NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don’t reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

[In] contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation’s violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI’s figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special?

or you could just look at the UK where we theoretically have no guns and far less violent crime

or you could just look at the UK where we theoretically have no guns and far less violent crime

I think you need to read the article. Your crime rate is going up - and your Home Office is admitting it - ever since your gun ban it has gone up - and when the gun ban first went into effect, your crime was already going down.

Now it's going back up. Good job!

This document appears to be ill-informed bullshit.

Why do people insist on tying the UK gun ban to increases in crime? The two are completely unrelated. The fact is, pretty much nobody had guns before the ban was enacted, nobody used guns to defend themselves anyway, so how exactly can banning them have '[denied] law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves'?

I think you need to read the article. Your crime rate is going up - and your Home Office is admitting it - ever since your gun ban it has gone up - and when the gun ban first went into effect, your crime was already going down.

Now it's going back up. Good job!
with no relation to the gun ban

This document appears to be ill-informed bullshit.

Why do people insist on tying the UK gun ban to increases in crime? The two are completely unrelated. The fact is, pretty much nobody had guns before the ban was enacted, nobody used guns to defend themselves anyway, so how exactly can banning them have '[denied] law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves'?

I can't speak for the reason for the crime increase in the UK - their data comes from the Home Office, so the Home Office must be full of shit.

But, speaking for the reason in the US -

2.5 million times a year, citizens with guns stop violent crimes in mid-comission by the mere display of a firearm - legally owned.

If they did not have these firearms, those crimes (the vast majority of US violent crime is committed by someone who is NOT using a firearm) would proceed and occur.

So, if you banned guns in the US, violent crime would rise automatically.

Don't know about the UK, but we even see this effect between Virginia and Maryland.

In Virginia, felons now know that civilians are carrying firearms. From the time that this started, violent crime has plummeted in Virginia. At the same time, Maryland has placed severe restrictions on firearm possession. They now enjoy some of the highest violent crime rates in the country (a piece of Maryland near my Virginia home has an increase in armed robbery of 70 percent this past year - while my area has gone down again).

It's not misinformed bullshit.

What entails violent crime in Britain?

It's not misinformed bullshit.

Yes it is, because it tries to suggest that the UK gun ban is a cause of rising UK crime rates, when it isn't, because practically nobody had guns before the ban, and therefore all the ban has actually done is prevent a few nutters going on rampages like at Dunblain.

Banning guns in the US would make a difference, because people already have guns and use them. In the UK, this is not the case; guns are not a part of our culture, and banning them has not made much difference to us.

Violent crime in the UK has increased, the Home Office has stated. However, crime rate as a whole has fallen. A gun isn't necessary for a crime to be violent nor is it necessary to stop a violent offender. Has it not occured to people that an increase in the reported crime rate may actually be good as it means that crimes are now being reported rather than going unreported which helps nobody, accept maybe the criminal.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]In Virginia, felons now know that civilians are carrying firearms. From the time that this started, violent crime has plummeted in Virginia. At the same time, Maryland has placed severe restrictions on firearm possession. They now enjoy some of the highest violent crime rates in the country (a piece of Maryland near my Virginia home has an increase in armed robbery of 70 percent this past year - while my area has gone down again).

[QUOTE]
Violent crime in these states would increase as the law is foolish. The only way to stop criminals would be to ban guns across the Country as they can legally buy a weapon in one state then use that weapon in another.

Agreed. Gun control has nothing to do with preventing crime. It's merely a tactic employed by totalitarians to control the population and protect themselves from insurrection. The experts (Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Quaddafi, etc.) agree- gun control works!

I can't speak for the reason for the crime increase in the UK - their data comes from the Home Office, so the Home Office must be full of shit.


Gun ownership in the UK has always been mostly non-existent. Even the police generally do not carry firearms.

This is not to suggest that violent crimes involving firearms never happen in the UK but it certainly is not prevalent. Most of the "apparent" increase in such crimes is due to increased media coverage of what was always happening. There have been several documented instances (it's slack of me not to provide references, I'll look for them later) where actual crime has dropped but the reporting of it has gone up by something like 400%.

Gun-related crimes are not on the increase here in Australia either.

Fight your own battles regarding whether you want gun control or not, using the UK and Australia as examples of increasing violence caused by gun restrictions is not a good way to prove that the US should avoid such measures. Why? As I've stated, there has been no such increases in violence here in Australia and I'm pretty sure the same is true for the UK.

Violent crime in these states would increase as the law is foolish. The only way to stop criminals would be to ban guns across the Country as they can legally buy a weapon in one state then use that weapon in another.

Then the 2.5 million crimes that were ordinarily prevented by civilians with legal firearms would occur.

Most of those violent crimes are not committed with a gun.

Are you saying, therefore, that a violent non-gun crime would not occur if we just banned guns?

That's ridiculous.

Then the 2.5 million crimes that were ordinarily prevented by civilians with legal firearms would occur.

Most of those violent crimes are not committed with a gun.

Are you saying, therefore, that a violent non-gun crime would not occur if we just banned guns?

That's ridiculous.
Why would they occur? Just because someone isn't armed with a gun doesn't stop them trying to stop a crime from occuring.

Then the 2.5 million crimes that were ordinarily prevented by civilians with legal firearms would occur.

Most of those violent crimes are not committed with a gun.

Are you saying, therefore, that a violent non-gun crime would not occur if we just banned guns?

That's ridiculous.
And how many of those crimes stopped with guns involved guns by the party that was stopped thus requiring the gun to stop the crime? Hmm, there's a conundrum for you. And what unbiased site did you pull that gem of a pro-gun statistic from.

Why would they occur? Just because someone isn't armed with a gun doesn't stop them trying to stop a crime from occuring.

Traditionally, in the US, people who try to stop a violent crime from occurring, even if the felon is unarmed, typically end up wounded or dead.

I personally know a man in a wheelchair, who, despite cooperating with his attackers, was beaten on three separate occasions just for the hell of it.

Now he has a gun. I trained him in the use of it so he could get a carry permit.

Are you saying he should go around unarmed?

Traditionally, in the US, people who try to stop a violent crime from occurring, even if the felon is unarmed, typically end up wounded or dead.

I personally know a man in a wheelchair, who, despite cooperating with his attackers, was beaten on three separate occasions just for the hell of it.

Now he has a gun. I trained him in the use of it so he could get a carry permit.

Are you saying he should go around unarmed?
I would say would it not be better to improve your police force and education so that these people could do something better than commit crime, but no wait...that would mean spending money.
No, you're right, its better to keep arming the population because at no point could anybody be shot wrongly...what could I be thinking of? :rolleyes:

And how many of those crimes stopped with guns involved guns by the party that was stopped thus requiring the gun to stop the crime? Hmm, there's a conundrum for you. And what unbiased site did you pull that gem of a pro-gun statistic from.
The number is in fact true, and often reproduced on many different sites, I once ran across it on the DoJ website. I also have attended debates with representatives from both sides of the issue. I have seen both sides bring up this statistic.

I think the important fact with this number is that no violence was carried out by either party because the victim was able to brandish the gun. The gun was not brought out because the intruder had one, but only because the intruder was there. The fact as to whether or not the intruder had a gun is irrelevant to this statistic.

Actually, regardless of whether you are pro or anti gun control I think the figures show that the USA has far greater rate of violent crimes than just about anywhere else (certainly in established First World countries anyway).

I think it is overly simplistic to assume that the availability of firearms (or lack thereof) will somehow affect the amount of violent crimes in a positive manner. There are countries with a greater quantity of firearms per capita than the US and countries with lower quantities of firearms per capita - and they all have much lower crime rates than the US.

Some have tried to pin it all on the minorities... however there are many examples of countries with equal or larger minority groups that still do not have the rate of violent crime as the USA.

I think if you're keen to see the amount of violence in the US decrease, you'd need to look at a much bigger picture. Education, welfare, anti-discrimination... the list goes on.

I personally prefer gun control but I do at least acknowledge that the amount of crime in the US would probably not change whether you locked up every last gun or started handing them out to everyone for free.

I would say would it not be better to improve your police force and education so that these people could do something better than commit crime, but no wait...that would mean spending money.
No, you're right, its better to keep arming the population because at no point could anybody be shot wrongly...what could I be thinking of? :rolleyes:
Some people go in to crime for other reasons than just lack of education, often they do so to acquire drug money, some do it for easy riches, very few actually commit crimes out of necessity.

And the police force isn't instant response. I think that can be seen fairly obviously. Espescially in spread out places like suburbia, or rural areas. The sight of a gun is usually enough to subdue an attacker. A citizen with a gun can respond within a very short time period.

And anyways, do you know the number of people who are shot by mistake every year?

Actually, regardless of whether you are pro or anti gun control I think the figures show that the USA has far greater rate of violent crimes than just about anywhere else (certainly in established First World countries anyway).

I think it is overly simplistic to assume that the availability of firearms (or lack thereof) will somehow affect the amount of violent crimes in a positive manner. There are countries with a greater quantity of firearms per capita than the US and countries with lower quantities of firearms per capita - and they all have much lower crime rates than the US.

Some have tried to pin it all on the minorities... however there are many examples of countries with equal or larger minority groups that still do not have the rate of violent crime as the USA.

I think if you're keen to see the amount of violence in the US decrease, you'd need to look at a much bigger picture. Education, welfare, anti-discrimination... the list goes on.

I personally prefer gun control but I do at least acknowledge that the amount of crime in the US would probably not change whether you locked up every last gun or started handing them out to everyone for free.


If you look at the numbers, the US crime rate is obviously higher in urban areas. It's also the urban areas (ie Chicago, Wash DC) that have the absolute highest crime and skew the numbers.

Example: Chicago has a murder rate of approx 20/100k. That's 4x the natl average. Illinois as a whole has a murder rate of 7.2/100K. A little above the Nat'l average.

If you take the murders committed in Chicago (along w/ its population #'s)out of the picture, the murder rate for Illinois goes down to below .4/100K.

States that have enacted Carry/Concealed Carry laws have had a drop in crime while states/cities that enact draconian gun bans are at the highest crime rates and climbing.

To a remark above, more education and improved police would help be a deterrent but that still isn't a guarantee to safety/protection.

Any guesses folks? I know the 2000 number, so I'd say that's a good one to use, I just want to get some guesses before I give it out for free.

Violent crime in these states would increase as the law is foolish. The only way to stop criminals would be to ban guns across the Country as they can legally buy a weapon in one state then use that weapon in another.
? Why do people associate gun ownership by the general law-abiding populace with high crime rates? It makes very little sense. Common sense would dictate that crime would be based primarily on two factors. The general stabilty of a population and that population's ability to defend themselves across the board regardless of height, weight, etc... The more unbalanced either of these factors become, the more one could expect crime to rise.

Fine, folks, the answer is 762. 762 people died from accidental gun deaths (of all sorts, including hunting, as well as home defense mistakes, etc.)

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Here's where you get it from.

For option number one, select unintentional, and for number two select firearms, leave everything else the same, and hit submit.

I think what people need to realize is that what works in America may not work everywhere else.

Yes it's true--in America, where there's more guns, there's less crime.

It would be ignorant to assume the same principle applies in other nations.

Actually, regardless of whether you are pro or anti gun control I think the figures show that the USA has far greater rate of violent crimes than just about anywhere else (certainly in established First World countries anyway).

I think it is overly simplistic to assume that the availability of firearms (or lack thereof) will somehow affect the amount of violent crimes in a positive manner. There are countries with a greater quantity of firearms per capita than the US and countries with lower quantities of firearms per capita - and they all have much lower crime rates than the US.

Some have tried to pin it all on the minorities... however there are many examples of countries with equal or larger minority groups that still do not have the rate of violent crime as the USA.

I think if you're keen to see the amount of violence in the US decrease, you'd need to look at a much bigger picture. Education, welfare, anti-discrimination... the list goes on.

I personally prefer gun control but I do at least acknowledge that the amount of crime in the US would probably not change whether you locked up every last gun or started handing them out to everyone for free.


It would be my pleasure to buy you a drink, sir or ma'am.

I think what people need to realize is that what works in America may not work everywhere else.

Yes it's true--in America, where there's more guns, there's less crime.

It would be ignorant to assume the same principle applies in other nations.
I'd have to agree. The US has had a long history of private gun ownership. All citizens have been allowed to own a gun since the beginning of large scale colonization, and so it is a part of American culture. On the other hand, in England, gun ownership at the time was restricted solely to land-owners and other sorts of powerful people. Hence, the English do not have such a tradition of gun ownership.

Luckily I'm in a country where handguns were never a big thing so no one cared when strict regulations were put on them. Something along the lines of 100 people get shot each year here, and a good 75-80 of them are suicides which is more to do with our high suicide problem than a gun problem. Most of the rest are accidents.

I think what people need to realize is that what works in America may not work everywhere else.

Yes it's true--in America, where there's more guns, there's less crime.

It would be ignorant to assume the same principle applies in other nations.

Very true. In Africa*, for instance, since they still have a very chaotic system, teaching gun safety is going to be difficult (of course, when the genocide pops up, having a gun to fight the armies off with would be nice...), while in Canada, guns are MORE COMMON, but LESS DANGEROUS, because of the culture there, that is, people don't go on as many shooting sprees in Canada.

The trick is, Brittain seems more likely to be between the US and Canada than between the US and Africa...


*I bring this country up due to having a book on Baboons in my recent memory, where the local Masai tribe did some crazy fricking stuff around the biologist who was studying the baboon troop, and for no other bias. Just noting.

I think you need to read the article. Your crime rate is going up - and your Home Office is admitting it - ever since your gun ban it has gone up - and when the gun ban first went into effect, your crime was already going down.

Now it's going back up.

Oddly enough, I'm surprised no one has pointed out that violent crimes don't need guns. Having lived in England all my life, I can't think of a single friend or family member who has been threatened with a gun... yeah, people get mugged and recently some of my friends got jumped by six guys on a street, but generally it's not a common occurance to have to worry about being shot... I worry more about being stabbed by some jerk in a hoody.

Violent crime in England isn't going up as a result of our gun laws, our gun laws haven't changed for a long time. Violent crime is going up because of changes in culture where it's becoming more cool to be part of a gang, these gangs generally don't have many, if any guns at all... they just aren't easy to get hold of and it's a whole lot easy to have a knife.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Here's where you get it from.

For option number one, select unintentional, and for number two select firearms, leave everything else the same, and hit submit.

And the rate for unintentional deaths of people on/to do with bicycles is 767, marginally higher than firearms.

Should we ban bikes?

As Noitan Teppup says, there's a lot of violent crime in Britain - not involving guns. Now, if the muggers and gangs thought the next person they try and beat up could shoot them, would they be as inclined to try it? I doubt it.

I am fully pro-gun. Ownership of a gun is in no reasonable way a crime, any more than ownership a kitchen knife.

And whilst it is nice to say "Better education" and so forth, let us be perfectly honest here: that won't end crime anytime soon, if ever. Neither will an absence of gun controls, BUT it will give people a chance to defend themselves, and it will help cut crime until we engineer this magical, crime-free utopia.

On another note, a great many crimes such as murder and rape are commited by people of above-average intelligence, with steady jobs. It is the 'crime of the ego', in an attempt to gain recognition and fulfill Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs', these people commit crimes to fulfill their own sense of power and importance, or to gain noteriety. Ergo, improving living conditions may reduce crimes of necessity, but increase crimes of ego. Therefore, the band-aid of guns may actually be as effective as the stitches of social realignment, at least for some decades to come.

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4261082/detail.html

How we do things downtown.

Or, for another example:

CAMDEN, N.J.—A man who was killed while attempting to rob a store last week was the man who raped three women in Camden over the last two months of 2004, authorities said Wednesday.

Camden County Prosecutor Vincent P. Sarubbi said the state police DNA lab confirmed that Antonio Diaz Reyes, 32, was the rapist.

Three women were raped in the relatively safe downtown Camden area in November and December. Authorities said they were unable to figure out who had committed the brazen daylight attacks.

Reyes’ death was captured on a store surveillance video. Authorities said he entered the Camden City Wireless and Fishing Supply store in East Camden on Friday afternoon and held the store owner’s wife at knifepoint.

Store owner Ngoc Le, 28, saw what was happening, grabbed his gun, which was legally registered, and told Reyes he would let him live if he released his wife. Reyes then threatened to kill her and Le fired once, hitting Reyes in the head. Reyes died at the scene.

Authorities were uncertain whether he was the rapist until the DNA test results became available Wednesday.

There are so many things to like about this story, I hardly know where to start—although “Wireless and Fishing Supply Store” is a wonderful concept, all by itself… lures and transistors, all under one roof.

Okay, how about just this one:

Le fired once, hitting Reyes in the head. Reyes died at the scene.

Give the man a marksmanship medal, and another for having serious huevos (or whatever they call it in Vietnamese).

Heh, a cop woulda missed.

And now, to dispel the myth that if four men with guns have the drop on you, the gun won't do any good.

Well, if you point the guns at me, I still win.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=31186

ACKSONVILLE, FL -- Two teens were shot at The Preserves Apartments in Paradise Island on the Southside Saturday, during an apparent robbery gone bad. One of those teens died.

Police say four teens tried to rob a man at gunpoint in the parking lot of the apartment complex.

Investigators say the victim of the robbery was also armed with a gun. They say, as he tried to get away, a fight started. That's when the victim apparently pulled out his own gun and fired several shots, hitting two of the suspects.

David U. McCray, 16, was killed. Aaron J. Muhammad, 17, was also shot and injured. The two other teens allegedly involved, Carl A. Jones, 15, and Oren A. Louder, 18, are in police custody.

It would be my pleasure to buy you a drink, sir or ma'am.

