NationStates Jolt Archive

According to this article, probably not, or at least not as well as we would like or in the ways we would expect.

http://miller-mccune.com/main/article/110

According to this article, probably not, or at least not as well as we would like or in the ways we would expect.

http://miller-mccune.com/main/article/110

I suppose this info might've come in handy over the latest 2nd Amendment consideration in Congress a few weeks back.

Short answer "Yes"

Long answer "Yes they do, thanks, next question."

Australia has had stringent gun control laws for decades. However, this did not prevent a young man called Martin Bryant from using a stash of illegal (even then) weaponry to injure and kill over 70 people one afternoon in Port Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29), Tasmania.

In fact, had any of the onlookers or victims had guns themselves, they might possibly have been able to defend themselves and their loved ones - perhaps similar to the circumstances surrounding this Darwin Award winner (http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp) in the US.

Guns are still used in criminal activity in Australia today; not to the extent that they are used in the US, this is true, but enough to make it clear that if you criminalise gun ownership, the criminals are the ones that will own most of the guns.

I suppose this info might've come in handy over the latest 2nd Amendment consideration in Congress a few weeks back.

Thats scary, it is in the Bill of rights, those are not supposed to be tampered with. What were they doing?

Short answer "Yes"

Long answer "Yes they do, thanks, next question."



WOW! What a well thought out answer based on logic, facts and backed up with relevant sources. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

WOW! What a well thought out answer based on logic, facts and backed up with relevant sources. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh please, this question's been asked too many times for anyone to really take much notice anymore. We already know you need Gun Control.

Oh please, this question's been asked too many times for anyone to really take much notice anymore. We already know you need Gun Control.

You ignored the article and the whole point of this thread. Did you even bother to read the article or did you just assume it was crap and give a kneejerk reaction.

You ignored the article and the whole point of this thread. Did you even bother to read the article or did you just assume it was crap and give a kneejerk reaction.

I don't think answering an asked question is what could be called a "Kneejerk Reaction"

I don't think answering an asked question is what could be called a "Kneejerk Reaction"

Whatever.


Somebody should send that article to congress, maybe they would get some insight for once. Guns aren't the cause of violence.

Guns aren't the cause of violence.

That I will most definitely agree with you on. I'd say they help though.

Depends upon the laws and context. Just like anything else.

Australia has had stringent gun control laws for decades. However, this did not prevent a young man called Martin Bryant from using a stash of illegal (even then) weaponry to injure and kill over 70 people one afternoon in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
Nobody has ever claimed that gun control - whatever that is - will prevent every crime. What they do claim is that it will reduce it.

In fact, had any of the onlookers or victims had guns themselves, they might possibly have been able to defend themselves and their loved ones - perhaps similar to the circumstances surrounding this Darwin Award winner in the US.
Personally, I'd feel safer wandering the streets knowing that most are (in the UK, virtually nobody) not carrying a gun, rather than having to carry a weapon for my own protection when going out on a friday night.

Guns are still used in criminal activity in Australia today; not to the extent that they are used in the US, this is true, but enough to make it clear that if you criminalise gun ownership, the criminals are the ones that will own most of the guns.
No shit sherlock! Because that's, like, the point of making carrying a gun a criminal offence?

Well, they work pretty well for Europe and Japan.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'd fix the problem with criminal violence in the US, though, I think there are far more and far deeper aspects to it and the availability of guns really is just a facilitator.

No shit sherlock! Because that's, like, the point of making carrying a gun a criminal offence?

Which, incidentally, would make it possible to arrest someone found in illegal possesion of a gun BEFORE a crime can be committed with said gun.
But then again, from what I understand, the USAmerican psyche isn't that keen on prevention, punishment seems to suit better for some reason.

Well, they work pretty well for Europe and Japan.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'd fix the problem with criminal violence in the US, though, I think there are far more and far deeper aspects to it and the availability of guns really is just a facilitator.
I'd also wonder whether it could work in a country where most people have a gun already, and where obtaining a gun would remain relatively straightforward.

Ausralia: Pre-Port Arthur Massacre - low, but steady level of violent crime.

Post-Port Arthur Massacre - low, but steady level of violent crime.

Nothing actually changed. The knee-jerk, draconian anti-gun legislation forced on the states by the federal government did - nothing at all.

I'd also wonder whether it could work in a country where most people have a gun already, and where obtaining a gun would remain relatively straightforward.

Not sure, really.
The thing about Europe is, gun possesion isn't exactly automatically illegal, there are just certain restricitions. It's not that difficult to get guns legally, but for one reason or another, it's just not done. Normal people here don't see it as even remotely necessary, it's not something anybody would think about much.
Guns aren't as omnipresent as they seem to be in the US, there's no gun-culture if you want to call it that, owning a gun without being involved in any form of sport that would require it would make people regard you with a lot of suspicion indeed.

Ausralia: Pre-Port Arthur Massacre - low, but steady level of violent crime.

Post-Port Arthur Massacre - low, but steady level of violent crime.

Nothing actually changed. The knee-jerk, draconian anti-gun legislation forced on the states by the federal government did - nothing at all.

Remember, a law is only as effective as its enforcement...

I suppose this info might've come in handy over the latest 2nd Amendment consideration in Congress a few weeks back.
You mean the tightening of gun control laws to prevent someone who is mentally disturbed from getting a gun, which they aren't supposed to be able to do in the first place, and killing people ala Virgina Tech?

In fact, had any of the onlookers or victims had guns themselves, they might possibly have been able to defend themselves and their loved ones - perhaps similar to the circumstances surrounding this Darwin Award winner (http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp) in the US.
Right-to-carry laws, which have been enacted in 40 states, have had absolutely no effect on the homicide rate, LaValle found. The hopes of gun-rights advocates that they would prevent crimes, and the fears of gun-control advocates that they would turn American cities into lawless Wild West frontier towns, have both proven unfounded.
Speaking of not reading...

Remember, a law is only as effective as its enforcement...

That's what the US needs more of. Instead of new gun laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have.

The knee-jerk, draconian anti-gun legislation forced on the states by the federal government .

really i don't recall the States or Territorys bitching about it

According to this article, probably not, or at least not as well as we would like or in the ways we would expect.

http://miller-mccune.com/main/article/110

Umm... "Probably not"?

The Brady Law, enacted in 1994, has produced a slight but statistically significant reduction in homicide rates, he said. While failing to keep guns out of the hands of career criminals, the law has apparently kept some dangerously unstable people from obtaining weapons, he said.
So why is there a small but significant correlation between the law's enactment and a decrease in the homicide rate?

LaValle believes that while illegal gun markets are widespread, amateur criminals - and disturbed, angry people who decide to take revenge on some perceived enemy - often have no idea how to find them. Thus, he concluded, it is fair to say that the Brady Law, by screening out some of those people, has saved lives.

While LaValle sees no need for major new gun-control legislation, he would like to see the Brady Law strengthened to screen out more people with mental and emotional disorders.
"What this research supports, more than anything else, is (this legislation is) appropriate and helpful," LaValle said. "The Brady Law has had a modest effect. (With this modification) it is likely to deter a specific type of crime we find particularly repellent - these spree-killings of our children we send to school to get an education."
So he concludes that it does work, and it could be made to work even more efficiently.

