Should Britan be armed?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It's somewhat surprising to me that gangs in the UK manage to end their fights without deaths

That will be one of the key cultural differences, yes we do have some gangs in the UK... but nowhere near the level I have seen in the US.

Not only are gangs fewer in numbers, but they all dont carry guns and go out looking to kill each other.

So who sells the drugs? I've seen your movies- are they hyperbole too? (Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels comes to mind - fun film, but with as many gunshot victims as you're supposed to have in 6 months).

You don't need guns to kill - if you win the knife or baseball bat fight, you have the choice of killing the loser. It sounds like that doesn't usually happen. Letting them live seems like an invitation to let them get back at you later, no?

[bigway 4]

Quote

I'm trying to explain to you that long range accuracy with guns is a skill that has to be acquired. And by long range I mean 50ft with a pistol. It doesn't come by merely picking up the weapon. Automatics certainly give you the big gun feeling, but most of the longer range accuracy would come from firing it as a rifle, one shot at a time. If you spray, you'll hit a lot of things, but not great odds of hitting your target.

i agree with this comment...still....i would rather face a knife up close anyday. Maybe i am one sided though as i spent alot of my youth in martial arts. i would rather try and take a knife of someone than take a gun when they have their finger on the trigger.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Lets take the figures as you post them - even though you appear to have some concerns about the compiler.

If 67.5% of murder victims have a criminal history then 32.5% do not.

32.5% of 11,660 = 3789.5

Remember we had 68 firearms murders in total and are 1/5th the size of the US.

68 x 5 = 340.

So your figure of 3789.5 non felon murders is more than TEN TIMES the number of deaths we have if you project our firearms murder rate up to a country the size of the US.

And remember that those figures for the UK are TOTAL murder victims - ie including BOTH criminal murder victims and non-criminal victims, a distinction you have failed to account for. If you take those into account the numbers become further skewed.

Congratulations; you just disproved your own point.

[bigway 4]

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/global/

Nearly eighty people a day die in the U.S. from gun-related suicides, homicides and unintentional injuries.----now fuck that for a joke, you guys and your guns support this, you are helping kill your own nation..you do not need to worry about terrorists. how many U.S. citizens die from a terrorist attack each year. The gun supporters are their own worst enemy.
It is guns that are killing you.----every single day!!!

Overview - Comparison with Other Countries




Whenever the U.S. murder rate is compared with that of other countries, as it often is, the figures reveal a far greater frequency of gun-related deaths in the U.S. than elsewhere. In 1996, for instance, 30 people were killed with handguns in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 211 in Germany. In the U.S., 9,390 died this way. In Japan,15.


The U.S. stands alone among the world's nations in the degree to which it grants citizens access to guns. It also has the world's highest rate of violent crime. "On the gun issue, foreigners just do not get it. They just cannot understand how America let things come to this," a Los Angeles Times editorial calling for gun control begins. "They hear the news of cold-blooded murders of German and British tourists in Florida...and they just cannot believe it."


Americans attitudes toward gun control baffle citizens of other nations. In Canada, where residents "feel a special kinship with the United States and find much to admire in their southern neighbor, most are appalled...by America's refusal to seriously restrict possession of handguns," a Boston Globe story noted in 1994.


It's tough to get a handgun license in Canada. They're issued only to members of police-approved target shooting clubs, collectors and some security guards. The result: Canadians own one million handguns and five million rifles and shotguns. By comparison, Americans own an estimated 192 million firearms, including more than 65 million handguns according to an estimate by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1994.


In Japan, gun owners must pass a rigorous screening process to own a gun. Handguns are primarily restricted to police. Hunters are permitted to possess a rifle or shotgun only after navigating a complicated licensing procedure. These restrictions mean that Japan averages less than 30 gun murders a year, compared with nearly 11,000 in the U.S.


In Great Britain, an already strict set of laws was further tightened in June of 1997 following the 1996 massacre of 16 children and their teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. The British government responded to the slaughter by banning all handguns in civillian possession.


Many of the victims of American gun violence have been children as well. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and nine times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.


go on, i know you gun lovers will find a way to arguee this, you can start now

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Congratulations; you just disproved your own point.

Hardly - I said that non criminals are far less likely to get tagged by gun violence. Less likely than criminals. You apparently read that to be less than Britons.

I'm not interesting in proving that you need weapons. So long as I see more gains than negatives for public ownership, I'm for it. I'm a big fan of self defense.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nearly eighty people a day die in the U.S. from gun-related suicides, homicides and unintentional injuries.
....
Many of the victims of American gun violence have been children as well. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and nine times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.

go on, i know you gun lovers will find a way to arguee this, you can start now

It's hard to argue when the source for the cited facts is not given. But I'll throw out a few points, even though this was supposed to be about should England re-arm, asked by one of its citizens.