Sir... well... guy, since "sir" kinda implies that I'm somehow better than someone else. Clearly there is plenty of evidence to the contrary :p

If that's a beer you're offering, you can buy me one of those any time you like.

Assuming that guns up => crime down, what alternate factors apply to nations like Japan, where guns are banned entirely, and violent crime is incredibly low?

I'm quite pro-gun, but more on the grounds that it provides for protection against oppressive government than that it protects against crime.


In another veign of thought, what is the extent to which guns could be distributed that would maximise the protection from crime and minimise crime made possible by easy access to a vent for anger?

Assuming that guns up => crime down, what alternate factors apply to nations like Japan, where guns are banned entirely, and violent crime is incredibly low?


I think it depends on what country you're in.

If you really wanted to lower gun violence in the US - practically overnight - you would legalize drugs. More than half of all gun deaths are the result of drug-related crime.

In another veign of thought, what is the extent to which guns could be distributed that would maximise the protection from crime and minimise crime made possible by easy access to a vent for anger?

You can't read minds. I carry my pistol at all times. Why is it that I don't use it when I'm angry? Because I have been acculturated to its use and presence. Or, in other words, a firearm is an instrument of power, and I have learned to moderate the will to power. Most people never get to learn that lesson.

In the US, people with concealed carry permits are more law-abiding than the average citizen. Could it be because they also have learned the lesson about the will to power? It certainly isn't because they have had a better background check - because they haven't.

And the rate for unintentional deaths of people on/to do with bicycles is 767, marginally higher than firearms.

Should we ban bikes?

As Noitan Teppup says, there's a lot of violent crime in Britain - not involving guns. Now, if the muggers and gangs thought the next person they try and beat up could shoot them, would they be as inclined to try it? I doubt it.

The counter-argument would be that the gangs would get guns themselves... escalating levels of violence. Of course, there might be an argument against that (it does sound a little on the "slippery slope" side I'll admit) but I haven't come across one yet.

I can't imagine myself ever choosing to mug someone or otherwise attempt some sort of violent crime so I can't really say I know how the "criminal mind" works... but I figure that if I was pretty sure my potential victims were carrying guns I'd make sure I had a gun as well. Who knows... I might even resort to just shooting someone first to make sure they don't have time to pull a gun on me.

As for the concept of crimes of necessity vs crimes of ego, I'd agree - social reforms might decrease necessity and increase ego but at least no one would be living in poverty...

but I figure that if I was pretty sure my potential victims were carrying guns I'd make sure I had a gun as well. Who knows... I might even resort to just shooting someone first to make sure they don't have time to pull a gun on me.


Having interviewed many felons here in Fairfax County, Virginia, I can tell you that they know that the people in Virginia may be carrying a gun legally.

To them, it is simpler and easier - and far less dangerous - to drive to Montgomery County, Maryland, where the laws have essentially disarmed everyone. There, the victims are guaranteed to be unarmed, and it's only 10 minutes away.

This is why for the past few years, Fairfax County has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime that coincides with the beginning of concealed carry and the further introduction of open carry. At the same time, Montgomery County has seen a double digit increase in crime in each of the same years, and this past year, saw a 70 percent increase in armed robbery alone.

The interviews and the statistics bear out what they're thinking.

Having interviewed many felons here in Fairfax County, Virginia, I can tell you that they know that the people in Virginia may be carrying a gun legally.

To them, it is simpler and easier - and far less dangerous - to drive to Montgomery County, Maryland, where the laws have essentially disarmed everyone. There, the victims are guaranteed to be unarmed, and it's only 10 minutes away.

This is why for the past few years, Fairfax County has seen a dramatic drop in violent crime that coincides with the beginning of concealed carry and the further introduction of open carry. At the same time, Montgomery County has seen a double digit increase in crime in each of the same years, and this past year, saw a 70 percent increase in armed robbery alone.

The interviews and the statistics bear out what they're thinking.

Sorry, I should have pointed out that my thinking only works when you take a homogeneous approach. Obviously if someone can travel a short distance and find a plethora of "soft" targets they'll do that... but what if they had nowhere else to go?

Do you think it is fair then that individual states/counties are allowed to set their own gun laws? Should there not perhaps some sort of federal standard? It seems what you're saying is that the crime "generated" in Fairfax hasn't really changed (that is, the number of people willing to commit a violent crime)... it has simply been displaced.

What a load of bullshit! Gun crimes have fallen to next to zero, violent crimes haven't changed too much one way or the other. It wasn't a month ago I was reading about the lies spread by the NRA in a newspaper article in the Courier Mail, telling people these lies about gun violence increasing since the banning of guns and how violent crimes have shot up. Total fabrications according to the ABS.

Agreed. Gun control has nothing to do with preventing crime. It's merely a tactic employed by totalitarians to control the population and protect themselves from insurrection. The experts (Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Quaddafi, etc.) agree- gun control works!


You are one hundred percent correct. My dad would always say "The will have to take away my guns from my cold dead fingers." Americans would never let this kind of crap happen. I would dare the government to try and take away guns. They simply couldnt do it.

What a load of bullshit! Gun crimes have fallen to next to zero, violent crimes haven't changed too much one way or the other. It wasn't a month ago I was reading about the lies spread by the NRA in a newspaper article in the Courier Mail, telling people these lies about gun violence increasing since the banning of guns and how violent crimes have shot up. Total fabrications according to the ABS.


Only way to really see the truth or somewhat close to it. Would be to check the FBI databases. Courier Mail could be full of shit to. Everyone is trying to push an agenda these days.

okay, i am skipping through most of the thread, so if i say something that has already been stated, whatever. personally, i hate it when i see things like this, because they are usually twisted and dont have all the facts. as one person i did see pointed out, crimes are probably being reported more. also, banning guns only goes a certain way to drop the crime rate. the thing that needs to be addressed is the reason why these people comit the crime in the first place. people will say that the 'underprivilaged' argument isnt relevant, but it is. in some points, they cant afford to get things. in others, it is sheer bordem for youths because there is nothing to do for them in their area and they cant afford to travel to other areas. the fact is, to use the gun-ban as an argument to prove the statistic of crime is utter BS. guns wouldnt be needed if the reasons behind the crimes being commited were actually addressed

Only way to really see the truth or somewhat close to it. Would be to check the FBI databases. Courier Mail could be full of shit to. Everyone is trying to push an agenda these days.

Why would an American agency have better stats on an Australian issue than either an Australian newspaper or the A.B.S.?

Why would an American agency have better stats on an Australian issue than either an Australian newspaper or the A.B.S.?

Trust me we keep stats on everyone.

Trust me we keep stats on everyone.

Even if that is the case, I think I'll defer to the ABS. If the FBI does keep stats for this sort of thing in Australia, would most likely have come from the A.B.S. anyway, since that is their job as the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Trust me we keep stats on everyone.
if that is so, there would have to be some international violation there somewhere. as Patra Caesar pointed out, if you do have any info, it would be via ABS

if that is so, there would have to be some international violation there somewhere. as Patra Caesar pointed out, if you do have any info, it would be via ABS

I don't think there would be a violation, after all most countries keep stats on other nations, but I think because it would be more effective and cost less to use the ABS stats and that America is a friend we'd probably share info with them, like we did for Habib in Pakistan/Egypt.

Ok, if the availability of guns in America has nothing to do with the high rate of violent crimes and the 10,000 + fire arm related murders every year.......WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Ok, if the availability of guns in America has nothing to do with the high rate of violent crimes and the 10,000 + fire arm related murders every year.......WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

The vast majority of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

" In 2003, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present."

By weapon, they mean firearm, knife, etc. And not all weapons are firearms.

So we're talking less than 24 percent of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm.

So the vast majority of violent crime in the US is perpetrated with no gun at all.

Add to that the fact that 2.5 million times a year, a civilian with a legal firearm uses it to stop a violent crime in progress - without harming anyone - and we have a net effect where violent crime is being suppressed by guns.

What is wrong with you? Can't you count?

okay, i am skipping through most of the thread, so if i say something that has already been stated, whatever. personally, i hate it when i see things like this, because they are usually twisted and dont have all the facts. as one person i did see pointed out, crimes are probably being reported more. also, banning guns only goes a certain way to drop the crime rate. the thing that needs to be addressed is the reason why these people comit the crime in the first place. people will say that the 'underprivilaged' argument isnt relevant, but it is. in some points, they cant afford to get things. in others, it is sheer bordem for youths because there is nothing to do for them in their area and they cant afford to travel to other areas. the fact is, to use the gun-ban as an argument to prove the statistic of crime is utter BS. guns wouldnt be needed if the reasons behind the crimes being commited were actually addressed
i am sorry to the mods for doing this, but i fear that it might have been missed as it was at the end of the page, and people tend to go to the last page. but again, there is more to the crime rate than possesion, or lack there of, of guns

Ok, if the availability of guns in America has nothing to do with the high rate of violent crimes and the 10,000 + fire arm related murders every year.......WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Because... guns are honestly not the issue, violence is the real issue. Of those 10,000+ firearm related murders, how many do you think would have happened if there was not a single gun in the US?

My guess would be that most of them would have still happened, they would have simply used another method.

Are guns used to commit crime in the US? Absolutely. Is violence an issue in the US? Absolutely. Would making guns harder to get actually change that? Not significantly.

Instead of spending time & money attempting to put further controls on gun purchases (I'm all for making people at least prove they're not a convicted felon and/or mentally unstable), I think it would be better spent attempting to resolve the source of the violence.

As I've said before - education, social reform & welfare are three areas I'd start with and expand from there.

Most of the source of violence in the US is not video games, or guns, or anything stupid like that.

It's drugs. If you are in a household where illicit drugs are being used in the US, your chances of being involved in, or becoming a victim of violent crime, are substantially increased.

Most murders and violent crime are connected with drugs in one way or another.

If drugs were legalized, a lot of this would stop.

Most of the source of violence in the US is not video games, or guns, or anything stupid like that.

It's drugs. If you are in a household where illicit drugs are being used in the US, your chances of being involved in, or becoming a victim of violent crime, are substantially increased.

Most murders and violent crime are connected with drugs in one way or another.

If drugs were legalized, a lot of this would stop.
i have doubts of that. why do people take drugs in the first place? to escape the world they live in usually

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don’t reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

[In] contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation’s violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI’s figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special?

Now might all this be based on the same statistics I decided to rub someone's face in a few weeks ago? Something tells me it is.

The vast majority of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

" In 2003, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present."

By weapon, they mean firearm, knife, etc. And not all weapons are firearms.

So we're talking less than 24 percent of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm.

So the vast majority of violent crime in the US is perpetrated with no gun at all.

Add to that the fact that 2.5 million times a year, a civilian with a legal firearm uses it to stop a violent crime in progress - without harming anyone - and we have a net effect where violent crime is being suppressed by guns.

What is wrong with you? Can't you count?

What is wrong with you? Can't you read?

The entire point of my post wasn't that guns were the cause of these violent crimes. It's that the U.S. is still a very violent nation, regardless of guns. So, I'll say it more clearly this time for you, why is it that there are so many violent crimes in America?

i have doubts of that. why do people take drugs in the first place? to escape the world they live in usually

If you don't believe me, believe this:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm

The War On Drugs is causing the violence. Stop the war on drugs, and a lot of the violence would stop.

No more gang warfare. And if the government was to subsidize some drugs for the poor, they wouldn't steal to get it. So we wouldn't even have the theft problem that the Netherlands has.

It's not that people attack others when they're high (although someone on speed might) - it's the process of getting and selling drugs, and stealing from people within your own economic class in order to buy drugs, that causes most violent crime in the US.

Now might all this be based on the same statistics I decided to rub someone's face in a few weeks ago? Something tells me it is.

I'm just quoting from a web site.

But, go ahead and try to rub the difference in violent crime between Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia in my face.

You won't be able to. The changes took place as soon as there was concealed carry of firearms in Fairfax County. And both counties are similar in ethnic makeup and affluence.

This document appears to be ill-informed bullshit.

Why do people insist on tying the UK gun ban to increases in crime? The two are completely unrelated. The fact is, pretty much nobody had guns before the ban was enacted, nobody used guns to defend themselves anyway, so how exactly can banning them have '[denied] law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves'?
I tend to agree. You can't just link violent crime rate with gun bans; there are faaaar more factors than that.
Besides, this data that defines "violent crime" is kind of skewed - for example, robbery is considered a violent crime, but picking someones pocket and nudging them is considered robbery, as the "force" involved can be "the merest nudge". (Don't believe me? Look up Dawson and James). A gun is hardly necessary to commit "violent crime". The increasing rate is more likely to have something to do with the fact that only 3% of robbery cases lead to the criminal being convicted, and offenders know this. I could go on and on about nits in the system which lead to stuff like this, but I think one example is enough.
"Violent crime has shot up because they banned guns" is such a simplistic view.

I tend to agree. You can't just link violent crime rate with gun bans; there are faaaar more factors than that.
Besides, this data that defines "violent crime" is kind of skewed - for example, robbery is considered a violent crime, but picking someones pocket and nudging them is considered robbery, as the "force" involved can be "the merest nudge". (Don't believe me? Look up Dawson and James). A gun is hardly necessary to commit "violent crime". The increasing rate is more likely to have something to do with the fact that only 3% of robbery cases lead to the criminal being convicted, and offenders know this. I could go on and on about nits in the system which lead to stuff like this, but I think one example is enough.
"Violent crime has shot up because they banned guns" is such a simplistic view.
i actually agree with that, because a friend was charged with assault, just for threatening someone. and assult is deemed a violent crime

I tend to agree. You can't just link violent crime rate with gun bans; there are faaaar more factors than that.
Besides, this data that defines "violent crime" is kind of skewed - for example, robbery is considered a violent crime, but picking someones pocket and nudging them is considered robbery, as the "force" involved can be "the merest nudge". (Don't believe me? Look up Dawson and James). A gun is hardly necessary to commit "violent crime". The increasing rate is more likely to have something to do with the fact that only 3% of robbery cases lead to the criminal being convicted, and offenders know this. I could go on and on about nits in the system which lead to stuff like this, but I think one example is enough.
"Violent crime has shot up because they banned guns" is such a simplistic view.

Then explain two counties in the US with nearly identical populations (ethnicity, affluence, etc) both suburbs of Washington D.C., both very high end in terms of wages - and one county a few years ago got concealed carry of firearms, and the other county has progressively restricted firearms.

Now explain why there have been double digit drops in violent crime (they both define violent crime in the same way) in the county that allows concealed weapons - and a double digit increase per year in the county that restricts firearms. Including a 70 percent increase in armed robbery this past year.

Felons I interview say that they feel uneasy and unsafe robbing people in Fairfax County. I have interviewed hundreds of them. They feel that it is much safer and simpler to drive the 10 minutes to Montgomery County, and rob, rape, or assault someone there. They know that their victim will be unarmed.

Then explain two counties in the US with nearly identical populations (ethnicity, affluence, etc) both suburbs of Washington D.C., both very high end in terms of wages - and one county a few years ago got concealed carry of firearms, and the other county has progressively restricted firearms.

Now explain why there have been double digit drops in violent crime (they both define violent crime in the same way) in the county that allows concealed weapons - and a double digit increase per year in the county that restricts firearms. Including a 70 percent increase in armed robbery this past year.

Felons I interview say that they feel uneasy and unsafe robbing people in Fairfax County. I have interviewed hundreds of them. They feel that it is much safer and simpler to drive the 10 minutes to Montgomery County, and rob, rape, or assault someone there. They know that their victim will be unarmed.

it is hard to compare, coz in this case, we are talking about a country where guns are readily available (america) compared to one where they arnt (UK). Also, as i have stated, guns arnt the solution, the reason to commit the crime should be taken away in the first place. its no use jus taking the guns away, because they will find other ways, but if they dont have the nacessaty(sp?) in the first place.... also, these days, crimes like rape, like domestic violence are being more reported than at the time of when the gun laws came into effect in those countries.

Then explain two counties in the US with nearly identical populations (ethnicity, affluence, etc) both suburbs of Washington D.C., both very high end in terms of wages - and one county a few years ago got concealed carry of firearms, and the other county has progressively restricted firearms.

Now explain why there have been double digit drops in violent crime (they both define violent crime in the same way) in the county that allows concealed weapons - and a double digit increase per year in the county that restricts firearms. Including a 70 percent increase in armed robbery this past year.

Felons I interview say that they feel uneasy and unsafe robbing people in Fairfax County. I have interviewed hundreds of them. They feel that it is much safer and simpler to drive the 10 minutes to Montgomery County, and rob, rape, or assault someone there. They know that their victim will be unarmed.

You kind of answered your own question here. The crime increase/decrease is entirely dependent on offenders moving from the county with allowed firearms to the county without them. It's a highly complicated matter, and laws like these shouldn't be made on such a small scale. The only way one could see a true effect of such legislation would be to introduce the laws in the whole country (or at least a large part of it) at the same time.

Also, while the short-term effect of banning guns might be increased crime, the long-term effect could be the opposite.

I'm just quoting from a web site.

But, go ahead and try to rub the difference in violent crime between Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia in my face.

You won't be able to. The changes took place as soon as there was concealed carry of firearms in Fairfax County. And both counties are similar in ethnic makeup and affluence.

The NRA website? At any rate I am sure I could punch a number of holes in the data but I do have a life.

As long as we can all agree, Charlton Heston is a nut.

Then explain two counties in the US with nearly identical populations (ethnicity, affluence, etc) both suburbs of Washington D.C., both very high end in terms of wages - and one county a few years ago got concealed carry of firearms, and the other county has progressively restricted firearms.

Now explain why there have been double digit drops in violent crime (they both define violent crime in the same way) in the county that allows concealed weapons - and a double digit increase per year in the county that restricts firearms. Including a 70 percent increase in armed robbery this past year.