Somebody should send that article to congress, maybe they would get some insight for once. Guns aren't the cause of violence.
...but a popular tool, and a dangerous and deadly instrument in the hands of those who would act violently, thus something that perhaps should be controlled. This article will only strengthen the gun-control wing, if you thought otherwise.

In fact, had any of the onlookers or victims had guns themselves, they might possibly have been able to defend themselves and their loved ones -

Everyone says that and yet it never happens. That is because it is a load of fucking shit. People have to have their gun on them and have the presence of mind to pull their gun and the intention to use it. You would think that with all the guns in the US group shootings would never happen, and yet they happen every other week. Imagine that!

The hopes of gun-rights advocates that they would prevent crimes, and the fears of gun-control advocates that they would turn American cities into lawless Wild West frontier towns, have both proven unfounded.
The second part only proven unfounded because it is based upon the first occurring.

How many columbine wannabes managed to kill 32 students and wound 25 others with a knife? (Hint: ZERO!)

Considering the following, I would argue no

1. England's violent crime stats have risen at an unprecedented rate since the laws where passed that banned guns from the public citizenry
2. In the "Wild" West of the US, there where almost no murders because everyone was armed with heavy weapons
3. In cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, and D.C., with the strictest gun control laws the murder rate and violent crime rate are higher
4. In areas where students are allowed to Concealed Carry on Campus at their university, Shooters have been taken down (Dead or in Custody) before they could rack up a kill list that would get them on the National News.

Strict Gun Control laws do nothing but disarm potential victims. While I will not argue that everyone should be required to own a gun, stricter controls at the point of sale, and looser restrictions on possession could lead to a lot fewer deaths.

really i don't recall the States or Territorys bitching about it

Mainly because they were participating in legislation-by-reaction. Also, WA did hold out against the original bans on semi-auto rifle ownership.

Considering the following, I would argue no

1. England's violent crime stats have risen at an unprecedented rate since the laws where passed that banned guns from the public citizenry
2. In the "Wild" West of the US, there where almost no murders because everyone was armed with heavy weapons
3. In cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, and D.C., with the strictest gun control laws the murder rate and violent crime rate are higher
4. In areas where students are allowed to Concealed Carry on Campus at their university, Shooters have been taken down (Dead or in Custody) before they could rack up a kill list that would get them on the National News.

Strict Gun Control laws do nothing but disarm potential victims. While I will not argue that everyone should be required to own a gun, stricter controls at the point of sale, and looser restrictions on possession could lead to a lot fewer deaths.

In the UK, crime overall has been on the rise for wuite some time, even before the more restricting laws came into effect. As far as simple figures are concerend, there has been no more drastic increase in gun crime since the new laws, the increase has in fact slowed down a little.

Everyone says that and yet it never happens. That is because it is a load of fucking shit. People have to have their gun on them and have the presence of mind to pull their gun and the intention to use it. You would think that with all the guns in the US group shootings would never happen, and yet they happen every other week. Imagine that!


The second part only proven unfounded because it is based upon the first occurring.

And that is where you are wrong. At the Appalachian school of law in 2002, the gun man was able to kill three and wound three more before two students armed with hand guns and a third who was un-armed (And a Marine) where able to subdue him and hold him until Police arrived.

Also note, that more often than not, the weapons used are weapons that are not legally or easily available. Though it is old, and very cliched, the saw about "Only criminals would have guns" is, in fact, very accurate, as they have shown in the past to be able to have access to weapons that are considered illegal for the citizenry at large

examples
Hollywood Hills Shoot Out - Two guys with AK-47's
The guy who shot at the Whitehouse - AK-47
Dawson College Shooting - Beretta Cx4 Carbine

The list goes on, but I named the three I could think of off the top of my head.

In the UK, crime overall has been on the rise for wuite some time, even before the more restricting laws came into effect. As far as simple figures are concerend, there has been no more drastic increase in gun crime since the new laws, the increase has in fact slowed down a little.

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/incidental/image001.jpg

Sorry, but this shows that the crime rates in England have been increasing since the Ban on Guns in 1997

Not to mention this little nugget I found

http://www.theksa.com/underfacts.htm

How many columbine wannabes managed to kill 32 students and wound 25 others with a knife? (Hint: ZERO!)

True, but how many columbine wanna-be's managed to kill more than a handful on an "Armed" campus?

I blame it all on Science.
Also Technology.

2. In the "Wild" West of the US, there where almost no murders because everyone was armed with heavy weapons
3. In cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, and D.C., with the strictest gun control laws the murder rate and violent crime rate are higher

what about Los Angeles?

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/incidental/image001.jpg

Sorry, but this shows that the crime rates in England have been increasing since the Ban on Guns in 1997

its the lies I can't stand
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/violence%201_tcm6-6908.jpg

crime has fallen in the UK since the 1995 peak (I seem to remember the gun current gun laws came into affect that year)

Not to mention this little nugget I found

http://www.theksa.com/underfacts.htm

a blog?

True, but how many columbine wanna-be's managed to kill more than a handful on an "Armed" campus?

I wonder how many teachers feel safe that there students are armed?

And that is where you are wrong. At the Appalachian school of law in 2002, the gun man was able to kill three and wound three more before two students armed with hand guns and a third who was un-armed (And a Marine) where able to subdue him and hold him until Police arrived..
I read "kill three and wound 2." You were saying?


examples
Hollywood Hills Shoot Out - Two guys with AK-47's
The guy who shot at the Whitehouse - AK-47
Dawson College Shooting - Beretta Cx4 Carbine

Taking bets on the odds that those were stolen from gun nuts.

the law in Ireland is very simple. you are caught with a gun you go to jail for 7 years. do not pass go. as a result we have an unarmed police force and the lowest guncrime in the OECD.

Works fine for us.

I wonder how many teachers feel safe that there students are armed?

I don't know, I don't go to one. But if I was a teacher, and I knew that some of the students where certified for concealed carry, I would feel safer. Safer than I would considering where the Police State near my school is...

I read "kill three and wound 2." You were saying?

They were not in the building where the shooting took place, and they had to get the guns out of their cars, though there actions did prevent more deaths from occuring

Taking bets on the odds that those were stolen from gun nuts.

Actually no, the reports indicate that the AK's where bought straight from China, via gun runners.

what about Los Angeles?



its the lies I can't stand
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/violence%201_tcm6-6908.jpg

crime has fallen in the UK since the 1995 peak (I seem to remember the gun current gun laws came into affect that year)



a blog?

First off, Hanlon's razor, though change stupidity to ignorance

Secondly, though I have looked, I had not seen the new stats on violent crimes. That graph to 1995 was the most up-to date one I could find. Granted though, I am a citizen of the US with almost no info on how the UK government works or what branches to look under.

As for L.A. I am still looking for info on that, though I would think that it is similar there, with the added influence of the Welfare Culture that exists in L.A.

Obviously, yes.

The fact that a whole bunch less people are killed through guns being used in Europe shows that it works fine.

I don't know, I don't go to one. But if I was a teacher, and I knew that some of the students where certified for concealed carry, I would feel safer. Safer than I would considering where the Police State near my school is...

clue: look at the students teachers struggle to control

its a hard enough job as it is without having to worry about your life

First off, Hanlon's razor, though change stupidity to ignorance

okay I've tried walking away and running at the screen, yet I still have no idea what your getting at:confused:

Secondly, though I have looked, I had not seen the new stats on violent crimes. That graph to 1995 was the most up-to date one I could find. Granted though, I am a citizen of the US with almost no info on how the UK government works or what branches to look under.

look at the left side and the right of your "graph" for Christs sake they don't even use the same numbers of population or number progression

I suggest you avoid trusting the Colorado media matter from now on

As for L.A. I am still looking for info on that, though I would think that it is similar there, with the added influence of the Welfare Culture that exists in L.A.

