site (http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html), they have a lot of cool posters. My favorites so far:


http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_alive.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_beready.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_purpose.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/quacks_s.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/idaho-girl_s.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_givelead.jpg

well hell, if guns are made to specifically kill other people, why the fuck havnt we banned all guns?

They are made to kill, and yet any good person would use them only in order to save lives. Paradox? Not really. Sometimes, those are the only available choices.

well hell, if guns are made to specifically kill other people, why the fuck havnt we banned all guns?

Well, if we look at those guns it is still legal to hold in Great Briain we see such firearms as shotguns and those for veterinary use, which clearly show that not all guns are primarily and specifically designed for killing other people.

Well, if we look at those guns it is still legal to hold in Great Briain we see such firearms as shotguns and those for veterinary use, which clearly show that not all guns are primarily and specifically designed for killing other people.

That's a total distraction from the real issue: self-defense.

You guys in the UK can legally use guns for everything *except* self-defense.

Yeah, guns are designed for killing or hurting people, that's the definition of a weapon, isn't it? The question is why would you ever use one, and the answer is in response to a life-threatening attack. You'll excuse me if I think that *not* to be willing to do that is cowardly and despicable? Just my two cents here.

EDIT: And by the way it won't do you much good if you're willing to defend yourself but don't have the means... that's just irresponsible.

Precisely. Handguns were about half of pre-ban guns, that's from another source. Also correcting for population change, etc. Okay, so it's a convoluted calculation, but it's not my fault that better numbers are not available.
Here you go, knock yourself out: Official statistics on England & Wales firearms (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0304.pdf) . Careful though, they may not support your preconceptions of how things should be, so feel free to ignore them.



Whatever ;) I don't care if it's 75% or say 68%... makes no difference. Thegovernment is clearly trying to remove guns from civilian hands, and particularly to crack down on any self-defense use.
Say a lot lower than 68% and I might be prepared to pay attention to the rest of your assertions about my country.

Here you go, knock yourself out: Official statistics on England & Wales firearms (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0304.pdf) . Careful though, they may not support your preconceptions of how things should be, so feel free to ignore them.

This is great, thanks ;)

Okay, so firearms (not shotguns) certificates have shrunk from 216,300 in 1968 to 117,700 in 2002? How does that not match what I said?

Say a lot lower than 68% and I might be prepared to pay attention to the rest of your assertions about my country.

Well, let's see, since 1968-ish firearms certificates down from 216k to 118k, shotguns down from 715k to 561k, and 129k handguns "surrendered"? (oh by the way as defined shotguns can have two shots at most) And you're trying to tell me this is not a movement to essentially ban guns?

By the way this measures number of owners not number of guns... I guess the numbers imply that most people who had handguns had other firearms (average 3-4 per owner). So we can't say anything about the drop in number of guns, but the drop in number of owners is 45% without counting shotguns and 35% including shotguns.

Also, let me mention that your rate of weapons ownership is amazingly low... one gun owner per what, 90 people? In the USA it is closer to one in two ;)

Now I really want some data going back to the time when the UK first started messing with this (1920). I hear it was similar to the USA back then.

Also, let me mention that your rate of weapons ownership is amazingly low... one gun owner per what, 90 people? In the USA it is closer to one in two ;)


Which just raises the old question of why the US has such a highrate of firearm related fatalities compared to nations such as the UK (with less guns per head) and those such as Switzerland (with large numbers of guns per head).

Which just raises the old question of why the US has such a highrate of firearm related fatalities compared to nations such as the UK (with less guns per head) and those such as Switzerland (with large numbers of guns per head).

Talking about "firearm related fatalities" already frames the wrong question. I believe that people will use whatever weapon is handy - unless you have some evidence to the contrary? Let's talk about fatalities in general. In fact, how about we also set aside for now suicides, which are a damn complicated topic?

In the USA, you have:

murders: 4.9 per 100,000
murders using firearms: 2.6 per 100,000
justifiable homicide: 0.7 per 100,000 (* most using firearms)

also,

fatal accidents: 35 per 100,000
fatal firearm accidents: 0.28 per 100,000

In all this I'm using the most recent data available, typically 2001-2003 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html and http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm).


Now let's look at the UK:

murders: 1.75 per 100,000 (2.5 in Scotland)
murders using firearms: 0.14 per 100,000

(http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf)

So, okay: on the average the USA is more dangerous than the UK, although not wildly so. However, the USA is particularly non-homogenous... The average murder rate for US cities of over a million is 14.2 while for rural areas it is 3.6. Even large cities are extremely different: Washington, DC has a rate of 45 (!) while Portland, OR has a rate of 2.0. Even that does not tell the whole story, since murders are extremely concentrated in only some parts of cities... for example in LA there is a part of town that is frequented by gangs which has a murder rate over 75 (!) compared to the 11 average for the whole city and a rate of around 1.5 where I live.