Felons I interview say that they feel uneasy and unsafe robbing people in Fairfax County. I have interviewed hundreds of them. They feel that it is much safer and simpler to drive the 10 minutes to Montgomery County, and rob, rape, or assault someone there. They know that their victim will be unarmed.

Okay... you didn't really address one of my questions (not that I'm attacking you because you didn't, just stating why I'm asking it again...) about guns.

The idea that you're putting forth is that because Fairfax has a concealed carry law, the would-be felons go elsewhere to commit crime.

1) Do you think it is particularly fair that the crime from one area is "pushed" into another county/state?
2) What happens when all the surrounding states/counties have the same gun laws and those criminals can't go somewhere else where it is easy to rob/mug/murder?

I do agree with you on the majority of violent crime being related in some way to illegal drugs. If you legalise drugs then the Government can put in controls and regulations on the production, quality & strength of those drugs. It'd stop a lot of violence and also a lot of deaths from overdosing.

I believe that during the prohibition, backyard distilleries produced some pretty terrible stuff that (if memory serves me correctly) caused all sorts of health problems from blindness to death.

Okay... you didn't really address one of my questions (not that I'm attacking you because you didn't, just stating why I'm asking it again...) about guns.

The idea that you're putting forth is that because Fairfax has a concealed carry law, the would-be felons go elsewhere to commit crime.

1) Do you think it is particularly fair that the crime from one area is "pushed" into another county/state?

No, it's not fair. But the United States is composed of States - each can make the laws it wants, subject to the limitations of the Constitution.
2) What happens when all the surrounding states/counties have the same gun laws and those criminals can't go somewhere else where it is easy to rob/mug/murder?

33 States now have these laws. They all show the same reduction in crime - though some to a lesser extent. None show an increase. Other states that do not have these laws have all shown an increase in crime. But, I do not believe that in all cases this is because criminals travel. Travel is a factor on the borders of states, especially small states. But for large states, travel is not an option for a felon - they must make do where they are - and that's why I think the effect is less in some states. I think it is suppressing crime in those instances - just not as much as we might like. As a solution to crime, it is a temporary one - and one marginally more effective than increasing the number of police (if you consider an extra policeman to be a deterrent to crime).
I do agree with you on the majority of violent crime being related in some way to illegal drugs. If you legalise drugs then the Government can put in controls and regulations on the production, quality & strength of those drugs. It'd stop a lot of violence and also a lot of deaths from overdosing.

I believe that during the prohibition, backyard distilleries produced some pretty terrible stuff that (if memory serves me correctly) caused all sorts of health problems from blindness to death.

The War on Drugs costs the government about 40 billion per year. Money from the sales of illicit drugs provides funds for gangs and terror organizations. If you legalized drugs, and provided a small portion of the 40 billion to provide free drugs to some poor people, there would be a lot less theft, violent crime, gangs would dry up (much as gangs dried up after Prohibition was repealed), and terror organizations would lose a lucrative source of funding.

I think you need to read the article. Your crime rate is going up - and your Home Office is admitting it - ever since your gun ban it has gone up - and when the gun ban first went into effect, your crime was already going down.

Now it's going back up. Good job!


this isn't true.

furthermore, do you know what the law in the UK regarding handguns was before the handgun ban? Do you know what the level of handgun ownership was?

any UK citizen who had used a handgun in self-defence in any case at all would face a court case. because guns were kept for sporting purposes only and were NEVER considered reasonable force in self defence.

It may have been that in some of the cases, the gun user would have been acquitted. but how many such cases were there?

In short, the handgun ban has had absolutely no effect on the crime rate because
a) handgun ownership before the ban was tiny. in my whole life (25 exciting years up until 1997) I met 1 person who had a handgun
b) it was in practical terms illegal even before the ban to use a handgun in self defence


I have an idea that handguns always had to be kept in shooting ranges since hungerford.

this isn't true.

furthermore, do you know what the law in the UK regarding handguns was before the handgun ban? Do you know what the level of handgun ownership was?

any UK citizen who had used a handgun in self-defence in any case at all would face a court case. because guns were kept for sporting purposes only and were NEVER considered reasonable force in self defence.

It may have been that in some of the cases, the gun user would have been acquitted. but how many such cases were there?

In short, the handgun ban has had absolutely no effect on the crime rate because
a) handgun ownership before the ban was tiny. in my whole life (25 exciting years up until 1997) I met 1 person who had a handgun
b) it was in practical terms illegal even before the ban to use a handgun in self defence

I have an idea that handguns always had to be kept in shooting ranges since hungerford.

May not be true in the UK, but it's true in most of the US.

I find it amazing that you're not permitted to defend yourself with any means at hand. As I posted before, I have instructed a disabled man in a wheelchair on the use of a pistol, as he has been brutally attacked three times despite his cooperation with his attackers. Now he has a gun. Is that not a reasonable defense for him?

May not be true in the UK, but it's true in most of the US.

I find it amazing that you're not permitted to defend yourself with any means at hand. As I posted before, I have instructed a disabled man in a wheelchair on the use of a pistol, as he has been brutally attacked three times despite his cooperation with his attackers. Now he has a gun. Is that not a reasonable defense for him?

not in the UK it isn't. In the UK it's illegal.

The War on Drugs costs the government about 40 billion per year. Money from the sales of illicit drugs provides funds for gangs and terror organizations. If you legalized drugs, and provided a small portion of the 40 billion to provide free drugs to some poor people, there would be a lot less theft, violent crime, gangs would dry up (much as gangs dried up after Prohibition was repealed), and terror organizations would lose a lucrative source of funding.

what he said

this isn't true.






Crime isn't going up?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

Why did it double between '97 and '02 then?

Crime isn't going up?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

Why did it double between '97 and '02 then?

if you take the trouble to read the article, it says

- reported gun crime has gone up 35% in the year 2001 - 2002
- reported crime has gone up 9.3% in the year 2001 - 2002
- reported + non-reported crime has gone DOWN 7% in the year 2001 - 2002

It says that the *gun* crime figures have doubled since 1997. Which isn't surprising since in 1996 owning a gun wasn't a crime, and now it is a crime.

"Violent crime has shot up because they banned guns" is such a simplistic view.

And yet in every city in the US plus the UK and Aus, crime has increased immediately after a gun ban/grab while it had previously been dropping.

And yet in every state that has loosened self-defense laws and enacted Carry/Concealed carry laws, crime has dropped even faster than before the laws and in comparison to non C/CC areas.

"absolute causality"? No. But it sure has strong evidence in its favor.

And yet in every city in the US plus the UK and Aus, crime has increased immediately after a gun ban/grab while it had previously been dropping. .

this is still not true

I don't think you have examined the figures for reported crime and total crime between 1980 and 2005 in the UK.

and the handgun ban in the UK was not a gun grab. have you any idea how many handguns were in circulation, and how many gun owners there were?

if you take the trouble to read the article, it says

- reported gun crime has gone up 35% in the year 2001 - 2002
- reported crime has gone up 9.3% in the year 2001 - 2002
- reported + non-reported crime has gone DOWN 7% in the year 2001 - 2002

It says that the *gun* crime figures have doubled since 1997. Which isn't surprising since in 1996 owning a gun wasn't a crime, and now it is a crime.

So by your arguement, your gov't is turning Law Abiding Citizens into criminals?

You should try reading the entire article. Try clicking on "crunching the numbers" it shows what the offenses were.

It also states that the Home Office and the BCS use different figures with one showing an "Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%"


Even if you average them, it still goes up.

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Impressive source. The Lake County?

It mentions Canada but then fails to back it up.

Gun control, requiring registration of ALL firearms came into effect in 1995. Now check out the crime statistics for that period in Canada:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020717/c020717b.gif

What is the problem?

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020717/c020717b.gif

if you take the trouble to read the article, it says

- reported gun crime has gone up 35% in the year 2001 - 2002
- reported crime has gone up 9.3% in the year 2001 - 2002
- reported + non-reported crime has gone DOWN 7% in the year 2001 - 2002

It says that the *gun* crime figures have doubled since 1997. Which isn't surprising since in 1996 owning a gun wasn't a crime, and now it is a crime.
Don't forget also that the continued break up of eastern europe and it's integration into mainstream Europe has brought a lot of weapons onto the black market which were never avaiable in the past. Also the replica market has grown a great deal and replicas can easily be milled to take a 22 round.
Also american gun culture is "cool" on the streets meaning more people want a gun.
I served 10 years in the forces and worked for 15 with the army as a consultant and in that time I have met about 5 people in the UK who own a private weapon (and these are gun nuts who I work with who have a military armery to store their weapons in). What I'm saying is that gun owning is not naturally in British culture and has only recently been imported from the US. Thanks for that guys!
Throw as many stats as you like at us. We know that banning guns works for Us (and Japan) and we don't really give a toss how many Americans are shot by legal or illegal weapons. Bring so much as single round into the UK and the police will screw you. Go on try it!

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special?
Yet the following two sites do not support your claims:

A State-by-State Look at Gun Laws in the U.S (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/).

United States: Uniform Crime Report -- State Statistics from 1960 - 2000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/)

On the 2nd link, when you click on a State, go to the bottom and you will notice a stats comparison.

Example:

New York State (gun control):

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index.

Texas (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index.

New Jersey (gun control);

In the year 2000 New Jersey had an estimated population of 8,414,350 which ranked the state 9th in population. For that year the State of New Jersey had a total Crime Index of 3,160.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 39th highest total Crime Index.

Louisiana (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Louisiana had an estimated population of 4,468,976 which ranked the state 22nd in population. For that year the State of Louisiana had a total Crime Index of 5,422.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 4th highest total Crime Index.

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

How do you explain your reasoning?

this is still not true

I don't think you have examined the figures for reported crime and total crime between 1980 and 2005 in the UK.

and the handgun ban in the UK was not a gun grab. have you any idea how many handguns were in circulation, and how many gun owners there were?

Prove me otherwise. I've shown reports and figures from your own country.

You've stated "I don' think".

Making legal guns illegal and requiring Law Abiding Citizens to turn them in or be arrested isn't a "grab"? Then what is it?

I find it amazing that you're not permitted to defend yourself with any means at hand. As I posted before, I have instructed a disabled man in a wheelchair on the use of a pistol, as he has been brutally attacked three times despite his cooperation with his attackers. Now he has a gun. Is that not a reasonable defense for him?You are permitted to use any reasonable means. Even before a recent judgement/ruling/thingy that marginally increased the powers, you were effecively allowed, if you felt your life at risk, to cause life-threatening injuries to your attacker (e.g. striking for the throat of someone trying to strangle you), but you could not kill someone (be it with a handgun, cricket bat, bottle of bleach, whatever) just 'because'.

As I understand it (and I probably don't) at least some locations in the US have laws essentially allowing the killing of anyone on your property after dark, under the remit of 'self defence', even when they are unarmed, non-threatening or even just selling encycolpaedias.

As to your specific example of the guy in the wheelchair, I'm not saying that something similar (being beaten up by attackers, despite being cooperative) cannot happen in the UK, but you'd have to go to some of the particular bad parts of the country (perhaps certain notorious inner-city housing estates in Manchester, etc) to get that sort of excess. And that be because of stirring up some other hatred (wearing green in the wrong part of Glasgow, being ethnically objectionable to attackers with racist tendencies, being someone who regularly bullied them up at school, that sort of thing).

I've a feeling that the US is a whole different country (well, it is, but you know what I mean) or you are at least missing some vital social information in describing your case. Not intentionally, perhaps not even something you;d think about, but effectively.

Prove me otherwise. I've shown reports and figures from your own country.

You've stated "I don' think".

Making legal guns illegal and requiring Law Abiding Citizens to turn them in or be arrested isn't a "grab"? Then what is it?

it is a very sensible precaution.

What I'm saying is that gun owning is not naturally in British culture and has only recently been imported from the US. Thanks for that guys!

What was the name of that american who shot and killed a copper the other boxing day?

What I'm saying is that gun owning is not naturally in British culture and has only recently been imported from the US. Thanks for that guys!
Throw as many stats as you like at us. We know that banning guns works for Us (and Japan) and we don't really give a toss how many Americans are shot by legal or illegal weapons. Bring so much as single round into the UK and the police will screw you. Go on try it!

So crime in the UK is the fault of Americans? If an increase in crime "works for you" , more power to you. Enjoy the cameras.

In Japan, the police search your house for contraband twice a year, women only recently got the "right" to own property, and has the highest suicide rates of the industrialized world. Do you really want to use that as a comparison

Yet the following two sites do not support your claims:

A State-by-State Look at Gun Laws in the U.S (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/).

United States: Uniform Crime Report -- State Statistics from 1960 - 2000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/)

On the 2nd link, when you click on a State, go to the bottom and you will notice a stats comparison.

Example:

New York State (gun control):

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index.

Texas (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index.

New Jersey (gun control);

In the year 2000 New Jersey had an estimated population of 8,414,350 which ranked the state 9th in population. For that year the State of New Jersey had a total Crime Index of 3,160.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 39th highest total Crime Index.

Louisiana (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Louisiana had an estimated population of 4,468,976 which ranked the state 22nd in population. For that year the State of Louisiana had a total Crime Index of 5,422.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 4th highest total Crime Index.

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

How do you explain your reasoning?


I'm not the one who wrote the article.

But...

To see the effect of the concealed carry laws, you need more recent information. The year 2000 was a long time ago.

I'll be back in a few minutes with the figures for Maryland and Virginia, two adjacent states with opposing laws for firearms.

We'll even reduce this and compare two identical counties (from an ethnic and affluence perspective) that are neighboring, and the primary difference is in their firearms laws.

And the number one State, also no gun control, and premission to carry concealed weapons:

Florida.

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

Yet the following two sites do not support your claims:

A State-by-State Look at Gun Laws in the U.S (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/).

United States: Uniform Crime Report -- State Statistics from 1960 - 2000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/)
Snippy snip. ....


Those links are also at:-
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
and
http://www.13thfloor.net/gunlaws/
incase you can't get the first ones to work.
Scared the shit out of me when I saw how little control you have in the US.
Nice to know that Assault weapons must be registered in california though. That reasurred me :eek:
Needless to say I'm going to Spain on my Holidays (not the US - see)

How do you explain your reasoning?
Care to pull the stats for VIOLENT CRIME? Completely different stats. For all you know the difference could be because more people in texas report things like transport of illegal mexicans. I'd assume that's not a crime one would see in New York very often. For that matter, and in accordance with the Florida stats, which states are most likely to be entry points for things like illegal shipments of drugs?

So crime in the UK is the fault of Americans? If an increase in crime "works for you" , more power to you. Enjoy the cameras.

In Japan, the police search your house for contraband twice a year, women only recently got the "right" to own property, and has the highest suicide rates of the industrialized world. Do you really want to use that as a comparison
Is my english that bad?
The increase in GUN crime is partially the fault of American gun culture crossing the atlantic.
What's your problem with cameras. I'm not guilty of anything and don't do anything in public to be ashamed of (well I do sometimes and get arrested for it which seem fair). If it reduced crime then that fine and no-one gets shot.
I mention Japan only because they do not have agun culture and so don't feel the need to shoot each other. Whether they search ladies pants, cut their throats or just slash up the streets with giant knives is not the issue. So they're fucked up? Who'd of guessed! Still they don't shoot each other which is the point here.

Here's the rest of article!

Something about hunting and fishing! The article was written by a gun and fishing nut.


Got meat?

The Food Bank of Ukiah would like to put the word out to sportsmen and women that it is in need of protein for those who need food. Fishermen and hunters are being asked to donate any excess fish or wildlife they may possess. Donations would have to be cleaned and processed, the Food Bank does not have facilities to do this.

You may have some fish or game in your freezer that's nearing its keeping limit. The Food Bank would appreciate such donations very much. In fact, the Food Bank would prefer frozen food donations.

The Food Bank also would like to extend the invitation to pig, goat or cattle owners who would like some bread, fruit or vegetables for their livestock. An excess of these items is often available; instead of throwing it out, the Food Bank would be happy to give it to someone who can use it for their livestock.

The Food Bank of Ukiah is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays and Saturday morning until noon. You may call manager Jeff Rogers at 462-8879, extension 122, for more information.

Fishing report

The ocean salmon season opened in Fort Bragg on February 12. The weekend showed good promise for the remainder of the season; anglers did well for this early in the season.

A California Department of Fish and Game biologist was checking in fish at the up-river launch area and had tallied 34 fish by 11 a.m. Party boats managed fair catches as well.

Sunday was even better for some. A good friend of mine and his crew landed limits of salmon. Most fish are running fairly small, but one party boat landed a 20-pound fish.

I drove by a "fisherman" neighbor's house last week and saw him hosing down six nice salmon he and his fishing buddies caught.

The outlook for salmon around Fort Bragg is great, although many of this year's fish will be scarce until April.

Lake Mendocino is reported to be 82 percent full. I question that. My first trip on the lake found most of the stick-ups, brush piles and fish habitat high and dry. Looks to me like the lake needs another 10 to 12 feet of water, in order to give the fish ample spawning opportunities and the cover they need to hide from predators.

Stripers were marked on my "fish-finder" sonar all over the lake. It was another thing to get a strike from them. I finally hooked and landed two. They were small, but I was encouraged by the bite this early in the year.

Care to pull the stats for VIOLENT CRIME? Completely different stats. For all you know the difference could be because more people in texas report things like transport of illegal mexicans. I'd assume that's not a crime one would see in New York very often. For that matter, and in accordance with the Florida stats, which states are most likely to be entry points for things like illegal shipments of drugs?
The links are there, be my guest. Also in the blue section at the bottom, it shows the per capita. They surely are quite interesting stats for sure.

Most violent crime/murders is in the southern States, for the most part.