1) IIRC one every 4 minuets though this has no doubt changed

facts still remain however:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg

2) oh look "welfare culture" why how dare they be poor! (its taken me great restrain from posting the "not this shit again" image)

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/incidental/image001.jpg
I'm sorry, but that illustration is just silly. It seems to try to show that the homicide rates in the US is below the UK. Worthless drivel.


Sorry, but this shows that the crime rates in England have been increasing since the Ban on Guns in 1997
Don't trust it:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44183000/gif/_44183271_gun_crime203x244.gif
During the past year the deliberate use of guns to take life has risen in England and Wales. According to the Home Office, there were 58 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year - an increase of 18%.

But the overall level of gun crime is falling. Firearms offences in total fell 13% in 2006-07 to 9,608 incidents.

Compared with the US - where 14,000 murders involving firearms were committed in 2005 - the UK is a safe haven.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7047649.stm

Gun crime in London has risen by nearly 10%, according to new figures released by the Metropolitan Police.

There were 1,825 gun-enabled crimes between April and September 2007, up 162 on the same period last year.

[...]

Overall, crime in London has dropped 6.1% from 467,591 to 439,294 offences, with clear reductions in robbery, violence and knife crime.

Youth violence

The rise in gun crime appears to be partly driven by a rise in the use of non-lethal weapons, such as replica guns, the Met Police said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7051458.stm


Not to mention this little nugget I found

http://www.theksa.com/underfacts.htm
Hmmm... WorldNetDaily 2001?

I'll stick with this one, from 2007:
Stricter gun controls implemented after the world's worst shooting massacre 11 years ago may have saved 2 500 lives, Australian researchers said on Monday.
Leigh said the statistics showed that gun-deaths had not been replaced by intentional deaths by others means.

"The fact that overall violent deaths have fallen since 1996 ... strongly suggests there has not been substantial method substitution," he said.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=2024&art_id=nw20070423092103299C688294

Criminality in my country hasn't lowered an inch since tighter gun control laws were implemented. In fact it's only getting worser though it's also related to other issues. What's the point of almost entirely banning guns for civilian use when the criminals will get theirs from the black market anyway? Unless of course a government is banning Jews or Armenians from wielding guns due to other intentions...

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/incidental/image001.jpg
A much more important statistic -

The US has a murder rate of 0.042802 per 1,000 people

The UK murder rate is 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

That's about 3 times as many people per capita in the US compared to the UK. Oh the woes that gun control has brought out, eh?
Sorry, but this shows that the crime rates in England have been increasing since the Ban on Guns in 1997.
Guns have been banned here for bloody ages ;)

As a matter of interest, perhaps - I know Jim Lavalle personally - he's a friend of my daughter's. He has a right to carry permit and does, in fact, own firearms. He believes that legislation barring felons, the mentally ill and minors from gun possession is needed, but otherwise does not support gun control.

He is a supremely objective person and does not allow his opinions to override facts, but is judicious in basing his opinion in fact. He received his PhD in Sociology at the University of California at Riverside, a bastion of gun control mania. The fact that his dissertation, on this very subject, was approved by a committee consisting largely of gun-control supporters is, I think, evidence of his objectivity and ability to communicate rationally.

Just as a matter of interest.

A much more important statistic -

The US has a murder rate of 0.042802 per 1,000 people

The UK murder rate is 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

That's about 3 times as many people per capita in the US compared to the UK. Oh the woes that gun control has brought out, eh?

Guns have been banned here for bloody ages ;)

You make a good point, and i for one am for banning guns.
trouble is i found a small flaw with your post.
The murder rate isn't necessarily linked with gun crime, there are an awful lot of other factors to bear in mind. Such as economy, culture of the country, employment etc.
For example if i found say.
P1) It has been found that, after in increase in ice cream sales in August, there was an increase in people getting killed by guns.
P2) Guns can kill people.
C) People who eat ice cream will be in all probability be gun toting maniacs.

So basically a fallacy of confusion between, causation and correlation.
That's not to say that your stats are wrong, or that murder rates aren't linked with gun crime.
I'd prefer if you or anyone else used gun crime statistics. So you could be right but, this is definately a flaw.

PS
I think that if you give people more freedom to use weapons to kill animals, there is always the risk that the person "could" shoot another. By banning guns or at least cutting down on them, you would reduce the risk of this.

The two problems I have with gun controll are that it puts safety ahead of freedom, and the other is that it makes criminals go underground to buy guns. Sort of a twist on "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns", "If you ban guns, only criminals will sell guns".

Think about it. Where I live, most of the guns used in crimes come from "runners" that buy the guns from legit stores and then sells them to gangs. The gun is then used and discarded. When police find the gun, they trace it back to the store, look at the records to find the runner, then peg who they sold the gun to, along with the criminal. If the guns were illegal to sell, and the same criminal had to get it from a gun runner, then the police could find the gun but not do anything with it.

if you criminalise gun ownership, the criminals are the ones that will own most of the guns.

If you criminalize rape and murder, then only criminals would be rapists and murderers!

seriously, we make things illegal so that there's a legal framework to deal with it, not to make it stop. Making things stop usually involves controlling supply and demand and social movements, better education, and things like that.

Oh please, this question's been asked too many times for anyone to really take much notice anymore. We already know you need Gun Control.

Yeah, 'cause if you don't control your gun you won't be able to hit what you're aiming at ;)

If you criminalize rape and murder, then only criminals would be rapists and murderers!

seriously, we make things illegal so that there's a legal framework to deal with it, not to make it stop. Making things stop usually involves controlling supply and demand and social movements, better education, and things like that.
Woah.

Sensible post! :)
Yeah, 'cause if you don't control your gun you won't be able to hit what you're aiming at ;)
:eek:

Careful where you wave your sig, you might put someones eyes out!

What's the point of almost entirely banning guns for civilian use when the criminals will get theirs from the black market anyway?

The less there are guns around the less need there is to actually fire an illegal gun: When you can pretty much trust that no one else in the bank has a gun or that the police wont arrive with massive firepower at the scene the safer everyone's lives will be - albeit they might end up more easily robbed, at least they'd be more or less intact afterwards. :)

The less there are guns around the less need there is to actually fire an illegal gun: When you can pretty much trust that no one else in the bank has a gun or that the police wont arrive with massive firepower at the scene the safer everyone's lives will be - albeit they might end up more easily robbed, at least they'd be more or less intact afterwards. :)

This situation reminds me of the old question:

If a violent individual invades your home, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?

This situation reminds me of the old question:

If a violent individual invades your home, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?

Gun

Too tired for long answers and probably too tired to fully understand what i'm replying to

Rolling squid;13316363']The two problems I have with gun controll are that it puts safety ahead of freedom, and the other is that it makes criminals go underground to buy guns. Sort of a twist on "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns", "If you ban guns, only criminals will sell guns".