What does it all mean? Well, I think basically in areas not affected by gangs the USA is about as safe as any place in Europe. Gang areas are comparable in danger to war zones, everywhere else is surprisingly safe.

Then we can discuss how gangs come about, etc.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure I should say that the murder rate in the US has almost dropped by half in the past decade, while in the UK it has almost doubled. That is generally true of all other violent crime, too.

In the USA, you have:

murders: 4.9 per 100,000
murders using firearms: 2.6 per 100,000


Now let's look at the UK:

murders: 1.75 per 100,000 (2.5 in Scotland)
murders using firearms: 0.14 per 100,000

So, okay: on the average the USA is more dangerous than the UK, although not wildly so.

2.0 - 2.8 times more murders per head, and roughly 18.5 times more murders with firearms doesn't count as wildly different?

2.0 - 2.8 times more murders per head, and roughly 18.5 times more murders with firearms doesn't count as wildly different?

No, the differences between US and UK in overall murder rate are not that great compared to differences just within the US. The ratio of murders with firearms is irrelevant. As I said people will use whatever is available.

Incidentally, I believe the UK does not have the same degree of internal non-homogeneity... there is no area with a rate twenty times higher than the national average.

No, the differences between US and UK in overall murder rate are not that great compared to differences just within the US. The ratio of murders with firearms is irrelevant. As I said people will use whatever is available.

Incidentally, I believe the UK does not have the same degree of internal non-homogeneity... there is no area with a rate twenty times higher than the national average.
On the first, the fact that the average rate in the England is lower than the lowest regional rate in the US quoted by yourself is significant. And if the choice of weapon is irrelevant, why are you so keen to force firearms on us?

On the second, you're guessing. I cannot find any regional statistics published for the UK that would support your assertion. (Even assuming geographical differences between the two countries allowed a credible like for like comparison.) In fact, differences in the way that regional statistics are collected between the UK and the USA would preclude a comparable analysis.

On the first, the fact that the average rate in the England is lower than the lowest regional rate in the US quoted by yourself is significant.

I don't see how. By the way you are technically wrong, the lowest regional rate I quoted - for the city where I live - is 1.5, lower than the UK average.

I'm not even addressing the fact that the method of collecting statistics in the US would tend to maximize and in the UK minimize the numbers, by a lot. I don't consider the statistics to be that precise, after all in many cases we can only guess at the circumstances. If the numbers in different countries with different reporting practices are within a factor of two of each other I would consider them to be essentially the same.

On the second, you're guessing. I cannot find any regional statistics published for the UK that would support your assertion.

I have seen the rate for London quoted as 2.0 for a year in which the rate for all of England and Wales was 1.5 (sorry I can't remember the source). This is a very small difference compared to the city-country divide in the US (11 to 3.6).

And if the choice of weapon is irrelevant, why are you so keen to force firearms on us?

The choice of weapon is very significant, but only for the defense. The majority of murderers tend to be male, age 18-24, and in excellent physical shape. They don't *need* a weapon at all. The majority of potential victims need a weapon that does not rely on physical strength or agility if they are to successfuly fight off multiple attackers much stronger than they are. Thus the availability of weapons primarily affects the murder rate through deterrence, not through making the crime easier.

OK so the real mistakes in the text, but think your still gonna have a hard time getting that shell in that model 97 without the lever in the down position.

Bingo. Have a cookie.


Anybody know if this kind of blatant falsification of the facts and scare-mongering through downright lying is widespread in the pro-gun lobby in America?
And what happens when the person who owns the gun uses them for self defense in the UK against a criminal? ;)

And what happens when the person who owns the gun uses them for self defense in the UK against a criminal? ;)
It depends on the case.

There is the famous case (mentioned earlier in thread) about the Farmer who hid from the burgular and shot them in the back when they were leaving, with an illegal weapon.

But on the otherhand I know of a person that chased a burgular out by threatening him with a shotgun (It was broken but the criminal didn't know that). Nothing happened to him.

British courts are more likely to go on the defendants side when they kill/seriously injure and it was deemed they were acting out of personal self defence (that is, defending their life/health rather then property)

Your telling me he should have been given a pat on the back and told "Well done for killing that person"?
I'd be happy if such people were left alone. It's perverse to imprison people for defending their own lives, but wouldn't make much sense for the government to officially congradulate them either.

I'd be happy if such people were left alone. It's perverse to imprison people for defending their own lives, but wouldn't make much sense for the government to officially congradulate them either.
I knoe, too true.