Deaths and death rates for the 10 leading causes of death (http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/111riskc.html) For People 5 - 14 Years All causes : United States, preliminary 1996

Deaths and death rates for the 10 leading causes of death (http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/111riskd.html) For People 15 - 24 Years All causes : United States, preliminary 1996

Is my english that bad?
The increase in GUN crime is partially the fault of American gun culture crossing the atlantic.
What's your problem with cameras. I'm not guilty of anything and don't do anything in public to be ashamed of (well I do sometimes and get arrested for it which seem fair). If it reduced crime then that fine and no-one gets shot.
I mention Japan only because they do not have agun culture and so don't feel the need to shoot each other. Whether they search ladies pants, cut their throats or just slash up the streets with giant knives is not the issue. So they're fucked up? Who'd of guessed! Still they don't shoot each other which is the point here.

So Americans are encouraging violence in the UK? I'm sure this could be blamed on GWB as well.

Like I said, if you want the Gov't watching over you and considering you guilty until proven innocent, fine. What would you say if they monitored your computer use?

All the cameras in the city did was push the crime into the country side. I'm sure the farmers appreciate it, especially since they aren't allowed to defend themselves.

The links are there, be my guest. Also in the blue section at the bottom, it shows the per capita. They surely are quite interesting stats for sure.

Most violent crime/murders is in the southern States, for the most part.


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey, what do ya know.


Violent crime rate per 100,000 in the year 2000

New York: 553.9

Texas: 545.1


What was that again?

So Americans are encouraging violence in the UK? I'm sure this could be blamed on GWB as well.

Like I said, if you want the Gov't watching over you and considering you guilty until proven innocent, fine. What would you say if they monitored your computer use?

All the cameras in the city did was push the crime into the country side. I'm sure the farmers appreciate it, especially since they aren't allowed to defend themselves.

1) I disagree, its the glorifying of guns that is ONE in the great many reasons for the rise in gun crime.

2) Er...pretty much all western governments monitor internet traffic to a certain extent inc. the US and the UK.

3) As pointed out, they are allowed to defend themselves just not kill people. You are allowed to use "reasonable" or "not grossly disproportionate" force.

Crime rates in England or Britain as its called by the literate, have gone up because primary of the shit education system at the moment, and a lack of police on the streets.

The right wing= bunch of illiterate idiots

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey, what do ya know.


Violent crime rate per 100,000 in the year 2000

New York: 553.9
Murder 5.0
Foricible Rape 18.6
Robbery 213.6
Aggravated Assault 316.7

Texas: 545.1

Murder 5.9
Foricible Rape 37.7
Robbery 145.1
Aggravated Assault 356.3

What was that again?
My bolding and additions. Now back to you.

In Japan, the police search your house for contraband twice a year

please prove this

women only recently got the "right" to own property, define recently. in the uk, married women got the right to own property in 1882 and in US states for married women it was between 1839 and 1895

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_056700_marriedwomen.htm

and has the highest suicide rates of the industrialized world. Do you really want to use that as a comparison
japan has a suicide culture. it is still a low crime unarmed society

So Americans are encouraging violence in the UK? I'm sure this could be blamed on GWB as well.
The last person to shoot and kill a british police office in britain was a US citizen.

My bolding, now back to you.

Washington DC

41.8 43.9 621.3 801.0

So Americans are encouraging violence in the UK? I'm sure this could be blamed on GWB as well.

Like I said, if you want the Gov't watching over you and considering you guilty until proven innocent, fine. What would you say if they monitored your computer use?

All the cameras in the city did was push the crime into the country side. I'm sure the farmers appreciate it, especially since they aren't allowed to defend themselves.
Do I have to keeeeep repeating this. American gun culture influences the British street kids. I don't think GWB for all his faults can be blamed for rap culture.
Why am I guity until proven innocent? Cameras are used as evidence to process (progress?) procecution. Evidence is just evidence. The difference between being seen in person and being seen on camera is tiny.
Oh, and I don't care if they monitor my computer use they'd just see me going over the same stupid points again again with you. (and playing games) Or do you use your computer for a lot of illegal stuff. If so you need to be caught. Soon.

Cameras have not been proven to move crime. They do hawever make some criminals think again. Town centre crime has fallen in my City with no noticeable increase in crime in outlaying area. Opportunities are removed that's all.
I think more Americans should be made to visit Europe as part of their education to see that we're not monsters with radical liberty removing notions just people who have very happy (and safe) lives compared to a lot of others.

Washington DC

41.8 43.9 621.3 801.0
is it really valid to compare crime rates in DC to crime rates in other states? isn't that like comparing Detroit to the entire state of Alabama or something?

The last person to shoot and kill a british police office in britain was a US citizen.
Obviously thought gun first. Unlike a British crook who'd probably bluff it cos he'd know that they only wanted to move him off a double yellow line (illegal parking for the uninitiated).
Deeply ingrained gun culture!!!

My bolding, now back to you.
*shrugs* Without a more in depth look at the stats with further breakdown speculation's useless. Although it's interesting to note you didn't pick states which were more homogenous. I mean, New York and Texas? Besides which, as I argued back on post #23

The general stabilty of a population and that population's ability to defend themselves across the board regardless of height, weight, etc... The more unbalanced either of these factors become, the more one could expect crime to rise.

Texas isn't exactly known for it's stability and homogenousness.

As an example chicago whose gun laws are as stringent if not more so than NYC has the 3rd highest murder rate of a city in the country behind only DC, which comes in first, and LA, which comes in second. Need I remind you what the gun laws are like in those cities?

Texas isn't exactly known for it's stability and homogenousness.
neither is New York :).

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/s_monopoly.jpg

Do I have to keeeeep repeating this. American gun culture influences the British street kids. I don't think GWB for all his faults can be blamed for rap culture.
Why am I guity until proven innocent? Cameras are used as evidence to process (progress?) procecution. Evidence is just evidence. The difference between being seen in person and being seen on camera is tiny.
Oh, and I don't care if they monitor my computer use they'd just see me going over the same stupid points again again with you. (and playing games) Or do you use your computer for a lot of illegal stuff. If so you need to be caught. Soon.

Cameras have not been proven to move crime. They do hawever make some criminals think again. Town centre crime has fallen in my City with no noticeable increase in crime in outlaying area. Opportunities are removed that's all.
I think more Americans should be made to visit Europe as part of their education to see that we're not monsters with radical liberty removing notions just people who have very happy (and safe) lives compared to a lot of others.


You keeeeeeep repeating nonsense. You're trying to blame the problems on others, specifically Americans and their culture. Convienent. Are Brits so weak that they're influenced so easily to commit crime by listening to music?

Cameras are used to keep an eye on the subjects. If you accept being watched 24/7 to "protect you", you deserve what you get.

I, however, do not like being watched by the Gov't "for my protection". I also don't assume (unlike you) that people who don't like having thier privacy invaded are automatically doing something wrong or illegal.

The whole "you shouldn't mind if you're not doing something illegal" arguement is the one used by those who want nanny states to protect them.

I think you need to read the article. Your crime rate is going up - and your Home Office is admitting it - ever since your gun ban it has gone up - and when the gun ban first went into effect, your crime was already going down.

Now it's going back up. Good job!

I dont know where you got your infomation but let me tell you, across the board, crime is on the increase. And not just in the UK, but EVERYWHERE. And for a comparison to the UK, the murder rate in London is 14 times lower than that of New York and is not rising. Im not sure where you got your infomation from but guns were not "banned" in 1997, they have not been allowed in the UK in the way they are in the US for the entirity of the US's existance. And for further statistics, in the UK in 2001 there were 47 gun crime deaths. In the US that figure was in the region of 6000. Please re think your points.

neither is New York :).
City isn't, but the state as a whole is.

Rather than cherry-pick the two counties, and use methodology that you might find specious, we'll go with a peer-reviewed and published study.

John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," Draft dated July 13, 1996, p. 13. Published in the January, 1997 issue of the Journal of Legal Studies.

University of Chicago Professor John Lott provided the most methodologically sound national study to date regarding concealed-carry-weapons (CCW) laws. Unlike previous "research," Lott did not restrict his study to a few hand-picked counties to prove a foregone conclusion, but rather analyzed FBI Uniform Crime Report data from each of the 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992. The results indicate that in counties where CCW reform was enacted: Homicide fell by 8.5% Rapes fell by 5% Aggravated assaults decreased by 7%3 Importantly, there appeared to be no increase in accidental deaths. Also, the deterrent effect of CCW laws seemed to be greatest in counties with the highest crime rates. Lott's data suggest that in the 19 states that have not enacted CCW reform, there would have been approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults prevented annually.4 One must at least consider from the results of the University of Chicago study, that permissive concealed-carry laws have some deterrent effect on crime. In the worst case scenario, they clearly have not been detrimental to public safety as predicted by certain gun-prohibitionists.

You keeeeeeep repeating nonsense. You're trying to blame the problems on others, specifically Americans and their culture. Convienent. Are Brits so weak that they're influenced so easily to commit crime by listening to music?

Cameras are used to keep an eye on the subjects. If you accept being watched 24/7 to "protect you", you deserve what you get.

I, however, do not like being watched by the Gov't "for my protection". I also don't assume (unlike you) that people who don't like having thier privacy invaded are automatically doing something wrong or illegal.

The whole "you shouldn't mind if you're not doing something illegal" arguement is the one used by those who want nanny states to protect them.
Whats wrong with cameras in the centre of shopping centres? Sorry, I don't see your point. They don't continue into your home and are used to keep an eye on areas and possible offenders, whats the problem? They don't watch you 24/7 (unless you live on the streets in the middle of a town centre) so whats wrong with using these to assisst the police in stopping or reducing crime, or if a crime is committed, to use those cameras to bring said person to justice?

The whole "you shouldn't mind if you're not doing something illegal" arguement is the one used by those who want nanny states to protect them.

Flawed logic. Very few cameras have someone on the other end of them watching them. Most are recording things, if theirs a crime in an area then that time indexed video is accessed.

Whats wrong with cameras in the centre of shopping centres? Sorry, I don't see your point. They don't continue into your home and are used to keep an eye on areas and possible offenders, whats the problem? They don't watch you 24/7 (unless you live on the streets in the middle of a town centre) so whats wrong with using these to assisst the police in stopping or reducing crime, or if a crime is committed, to use those cameras to bring said person to justice?

The disabled man (wheelchair-bound) that I have instructed in firearms use was beaten on camera in a drug store that I won't name (one out of three of the incidents was on camera).

The camera did not stop him from receiving serious injuries.
The camera did not help the police in finding the suspects. In a perfect world, it might - but there are limits to camera resolution.

I would rather stop a crime altogether, as is done 2.5 million times a year by ordinary US citizens with their own firearms, without harming anyone and without "bringing someone to justice".

Jeez, you sound like Bush. That's his favorite line.

I know that the man I helped will be able to defend himself now. Or would you rather see him beaten on camera again?

I dont know where you got your infomation but let me tell you, across the board, crime is on the increase. And not just in the UK, but EVERYWHERE. And for a comparison to the UK, the murder rate in London is 14 times lower than that of New York and is not rising. Im not sure where you got your infomation from but guns were not "banned" in 1997, they have not been allowed in the UK in the way they are in the US for the entirity of the US's existance. And for further statistics, in the UK in 2001 there were 47 gun crime deaths. In the US that figure was in the region of 6000. Please re think your points.

Everywhere? Not in the US.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Guns have "never" been allowed in the UK? Strange, I seem to recall that most UK gun laws were enacted in the middle 19th.

Where do you get your information from? Mines from your Home Office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

You keeeeeeep repeating nonsense. You're trying to blame the problems on others, specifically Americans and their culture. Convienent. Are Brits so weak that they're influenced so easily to commit crime by listening to music?

Cameras are used to keep an eye on the subjects. If you accept being watched 24/7 to "protect you", you deserve what you get.

I, however, do not like being watched by the Gov't "for my protection". I also don't assume (unlike you) that people who don't like having thier privacy invaded are automatically doing something wrong or illegal.

The whole "you shouldn't mind if you're not doing something illegal" arguement is the one used by those who want nanny states to protect them.
No we don't have a major problem with guns. That's the point that you refuse to see. The problems we do have are cultural and it's not our culture or French, Australian, Danish Etc culture that measures the size of your cock by how big a gun you've got. We are unfortunately flooded by that attitude from you. I don't blame you but these influences are insiduous.

I don't see whats so great about privacy that's all. I don't assume that you've got something to hide I just wonder why you care if someone knows what you're doing. If it's just what the rest of us do it's mostly a bit sad and boring. Who cares (apart from you) who knows.

"Nanny State"??? these are people democratically elected to carry out the wishes of the majority (mostly local councils here). If I don't like what they do I vote them out. I'm happy that my son can go to a club in a major city at the age of 15 and not worry about being a crime victim (or having to carry a cannon with him). I don't have to follow him arround like a baby sitter on speed. If thats the price I pay for being watched it seems pretty good to me.

We will never agree on this as your culture is one of guns and suspicion and ours is not.

The camera did not help the police in finding the suspects. In a perfect world, it might - but there are limits to camera resolution.
There are not enough limits on it to prevent it from seeing things more than clearly unless you have an outdated camera and system

It may be arguable that even if one could buy a gun in Britain in the latter part of the 20th century, most people did not possess one.

Firearm possession in the US, however, is a constant. In fact, while the number of guns in service has risen by 89 million (for a total of nearly 300 million guns) in the past decade, violent crime has been dropping in the US.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Notice from the graph that violent crime has been dropping in the US, despite the rants of some of the people on this forum.

If an increase in gun ownership is supposed to automatically mean more violent crime, then I challenge you to explain why it's going the other way in the US.

Whats wrong with cameras in the centre of shopping centres? Sorry, I don't see your point. They don't continue into your home and are used to keep an eye on areas and possible offenders, whats the problem? They don't watch you 24/7 (unless you live on the streets in the middle of a town centre) so whats wrong with using these to assisst the police in stopping or reducing crime, or if a crime is committed, to use those cameras to bring said person to justice?

They don't continue into the home, yet.

"Possible offenders"? Guilty until innocent.

If they're not being actively watched, how do they "stop" a crime? It's kind of late when the person is already robbed/beaten/raped/killed.



Change it to firearms. What's wrong w/ Law Abiding Citizens using these to assist the police in stopping or reducing crime, or if a crime is committed, to use those cameras to bring said person to justice?

There are not enough limits on it to prevent it from seeing things more than clearly unless you have an outdated camera and system

And I'm sure that it works just fine. After you get your jaw smashed and you lose all your teeth, and have to have your face reconstructed.

I suppose you think it is just and fair that this happened to a disabled man who could not defend himself.

That the assault took place in less than 30 seconds - far less time than it took the police to respond.

And even though they have photos of the offenders, they cannot place names to the faces.

I'll be sure to call him and tell him that you think that his beating and further maiming and crippling is a better solution than having him carry a gun.

The problems we do have are cultural and it's not our culture or French, Australian, Danish Etc culture that measures the size of your cock by how big a gun you've got. We are unfortunately flooded by that attitude from you. I don't blame you but these influences are insiduous.

I don't see whats so great about privacy that's all.


We will never agree on this as your culture is one of guns and suspicion and ours is not.

So pretty much your entire arguement is based on discrimination against Americans and what you percieve to be their "culture". Stereotype much.

"I don't see whats so great about privacy that's all."

That's a very telling statement.

If I were a criminal, living in a country were weapons are legal to everyone, you know what I would do? Shoot the person that I wanted to steal before risking having that person pull his defence weapon. Its a simple reasoning. Personally, i've been mugged by a guy that put a knife at my throat: If I was armed, then he most likely would be armed too, and since he caught me by surprise (it was night), should i try to resist, i would be shot.

They don't continue into the home, yet.

"Possible offenders"? Guilty until innocent.

If they're not being actively watched, how do they "stop" a crime? It's kind of late when the person is already robbed/beaten/raped/killed.



Change it to firearms. What's wrong w/ Law Abiding Citizens using these to assist the police in stopping or reducing crime, or if a crime is committed, to use those cameras to bring said person to justice?
And why should they follow you into your homes?

Yes "possible offenders". If someone matches the description of a known fellon then they can be followed on camera. It doesn't maje the assumption that they will commit a crime, but it can have the effect that people who could commit crime would notice the camera following them and think twice.

Yes, if the person has already been robbed/beaten/raped/killed. But if it is seen on camera then they can call and direct police or security (within shopping centres) toward the crime. They often catch people in the act of being robbed and beaten, perhaps you would prefer it if they were left to it?

Firearms should not be a necessary. Agreed, most who carry these weapons are law abiding citizens, but for every criminal that has legally gained a weapon does this not make a mockery of the system?
Also, many gun owners own more than one weapon, why? Why do they need more than one? Why do they require a weapon that can fire multiple rounds in seconds? Perhaps what is needed is a change in the gun culture to reduce and improve policing so there is no requirement for citizens, law abiding or not, to carry weapons on their person for safety?

And I'm sure that it works just fine. After you get your jaw smashed and you lose all your teeth, and have to have your face reconstructed.

I suppose you think it is just and fair that this happened to a disabled man who could not defend himself.

That the assault took place in less than 30 seconds - far less time than it took the police to respond.

And even though they have photos of the offenders, they cannot place names to the faces.

I'll be sure to call him and tell him that you think that his beating and further maiming and crippling is a better solution than having him carry a gun.
We are talking from different worlds not just countries.
I can't immagine such a thing happening in the UK unless you stray into a very silly area. It's just not necessary violence. Maybe you are in a violent country and we fail to understand because we just can't see the problem. I never feel threatened here. The most common crime is theft of a mobile phone and they are so cheap that kids are told to just let it go. It's just a thing after all. Crimes against the person are very rare here so guns just aren't needed.