Think about it. Where I live, most of the guns used in crimes come from "runners" that buy the guns from legit stores and then sells them to gangs. The gun is then used and discarded. When police find the gun, they trace it back to the store, look at the records to find the runner, then peg who they sold the gun to, along with the criminal. If the guns were illegal to sell, and the same criminal had to get it from a gun runner, then the police could find the gun but not do anything with it.

Well there are some laws that put safety before freedom that I agree with. Seat-belt laws for instance. But the freedom lost when a government disarms its people is just too much. And the banning of guns dosen't seem to stop violent crime anyway. Its just a bad idea.

I don't really get why people want to ban guns. People must believe that guns are inherently evil or something. I can understand having no use for a gun, but why would anyone try to keep others from owning guns? Its not just a bad idea, its an arrogant one.

This situation reminds me of the old question:

If a violent individual invades your home, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?
Yes, on the other hand, home invasions in this country are staggeringly rare, and most criminals won't have a gun either, and if they do have a gun, then you're probably fucked anyway, to be honest.

Rolling squid;13316363']The two problems I have with gun controll are that it puts safety ahead of freedom, and the other is that it makes criminals go underground to buy guns. Sort of a twist on "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns", "If you ban guns, only criminals will sell guns".

Think about it. Where I live, most of the guns used in crimes come from "runners" that buy the guns from legit stores and then sells them to gangs. The gun is then used and discarded. When police find the gun, they trace it back to the store, look at the records to find the runner, then peg who they sold the gun to, along with the criminal. If the guns were illegal to sell, and the same criminal had to get it from a gun runner, then the police could find the gun but not do anything with it.
I'd prefer my freedom not to be shot at as opposed to whatever freedom owning a gun supposedly gives you, and if you kick off about "it's to protect us from the government", then you're an idiot, because the rights of the American people have been abused again and again in the last 7 years, and not once was a shot fired in anger against the government that's dragged your name through the mud and plundered the coffers to pay for a war that nobody wanted in the first place.

Yes, on the other hand, home invasions in this country are staggeringly rare, and most criminals won't have a gun either, and if they do have a gun, then you're probably fucked anyway, to be honest.

So then you would deny me the right to defend my life and property against a possible gun-carrying assailant? I'll admit, outright armed robberies are pretty rare, but who are you to tell me that I can't keep a 12-gauge in my closet just in case?

I'd prefer my freedom not to be shot at as opposed to whatever freedom owning a gun supposedly gives you, and if you kick off about "it's to protect us from the government", then you're an idiot, because the rights of the American people have been abused again and again in the last 7 years, and not once was a shot fired in anger against the government that's dragged your name through the mud and plundered the coffers to pay for a war that nobody wanted in the first place.

You don't like America do you? Anyway, outlawing guns does not insure that you will not be shot. It makes the possibility of you being shot much less, but it doesn't lessen the chance that you will be assaulted in some other way. Is being shot alot worse than being stabbed or hit with a pipe? I can't really say.

So then you would deny me the right to defend my life and property against a possible gun-carrying assailant? I'll admit, outright armed robberies are pretty rare, but who are you to tell me that I can't keep a 12-gauge in my closet just in case?

but the gun control arguement is a chicken and egg one. if you have a gun he is more likely to carry one. if you dont he wont. thats how it works in countries with strict laws on gun ownership. the fear of armed crime is well down the list. robbers are rarely armed and rarer still to rob an individual.

Ireland is not a crime free paradise, but the odds on someone pulling a gun on me are so remote to be zero. so I have the right to tell you that you arent to try and change the no-gun culture.

Depends on the country, the society and the history of guns in a given area and with a given people. In the US, typical gun control measures would crash and burn in total failure for a vast variety of reasons, while in the UK gun control measures work reasonably well, for a similarly broad assortment of reasons.

Imagine that, not all solutions are equally applicable everywhere!

This situation reminds me of the old question:

If a violent individual invades your home, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?
An elaborate Goldbergian device that involves a mouse, two bowling balls, a bottle of Jones soda, and some mentos which results in a cage following on the unwitting intruder.

I support the right to carry small personal defense pieces on one's own person (handguns, for instance) and the right ro maintain a stash of larger weapons (rifles and shotguns) in one's home or business. That said, I feel that using or threatening to use a gun in the commission of a crime (any crime) should be a hanging offense. Not a felony, not a capital crime, a hanging offense, complete with rope and gallows. In addition, gun owners must be responsible for their weapons and should be held responsible if crimes are commited using those weapons.

That said, there are are three groups of people who I wouldn't want to be able to carry guns: convicted felons, convicted sex offenders, and the mentally ill.

I think my proposal is reasonable. It allows responsible individuals to carry guns, while harshly criminalizing improper gun use.

True, but how many columbine wanna-be's managed to kill more than a handful on an "Armed" campus?

Ah, so you're suggesting that a handful of killings is okay?

In an ideal world there wouldn't be ANY guns. For those who visit II, yes, Atma's idea of an ideal country is fairly close to the South Lorenya factbook.

the law in Ireland is very simple. you are caught with a gun you go to jail for 7 years. do not pass go. as a result we have an unarmed police force and the lowest guncrime in the OECD.

Works fine for us.

What works fine for one country doesn't necessarily work fine for another.

Rolling squid;13316363']The two problems I have with gun controll are that it puts safety ahead of freedom, and the other is that it makes criminals go underground to buy guns. Sort of a twist on "If you ban guns, only criminals will have guns", "If you ban guns, only criminals will sell guns".

1) you could also say banning the sale of nuclear arms is an affront to your "freedom"
2) only that hasn't happened in places where guns have been banned

Rolling squid;13316363']Think about it. Where I live, most of the guns used in crimes come from "runners" that buy the guns from legit stores and then sells them to gangs. The gun is then used and discarded. When police find the gun, they trace it back to the store, look at the records to find the runner, then peg who they sold the gun to, along with the criminal. If the guns were illegal to sell, and the same criminal had to get it from a gun runner, then the police could find the gun but not do anything with it.

however the police just arrest the guy straight away as soon as he is found with a gun and it becomes too risky to have the things at all

This situation reminds me of the old question:

If a violent individual invades your home, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?

telephone, this whole argument is idiotic because going in balls first into dangerous situations is hardly the smartest thing to do and is likely to end up with both of you seriously injured

the banning of guns dosen't seem to stop violent crime anyway. Its just a bad idea.

must we get the graphs out again or can you read the thread?

I don't really get why people want to ban guns. People must believe that guns are inherently evil or something.

since when has anyone gone out and brought a ridiculously offensive weapons for a good reason?

and in this I do not include hunting with a simple rifle which is sporting and legal even in the UK

So then you would deny me the right to defend my life and property against a possible gun-carrying assailant? I'll admit, outright armed robberies are pretty rare, but who are you to tell me that I can't keep a 12-gauge in my closet just in case?

yes because your more likely to hurt yourself/someone innocent especially if its armed robbery

You don't like America do you?

pointing out your country hasn't done well the past 7 years is showing dislike now?

tell me will your next argument be "why do you hate freedom?"

Depends on the country, the society and the history of guns in a given area and with a given people. In the US, typical gun control measures would crash and burn in total failure for a vast variety of reasons, while in the UK gun control measures work reasonably well, for a similarly broad assortment of reasons.

Imagine that, not all solutions are equally applicable everywhere!

build social stigma to the things and it works itself out, thats the big difference really

British guy + semi-automatic = head case
American guy + semi automatic = hero

This situation reminds me of the old question:

If a violent individual invades your home, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?