More than half of the deaths are suicides. Since people in gun less countries (say Japan) have no trouble killing themselves with other methods, I don't see the relevency. In Canada they jump off bridges now. Much more impact on motorists.

Anytime I see a quote talking about "American children," the bullshit detector goes off. To me, children is 0-14. To certain advocates, it ranges up to 24. Why? Because 15-24 is a common age cohort in collected statistics. There isn't one that stops at 17. So basically you've captured the entirety of gang bangers killing each other. The reality is that American children are most likely to die from traffic accidents and drowning. Guns are well down the list.

Accidental shootings, btw, are at the lowest ever.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

But if you're not a felon, your odds of being shot in the US are substantially lower.

Ok, I can see how that can read "substantially lower... than if you were a felon". I read it "substantially lower... than in the UK".

Fair enough if you had intended the former.

I wonder what percentage of our 68 deaths were criminals? The two reports which started this thread do not contain those statistics. It would be interesting considering how we're always told our gun crime stats are driven by "black on black" shootings and Turkish heroin dealers.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Britain is not armed!!!

You're right. Britain is not armed.

Its criminals sure as hell are.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Why do you insist on comparing gun deaths to gun deaths in the US and UK?

Do you really care if the guy who murders you does it with a gun or with something else?

If you're honestly concerned about violence, shouldn't all violence bother you. It's been shown that murder on your side has gravitated towards other weapons. Yippee. The victim is still just as dead.

Also, as much as people hate to hear it, "guns don't cause crime." For the last time, direct comparison of rates country to country is useless.

There are countries with many guns and low crime.
There are countries with many guns and high crime.
There are countries with few guns and low crime.
There are countries with few guns and high crime.

Deal with it. There are other factors in society that cause crime and violence.

Finally, to really get your panties in a wad, most of the murders here in the USA are committed in our cities. Most of the guns in the USA are in rural and less populated suburbsian areas. States with easier gun laws and higher gun ownership rates have lower crime than states with more restrictive gun laws and lower ownership.

Here in the states, the more guns and gun owners there are around you, the less likely you are to become a victim.


edit: it is misleading for you to list "firearms deaths" here in the USA. Half of the firearms deaths in the USA are suicides. While tragic, they have nothing to do with the murder rate.

Also, where did you get your numbers for USA murders? The FBI UCR lists 14,408 total murders with 9,638 firearms murders (Table 2.9).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dingley 0]

Well, I haven't bothered posting before. This section of the forum is usually gruesome fun, but it's now beginning to disturb me.

I understand that people get banned for misbehaving, so could someone tell me how this Jeffrey person is still here?

We're told that less than 20% of Americans own a passport. I seriously hope that he, and his gun-loving friends, are not part of that number. Their reasoning is simply insane, and a forum in any other part of the world would not entertain their increasingly aggressive, bile-ridden nonsense.

Additionally, if I were to say that America was a stain on the world, and that it was inhabited by violent, plastic, infantile shitsacks like peacefull Jeffrey, I'd likely be banned. Of course, I wouldn't say that. He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged.

There are many reasons why America would be the last place on earth that I'd live. Little Jeffrey and his toys can be added to them. Stay where you are, Jeffrey, and remember; guns don't kill people, hysterical right-wing gun-owners do.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Why do you insist on comparing gun deaths to gun deaths in the US and UK?

As pointed out above I had thought Kelpdiver was making a comparison which I wished to refute. It would appear that on this occasion I was mistaken as to his intent but I hope you will agree that his statement can be taken either way.

The only times I have compared the US and UK were in response to misleading statements by others comparing the two. I would agree with you that in general there is little merit in doing so, but where a misleading statement is made I still believe it requires correction lest someone believe it.

[Kennedy 0]

don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls,
don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls...

Ah hell, this could be fun.

Quote

I understand that people get banned for misbehaving, so could someone tell me how this Jeffrey person is still here?

People here are banned for personal attacks and for breaking a small number of other rules. Offending your tender sensibilities does not fall into that category.

Quote

We're told that less than 20% of Americans own a passport. I seriously hope that he, and his gun-loving friends, are not part of that number.

Really? I generally encourage people to travel and widen their horizons, experience other cultures, etc.

Quote

Their reasoning is simply insane, and a forum in any other part of the world would not entertain their increasingly aggressive, bile-ridden nonsense.

The same could be said for your little diatribe. However, here in the states people tend to value their freedom of speech. You should also know that this site is not run by an American.

Quote

Additionally, if I were to say that America was a stain on the world, and that it was inhabited by violent, plastic, infantile shitsacks like peacefull Jeffrey, I'd likely be banned. Of course, I wouldn't say that. He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged.