If I were a criminal, living in a country were weapons are legal to everyone, you know what I would do? Shoot the person that I wanted to steal before risking having that person pull his defence weapon. Its a simple reasoning. Personally, i've been mugged by a guy that put a knife at my throat: If I was armed, then he most likely would be armed too, and since he caught me by surprise (it was night), should i try to resist, i would be shot.

In the US, it's not legal for a felon to buy a firearm.

Most felons aren't really willing to kill anyone - murder carries a penalty they care about - whereas robbery and such gets you a sentence far less than life.

The felons I interviewed don't want to work hard, and don't want to get into too much trouble. They rob people out of a sense of entitlement. So shooting people before really starting the robbery isn't something they generally do. Additionally, part of the deterrent effect they mention is that when, for instance, you want to rob a convenience store, there's usually more than just the clerk in the store. Even if there's only one other person there, there is a chance that the person is armed.

So you would have to shoot everyone in sight. Not a good plan.

And, we could add that even when people are already pointing a gun at you, there are many cases of success by someone drawing and killing the assailants. In fact, here's a recent one:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=31186

A firearm, even if you have to draw it, gives you a much better chance against multiple assailants, even if they are armed.

Without the firearm, you have no chance at all.

So pretty much your entire arguement is based on discrimination against Americans and what you percieve to be their "culture". Stereotype much.

"I don't see whats so great about privacy that's all."

That's a very telling statement.
That's just silly.
I don't discriminate against anyone
Facts are facts. Rap and Holywood culture promote gun use as "cool". how can you deny it or take it personally? It just is.
Some british youth try to emulate their heros.


So what is my statement about privacy telling you? exactly?
How can you be so precious about what is undoubtedly hum drum and uninteresting ?

So what is my statement about privacy telling you? exactly?
How can you be so precious about what is undoubtedly hum drum and uninteresting ?

you honestly would not mind if you had a camera watching you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? including but not limited in the shower, on the john, in your car, bedroom, mabye even clothes?

We are talking from different worlds not just countries.
I can't immagine such a thing happening in the UK unless you stray into a very silly area. It's just not necessary violence. Maybe you are in a violent country and we fail to understand because we just can't see the problem. I never feel threatened here. The most common crime is theft of a mobile phone and they are so cheap that kids are told to just let it go. It's just a thing after all. Crimes against the person are very rare here so guns just aren't needed.

Here in the US, you stand a better chance of not being injured if you resist.

The first such myth is the 'passive behavior' myth. One is always told not to resist a robber or attacker, that passive behavior is the safest. This is true on its face; when comparing passive resistance to all forms of active resistance--such as using Mace, yelling, running away, using one's fists, or using a knife--it is safer. But, for both men and women, in every case, using a gun is the safest form of behavior when being attacked. Women who resist passively when being attacked are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than those who use a gun to defend themselves. Men are 1.4 times more likely to be injured when resisting passively rather than with a gun.

Additionally, in 98 percent of cases involving a victim actively resisting with a gun, simply brandishing the gun was enough to prevent the crime. Of the other 2 percent of cases (those in which the gun is fired), most are warning shots. If one looks only at the cases in which the attacker is killed by a victim carrying a gun--which many using the passive resistance argument do--over 99 percent of the cases are being left out. It is hardly surprising, given these numbers, that most successful cases don't make the news, since no one is harmed. And yet, in order to determine the net benefits and net costs of having people carry guns, one must also consider the crimes that never occur.

Another myth is that of acquaintance crimes. This is the idea that since most murders (58 percent) involve acquaintances, anyone can become a murderer. Thus increasing the number of guns among the population increases the number of heat-of-the-moment, passion conflicts between acquaintances that will be settled with guns. The problem with this argument is that the definition of "acquaintance" employed in these statistics is not the one typically used in casual English. Included under the FBI's definition of "acquaintance"--and therefore in the acquaintance crime statistics--are rival gang members, drug pushers and suppliers, prostitutes and pimps, and cab drivers and their fares. While these people are "acquainted," they are generally not what one envisions--and certainly not what is implied--when the acquaintance crime argument is used. Determining the breakdown here, Lott stressed, is difficult, because few cities and counties bother to catalog the composition of these crimes in great detail. Chicago is one of the few cities that does. Between 1990-95, in Chicago, only 5 percent of murders were committed between friends, neighbors, and roommates (the number increases to 17 percent if family members are included, but still remains drastically lower than the 58 percent originally cited)--those whom most people consider to be "acquaintances". Who commits murders? Not average people who suddenly turn murderers because a gun is now within reach. Ninety percent of adult murderers already have criminal records. Eighty percent of the counties in the United States each year have no murders at all. Murderers are a small localized subset of the population.

All of this can be found in the study by John Lott. You can buy the book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493644/103-9717600-8238217

And here's an interview with the author:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Rap and Holywood culture promote gun use as "cool". how can you deny it or take it personally?
But I doubt even an 1/8th of them know how to clean a gun properly. Pretending to be hardcore in a music video is a far cry from what legal gun owners are actually like.

you honestly would not mind if you had a camera watching you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? including but not limited in the shower, on the john, in your car, bedroom, mabye even clothes?
We're not really talking about that level of intervention.
I like to shit, have sex and shower in privacy because these are times when I'm at my most unattractive.
I often urinate in a semi-public place possibly watched by many men. It doesn't bother me. If they put a camera in urinals I wouldn't care. It might even stop some toilets turning into cottages.
There is no point in watching everyone all the time but there is a point in watching significant places all the time.
I was recently assaulted by a neighbour. His version of events was very different to mine. Without witnesses no charges were pressed. had there been a camera then the truth (his or mine) may have been more obvious.
I don't need a camera in my street (it wouldn't bother me if they fitted one - it would just be a waste of money) but I'm perfectly happy with camera's in public places and should the police have reason to ask I'd be happy to let them in my computer.

Guns have "never" been allowed in the UK? Strange, I seem to recall that most UK gun laws were enacted in the middle 19th.

I don't what you read in Neo Cannens quote but you obviously didn't read it right!

We're not really talking about that level of intervention.
I like to shit, have sex and shower in privacy because these are times when I'm at my most unattractive.
I often urinate in a semi-public place possibly watched by many men. It doesn't bother me. If they put a camera in urinals I wouldn't care. It might even stop some toilets turning into cottages.
There is no point in watching everyone all the time but there is a point in watching significant places all the time.
I was recently assaulted by a neighbour. His version of events was very different to mine. Without witnesses no charges were pressed. had there been a camera then the truth (his or mine) may have been more obvious.
I don't need a camera in my street (it wouldn't bother me if they fitted one - it would just be a waste of money) but I'm perfectly happy with camera's in public places and should the police have reason to ask I'd be happy to let them in my computer.


But what if you were to plan terroristic attacs while showering, or chance a muttered confession in your sleep? If only your neibor had those cameras in his house, well then, this matter would easly resolved wouldn't it? and how could you possibly expect an information and safety agency to function without all of the information out there? surely even you must admit that if we had cameras in the terrorists dens and backrooms then they could never plot to hurt the children!

And I'm sure that it works just fine. After you get your jaw smashed and you lose all your teeth, and have to have your face reconstructed.

I suppose you think it is just and fair that this happened to a disabled man who could not defend himself.

That the assault took place in less than 30 seconds - far less time than it took the police to respond.

And even though they have photos of the offenders, they cannot place names to the faces.

I'll be sure to call him and tell him that you think that his beating and further maiming and crippling is a better solution than having him carry a gun.

I was talking about the camera. You said the resolution wasn't good enough, so I responded that that is bull unless they have a shoddy camera system. Don't go off on random diatribes irrelevant to my post

Rap and Holywood culture promote gun use as "cool". how can you deny it or take it personally? It just is.
Some british youth try to emulate their heros.

Most gun owners in the US could care less about rap or Hollywood. Especially the law abiding ones (the vast majority).

The typical person who likes to emulate Hollywood and tries to use a gun in that manner usually ends up "killed by police" or "killed by armed civilian".

Here's a picture of idiotic sights that such a person might want to buy:
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-gag.html

Yeah, holding their nine sideways, just like in the movies.

Here in the US, you stand a better chance of not being injured if you resist.

The first .....snip....../Chicago/493636.html[/url]
See, we can all learn something here if we stop slagging each other off!
I wish some of you pro gun americans could live in europe for a year to see how what may well apply to the US is totally alien to most of the world.
I would not be happy in a place where my best chance to survive a mugging is to wave a gun around.
Here they demand cash and you either run, hit them or give it up quietly and maybe get a slap. If hey produce a knife then maybe only two options occur. If they pull a gun you can almost (almost almost) be sure it's a fake of starter pistol.
Anyway i forget my phone all the time so I'd never remember to carry a gun.
One thing never mentuioned is the feeeling of power a gun gives you. I've faced down very violent people when carrying an assault rifle (well SLR). I just felt invunerable. Stupid really cos they never gave me any live ammo!! but I know the effect of cocking a weapon on an assailant and I don't like that feeling.

The problem here is that especially among young felons, abusing the victim is part and parcel of the crime.

They're having fun beating you.

It's not all "a bit of fun".

So Americans are encouraging violence in the UK? I'm sure this could be blamed on GWB as well.Hollywood, actually...

Not that I believe I'm affected by it (save for a few unfortunate turns of grammar, every now and then) but there are those who will. Like... well, do you know who Ali G is, yet? Not sure if he's just a British in-joke, but if you do, consider the kind of people he parodies, who take on US gang culture. (Not guns, usually, 'cos guns aren't generally available like you know, but the associated trappings and attitude, even if only cosmetically...)

But I know the effect of cocking a weapon on an assailant and I don't like that feeling.
So? That's not necessarily a bad thing. As long as you don't let the feeling control you and your actions, what's the problem?

Most gun owners in the US could care less about rap or Hollywood. Especially the law abiding ones (the vast majority).

Spoil sport, you just ruined my image of Charleton Heston rappin' 'n da hood.

But what if you were to plan terroristic attacs while showering, or chance a muttered confession in your sleep? If only your neibor had those cameras in his house, well then, this matter would easly resolved wouldn't it? and how could you possibly expect an information and safety agency to function without all of the information out there? surely even you must admit that if we had cameras in the terrorists dens and backrooms then they could never plot to hurt the children!
Thats not gonna happen now is it?
Seriously We have to differentiate between privacy in the home and privacy in a public (or semi public like a bar or shop) place.
Do you object if a store camera films you buying something. No of course not your used to it and the possible benifits outweigh the minor intrusion.
Surely the same is true in the street. What if I am watched by a controller in a video room while I walk down the street? He could stand on the corner and watch me less well. I voted for the people who agreed to fit the cameras. I don't have a problem with them in public places. I can see why you would feel they would intrude on you in your private home but no one seriously has ever suggested anything like that.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Notice from the graph that violent crime has been dropping in the US, despite the rants of some of the people on this forum.

If an increase in gun ownership is supposed to automatically mean more violent crime, then I challenge you to explain why it's going the other way in the US.

I don't think there's a connection, in your case. Much as I don't think there's one between the (reported) rise in violent crime in the UK vs its gun ownership. There are many other factors involved and there's no reason why the ban on guns has done anything (other than leak a few 'unofficial' weapons into the black market rather than the grey one) to increase gun problems in the UK.

We generally don't have guns, we generally don't feel the need for guns (at least, not in the cold light of day and away from any gun sport some of us do enjoy) and we may have a fluctuation in reported crimes but there's no reliable connection to any 'ban' initiated (that probably directly stopped no more than a few hundred legitimate gun owners in the whole country from continuing to be gun owners).

Your culture is armed, your culture feels the need for guns. Your crime, therefore, involves (or takes account of the possibilty of) guns much more. For whatever factors you have that affect the distribution of crime into on-violent, violent and lethal, I suspect that the presence (and likliehood of presence) of guns makes instantaneous escalation up the levels more likely, but may indeed mean suppress it to start with. Too many factors. But I'd rather be mugged in the UK than in the US (if I had to choose) because the chances of fatality (no matter what figures are dragged up) is going to be greater in the latter. If I incautiously grab for my wallet in the US, your homegrown muggers might assume I'm armed and the one with the gun and the shaky hand might over-react.

Ok, so I could be kicked to death in the UK, or stabbed, or thrown off a bridge onto a main road, or some other nasty fate, but the impetous for escalation isn't there, and it's no longer a split-second thing, is it?

If they're not being actively watched, how do they "stop" a crime? It's kind of late when the person is already robbed/beaten/raped/killed.
Firstly, I believe that "They don't watch you 24/7" means that you aren't under 24/7 observation. The area that is under observation by the camera 24/7. or at the very least the threat of such, with an operator observing several minotirs fed by such cameras at all times.

Secondly, if you're a bit tipsy and feeling violent, the thought of the cameras could bring you back from the brink of actually acting criminal. Similarly, they help catch people who went 'over the edge' and help prevent future reoccurances, by one of several scenarios. Same with pickpocketing.

Cameras discourage most crimes, help solve/wrap up a number of those that do occur and very rarely escalate those that slip through both those nets.

Change it to firearms. What's wrong w/ Law Abiding Citizens using these to assist the police in stopping or reducing crime, or if a crime is committed, to use those cameras to bring said person to justice?A camera taking images of an innocent activity is one thing, a citizen over-reacting and shooting someone innocent of an assumed crime (or even guilty of one, but not deserving of capital punishment) is another.

So? That's not necessarily a bad thing. As long as you don't let the feeling control you and your actions, what's the problem?
Agreed.
But much simplers to not have guns available.
Not to pick it up in the first place. I will not use a gun again.
Not everyone has the self control of you or I

A firearm, even if you have to draw it, gives you a much better chance against multiple assailants, even if they are armed.

Without the firearm, you have no chance at all.I know enough to know that while not all gunshots are lethal, you're not going to initiate or respond in such a situation with sub-lethal force (given how difficult it is to do that in a guaranteed manner) so multiple assailants with guns are going to try to kill you, and you them with yours, once the shooting starts. (The fact that intentional attempts to kill may have a low efficacy in some situations doesn't reduce the danger.)

Compare to a weaponless mugging (well, knives and things at the most) the upper-hand is more easily achieved without fatality. Often without injury, just sufficient posturing to support a claim to victory in the situation. You can do this with guns, to some extent, by merely brandishing them, but not all situations are calm "I'll show you mine if you show me yours.... Sheeeit, it's a darn hand-cannon you got there, and I see you have a marksman's certificate, please let me capitulate and let you carry on with your (un*)lawful business [*delete if not applicable]" sort of thing...

Here in the US, you stand a better chance of not being injured if you resist.

The first such myth is the 'passive behavior' myth. One is always told not to resist a robber or attacker, that passive behavior is the safest. This is true on its face; when comparing passive resistance to all forms of active resistance--such as using Mace, yelling, running away, using one's fists, or using a knife--it is safer. But, for both men and women, in every case, using a gun is the safest form of behavior when being attacked. Women who resist passively when being attacked are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than those who use a gun to defend themselves. Men are 1.4 times more likely to be injured when resisting passively rather than with a gun.How is that broken down between people who resisted against armed and unarmed assailants?

I suspect (and have no figures to back me up) that no unarmed assailants caused injury to armed 'victims', whereas against an armed assailant with the will to use his weapon it's going to turn out worse. The average probably falls in favour of being armed, but the consequences (for everyone) shifts towards being worse injuries when they occur.

Compare to a weaponless mugging (well, knives and things at the most) the upper-hand is more easily achieved without fatality. Often without injury, just sufficient posturing to support a claim to victory in the situation. You can do this with guns, to some extent, by merely brandishing them, but not all situations are calm "I'll show you mine if you show me yours.... Sheeeit, it's a darn hand-cannon you got there, and I see you have a marksman's certificate, please let me capitulate and let you carry on with your (un*)lawful business [*delete if not applicable]" sort of thing...

It has worked for me several times. Getting the barrel of a pistol jammed into your trachea and twisted 90 degrees to grab the skin so they can't pull away has seemed to get the point across without the use of words, or the display of a certificate.

It has worked for me several times. Getting the barrel of a pistol jammed into your trachea and twisted 90 degrees to grab the skin so they can't pull away has seemed to get the point across without the use of words, or the display of a certificate.Good for you. I'll accept that as a more extreme version of 'brandishing' and congratulate you on your ability, pursuasiveness and self-control. Is that a typical situation, do you find?

Most felons (and I work with them off-hours) do not expect someone to resist.

The three times that I have done this, it begins with a seemingly innocent request (asking for a cigarette, or some small amount of money). When I say, "No, I don't smoke," they seem to do an instant "sizing up" as to whether or not I'll be cooperative. Then it escalates (without me saying another word) to "Ok, let's see how much money you have. Give me your money." At this point, in two of the cases, they produced a knife.

I have waited until they put their hands on me - which at this point they have. I then say, "Ok, let me get my wallet out". The gun comes out very rapidly, and I jam it under their chin.

They are very polite afterwards. I'm not interested in calling the police. I just want to be left alone.

I've seen one of the people that accosted me in this manner since then - several times - in the shopping center parking lot. Each time he catches sight of me, he runs away.

Good.

Most felons (and I work with them off-hours) do not expect someone to resist.

The three times that I have done this, it begins with a seemingly innocent request (asking for a cigarette, or some small amount of money). When I say, "No, I don't smoke," they seem to do an instant "sizing up" as to whether or not I'll be cooperative. Then it escalates (without me saying another word) to "Ok, let's see how much money you have. Give me your money." At this point, in two of the cases, they produced a knife.

I have waited until they put their hands on me - which at this point they have. I then say, "Ok, let me get my wallet out". The gun comes out very rapidly, and I jam it under their chin.

They are very polite afterwards. I'm not interested in calling the police. I just want to be left alone.

I've seen one of the people that accosted me in this manner since then - several times - in the shopping center parking lot. Each time he catches sight of me, he runs away.