I have both (although I hope to never use my AR15 for anything other than stopping the paper target insurrection). So I'd probably use my baseball bat, sword, machete, paintball marker, 3' aluminum ruler, my dead printer, my '50s era glass Pepsi bottle, day-glo yellow tent stakes, collapsible aluminum walking stick, or something else in my apartment to subdue/stop him/her.

but the gun control arguement is a chicken and egg one. if you have a gun he is more likely to carry one. if you dont he wont. thats how it works in countries with strict laws on gun ownership. the fear of armed crime is well down the list. robbers are rarely armed and rarer still to rob an individual.

Ireland is not a crime free paradise, but the odds on someone pulling a gun on me are so remote to be zero. so I have the right to tell you that you arent to try and change the no-gun culture.

indeed, armed robbery is rare, but the way that I see the argument is that if a would-be assailant knows his victims might be packing heat, he is going to think twice about his actions. And as study after study seems to show, gun control dose not reduce violent crime. Also, I doubt a home-invader is going to not carry a gun because his victims don't own guns. Thats just more reason for him to want a gun.

So then you would deny me the right to defend my life and property against a possible gun-carrying assailant?
Yes.
I'll admit, outright armed robberies are pretty rare
Just a tad, and yet rarer in the land of rain and royalty, where getting hold of a weapon is extremely difficult, outside of the countryside and the really shitty bits of London, in which it's merely quite difficult.
but who are you to tell me that I can't keep a 12-gauge in my closet just in case?
Someone from a country which isn't quite so paranoid and is doing fine regardless?
You don't like America do you?
Some aspects of it are fine, some really aren't.
Anyway, outlawing guns does not insure that you will not be shot. It makes the possibility of you being shot much less
Oh right, hardly worth it, then, eh?
but it doesn't lessen the chance that you will be assaulted in some other way.
Not really, no. On the other hand, getting a light bludgeoning by some twat with a pipe isn't quite the same as being shot, now, is it?
Is being shot alot worse than being stabbed or hit with a pipe?
Err, yes?

indeed, armed robbery is rare, but the way that I see the argument is that if a would-be assailant knows his victims might be packing heat, he is going to think twice about his actions. And as study after study seems to show, gun control dose not reduce violent crime. Also, I doubt a home-invader is going to not carry a gun because his victims don't own guns. Thats just more reason for him to want a gun.
Gun control doesn't reduce violent crime, you're quite right. What it does cut down on is the amount of people dying, by a quite considerable rate. US crime statistics don't generally involve deaths through summary against burglars, surprisingly. Nor accidental woundings or even kilings of general bystanders.

1)
telephone, this whole argument is idiotic because going in balls first into dangerous situations is hardly the smartest thing to do and is likely to end up with both of you seriously injured


guns just cause murder and mayhem. Nobody can control guns! they're going to kill us all! You might think that you can use them in defense but they will turn on you.:gundge:

[/QUOTE]
must we get the graphs out again or can you read the thread?[/QUOTE]
sure, I mean, I read the op, did you read the article about how gun control laws have no effect on crime?



since when has anyone gone out and brought a ridiculously offensive weapons for a good reason?
and in this I do not include hunting with a simple rifle which is sporting and legal even in the UK

how is a gun offensive? This is demagoguery! Guns are beautiful and nice. Its ok, I respect your dislike of guns. But please respect my right to shoot at trees behind my house with semi-automatic assault rifles.


yes because your more likely to hurt yourself/someone innocent especially if its armed robbery

Ive never hurt myself or someone innocent with a gun before, why would I do it then?


pointing out your country hasn't done well the past 7 years is showing dislike now?
tell me will your next argument be "why do you hate freedom?"


why do you hate freedom? Do you not trust your neighbors and fellow citizens?


build social stigma to the things and it works itself out, thats the big difference really

I know whats best for me, not society.


British guy + semi-automatic = head case
American guy + semi automatic = hero

what? are you racist?

And as study after study seems to show, gun control dose not reduce violent crime.

I'm sorry that must of just been the sound of me dying a little inside

Yes. Gun laws work to get politians relected. Otherwise, they just make needless restrictions on our freedom.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
See? Gun laws DON'T help!:D

guns just cause murder and mayhem. Nobody can control guns! they're going to kill us all! You might think that you can use them in defense but they will turn on you.:gundge:
...

What?
sure, I mean, I read the op, did you read the article about how gun control laws have no effect on crime?
Please read through the thread for an understanding of how much evidence there is to refure this...
how is a gun offensive? This is demagoguery! Guns are beautiful and nice.
Eugh.
Its ok, I respect your dislike of guns.
Probably lies.
But please respect my right to shoot at trees behind my house with semi-automatic assault rifles.
What the fuck should you be shooting at trees for?
Ive never hurt myself or someone innocent with a gun before, why would I do it then?
Who've you hurt with one that wasn't you or someone innocent?
why do you hate freedom? Do you not trust your neighbors and fellow citizens?
Says someone from a country where about a third of the population is armed?
I know whats best for me, not society.
No, no you clearly don't.
what? are you racist?
Not really, no.

Two different cultures. Here, owning a rifle and killing someone for breaking into your house makes you (quite rightly) appear like a nutcase. In the States, it's more like "9 year old kills robber with pump action shotgun, HOORAY!"

Yes. Gun laws work to get politians relected. Otherwise, they just make needless restrictions on our freedom.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
See? Gun laws DON'T help!:D
... well I think I just lost about 10 IQ points...

... well I think I just lost about 10 IQ points...
Did you even read the link?
Criminals WILL find a way, no matter what laws you enact. Ban all guns from the public? Crime will stay the same, knifes can be used as weapons too. Guns can be used in crime as well as self-defense, getting rid of them will only reduce the options people can use to defend themselves.

Did you even read the link?
Criminals WILL find a way, no matter what laws you enact. Ban all guns from the public? Crime will stay the same, knifes can be used as weapons too. Guns can be used in crime as well as self-defense, getting rid of them will only reduce the options people can use to defend themselves.
Bullshit.

Plenty less people here in the UK die as a result of strict gun laws than in the US ;)

...

What?

yup.


Please read through the thread for an understanding of how much evidence there is to refure this...


I did, I read stuff like this (http://miller-mccune.com/main/article/110)and this (http://www.theksa.com/underfacts.htm)


Eugh.

yuck!

What the fuck should you be shooting at trees for?

those damn trees had it coming. Stay out of it.

Who've you hurt with one that wasn't you or someone innocent?


I have never hurt anyone with a gun nor has any of my friends or family hurt anyone with a gun, except for my uncle who was in vietnam.

No, no you clearly don't.

uh huh! yes I do

Not really, no.

ya huh!

Two different cultures. Here, owning a rifle and killing someone for breaking into your house makes you (quite rightly) appear like a nutcase. In the States, it's more like "9 year old kills robber with pump action shotgun, HOORAY!"

look, I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my house unless they attack me or try to steal my car or something. Although the law affords me that right, I'm not going to shoot my freinds for breaking into my house to put shaving cream on my sofa.

