NationStates Jolt Archive

Are the Gun Laws and restricting citizens from owning a good or bad thing?

Quote:
These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648

Thoughts?

Gun crime in the U.K is far...faaaaar lower than in the U.S I think that is proof enough

never mind the fact that our increasing violent crime is because of American gang culture seeping in

Nice one. Let's add lethal weapons into the mix officially. That's sure to bring down murder rates. Oh yes.

*edits*

And my other thought on the matter is -

You can use statistics to prove anything

Nice one. Let's add lethal weapons into the mix officially. That's sure to bring down murder rates. Oh yes.

I find it amusing how shooting a mugger after your wallet isn't murder (thus U.S murder statistics are hugely inaccurate)

I find it amusing how shooting a mugger after your wallet isn't murder (thus U.S murder statistics are hugely inaccurate)

And your proof of this is......?

I find it amusing how shooting a mugger after your wallet isn't murder (thus U.S murder statistics are hugely inaccurate)
Indeed. Or, indeed :
"You came into my house without knocking"

*Shots ring out*

"Yes! Hurrah for not-murder!"

Gun crime in the U.K is far...faaaaar lower than in the U.S I think that is proof enough

never mind the fact that our increasing violent crime is because of American gang culture seeping in

Did you even bother read the article or no?

Sure let's not take any accountablity, let's blame it on America, Hell we're only an ocean away......but it's our fault for your ever increasing violent crime rate. :rolleyes:

I know for a fact that you can never really ban guns.

Gun crime in the U.K is far...faaaaar lower than in the U.S I think that is proof enough

Assuming there are no confounding factors, like relevant cultural differences, which, of course, there are.

The rates of gun ownership in Canada and the US are fairly similar, and yet Canada has far lower rates of gun crime (violent crime overall is hard to compare because of a difference of definition).

There's clearly something about the US that induces gun crime, but within the US you see lower rates of it in jurisdictions with more liberal gun laws.

Guns are gooood, lets stoopid people kill stooopider people, yesss sireeee, dang it. You got a purdy mouth.

Are the Gun Laws and restricting citizens from owning a good or bad thing?

Quote:
These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648

Thoughts?

Firstly. no major laws restricting gun ownership have been passed in the Uk since the banning of handguns in 1995 or thereabouts after the Dunblane massacre (carried out with legally owned guns, I might add). Yet the crime rate involving guns has continued to climb despite there being no new anti-gun laws.

See how you can use statistics to prove anything?

Secondly, the issue of gun ownership in the UK and the US varies widely because of each cultutes perceptions of firearms. As far as I can tell from most of the comments posted on these forums, most Americans view firearms either as a tool or as a means of self defence. Here in the UK firearms are viewed as dangerous articles best left to be handled by professionals such as law enforcement or the military, a view I share.

Yes.

I find it to be amusing how just about a month ago I questioned the accuracy of polls and statistics the some research groups partake in and boy did people here on NSG jump me and claimed they were indeed accurate.

Now, as for the statistics regarding the UK they can prove just about anything. Interesting.

I liked what Hank Williams Jr said in one of his songs, something like.....If you take the guns off of the criminals, I'll gladly hand over mine.

Criminals would much rather violently attack or rob an unarmed person vs an armed person any day.

Not to mention it's in our constitution so to ban or restrict gun ownership would be unconstitutional.

I find it to be amusing how just about a month ago I questioned the accuracy of polls and statistics the some research groups partake in and boy did people here on NSG jump me and claimed they were indeed accurate.

Now, as for the statistics regarding the UK they can prove just about anything. Interesting.

I liked what Hank Williams Jr said in one of his songs, something like.....If you take the guns off of the criminals, I'll gladly hand over mine.

Criminals would much rather violently attack or rob an unarmed person vs an armed person any day.

Not to mention it's in our constitution so to ban or restrict gun ownership would be unconstitutional.


And there is your problem. How do you decide who has the sense and wherewithal to handle the immense responsibilty that is gun ownership? How do you know that someone who legally owns a gun will never commit a crime with it, as happened at Dunblane?