Good.

Drattit, lost my last response due to being distracted and timed out of the forum...

The basics of the reply were that it sounds fairly Hollywood in nature (not a bad thing, just saying). It sounds like you could deal with a gun-toting mugger as well (though doubtless not in the same way, his gun probably being used at range and the exact same manoever not being practicle).

I think you're more proficient (and possibly your disabled friend, through your tutilidge) than most people though. Your apparent experience probably trumps them. I was wondering what the average person would in a unarmed/knife/gun vs unarmed/knife/gun situation... I'm just visualising that the combinations with guns (especially the one with ones on both sides of the equation) could end up turning out much nastier than the other cases.

Before I leave for the evening, here's a quick reference point w.r.t. my attitude...
I'm not a stranger to guns, just not as profficient as it appears the average US teenager is reputed to be... Still, I don't know how I'd deal with the knife attacker. Even with a gun, I'd probably want to get some distance first before making it obvious that I've got a gun and not (ha!) afraid to use it if necessary. I've had some basic training that might (if I kept my head, literally and figuratively) help me deal with a knife to my throat, and I'd probably try that first, before tempting fate by making the guy nervous and twitchy by trying (by a manoever that I haven't been trained for and don't think I'm psychologically prepared to do) to produce a firearm and threaten back.

One problem is that I tend to treat any (non-toy) firearm that I've come across almost like an inactivated light-sabre which could suddenly extend to infinite length at any moment, as long as it has/could have ammo in. I'm frankly nervous of looking down the barrel even when it's obvious there is no ammo (and the chamber is clear) and I've never tried it, but I could as likely point a live and ready-to-use gun at a real person as I could deliberately drive on the wrong side of the road... (And that latter occurance isn't very likely at all... I may not be a perfect driver, but the centre markings are psychologically inviolate to me, save for junctions and contraflows.)

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. But as to where I'm going to... well... away from here till tomorrow, at least... :)

*shrugs* Without a more in depth look at the stats with further breakdown speculation's useless. Although it's interesting to note you didn't pick states which were more homogenous. I mean, New York and Texas? Besides which, as I argued back on post #23

So you would like two States that are more "homogeneous"? Try these ones then?

Per 100,000 Inhabitants

New Jersey (gun control):

Population: 8,414,350
Violent 383.8
Murder 3.4
Foricible Rape 16.1
Robbery 161.1
Aggravated Assault 203.2

Maryland (no gun control):

Population: 5,296,486

Violent: 786.6

Murder: 8.1
Foricible Rape: 29.1
Robbery: 256.0
Aggravated Assault: 493.3

Even though New Jersey has a higher population, the Maryland rates are ALL higher.

So you would like two States that are more "homogeneous"? Try these ones then?

Per 100,000 Inhabitants

New Jersey (gun control):

Population: 8,414,350
Violent 383.8
Murder 3.4
Foricible Rape 16.1
Robbery 161.1
Aggravated Assault 203.2

Maryland (no gun control):

Population: 5,296,486

Violent: 786.6

Murder: 8.1
Foricible Rape: 29.1
Robbery: 256.0
Aggravated Assault: 493.3

Even though New Jersey has a higher population, the Maryland rates are ALL higher.

Maryland has quite severe gun control. You can't own most kinds of pistol, and you can't carry concealed - at all. In fact, if you're not on the way to the range or back, or on the way home from a gun store, a gun in your trunk will get you arrested.

You should check your facts better.

Besides, someone already has done this on a county by county basis across the entire US, for several years. I posted the link earlier.

The "slippery slope" argument that having some cameras placed in public areas will suddenly lead to cameras being placed inside the home is bloody stupid.

I'm not in the UK but I do live in a city that has police-operated cameras in certain places in the city (large public squares, etc). Quite frankly I feel much more secure there and the installation of these cameras were not placed there as the result of a "Big Brother" agency. Citizens like myself demanded them.

Yup... the people - not the Government - wanted them there. Could the Government force us to have cameras installed in our homes? No. My Government definitely does not have the capacity to declare martial law and turn itself into a dictatorship... so it has to do whatever is popular (at least according to the majority) otherwise it will find itself swiftly voted out. I don't see the idea of having cameras in your home becoming popular anytime soon.

Trying to compare the UK or Australia to the USA doesn't work. Our cultures (particularly when it comes to gun ownership & use) are just plainly different. I know in this country that there are definitely hardened and organised criminals that have access to firearms and use them. However, I can walk down pretty much any given street at any given time of the night or day here and be safe in the knowledge that I will not become the victim of a crime or have a gun pulled on me.

A security guard got shot last week... it made the national headlines. Why? Because someone, anyone, being shot dead is such a bloody rare event. Most gun-related deaths here are instances where the gun has been used in a suicide.

The US has a clear culture of gun ownership. The UK and Australia do not have such a culture (regardless of the legality and availability of firearms according to the law). Does that mean that what works for us here will work in the US?

No.

As I've stated several times already, the US appears to have a much higher crime rate than most other developed countries per capita. Guns may or may not influence those numbers but I'm guessing that even in states where guns have apparently reduced the crime rates that they'd still be considered high compared to other countries.

Look for the source of the violence. Fix it. Who knows... the need to carry a gun might end up to be more a fashion choice than a necessary self-defence.

The source of violence in America is drugs.

Legalize drugs, and most of the violent crime would stop.

The "slippery slope" argument that having some cameras placed in public areas will suddenly lead to cameras being placed inside the home is bloody stupid.


Look for the source of the violence. Fix it. Who knows... the need to carry a gun might end up to be more a fashion choice than a necessary self-defence.

The problem argueing against the "slippery slope" for firearms is that it has been proven several times over. A gov't begins by regulating (you don't "need" these types of firearm), to registering ( if we know where the guns are, it will reduce crime), to confiscating ( it will reduce crime.)
"Legitimate Needs" get redefined so less and less people "need" a gun until the law abiding populace is completely disarmed.

Every state in the US that has severe gun laws have started w/ "reasonable" regulation and/or registration. W/I a generation, more "reasonable" regulations are added and/or no further registration is allowed thereby creating defacto gun bans.

They try and state hunting will never be attacked. At the same time, many of these politicians are actively supporting anti-hunting organizations and pushing for the closing of lands to hunters. Look at the UK now w/ the Parliament forcing through hunting bans. The politicians used the same arguements.

Just be patient as your rights are whittled away piece by piece in the name of "safety" and your own good.

The cameras really helped this guy:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1518967,00.html

A FRAIL RAF veteran was driven to suicide after his home was burgled for the third time.



Herbert Buckland, 84, was afraid to leave his house or even open his front door after being robbed by doorstep conmen twice last year.

When he came face-to-face with burglars for the third time, Mr Buckland apparently decided that enough was enough. He told relatives that the world was no longer a place he wanted to live in. Three days later he was found hanged in the bungalow that he shared with his wife, Barbara, in Wroughton, near Swindon, Wiltshire.

His granddaughter, who did not want to give her name, said yesterday: ?He no longer felt safe in his home and was too proud a man to move out. After the last burglary, he became anxious and worried.

?Even when they thought they were safe by not answering the door and keeping the windows and doors locked, these scumbags still managed to get into their home. If it wasn?t for them, my Grandad would be alive today."


Where were the police? How about the camera's to save him? It was probably to many screenings of "Ocean's Eleven" that made the criminals do this.

If they're not being actively watched, how do they "stop" a crime? It's kind of late when the person is already robbed/beaten/raped/killed.

Cameras are not an active crime prevention system. They are a detterant. They provide evidence, which later leads to prosecution. The idea of being in an area where if you commit a crime evidence of you doing it is immidately gathered is supposed to be a discouraging factor.

The problem argueing against the "slippery slope" for firearms is that it has been proven several times over. A gov't begins by regulating (you don't "need" these types of firearm), to registering ( if we know where the guns are, it will reduce crime), to confiscating ( it will reduce crime.)
"Legitimate Needs" get redefined so less and less people "need" a gun until the law abiding populace is completely disarmed.

Every state in the US that has severe gun laws have started w/ "reasonable" regulation and/or registration. W/I a generation, more "reasonable" regulations are added and/or no further registration is allowed thereby creating defacto gun bans.

They try and state hunting will never be attacked. At the same time, many of these politicians are actively supporting anti-hunting organizations and pushing for the closing of lands to hunters. Look at the UK now w/ the Parliament forcing through hunting bans. The politicians used the same arguements.

Just be patient as your rights are whittled away piece by piece in the name of "safety" and your own good.

You stay in your country and I'll gladly stay in mine.

I don't need a gun, I don't want to own a gun and I really couldn't care if there is a complete and utter ban on gun ownership in my country.

I'm not telling you how things work in your country so stop telling me how things work in mine... mmkay?

Cameras are not an active crime prevention system. They are a detterant. They provide evidence, which later leads to prosecution. The idea of being in an area where if you commit a crime evidence of you doing it is immidately gathered is supposed to be a discouraging factor.

So's the knowledge that your target may be armed.

The cameras really helped this guy:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1518967,00.html

A FRAIL RAF veteran was driven to suicide after his home was burgled for the third time.



Herbert Buckland, 84, was afraid to leave his house or even open his front door after being robbed by doorstep conmen twice last year.

When he came face-to-face with burglars for the third time, Mr Buckland apparently decided that enough was enough. He told relatives that the world was no longer a place he wanted to live in. Three days later he was found hanged in the bungalow that he shared with his wife, Barbara, in Wroughton, near Swindon, Wiltshire.

His granddaughter, who did not want to give her name, said yesterday: ?He no longer felt safe in his home and was too proud a man to move out. After the last burglary, he became anxious and worried.

?Even when they thought they were safe by not answering the door and keeping the windows and doors locked, these scumbags still managed to get into their home. If it wasn?t for them, my Grandad would be alive today."


Where were the police? How about the camera's to save him? It was probably to many screenings of "Ocean's Eleven" that made the criminals do this.

PROBABLY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIVE IN A PUBLIC SPACE.

Hence... no cameras...

You don't want cameras? Sweet. Vote against them or protest or whatever. Great.

This whole snide "Hah... cameras? You've given up your freedom, next thing you'll be forced into concentration camps! Heil Hitler hey?" attitude is pretty poor.

You do things your way, we'll do things our way. Want to meet back up in 50 years and check to see if my country has thrown away all civil rights and personal freedoms?

So's the knowledge that your target may be armed.

Despite American criminals having that knowledge, the USA isn't some kind of crime-free paradise, so obviously it isn't a very good deterrent.

So's the knowledge that your target may be armed.

Thats completely diffrent for a number of reasons

1) No one ever gets killed by a camera

2) A camera is not designed to kill anyone

3) The deterrant in the case of a camera is that there is evidence being gathered, not that your opponent is more hevely armed than you

4) With a camera there is a certianty that it is gathering evidence, where as with a gun, you may take your luck and think "I could take him as i have a bigger/better/more rapid fire etc gun".

The simple arguement against gun control is the more guns there are with a greater lack of control, the greater the potential for accidents. Why do you think we have crossings on roads and (in America) laws against crossing the road where there is no specific crossing (I believe thats known as Jaywalking). Because if you control crossings, you decrease the likelyhood for acidents. The less guns there are the less accidents and the less danger. I gurantee you that while gun crime may be going up in the UK, the number of gun related deaths per 1000 is much higher in America than the UK.

bump

Yet the following two sites do not support your claims:

A State-by-State Look at Gun Laws in the U.S (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/).

United States: Uniform Crime Report -- State Statistics from 1960 - 2000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/)

On the 2nd link, when you click on a State, go to the bottom and you will notice a stats comparison.

Example:

New York State (gun control):

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index.

Texas (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index.

New Jersey (gun control);

In the year 2000 New Jersey had an estimated population of 8,414,350 which ranked the state 9th in population. For that year the State of New Jersey had a total Crime Index of 3,160.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 39th highest total Crime Index.

Louisiana (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Louisiana had an estimated population of 4,468,976 which ranked the state 22nd in population. For that year the State of Louisiana had a total Crime Index of 5,422.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 4th highest total Crime Index.

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

How do you explain your reasoning?


Why would someone interested in making a rational argument talk about overall crime when we are talking about whether or not gun control has an effect on crime?

How would a gun or lack of one have any impact upon car theft or cold robberies(when no one is home) ect? What you need to look at is violent crime. You also need to understand that while its easy to call NY a gun control state, outside of of NYC it is pretty easy to own a handgun legally. There is more to NY than just NYC. New Jersey doesnt even require owners to register their guns, though they encourage it. You need an FIR only if you plan on PURCHASING guns or ammo in Jersey.

You also need to exclude gang on gang crime. Why, because that sort of crime generally doesnt impact the general population; they people we are thinking about when we talk of crime. Gun laws are not going to impact whether two gangs or drug dealers shoot each other. What they will impact however is whether or not a normal person is going to be mugged or assaulted or raped

My bolding and additions. Now back to you.

Oh, forgot to mention, outside of NYC you only need to be 18 to own a rifle or shotgun. In nyc you need a permit, which is not hard to get.

edit: Why dont you look at NYC crime before Guiliani cleaned it up. I grew there, so I will tell you it was a vastly different place in the 80s.

http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255%7E33909%7E2743079,00.html

‘Gun ban’ utopia creates violent crime increase

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that’s repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.
Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don’t reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

[In] contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation’s violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI’s figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Isn't that special?


well i totally agree that gun control doesnt work, BUT you tend to report misleading stats..

1) how much of increase in the UK crime rate versus population growth?
2) whats the difference between now and say in 1970 for violent crime in the UK, perhaps the UK just went through a spike in crime?
3) what is the violent crime rate in the states VS the UK? MAKE SURE you provide a source OTHER than the cia's site as the cia under reports violent crime. Find a site that includes ALL cases of US crime rates...

well i totally agree that gun control doesnt work, BUT you tend to report misleading stats..

1) how much of increase in the UK crime rate versus population growth?
2) whats the difference between now and say in 1970 for violent crime in the UK, perhaps the UK just went through a spike in crime?
3) what is the violent crime rate in the states VS the UK? MAKE SURE you provide a source OTHER than the cia's site as the cia under reports violent crime. Find a site that includes ALL cases of US crime rates...
I'm inclined to think the burden is on the gun control advocates to prove their bans are working. After all, they are the ones that are promoting a change from the status quo. The prima-facie evidence, as well as logical thought, is that gun control promotes violent crime. Prove to us that this isn't the case.

There is also one other thing that ocurred to me while I lay awake in bed early this morning...

In the quoted examples of areas where crime has reduced, it appears that pro-gun advocates are pretty much pinning it solely on guns.

It is a bit like making the icecream connection... for those not familiar it has been shown that on days when icecream sales have increased, so has violence. Does that mean icecream makes people violent? Of course not, the underlying factor to both an increase in icecream sales and violence is hot weather. When it gets hot, more people buy icecream and it also seems people are more likely to become irritable & tempers fray that much sooner.

It would be interesting to see the full statistics for those areas for things like unemployment as well. I think to associate a lower level of crime solely on gun ownership is overly simplistic. If unemployment rates or average wages have also gotten better they may also be contributing factors.

Who knows... it might even show that those areas have seen an increase in unemployment and a drop in average wage, in which case it would make the case for relaxed gun laws even more valid.

I'm inclined to think the burden is on the gun control advocates to prove their bans are working. After all, they are the ones that are promoting a change from the status quo. The prima-facie evidence, as well as logical thought, is that gun control promotes violent crime. Prove to us that this isn't the case.

to be honest i think its pretty well impossible to support either side with "stats"

I think the USA just has a much more violent society. Why doesnt canada have the crime rates the USA has even though we have such high gun ownership rates? ( the mountie incident in alberta + the shooting at the quebec university notwithstanding)

and there we have it

anybody can find prove to support their side - as shown over and over in pretty much all these debate threads.

or you could just look at the UK where we theoretically have no guns and far less violent crime
UK's murder rate is the highest it's been in 100 years.

This document appears to be ill-informed bullshit.

Why do people insist on tying the UK gun ban to increases in crime? The two are completely unrelated. The fact is, pretty much nobody had guns before the ban was enacted, nobody used guns to defend themselves anyway, so how exactly can banning them have '[denied] law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves'?
So what you're saying is that gun control is worthless.

If I were a criminal, living in a country were weapons are legal to everyone, you know what I would do? Shoot the person that I wanted to steal before risking having that person pull his defence weapon. Its a simple reasoning. Personally, i've been mugged by a guy that put a knife at my throat: If I was armed, then he most likely would be armed too, and since he caught me by surprise (it was night), should i try to resist, i would be shot.

If I were a criminal in a country where weapons are legal to everyone, do you know what I would do?

1)definately NOT shoot first because I know that the police actually go after and usually capture violent criminals vs simple theft. I mean seriously, what is the sense in repeatedly killing someone for at most a few hundred bux and risk going to jail for life vs not killing and the police not even looking?

2) commit crimes where I dont run the risk of interacting with someone

3)seriously consider whether crime is worth it on a risk return basis. At a certain level of deterance, being a dishwasher looks atractive.

Maryland has quite severe gun control. You can't own most kinds of pistol, and you can't carry concealed - at all. In fact, if you're not on the way to the range or back, or on the way home from a gun store, a gun in your trunk will get you arrested.

You should check your facts better.

Besides, someone already has done this on a county by county basis across the entire US, for several years. I posted the link earlier.
According to this link (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/), there is no gun control in Maryland.

When did Maryland adopt gun control, and could you provide a link that details what kind of gun control is in place?

According to this link (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/), there is no gun control in Maryland.

When did Maryland adopt gun control, and could you provide a link that details what kind of gun control is in place?

as you like to say, the sourse is 4 years old...

I don't know whether people have already made these points but i'm not reading twelve pages of posts.