Even if I, god forbid, have to draw on someone and shoot, I can hit them in the legs. I'm a pretty good shot.

guns just cause murder and mayhem. Nobody can control guns! they're going to kill us all! You might think that you can use them in defense but they will turn on you.:gundge:

now you get it! same logic applies to firing RPG in defense of your property

sure, I mean, I read the op, did you read the article about how gun control laws have no effect on crime?

yeah...and its wrong we did this like page 2 and I'm not going to sit here reposting graphs because you can't be bothered keeping up

but please I'm sure you have plenty of evidence to sway so post away

how is a gun offensive?

....it was designed to kill...you don't actually own a gun do you?

Ive never hurt myself or someone innocent with a gun before, why would I do it then?

because possibly you have never waved your gun around in such situations, perhaps you don't understand that humans get irrational and unpredictable when freighted?

why do you hate freedom? Do you not trust your neighbors and fellow citizens?

1) oh yes I hate it loads because I happen to live in the world outside America
2) mostly yes hence why we don't have guns everywhere

I know whats best for me, not society.

what? did you just admit that you don't care at all about this argument beyond the fact that it affects you and is thus bad?

would you like it more if only you was allowed to have guns?

what? are you racist?

oh I don't know how I can top that your argument is sooo watertight

maybe I could suggest that comparing the differences between two nations is acceptable?

okay I give up your just pulling my leg now, my cat could think up smarter arguments than that and she eats paper

Bullshit.

Plenty less people here in the UK die as a result of strict gun laws than in the US


UK: Death rate: 10.09 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
US: Death rate: 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
Check the statistics first. Heres my link.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

UK: Death rate: 10.09 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
US: Death rate: 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
Check the statistics first. Heres my link.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

have some more:

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/violence%201_tcm6-6908.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg

yup.




I did, I read stuff like this (http://miller-mccune.com/main/article/110)
Ah, kk -

"Right-to-carry laws, which have been enacted in 40 states, have had absolutely no effect on the homicide rate, LaValle found. The hopes of gun-rights advocates that they would prevent crimes... have been proven unfounded"

"So why is there a small but significant correlation between the law's enactment and a decrease in the homicide rate?

LaValle believes that while illegal gun markets are widespread, amateur criminals - and disturbed, angry people who decide to take revenge on some perceived enemy - often have no idea how to find them. Thus, he concluded, it is fair to say that the Brady Law, by screening out some of those people, has saved lives."

"What this research supports, more than anything else, is (this legislation is) appropriate and helpful," LaValle said. "The Brady Law has had a modest effect. (With this modification) it is likely to deter a specific type of crime we find particularly repellent - these spree-killings of our children we send to school to get an education."
and this (http://www.theksa.com/underfacts.htm)
"Our Mission

The mission of the Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance is the promotion and support of the inalienable freedoms and Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans as specified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States with a special focus on the rights of Kansans. To this end, the Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance strives to influence and support relevant legislation and the election to office of honorable Kansans who recognize and support these rights."

Ah, a fair and neutral source if ever there was one, eh?
yuck!
Quite.
those damn trees had it coming. Stay out of it.
Right...
I have never hurt anyone with a gun nor has any of my friends or family hurt anyone with a gun, except for my uncle who was in vietnam.
So why bother having one?
uh huh! yes I do
Nah.
ya huh!
... right... I'm racist because I think that your gun culture is stupid... right.
look, I'm not going to shoot someone for breaking into my house unless they attack me or try to steal my car or something. Although the law affords me that right, I'm not going to shoot my freinds for breaking into my house to put shaving cream on my sofa.
Bit harder to tell if they're friend and foe if they've just broken into your house, probably at night, no?
Even if I, god forbid, have to draw on someone and shoot, I can hit them in the legs. I'm a pretty good shot.
What's to stop adrenaline from making you just shoot the bastard down, eh?

have some more:

You're not seeing my point. The death rate is higher in the UK despite gun laws. Gun laws don't decrease crime or death rates. They just change the method.

UK: Death rate: 10.09 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
US: Death rate: 8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.)
Check the statistics first. Heres my link.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html
...

Gun control causes higher cancer rates. Fact. Right?

now you get it! same logic applies to firing RPG in defense of your property


yeah I totally destroyed some drywall once with a .22

yeah...and its wrong we did this like page 2 and I'm not going to sit here reposting graphs because you can't be bothered keeping up


No really, I have read from multiple sources that gun control does not prevent crime. I have been keeping up. nonetheless there are so many sources (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)that say this



....it was designed to kill...you don't actually own a gun do you?

no, I don't actually own a gun, except for a rifle and a pistol. other than that, no.

because possibly you have never waved your gun around in such situations, perhaps you don't understand that humans get irrational and unpredictable when freighted?

I have never drawn my pistol with the intent to kill someone, but I know that I have to live with whatever decisions I make and I do not doubt my ability to be discriminating in the face of a possible threat. Is that beautiful? I trust myself.[/QUOTE]

what? did you just admit that you don't care at all about this argument beyond the fact that it affects you and is thus bad?

basically. yup

would you like it more if only you was allowed to have guns?

yes! I trust most everybody to be responsible. Plus my friends wouldn't have guns to share with me.

okay I give up your just pulling my leg now, my cat could think up smarter arguments than that and she eats paper

your cat doesn't own a gun dose she?

You're not seeing my point. The death rate is higher in the UK despite gun laws. Gun laws don't decrease crime or death rates. They just change the method.

thats because more people choose to die in the UK what with are population of elderly and hideously inbred aristocrats

though the number still look like shit to me maybe its to do with those odd radiation levels we have or maybe the weather

You're not seeing my point. The death rate is higher in the UK despite gun laws. Gun laws don't decrease crime or death rates. They just change the method.

agreed;)

IMO, if we legalized drugs and ended prohibition, alot of murders would stop.

have some more:

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/violence%201_tcm6-6908.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg

Please not that this graph is gun killings, not homicides. The UK dose if fact have a higher homicide rate than america. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)

Recently there were several murders in London as the result of gun violence. And the BBC’s web site ran some information on gun crimes in England and Wales. And the truth is that gun violence has escalated dramatically. Look at this chart that they ran today.




You can see how dramatically gun crime escalated in England in recent years. Yet, I distinctly remember that not that long they imposed what amounted to a total ban on private possession of firearms. I did a check at the London Telegraph and found that one columnist wrote a column in 2003 about what he called “the Government’s ‘total ban’ five years ago”. That would be 1998.

Now I assume the BBC chart accurately reflects gun crimes. And I see the following. There is a major spike from around 1988 to about 1992. Then gun crimes begin to slowly drop only to have another major spike, bigger than the previous one. So some history on recent gun control legislation in the UK.

Well what do you know. Gun crimes went UP after the ban.

yeah I totally destroyed some drywall once with a .22
Oh man, awsum.
No really, I have read from multiple sources that gun control does not prevent crime. I have been keeping up. nonetheless there are so many sources (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)that say this
Oh noes, only the two really important crimes are being bettered by us compared to you Yanks.

Crikey, let's lose our gun control laws and have rape and murder rates back a-climbing in return for less petty theft. Great idea.

Incidentally, your sources are getting increasingly ragged...
I have never drawn my pistol with the intent to kill someone, but I know that I have to live with whatever decisions I make and I do not doubt my ability to be discriminating in the face of a possible threat. Is that beautiful? I trust myself.
... right...
basically. yup
*sighs*
yes! I trust most everybody to be responsible. Plus my friends wouldn't have guns to share with me.
That's American optimism for you, eh?
your cat doesn't own a gun dose she?
Probably not, but she's doubtless more qualified than some of your more retarded hicks.