Sure let's not take any accountablity, let's blame it on America, Hell we're only an ocean away......but it's our fault for your ever increasing violent crime rate. :rolleyes:

actually its foolish to ignore American influence especially in rap music, which influences kids in America as well

I know for a fact that you can never really ban guns.

Seconded an outright ban would be silly especially if you include the police

Criminals would much rather violently attack or rob an unarmed person vs an armed person any day.

And its not worth killing over a wallet

Not to mention it's in our constitution so to ban or restrict gun ownership would be unconstitutional.

Weird I thought you where trying to compare America and Britain

Are the Gun Laws and restricting citizens from owning a good or bad thing?

Quote:
These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648

Thoughts?

I want to be able to own a cannon. :)

Here is a solution: rather than restricting guns, restrict ammo.

Make ammo have some sort of registry number linking to a network so they can track the bullets to the ex-owner.

In my opinion gun control is essentially useless. The underlying problem is that murderers have an urge to kill someone. Having a gun makes it easier, but if it was illegal they could just switch methods. Also, if murder is breaking the law too, whats another law going to do to stop you from breaking hte first one?

In my opinion gun control is essentially useless. The underlying problem is that murderers have an urge to kill someone. Having a gun makes it easier, but if it was illegal they could just switch methods. Also, if murder is breaking the law too, whats another law going to do to stop you from breaking hte first one?

Firstly most murders are not premeditated they are spur of the moment affairs. Having a gun to hand makes this kind of instant decision a lot easier.

Secondly, pre determined murders (those, as you say, who have an urge to kill) would find it much easier with a gun. Killing with a gun is far less personal and involved than using a knife or a blunt instrument. You son't even have to be in the same room.

guns are for people who require a feeling of power. Great way to settle your own insecurities when you have something that kills people so easily...

How about we enforce the current gun laws in the US?

I was a police officer for 8 years. Many were the times that I arrested someone, and while searching them, I would find a concealed hand gun. At the time, we did not have Concealed Carry Weapon laws in North Carolina. So of course, now I had a CCW violation charge in addition to the original charge that I arrested the not-so-upstanding citizen. When the case would get the court, the first thing that the District Attorney would do was to dismiss the CCW charge if the person would plea guilty to the original arrest charge.

Now keep in mind, that 5-10% of the persons that Police Officers deal with are responsible for about 80-90% of the crime, including drug and violent crimes. Since they had a record, that would make the CCW a felony charge, which under most States would call for a mandatory prison time. Of course, the DA's office did not want to bother with running this case as a felony, since that meant the case would be bound over to Superior Court. And the DA would say that the person does not have any weapons convictions on his record. Of course, it did not help that the reason that there were no weapons convictions was because they were always dismissed by the DA's office. So you see why a lot of gun laws are basically useless.

Remember, that by definition a criminal does not care, nor will obey the law. And it does not matter if it is in the US, the UK or Japan. Criminals will always find a way to get weapons (IRA, Yakuza) regardless of how many laws against them you have.

In Richmond, Virginia, some years ago, the DA started what they called Project Exile. Any person arrested and convicted of any violent or drug crime that involved the use of a weapon (gun or not) received a minimum of 5 years mandatory. Of course, they used Federal charges, which meant that the person was sent to a Maximum Security Federal Penitentiary across the country, thus called Project Exile. The result was that the rates of violent and gun related drug crimes in Richmond dropped drastically. Of course, they still have drug problems, but they will tell you that they rather do a year in the local pen than 5 years minimum.

And not just for gun crimes. If we were to really enforce the laws that we currently have, that is were the real crime deterrent is.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Y'all be careful out there.

Vic

Are the Gun Laws and restricting citizens from owning a good or bad thing?

Quote:
These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648

Thoughts?
My thoughts? This press release from the Illinois State Rifle Association on an unnamed UN report seems to go against what the British Home Office is saying.