Firstly I think the violent crime rates in Britain are heavily inflated by drink-related incidents; mostly people coming out of a pub on a friday night and smacking some other drunkard round the head. I think for most of the population if they are sensible enough (and generally sober enough) to avoid the more obvioulsy belligerent individuals they can feel a lot safer than the statistics suggest.
Which leads me to my next point: in my opinion statistics of crimes don't tell the whole story. I don't know what it's like in America, but in Britain I feel safe on the streets and don't feel I need to carry a gun to guarantee my protection. I don't think any solution to crime which relies on arming everyone to counteract criminals owning guns is necessarily the best way go about it.
In America in all likelihood the statistics will show a decrease in violent crime as people are allowed concealed carry permits and the like; however whether this is the best way for people to feel safer on the streets, particularly those who are uncomfortable with or incapable of carring guns, is uncertain.

I served 10 years in the forces and worked for 15 with the army as a consultant and in that time I have met about 5 people in the UK who own a private weapon (and these are gun nuts who I work with who have a military armery to store their weapons in). What I'm saying is that gun owning is not naturally in British culture and has only recently been imported from the US. Thanks for that guys!

Because the Americans walked on in here and forced us to think guns were cool. AT GUNPOINT NO LESS! =O

I don't know what it's like in America, but in Britain I feel safe on the streets and don't feel I need to carry a gun to guarantee my protection.

Well, I would quite like to know where you live then, because it has been about five years since I've felt safe walking around here. In America, by contrast, I feel pretty damn safe - I have no idea whether or not carrying concealed firearms is legal in Missouri, which is the State I stay in, but I feel safe. *Shrugs*

Isanyonehome also pointed out a very important point. Criminals of necessity don't really want to interact with people anyways, so the thought that they'll get shot as well is not remotely appealing to them.

as you like to say, the sourse is 4 years old...
What research have you done on this? I have used FBI stats and from what I can see so far, the gun control states have a lower rate of crime.

I also compared 1990 rates to 2000 rates and the same argument holds true.

So go find some competent statistics to refute what I am finding.

Another interesting note, and I am not sure if it has been posted, is that violent crime has dropped in both the gun control States as well as the non gun control States. For the past 10 years 1994 to 2004, it has been illegal to buy assault weapons in the US. That ban has just been lifted, and it will be interesting to see if the crime rate actually starts to increase again.

Also this tidbit before the last election:

An Annenburg survey notes that 68 percent (+/- 1 percent) of American adults wanted to see the ban extended; 57 percent of those with a gun in the home and 32 percent of NRA members supported a continuance of the ban. Annenburg reports that no demographic showed less than 60 percent support for the ban, with women showing the most support.

Mmm according to the home office website violent crime in the UK has actually fallen by 35% since 1995, which seems somewhat contrary to the original aricle posted in the thread; it just shows what you can do with statistics. It also quite surprises me.

Hmmm... here is a link to the stats regarding crime in Australia from 1993 to 2002.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)

Things have pretty much stayed the same... a few increases here, a few decreases there. Actually, looking at the second chart on that page entitled "Crime Victimisation Rates" it appears that you could argue that there has been a mild decrease overall.

Again, I'm posting this to refute the claim that Australia has become some sort of haven for crime the moment tougher gun restrictions went into place. I'm not suggesting that tougher gun laws would solve anything in the USA - apples to oranges and all that sort of thing.

On a matter probably not related to guns, I was taking a look at some FBI stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls) and I'm curious as to what happened in 1993/94 as crime seemed to be on the increase and then in 1994 it started on a downward trend.

Can anyone tell me what happened?

with no relation to the gun ban
Oh, so there is no weapon allowed for self defense. That really deters crime, as it wonderfully has been.

Well, first. The UK police men use Billies to beat down people. And if it gets really bad, ohh, they call in the SAS.

So, being a criminal isn't a good thing in the UK.

A violent crime without a gun is a violent crime

A violent crime with a gun is a MURDER you idiots! :p

Guns have been virtually non-existant in the UK for years, even before the ban. It has no relation to violent crime whatsoever, because virtually no one owned guns before or after.

Violent crime HAS risen, OK, but its still WAY off what it is in the US.

If you ban guns, people don't get murdered as often, and so they have to beat each other shitless instead. Hence violent crimes. I'd rather be beaten up than shot thankyou.

The UK, holds above all else life foremost. If a criminal attacks you in the UK, you do not have the right to shoot him, unless he provides a direct threat to your life.

You can attempt to stop him from escaping but you have to use reasonable force, the gun ban in the United Kingdom, may have caused violent crime to increase, but less people die from guns. The Gun ban in the end saves lives, and does not end them. Violent crime may be a hard thing to cope with, but life does go on, people make mistakes and British law takes that into consideration.

I hope that everyone here, will remember why the Gun ban in the United Kingdom was brought into place. We, all pray for those children murdered in the Dunblane incident, please keep in mind that the gun ban in the UK resulted from the mass murder of an entire class of primary school children, be respectful for a law that was brought into place to save lives of our people and our children.

http://www.iansa.org/images/dunblane_class_photo.jpg

Every child you see here was shot dead, killed by a monster, I hope that you will all pray for them.

The 13th of March is approaching, I hope you will all offer a prayer for their souls, may they all rest in peace.

On 13 March we commemorate the anniversary of the Dunblane primary school shooting in Scotland, in which 16 small children and their teacher lost their lives. Two other teachers and 12 more children were wounded. The solitary assailant was armed with high-powered handguns that had been legally obtained. The public outrage, sorrow and anger resulting from the Dunblane massacre led to the UK banning the civilian ownership of handguns in 1997. Britain 's gun control organisation, the Gun Control Network, was at the forefront of the campaign to ban handguns. GCN is an active IANSA member and continues to campaign for reforms to prevent gun violence in the UK .

The anniversary of Dunblane is a time to remember those who were lost in this, the most shocking civilian shooting in Britian's collective memory, to reevaluate how far we have come to building a safe and secure society, and to consolidate our energy for the battles we still have yet to fight, to ensure that this never happens again.

According to this link (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/), there is no gun control in Maryland.

When did Maryland adopt gun control, and could you provide a link that details what kind of gun control is in place?
It says you can get a permit for carrying, but basically if you ain't an important jackass you're not getting the permit. It gives out very, very few carry permits.

For the past 10 years 1994 to 2004, it has been illegal to buy assault weapons in the US. That ban has just been lifted, and it will be interesting to see if the crime rate actually starts to increase again.

It was not the assault weapons ban, which is a completely fucking useless term anyway, it was the semi-automatic weapons ban. Basically it banned guns that "looked" scary. You know the DC sniper? He bought a "sniper rifle" from bushmaster for his escapades. Had he been smart and used a normal hunting rifle instead most if not all his targets would be dead. There is a reason the .223 poodleshooter round is banned from being used in hunting. It has a very low kill rate and can't be properly depended on to kill a target bigger than 70 lbs. For that matter, the amount of so called "assault weapons" actually used in crimes before the ban was quite negligible.

Same thing happened with prohibition.

On 13 March we commemorate the anniversary of the Dunblane primary school shooting in Scotland, in which 16 small children and their teacher lost their lives. Two other teachers and 12 more children were wounded. The solitary assailant was armed with high-powered handguns that had been legally obtained. The public outrage, sorrow and anger resulting from the Dunblane massacre led to the UK banning the civilian ownership of handguns in 1997. Britain 's gun control organisation, the Gun Control Network, was at the forefront of the campaign to ban handguns. GCN is an active IANSA member and continues to campaign for reforms to prevent gun violence in the UK .

The anniversary of Dunblane is a time to remember those who were lost in this, the most shocking civilian shooting in Britian's collective memory, to reevaluate how far we have come to building a safe and secure society, and to consolidate our energy for the battles we still have yet to fight, to ensure that this never happens again.
My thoughts and prayers go out to you and those that suffered from this horrible tragedy. :(

On a matter probably not related to guns, I was taking a look at some FBI stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls) and I'm curious as to what happened in 1993/94 as crime seemed to be on the increase and then in 1994 it started on a downward trend.

Can anyone tell me what happened?

Odd, this source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Which cites the FBI Uniform Crime Reports has crime going down since '92. Several years before the Clinton Gun Semi-Auto Gun Ban.

It says you can get a permit for carrying, but basically if you ain't an important jackass you're not getting the permit. It gives out very, very few carry permits.
However, anyone can buy a gun in Maryland or is there any kind of gun control other than a "permit to carry"?

or you could just look at the UK where we theoretically have no guns and far less violent crime
The UK has more than twice the violent crime rate of the US, and increasing.

Let's have a look at Hong Kong, where there is virtually no gun-related murder and all guns are banned.

With a population of 6 Million in a densely packed city we have probably 5 gun-related murders maximum per year - and most of them are within triads, the guns smuggled in from China.

Translated to the US, that would be 250 gun-related Murders per year for the whole country, with guns supplied from Canada or Mexico,

[QUOTE]
Violent crime in these states would increase as the law is foolish. The only way to stop criminals would be to ban guns across the Country as they can legally buy a weapon in one state then use that weapon in another.
1. Criminals cannot buy guns, PERIOD.
2. You can't buy a handgun out-of-state.

Luckily I'm in a country where handguns were never a big thing so no one cared when strict regulations were put on them. Something along the lines of 100 people get shot each year here, and a good 75-80 of them are suicides which is more to do with our high suicide problem than a gun problem. Most of the rest are accidents.
I just saw a video about (former) British and Aussie gunowners, and just how brutally screwed over they've been by the government. They only blame themselves, for standing by and doing nothing. What's been done to them by their own governments is nothing short of disgusting and shameful.

Well, first. The UK police men use Billies to beat down people. And if it gets really bad, ohh, they call in the SAS.

So, being a criminal isn't a good thing in the UK.
A lot better than it was eight years ago.

The UK has more than twice the violent crime rate of the US, and increasing.

Please post links to the statistics that demonstrate the higher crime rate.

Odd, this source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Which cites the FBI Uniform Crime Reports has crime going down since '92. Several years before the Clinton Gun Semi-Auto Gun Ban.

Actually, you're right - the statistics on your page are exactly the same as those listed in my FBI link. I didn't pay close enough attention to the full figures, I just kinda skimmed thru looking at the 'millions' column.

Okay... so total crimes (including non-violent) started taking a dive in the USA around '92 - is there any indication of what caused this? I'm very interested in finding out what factors influenced this downward trend.

Comparitive stats showing this please.
British numbers I have saved, from the Home Office:
1995-1997Property
9180-8059
-12.2%

Total
9880-8841
-10.1%

98-02
Violent
1160-1536
+32.4%

Property
4304-4527
+5.2%

Total
9785-10,440
+6.7%
-------------------------------------------
The number-number shows the rate (per hundred thousand) in the given year (1995 for the first set, '98 for the second), followed by that in the last year for that range ('97 and '02). They changed counting methods in 1996.

From the FBI UCR:


1995-1997
Violent
685-611
-12.1%
British 9.2% higher in 1997

Property
4590-4316
-6.35%
British 86.7% higher in 1997

Total
5275-4927
-7.1%
British 112% higher in 1997

98-02
Violent
568-495
-12.9%
British 210% higher in 2002

Property
4053-3624.1
-10.6%
British 24.9% higher in 2002

Total
4620-4118
-10.9%
British 153.5% higher in 2002

The UK has more than twice the violent crime rate of the US, and increasing.
Of course you have statisical proof? Good luck!!

I just posted it. :rolleyes:

Well, the raw statistics are certainly on the increase.

However, checking out the information provided here (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics33.htm), it seems that actual incidences of violent crime are not increasing. The 32.4% increase is apparently the result of increased reporting of existing crime.

So, is it a real increase in crime or is it just better reporting? You can argue it back and forth because it all depends on how you interpret the stats...

I just posted it. :rolleyes:
There were only 853 murders in the UK last year, with a population of 60,000,000.

Alabama with a population of 4,500,752 had 299 murders.

Florida with a population of 17,019,068 had 924 murders.

Yeah, I guess the UK is a very dangerous place?

Yeah, the U.K. looks like the most dangerous place in the world!

There were only 853 murders in the UK last year, with a population of 60,000,000.

Alabama with a population of 4,500,752 had 299 murders.

Florida with a population of 17,019,068 had 924 murders.

Yeah, I guess the UK is a very dangerous place?

Linked stats please...

Yeah, the U.K. looks like the most dangerous place in the world!
In the year 2000, the US had 15,517 murders.

Since the US is 4.7 times the population of the UK then by simple math:

4.7 x 853 = 4009

Factoring in the population differences, there are 3.87 murders in the US for every murder in the UK.

Linked stats please...
FBI Stats for 2003. It is a spreadsheet.

FBI Stats for 2003. It is a spreadsheet.

And the UK statistics?

And the UK statistics?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf

In the year 2000, the US had 15,517 murders.

Since the US is 4.7 times the population of the UK then by simple math:

4.7 x 853 = 4009

Factoring in the population differences, there are 3.87 murders in the US for every murder in the UK.


I hope you know that I was being sarcastic...

I hope you know that I was being sarcastic...
Absolutely :)

Good... Good...

That's cool... I just want people to post links to the stats they use :)

There are two or three ways to look at the stats produced - total, comparitive and percentile/trend.

In total figures, the US definitely outstrips just about anywhere else for total crime. Not too surprising since they're also one of the most populated countries in the world. The total numbers aren't really a good way to compare anything.

Comparitively, the US still has a higher amount of crime per person than the UK (based on those stats). Which means the UK is still a dramatically safer place to live than the US (or perhaps it would be more correct to say that living in the UK lowers the odds of being a victim of crime since "safe" is a relative term).

However, looking at the percentages there has definitely been a marked increase in the UK whereas there has been a general reduction of crime in the US. Even then, the cause of the % increase in the UK is attributed to an increase of reporting than an actual increase in the amount of crime happening.

Unfortunately, this last bit is open to debate as it appears to me to be interpretation of the statistics based on observations that aren't fully explained (at least, not that I could find... I admit to becoming easily bored when looking at pages devoted to statistics). It could be argued that this is a political observation... but I'll leave it up to someone else to make that point.

At the end of the day, if I had to walk around town with a sign stuck to me reading "Mug me!" I'd feel safer doing it in the UK than the US.

At the end of the day, if I had to walk around town with a sign stuck to me reading "Mug me!" I'd feel safer doing it in the UK than the US.
I concur wholeheartedly. :)

I concur wholeheartedly. :)

And I figure (because I'm probably biased and I'm not even going to bother checking the stats) that it is even safer to live here in Australia.

I know in my city, it makes the news if someone is shot (and not even fatally)... heck it makes the news even if people are shot at and not even hit. Like... headline news, not just some minor story tacked on to the end of the news reports.

Even stuff like "Man bashed outside nightclub" will keep a spot in the headlines for a couple of days.

I don't recall ever feeling unsafe at any time of the day or night. I've walked thru the city in the middle of the night without really even having to think about my personal safety. I've given complete strangers a lift in the small hours of the morning and have had nothing worse than some odd conversations.

Perhaps I'm just incredibly lucky.

The US can choose to do whatever it pleases regarding gun laws and restrictions (or lack thereof) but I'll shoot down anyone who points to us and says "Gun control has not worked in Australia".

I doubt you'd feel very safe if you had a "Bugger Me" sign taped to your back...

I doubt you'd feel very safe if you had a "Bugger Me" sign taped to your back...

Depends on where I was walking :p

In the US, I'd expect very few people to actually know what "bugger" means.

In Australia, I'd expect people to come up and say "What is the problem?" since colloquially "Bugger me!" is something akin to "What the fuck?" in the US.

I'd be not terribly worried in the UK... I'd expect most people to say "Bloody Aussie" and ignore me.

Nope... I'd be most worried if I was in New Zealand, or maybe Tasmania.

Yeah, I think walking around with a "Bugger Me" sign on your back in New Zealand would be a tad dangerous.

And I figure (because I'm probably biased and I'm not even going to bother checking the stats) that it is even safer to live here in Australia.
I am sure it is, as it is here as well. That is Canada. ;)

Yeah, I think walking around with a "Bugger Me" sign on your back in New Zealand would be a tad dangerous.
They have a song for that I think......goes back a long way....perhaps you have heard of:

Tie me kangaroo down sport :)

Tan me hide when I am dead Fred :)

Yeah need to watch out for the "Bugger Me" sign. Too funny.

I am sure it is, as it is here as well. That is Canada. ;)

I dunno about that... I've heard those moose can be pretty damn viscious. All that maple syrup can't be too good for you either.

Although I do know of a Canadian who has the online moniker of 'BajaBravo' and he is about the coolest person on the planet that I've encountered to date.

I dunno about that... I've heard those moose can be pretty damn viscious. All that maple syrup can't be too good for you either.

Although I do know of a Canadian who has the online moniker of 'BajaBravo' and he is about the coolest person on the planet that I've encountered to date.
Never heard of 'BajaBravo' but as far as the maple syrup....yes....gotta smother the pancakes with that, and a generous helping of back bacon. :)

Damn...now I am hungry!!

I would love to go to Aussie Land someday......have been to Singapore, but yeah I would like to meet Crocodile Dundee....j/k!!

Never heard of 'BajaBravo' but as far as the maple syrup....yes....gotta smother the pancakes with that, and a generous helping of back bacon. :)

Damn...now I am hungry!!

I would love to go to Aussie Land someday......have been to Singapore, but yeah I would like to meet Crocodile Dundee....j/k!!

And you wouldn't have heard of BjB unless you are or were into the game 'Ghost Recon' in a big way.

Are you single? Aussie chicks seem to drop their knickers at the first sign of a foreign accent. The men aren't much better when it comes to foreign women either...

And you wouldn't have heard of BjB unless you are or were into the game 'Ghost Recon' in a big way.