Please not that this graph is gun killings, not homicides. The UK dose if fact have a higher homicide rate than america. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)
...

Your own source points out that murder rates are higher in the US than in the UK you massive spastic.
Well what do you know. Gun crimes went UP after the ban.
Oh, quelle surprise!

Guns banned, banned guns now found, convictions increase shocker!

yeah I totally destroyed some drywall once with a .22

point?

No really, I have read from multiple sources that gun control does not prevent crime. I have been keeping up. nonetheless there are so many sources (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)that say this

I've already dug up two graphs from the previous pages which show that to be shit...maybe you could give us a better source than my graph by IANSA though really you would have to contact God or something to do that

no, I don't actually own a gun, except for a rifle and a pistol. other than that, no.

I was pointing out the stupidity of your questioning a guns intent of being a weapon used in the offensive stance

I worry that you own a weapon yet seem to miss this fact

I do not doubt my ability to be discriminating in the face of a possible threat. Is that beautiful? I trust myself.

awww bless the little poster thinks hes super action hero man

your human. you will panic when freighted and in human natures way basically become an intelligent chimpanzee with a gun

basically. yup

ah well that makes your opinions on the matter rather worthless and a waste of everyones time doesn't it now

please go ahead being your little island I'm sure hedonism will make a come back some day

yes! I trust most everybody to be responsible.

so who are you protecting yourself from?

your cat doesn't own a gun dose she?

good lord I hope not

you however do

the law in Ireland is very simple. you are caught with a gun you go to jail for 7 years. do not pass go. as a result we have an unarmed police force and the lowest guncrime in the OECD.

Works fine for us.

It could either be that, or the fact that, increasingly, Ireland is becoming one of the best places in the world to live. Rapid rates of growth, a strong sense of cultural identity, good social harmony, fairly free markets, transparent and inoffensive governance all tend to be positives weighing in in Ireland's favor. And, I would speculate that these factors have more to do with low rates of guncrime than do the restrictions.

Beyond that, how many WWI era weapons are buried out in farmers fields coated in grease? I bet enough to equip the BEF of the era those guns were planted.

Well what do you know. Gun crimes went UP after the ban.

because being caught with a gun was now a crime...do keep up now I don't want to carry people

So why bother having one?

I told you, those damn trees!

Bit harder to tell if they're friend and foe if they've just broken into your house, probably at night, no?


my apartment is equipped with several lamps.

What's to stop adrenaline from making you just shoot the bastard down, eh?

What going to stop me? My personal judgment. My ability to think about situations logically. My responsibility not to shoot an innocent person. I geuss they don't have those things in Europe! hahaha oo that was a low blow. no, seriously. If I trust the police to make that decision, I trust myself.

It could either be that, or the fact that, increasingly, Ireland is becoming one of the best places in the world to live. Rapid rates of growth, a strong sense of cultural identity, good social harmony, fairly free markets, transparent and inoffensive governance all tend to be positives weighing in in Ireland's favor. And, I would speculate that these factors have more to do with low rates of guncrime than do the restrictions.
The restrictions and culture certainly help, though.
Beyond that, how many WWI era weapons are buried out in farmers fields coated in grease? I bet enough to equip the BEF of the era those guns were planted.
Since farmers can fairly easily get a gun license for a shotgun or bolt-action rifle, why would they bother burying Lee Enfields in their fields?

In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

UK population:60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
US population:301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Your own source points out that murder rates are higher in the US than in the UK you massive spastic
The amount of murders is larger, but when you compare it relative to the population it is actually less.

UK population:60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
US population:301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Relevance?
The amount of murders is larger, but when you compare it relative to the population it is actually less.
No, no it isn't.

US murder rate : 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK murder rate : 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

And, I would speculate that these factors have more to do with low rates of guncrime than do the restrictions.

you missed out social stigma and lack of availability I think

also hearing social harmony and Ireland still makes me giggle a little bit even if its slightly true (though no more true than say Wales or Scotland's)

Beyond that, how many WWI era weapons are buried out in farmers fields coated in grease? I bet enough to equip the BEF of the era those guns were planted.

none really because good Friday has ended all the trouble and led to the weapons being handed in by the citizens themselves

UK population:60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
US population:301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

The amount of murders is larger, but when you compare it relative to the population it is actually less.

Oh hey, look what I found (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

The restrictions and culture certainly help, though.

I'd argue that it's way more of a function of culture than of the restrictions, though.

Since farmers can fairly easily get a gun license for a shotgun or bolt-action rifle, why would they bother burying Lee Enfields in their fields?

Hehe, no, it's a joke about what all of the revolutionaries in the War of Independence did with their weapons after their victory.

my apartment is equipped with several lamps.
Oh, fucking spiffing.

You keep them on all the time?
What going to stop me? My personal judgment. My ability to think about situations logically. My responsibility not to shoot an innocent person. I geuss they don't have those things in Europe!
The power of adrenaline > the power of logic
hahaha oo that was a low blow.
Oh man, that totally stung...
no, seriously. If I trust the police to make that decision, I trust myself.
Ah yes, because a) the police never wound or kill anyone by accident, and b) you've had the same level of training in dealing with such situations, yeah?

I'd argue that it's way more of a function of culture than of the restrictions, though.
The two go together.
Hehe, no, it's a joke about what all of the revolutionaries in the War of Independence did with their weapons after their victory.
Ah ok.

Gun control IMO, never seems to affect the crime rate either way. We in Virginia have loose gun laws, but are statistically safer than New York and New Jersey, who both have strict gun laws. The opposite is true also. Louisiana has loose laws and high crime, while Massachussetts has strict gun laws and low crime. Guns aren't the problem and never were. Drugs, poverty and unemployment are. Does anyone else notice that the crime rate goes up when the economy goes in the crapper and people lose jobs? Violent crime in the U.S skyrocketed from the late 60's through the early 90's, even though gun laws got tighter. Then gun laws got looser after that, for the most part anyway, and crime started to decrease. Now, as the economy is getting worse, the crime rate is going up again. Social reform is the answer, not more gun laws.

Gun control IMO, never seems to affect the crime rate either way. We in Virginia have loose gun laws, but are statistically safer than New York and New Jersey, who both have strict gun laws. The opposite is true also. Louisiana has loose laws and high crime, while Massachussetts has strict gun laws and low crime. Guns aren't the problem and never were. Drugs, poverty and unemployment are. Does anyone else notice that the crime rate goes up when the economy goes in the crapper and people lose jobs? Violent crime in the U.S skyrocketed from the late 60's through the early 90's, even though gun laws got tighter. Then gun laws got looser after that, for the most part anyway, and crime started to decrease. Now, as the economy is getting worse, the crime rate is going up again. Social reform is the answer, not more gun laws.

well yes you are right in that crime is affected by environmental factors however you seem to have missed the part where the rest of the planet (which is affected by your own economic ups and downs I won't lie) doesn't really have the same batshit insane levels

we could look at Switzerland which gun crime is lower due to a lack of a violent gun culture however that is still suffering from higher levels of gun crime...

in fact my whole argument is that Switzerland has higher gun crime than its neighbors despite not having a real culture of its own nor different economic ups and downs

Oh, fucking spiffing.

You keep them on all the time?

No, I turn them off and night to save electricity, but I can turn them on whenever I want.