In their report Crime in England and Wales 2005/06 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html) they do not report an upward spiral of violent crime, but rather:


The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent at its peak in 1995 to
23 per cent according to BCS (British Crime Survey - ed) interviews in 2005/06, representing just over six million
fewer victims. This is the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981.
Violent crime has remained stable according to BCS interviews in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05. Recorded crime statistics show a two per cent increase in violent crime in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05.
Almost half of the violent crimes recorded by the BCS and of violence against the person
offences recorded by the police involved no injury to the victim.


Under the heading Trends In Crime, the report says:

The BCS shows violent crime has fallen by 43 per cent, with common assault falling by 49 per cent since 1995


Now, the risk for being a victim of violence is on average 3,4% (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime0506summ.pdf) (see page 8), so it's actually higher than what's mentioned in the INRA statement - but that's disregarding the different definitions of "violent crime" that's used in britain if one comepares to the 2,2% rate the DOJ (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0501.pdf)reports.

So if anything, one could argue that gun control works, seeing as how violent crime has fallen since 1995.

That's what I think.

My thoughts? This press release from the Illinois State Rifle Association on an unnamed UN report seems to go against what the British Home Office is saying.


So if anything, one could argue that gun control works, seeing as how violent crime has fallen since 1995.

That's what I think.

And since crime dropped in the US over a ten year period by similar, if not larger amounts, and there was less "gun control", the opposite could be argued as well.

No causality there.

And since crime dropped in the US over a ten year period by similar, if not larger amounts, and there was less "gun control", the opposite could be argued as well.
Absolutely. So therefore I ignore the claims that "The UN figures illustrate the folly of gun control" and "demonstrate that the UK is a place where violence is quickly replacing the rule of law" as simple bullshit by someone trying to score political points. ;)


No causality there.
No comment? :)

How about we enforce the current gun laws in the US?

I was a police officer for 8 years. Many were the times that I arrested someone, and while searching them, I would find a concealed hand gun. At the time, we did not have Concealed Carry Weapon laws in North Carolina. So of course, now I had a CCW violation charge in addition to the original charge that I arrested the not-so-upstanding citizen. When the case would get the court, the first thing that the District Attorney would do was to dismiss the CCW charge if the person would plea guilty to the original arrest charge.

Now keep in mind, that 5-10% of the persons that Police Officers deal with are responsible for about 80-90% of the crime, including drug and violent crimes. Since they had a record, that would make the CCW a felony charge, which under most States would call for a mandatory prison time. Of course, the DA's office did not want to bother with running this case as a felony, since that meant the case would be bound over to Superior Court. And the DA would say that the person does not have any weapons convictions on his record. Of course, it did not help that the reason that there were no weapons convictions was because they were always dismissed by the DA's office. So you see why a lot of gun laws are basically useless.

Remember, that by definition a criminal does not care, nor will obey the law. And it does not matter if it is in the US, the UK or Japan. Criminals will always find a way to get weapons (IRA, Yakuza) regardless of how many laws against them you have.

In Richmond, Virginia, some years ago, the DA started what they called Project Exile. Any person arrested and convicted of any violent or drug crime that involved the use of a weapon (gun or not) received a minimum of 5 years mandatory. Of course, they used Federal charges, which meant that the person was sent to a Maximum Security Federal Penitentiary across the country, thus called Project Exile. The result was that the rates of violent and gun related drug crimes in Richmond dropped drastically. Of course, they still have drug problems, but they will tell you that they rather do a year in the local pen than 5 years minimum.

And not just for gun crimes. If we were to really enforce the laws that we currently have, that is were the real crime deterrent is.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Y'all be careful out there.

Vic
The deterrent force of law evaporates completely when laws are not conssitently enforced. I don't see why more people don't get that.

The deterrent force of law evaporates completely when laws are not conssitently enforced. I don't see why more people don't get that.

I agree. And calling for harsher penalties is often just a cheap trick used by politicians to seem like they're "though on crime". If they were really serious about being though on crime they would allocate funds and resources so that the laws would be enforced in a better way. But that costs oh so much more in the short term than just calling for those long prison sentences...