Are you single? Aussie chicks seem to drop their knickers at the first sign of a foreign accent. The men aren't much better when it comes to foreign women either...


Every day, I learn something new. And I've just learned that Australia is that much nicer than I first thought.

And you wouldn't have heard of BjB unless you are or were into the game 'Ghost Recon' in a big way.

Are you single? Aussie chicks seem to drop their knickers at the first sign of a foreign accent. The men aren't much better when it comes to foreign women either...
I am kinda big time in love with a Filipina.....hence the trip to Singapore back in 2002.

Don't play games too much anymore. Used to be my biggest passion.....just way too busy these days. :(

Because the Americans walked on in here and forced us to think guns were cool. AT GUNPOINT NO LESS! =O



Well, I would quite like to know where you live then, because it has been about five years since I've felt safe walking around here. In America, by contrast, I feel pretty damn safe - I have no idea whether or not carrying concealed firearms is legal in Missouri, which is the State I stay in, but I feel safe. *Shrugs*

Isanyonehome also pointed out a very important point. Criminals of necessity don't really want to interact with people anyways, so the thought that they'll get shot as well is not remotely appealing to them.
Well I don't know where you go to find that fear but I also live in Leicester and find it perfectly safe unless you're stupid enough to go up church street on a saturday night at 11 o'clock. Even then you'll only find a punch up if you're not aware. No ones gonna pull a gun on you that's for sure.
I regularly let my 15 year old son go into town with his friends on a saturday night. He goes to safe places and comes home at 10. Totally safe. In Leicester. Where you Live.
Don't beleive what you read in tabloid papers. If you remain aware that violence may occur you can almost always avoid it. If you don't want even that tiny risk then stay home and give up life. Wear a cotton wool hat too. that'll help!

1. Criminals cannot buy guns, PERIOD.Taking out of context a little, but convicted criminals cannot legally buy guns. People with criminal intentions, tendencies, even a hidden criminal history are still able to obtain guns and initiate/perpetuate their criminal activity.

And while I won't set much store on this second argument (because it ends up being set against social and personal pressures), it is also true that known criminals are not utterly prevente from obtaining weapons, just because the law says they should not have them, and it's possible that these people are actually more ready to go through with a grey-/black-market purchase than your average Joe. They then have an unregistered gun, a criminal history, a taste for future crime and possibly the will to see through gun crime.

There's no 'justice field' that automatically confiscates weapons off of those identified as criminal. So they break the law (or at least conspire to, in the first case), but then they are (or intend to be) criminal... Each individual will have their limits, of course (a shop-lifter isn't going to be a serial killer overnight) but the existence of a law against criminal ownership of guns (illegal ownership by criminals or legal ownership being extended towards criminal purposes) means little in isolation.

Hmmm... here is a link to the stats regarding crime in Australia from 1993 to 2002.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)

Things have pretty much stayed the same... a few increases here, a few decreases there. Actually, looking at the second chart on that page entitled "Crime Victimisation Rates" it appears that you could argue that there has been a mild decrease overall.

Again, I'm posting this to refute the claim that Australia has become some sort of haven for crime the moment tougher gun restrictions went into place. I'm not suggesting that tougher gun laws would solve anything in the USA - apples to oranges and all that sort of thing.

On a matter probably not related to guns, I was taking a look at some FBI stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls) and I'm curious as to what happened in 1993/94 as crime seemed to be on the increase and then in 1994 it started on a downward trend.

Can anyone tell me what happened?
I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but in 1994, the sale of assault weapons was banned in the US. This ban lasted for 10 years and Bush let the ban lapse.

Just a thought.

A violent crime without a gun is a violent crime

A violent crime with a gun is a MURDER you idiots! :p

Guns have been virtually non-existant in the UK for years, even before the ban. It has no relation to violent crime whatsoever, because virtually no one owned guns before or after.

Violent crime HAS risen, OK, but its still WAY off what it is in the US.

If you ban guns, people don't get murdered as often, and so they have to beat each other shitless instead. Hence violent crimes. I'd rather be beaten up than shot thankyou.
This makes a lot of sense. After doing the math and factoring in the difference in population between the US and the UK, for every UK citizen murdered (853 in 2003), there are 3.87 US citizens murdered (15,517 in 2000).

This makes a lot of sense. After doing the math and factoring in the difference in population between the US and the UK, for every UK citizen murdered (853 in 2003), there are 3.87 US citizens murdered (15,517 in 2000).
You can't pin that entirely on guns though...

You need to look at the socio-economic background as well. Unemployment rates, education levels, average income, welfare, etc, etc. These are all factors in general crime rates so it stands to reason they have an impact on violent crime as well.

Personally, I think I'd much rather go and live in Bhutan. Shame it is almost impossible to visit there, let alone migrate (I don't think they allow such a thing).

Well, I would quite like to know where you live then, because it has been about five years since I've felt safe walking around here.

I live in the midlands and I feel 100% secure. In 25 years I've not been mugged/attacked or felt threatened even when I've been to other parts of the country. It might have something to do with my size (6'1" and 15 stone) but even late at night after clubs have shut I feel that I can walk on my own without much to worry about. We also have alot of good camera's in the towns around here which may help.

Taking out of context a little, but convicted criminals cannot legally buy guns. People with criminal intentions, tendencies, even a hidden criminal history are still able to obtain guns and initiate/perpetuate their criminal activity.

And while I won't set much store on this second argument (because it ends up being set against social and personal pressures), it is also true that known criminals are not utterly prevente from obtaining weapons, just because the law says they should not have them, and it's possible that these people are actually more ready to go through with a grey-/black-market purchase than your average Joe. They then have an unregistered gun, a criminal history, a taste for future crime and possibly the will to see through gun crime.

There's no 'justice field' that automatically confiscates weapons off of those identified as criminal. So they break the law (or at least conspire to, in the first case), but then they are (or intend to be) criminal... Each individual will have their limits, of course (a shop-lifter isn't going to be a serial killer overnight) but the existence of a law against criminal ownership of guns (illegal ownership by criminals or legal ownership being extended towards criminal purposes) means little in isolation.
And the fact that guns are apparently so easy to obtain in the US thru illegal means is one of the primary reasons pro-gun owners state it is important to not restrict firearm sales, since all you really do is prevent (according to them) people purchasing firearms for legally responsible reasons (self defense, sport, etc).

So while you're still waiting for all your background checks to clear to prove you're a responsible gun owner, some guy on the street who obtained his gun illegally can mug you.

I do support gun registration and compulsory background checks before purchasing a firearm since this at the very least prevents some madman walking in a buying a gun to then later go and shoot people in the streets (because in theory someone who is deranged is not necessarily able to obtain a weapon illegally).

The number of people killed by psychopaths wielding guns is pretty low but I find it hard that anyone would complain about waiting a day or two before receiving their firearm - even if it only saves one life.

The vast majority of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

" In 2003, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present."

By weapon, they mean firearm, knife, etc. And not all weapons are firearms.

So we're talking less than 24 percent of violent crimes involve the use of a firearm.

So the vast majority of violent crime in the US is perpetrated with no gun at all.

Add to that the fact that 2.5 million times a year, a civilian with a legal firearm uses it to stop a violent crime in progress - without harming anyone - and we have a net effect where violent crime is being suppressed by guns.

What is wrong with you? Can't you count?
Using the site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon) that you quoted:

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

Therefore 67% of murders are committed by guns.

I love how gun enthusiasts play down the real numbers.

Here is another:

Offenders had or used a weapon in 45% of all robberies.

The 24% figure quoted above in your post, doesn't reflect a true picture.

Using the site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon) that you quoted:

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

Therefore 67% of murders are committed by guns.

I love how gun enthusiasts play down the real numbers.

Here is another:

Offenders had or used a weapon in 45% of all robberies.

The 24% figure quoted above in your post, doesn't reflect a true picture.
There is a reasonable belief that if you removed guns from the equation, a majority of those crimes would still have ocurred, just with different weapons (knives for example).

Guns are still only the tool used to commit certain crimes, it is not the reason that the crime existed in the first place.

Well I don't know where you go to find that fear but I also live in Leicester and find it perfectly safe unless you're stupid enough to go up church street on a saturday night at 11 o'clock. Even then you'll only find a punch up if you're not aware. No ones gonna pull a gun on you that's for sure.
I regularly let my 15 year old son go into town with his friends on a saturday night. He goes to safe places and comes home at 10. Totally safe. In Leicester. Where you Live.
Don't beleive what you read in tabloid papers. If you remain aware that violence may occur you can almost always avoid it. If you don't want even that tiny risk then stay home and give up life. Wear a cotton wool hat too. that'll help!

Naw, the reason I feel worried is because most of my teenage years were spent watching people beat each other up/threatening to beat each other up. I've seen more knives and makeshift weapons on our streets than I've seen guns in Die Hard, and I know plenty of people who were the victims of violence. And here's the thing - I don't know what they've got. Could be a knife, could be a bottle, could be a 2 by 4, could even be an illegal firearm (Despite what you say, I knew two people with guns and I -have- had one pulled on me, and two or three more who probably had them.), but I know all I have is my bare hands. I'm not shoddy with them, but I'm not going to beat a bunch of guys with weapons, either. And I've got the advantage of being a pretty tall guy, and having a couple of big friends. I'd like to know exactly how you suggest my mother defend herself, being about 5'2", and looking like a normal, fairly innoffensive woman.

And trust me, I don't believe the tabloids. :rolleyes:

There is a reasonable belief that if you removed guns from the equation, a majority of those crimes would still have ocurred, just with different weapons (knives for example).

Guns are still only the tool used to commit certain crimes, it is not the reason that the crime existed in the first place.

Yes but a gun is a great equiliser. It doesn't take strength to use and your physical fitness isn't really an issue. Also I'd hazard a guess that attacks with guns have a higher mortality rate/do more damage than attacks with other weapons. So the attack might have still been carried out but the effects are less severe.

Yes I am aware that you could use the same argument that like your mom a 5'2" person could defend themselves against a 6' muscleman because her size wouldn't be a factor. However if both parties had guns then the mortality rate would go up I'm fairly certain of that, and it wouldn't just be the criminal who gets shot.

Naw, the reason I feel worried is because most of my teenage years were spent watching people beat each other up/threatening to beat each other up. I've seen more knives and makeshift weapons on our streets than I've seen guns in Die Hard, and I know plenty of people who were the victims of violence. And here's the thing - I don't know what they've got. Could be a knife, could be a bottle, could be a 2 by 4, could even be an illegal firearm (Despite what you say, I knew two people with guns and I -have- had one pulled on me, and two or three more who probably had them.), but I know all I have is my bare hands. I'm not shoddy with them, but I'm not going to beat a bunch of guys with weapons, either. And I've got the advantage of being a pretty tall guy, and having a couple of big friends. I'd like to know exactly how you suggest my mother defend herself, being about 5'2", and looking like a normal, fairly innoffensive woman.

And trust me, I don't believe the tabloids. :rolleyes:

well, i think your mother would be much safer if all the bad dudes in your area had guns, and she had one too, and so did all the people passing by. Then, if someone tried to mug her, there could be a gun battle in the street, which would be much safer and more secure than just handing over her purse.

There is a reasonable belief that if you removed guns from the equation, a majority of those crimes would still have ocurred, just with different weapons (knives for example).

Guns are still only the tool used to commit certain crimes, it is not the reason that the crime existed in the first place.
Well I would have to disagree with you there. It is a lot easier to commit a murder or robbery, if you don't have to get up close and personal.

Much easier to shoot someone than stab him. It is also harder for a knife wielding robber to hold others at bay, especially if there are more than 1 or 2 people involved.

well, i think your mother would be much safer if all the bad dudes in your area had guns, and she had one too, and so did all the people passing by. Then, if someone tried to mug her, there could be a gun battle in the street, which would be much safer and more secure than just handing over her purse.
Didn't you know 2+ people with live weapons in a confrontation is ten times safer than when one side doesn't have weapons, didn't you know that? Because if one side doesn't have guns, they are automatically shot for it by the very act of not having a gun :rolleyes:

This is for Canuck.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/POL/crimestats/2003_Year_End.pdf
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/2003.htm

All census data is from quickfacts.census.gov

Montgomery County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 21
Rape 135
Robbery 1004
Aggravated Assault 954

Population 918,881
Median household income, 1999 $71,551
Per capita money income, 1999 $35,684
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 5.4%


Fairfax County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 9
Rape 80
Robbery 540
Aggravated Assault 399

Population 1,000,405
Median household income, 1999 $81,050
Per capita money income, 1999 $36,888
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 4.5%


Now, let's compare on the basis of crimes per 100,000 people:

Montgomery Fairfax % difference

Murder 2.3 0.9 - 61%
Rape 14.7 8.0 - 46%
Robbery 109.3 53 - 52%
Assault 103.8 39.9 - 62%


It is illegal to carry a gun in Montgomery County, Maryland.
There are severe restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.

It is legal to carry a gun openly in Fairfax County, Virginia.
It is easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Fairfax County, Virginia as long as you are not a felon.
The state offers no restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.

Didn't you know 2+ people with live weapons in a confrontation is ten times safer than when one side doesn't have weapons, didn't you know that? Because if one side doesn't have guns, they are automatically shot for it by the very act of not having a gun :rolleyes:

are you being ironic? i can't tell.

i think if there are 2 people in a situation, and one of them has a gun, he wins and we all go home alive. if they both have guns, there's a shooting match, and people die.

if you're right, there will be very few gun killings in the us. if i'm right, there'll be lots.

This is for Canuck.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/POL/crimestats/2003_Year_End.pdf
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/2003.htm

All census data is from quickfacts.census.gov

Montgomery County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 21
Rape 135
Robbery 1004
Aggravated Assault 954

Population 918,881
Median household income, 1999 $71,551
Per capita money income, 1999 $35,684
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 5.4%


Fairfax County, Maryland end of year 2003

Murder 9
Rape 80
Robbery 540
Aggravated Assault 399

Population 1,000,405
Median household income, 1999 $81,050
Per capita money income, 1999 $36,888
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 4.5%


Now, let's compare on the basis of crimes per 100,000 people:

Montgomery Fairfax % difference

Murder 2.3 0.9 - 61%
Rape 14.7 8.0 - 46%
Robbery 109.3 53 - 52%
Assault 103.8 39.9 - 62%


It is illegal to carry a gun in Montgomery County, Maryland.
There are severe restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.

It is legal to carry a gun openly in Fairfax County, Virginia.
It is easy to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Fairfax County, Virginia as long as you are not a felon.
The state offers no restrictions on the type and model of handguns that can be purchased.
Well I think it is ridiculous that one county would have right to conceal and an adjacent county not to have that right. If guns were under control in the whole state you would notice a totally different picture.

Earlier you stated that Maryland had very restrictive gun control laws. You are obviously contradicting yourself with this post?

Is there any gun control in Maryland as a whole?

Someone stated earlier, and I am not sure if it was on this thread or not, that Texas has had the right to carry concealed weapons since 1995 I believe and that Florida has had that same right since 1987. Does anyone know if that is fact?

Well I think it is ridiculous that one county would have right to conceal and an adjacent county not to have that right. If guns were under control in the whole state you would notice a totally different picture.

Earlier you stated that Maryland had very restrictive gun control laws. You are obviously contradicting yourself with this post?

Is there any gun control in Maryland as a whole?


I am not contradicting myself. Fairfax County is in Virginia - not in Maryland.

It's the same throughout the state of Maryland.

Guns are used in violent crime, therefore if guns are banned and the ability to get hold of them is restricted, then they cannot be used in violent crime and there would be less murders.
Relating the increase in crime in the UK to the gun ban is ridiculous, as many have pointed out, there was never a time when people defending themselves with guns (the one who did, tony martin, got jailed), and so the ban has not stopped them from defending themselves with guns as they never did.

The real reasons for the increase in crime are;
1) Increases in drug use and drug related crime
2) Light sentences and ineffective court system
3) Labour's refusal to build more prisons and lock criminals away for a longer time
4) A police force that has been crippled by Labour's obsession with two things; Paperwork/red tape, and political correctness.

They are adjacent because they are on the border between Maryland and Virginia.

are you being ironic? i can't tell.

i think if there are 2 people in a situation, and one of them has a gun, he wins and we all go home alive. if they both have guns, there's a shooting match, and people die.

if you're right, there will be very few gun killings in the us. if i'm right, there'll be lots.
I wasn't being ironic, I was being sarcastic as denoted by :rolleyes:

Guns are used in violent crime, therefore if guns are banned and the ability to get hold of them is restricted, then they cannot be used in violent crime and there would be less murders.

In the US, most violent crime is committed without a firearm.
In fact, only 24% of violent crime is committed with a weapon of any kind.

Since knives, clubs, chains, etc., are also considered in the Department of Justice (US) stats to be "weapons", this means that less than 24 percent of violent crime is gun-related in the US.

So banning them wouldn't stop violent crime. In fact, if you consider the statistics which have consistently shown that around 2.5 million violent crimes in the US are *stopped* by civilians using guns (where no one gets hurt!), then those violent crimes would be *added* to the total if you banned all guns.

In the US, most violent crime is committed without a firearm.
In fact, only 24% of violent crime is committed with a weapon of any kind.

Since knives, clubs, chains, etc., are also considered in the Department of Justice (US) stats to be "weapons", this means that less than 24 percent of violent crime is gun-related in the US.

So banning them wouldn't stop violent crime. In fact, if you consider the statistics which have consistently shown that around 2.5 million violent crimes in the US are *stopped* by civilians using guns (where no one gets hurt!), then those violent crimes would be *added* to the total if you banned all guns.
Would you mind to relate where you got that statistic because how can it repeatedly prove something if all I see you people doing is pulling it out of thin air.