The power of adrenaline > the power of logic

As someone who has survived a car collision by avoiding other cars with an airbag in his face, I can say that is not true.

Ah yes, because a) the police never wound or kill anyone by accident, and b) you've had the same level of training in dealing with such situations, yeah?

a) no thats the point, they do sometimes so why should I trust their ability over mine?

b) I have spoken to the cops on my campus and none of them has ever shot someone before. Perhaps my ability to deal with such situations is not on par with theirs, but this situation dose not involve rocket science. Its easy, you shoot someone if they are going to hurt you. Believe it or not, it dosen't take years of special training and a merit badge, its easy, you look, point and shoot.

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
Soyuts' links' quote has a point. Since the US counts all murders as homicides whereas the UK removes it if it is reduced to a lower charge.Ya know, the US should probably do that.

The two go together.



Not necessarily, countries and cultures with extreme proliferation of firearms exist, with low rates of guncrime, the Swiss being the classic example.

That I will most definitely agree with you on. I'd say they help though.

They are just a tool, things like broken homes and poverty are worse. It is dangerous to just ban guns and ignore what causes people to use them in such a manner. If I wanted to hurt you I could find other ways the just a gun.

Soyuts' links' quote has a point. Since the US counts all murders as homicides whereas the UK removes it if it is reduced to a lower charge.Ya know, the US should probably do that.

gun crime does not equal homicides your really clutching at straws now aren't you?

here: "much like alcohol, guns are part of are cultural identity are peoples practice this as a sort of tradition and uphold that when used responsibly we can all have good fun at the shooting range, this is are argument and though we should be influenced by popular votes on the matter.

I further state that responsibility is key here which is why we often ban these rights to ex-convicts even though they have already done there punishment, however I can not find a reason for weapons past the single shot rifle as it is not sporting"

you will however have some difficulty getting passed the whole "well just have a gun club armory then" but this is the debate we have had with the aristocracy in the UK and it is reasonable, defense however isn't

Not necessarily, countries and cultures with extreme proliferation of firearms exist, with low rates of guncrime, the Swiss being the classic example.

no the French and Germans are lower despite there similarities

thankyou, now if you will excuse me, I need to drive home for christmas before I get banned again.

amitted and deliberate trolling my ass, I'll say the word "******" as much as I want. Ha!:upyours:

ah how fun to waste other peoples time :rolleyes:

well yes you are right in that crime is affected by environmental factors however you seem to have missed the part where the rest of the planet (which is affected by your own economic ups and downs I won't lie) doesn't really have the same batshit insane levels

we could look at Switzerland which gun crime is lower due to a lack of a violent gun culture however that is still suffering from higher levels of gun crime...

in fact my whole argument is that Switzerland has higher gun crime than its neighbors despite not having a real culture of its own nor different economic ups and downs

Most of Swiss gun deaths are suicides. I believe 34 people were murdered with firearms last year in that country. Their homicide and overall violent crime rate is lower than the U.K's. Same thing with Finland. Lots of guns, very low crime. The reason we have such a high murder rate in the U.S, compared to other industrialized nations anyway, is the fact that we also have the highest poverty rate in the industrialized world. According to FBI stats, 90% of homicides occur in metropolitan areas, and at least 3/4 of all homicides in the country are criminals killing other criminals. You don't need guns to have a high murder rate. Just look at Russia. They have a murder rate that's 4 times as high as ours, yet only 12% of homicides in Russia are carried out with firearms( just ask Putin:D). My point is as long as people are impoverished and desperate, they'll still find a way to do what they're going to do crime wise.

Not necessarily, countries and cultures with extreme proliferation of firearms exist, with low rates of guncrime, the Swiss being the classic example.

however they never seem to be as low as there neighbors (who make up Swiss culture apart from the neutrality fun) which leads to the conclusion that...

They are just a tool, things like broken homes and poverty are worse. It is dangerous to just ban guns and ignore what causes people to use them in such a manner. If I wanted to hurt you I could find other ways the just a gun.

yes but guns still have an affect, yes I accept you could be doing better things (couldn't we all) but it would be a nice start

Most of Swiss gun deaths are suicides.

I think your thinking of Sweden in the 80's which was due to it reporting suicide more than the rest of the planet at the time

not that it makes any sense what with its cultural clones not suffering increased suicides (though I guess being French, German and Italian is pretty bleak)

I believe 34 people were murdered with firearms last year in that country. Their homicide and overall violent crime rate is lower than the U.K's. Same thing with Finland. Lots of guns, very low crime.

I don't like repeating myself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg

The reason we have such a high murder rate in the U.S, compared to other industrialized nations anyway, is the fact that we also have the highest poverty rate in the industrialized world. According to FBI stats, 90% of homicides occur in metropolitan areas, and at least 3/4 of all homicides in the country are criminals killing other criminals. You don't need guns to have a high murder rate.

seems to help though doesn't it?

Just look at Russia. They have a murder rate that's 4 times as high as ours, yet only 12% of homicides in Russia are carried out with firearms( just ask Putin:D). My point is as long as people are impoverished and desperate, they'll still find a way to do what they're going to do crime wise.

Russia =/= western culture

That graph was interesting. I was kind of surprised with Switzerland. Germany, on the other hand, has a slightly lower gun death rate despite having more relaxed gun laws than the U.K. Same thing with New Zealand and Australia.

That graph was interesting. I was kind of surprised with Switzerland. Germany, on the other hand, has a slightly lower gun death rate despite having more relaxed gun laws than the U.K. Same thing with New Zealand and Australia.

1) 0.01% is well within margin of error however Germany is an anomaly you may wish to ignore for fairly obvious reasons

2) Australia is a very different climate to Europe and the US for starters the highways in Australia are not what you can call safe (hence the information given to tourists to never hitchhike)

3) look at Japan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_gun_crime/img/2.jpg

What this left-wing wacko graph does not show, though, is all of the freedom that the Americans are enjoying. It's a small price to pay for having your brains blown away. ;)

1) 0.01% is well within margin of error however Germany is an anomaly you may wish to ignore for fairly obvious reasons

2) Australia is a very different climate to Europe and the US for starters the highways in Australia are not what you can call safe (hence the information given to tourists to never hitchhike)

3) look at Japan

I've known several people from Australia, and they all say the same thing about that country's highways. Did you ever see Wolf Creek? Mick Taylor scared the ever loving shit out of me. Seriously, I had nightmares after watching that movie.

Japan has always had a very low crime rate, even going back to the Middle Ages before guns were introduced. Violence is extremely rare even in prison. Obediance and respect for authority are both a huge part of their culture.

Woah.

Sensible post! :)


Thank you kindly. I try to live up to my namesake.

I support the right to carry small personal defense pieces on one's own person (handguns, for instance) and the right ro maintain a stash of larger weapons (rifles and shotguns) in one's home or business. That said, I feel that using or threatening to use a gun in the commission of a crime (any crime) should be a hanging offense. Not a felony, not a capital crime, a hanging offense, complete with rope and gallows. In addition, gun owners must be responsible for their weapons and should be held responsible if crimes are commited using those weapons.


So you're for giving the government the massive grant of power to end your life by hanging, but not the moderate amount of power to keep you from owning a specific mechanical device? In this case, the no-guns no-death-penalty option is the lesser government, and for once, I find myself wanting the more limited government as opposed to a more empowered one.