You are not clever, and I find your statements repulsive. However, one would hope that you can understand the difference between insulting a nation and insulting a poster to these boards.

ps - I expect you'll be banned permanently, and I won't miss you if this is the sort of thing you would post regularly.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

edit: it is misleading for you to list "firearms deaths" here in the USA. Half of the firearms deaths in the USA are suicides. While tragic, they have nothing to do with the murder rate.

Also, where did you get your numbers for USA murders? The FBI UCR lists 14,408 total murders with 9,638 firearms murders (Table 2.9).

My figures do not include suicides. They are for Murders and non negligent Manslaughter by firearm. They do not include deaths by other weapon or by other acts.

The discrepancie between your figures and mine may be accounted for by the fact that your figures are for reported crime whereas mine include crimes which go unreported. There is often a big difference between these figures - especially given that 67% of murder victims are criminals.

My figures are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimisation Survey 2003. They list 16,420 murders 71% of which were by firearms. 71% of 16,420 is 11,658.2 which for ease I listed as 11,660.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I understand that people get banned for misbehaving, so could someone tell me how this Jeffrey person is still here?"

He is playing by the rules, he has not, as far as I can see, insulted any person directly, he has of course had a go at an entire nation, but thats within the rules.

"violent, plastic, infantile shitsacks like peacefull Jeffrey"

Y'see, thats a personal attack, and its likely to get some sort of reaction from a green coloured overseer.


"He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged."

The trick is to either ignore him, or to retort with facts, you have to attack the argument, not the person. It is often very frustrating, but thats just the way it is.

"He, however, can spout as much as he likes about our country, seemingly unchallenged."
Challenge him on it then.......He's fiesty, on the subject of gun ownership quite knowledgable, as ignorant as they come in most other areas, and normally online around 7-8 am our time.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

Do you have a link to the NCVS that includes murder?

My understanding was that the National Crime Victimization Survey didn't include homicide numbers because it's kind of hard to interview the victims.

While I agree there is a "dark figure" in crime that the UCR would not catch, I don't believe there are 2,000 murders that go unreported each year.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Well "victimisation" is a valid spelling over here... but since it was a US report I guess I should have used your crazy spelling.

For the link hit: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv03.pdf

It's the 2003 survey published in September 2004 and as such represents the most up to date data from this source. I chose to use this source, as it is the US equivalent of the UK report I have which is the most accurate study available, (see page one of the thread for that discussion).

True - 2,000 is a lot of murders to go unreported - thus the italics on "may". Other discrepancies [I]may[/I] be introduced by differences in reporting periods; the surveys are published in Sept whilst FBI figures may be annually by date or even by financial year. I haven't got the time or inclination to look into it to be honest.

[nigel99 151]

you're just saying that cause you're not from a "free" country & big brother is watching you 24/7 on CCTV

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[dingley 0]

Well, I thought I was replying in kind. This seems to be where they put those likely to get in a bar-fight, and I've seen plenty of colourfull posts.

Personal insults are not my usual way of doing things. I was trying to make a comparison with some of the things written on here, and making the point that punishment appears rather selective.

As I said, this is fun to watch, even when some of the ideas are frightening, but I can't really be bothered. Feel free to ban me, as I don't have time for long-winded, pedantic replys.

Oh, one more thing. Why is insulting an entire nation worse than insulting the insulter?

[billvon 2,463]

>PJ needs to grow some balls and stop hiding behind his gun.

That's it. You've been warned about doing this.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Why is insulting an entire nation worse than insulting the insulter

I take it you meant “isn’t” there as opposed to “is”… ?

I think insulting an entire nation should be a banning offence. If I were to insult all black people or women or homosexuals, knowing I’m talking in a thread started by and posted to by blacks/women/homosexuals, I’m damn sure I would be banned for a long while.

I personally don’t see why insulting a nation – and thus vicariously insulting each and every poster from said country who reads that insult – is not just as bad as a direct insult against a specific poster. As far as I’m concerned, they’re both just as bad.

[billvon 2,463]

>I think insulting an entire nation should be a banning offence.

If insulting France were a bannable offense, 25% of the people here would be banned. If you added Israel, Syria, Iran, North Korea etc there would be about ten people left.

This is a forum intended for political discussions. That means that people will often go after countries, political groups, political movements etc. We could crack down on that, too, but there's that old "be careful what you wish for" thing to keep in mind. Should we really ban people for insulting Kim Jong Il's government?

[nacmacfeegle 0]

edited ........Billvon covered it.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

If insulting France were a bannable offense, 25% of the people here would be banned.

HAHA - your right.

There are times though when political discourse and critique of certain countries does deteriorate into the kind of vitriol which ought never be acceptable... for those occasions the rules should be flexible enough to punish those who have done something reprehensible.

I’ve seen a couple of such examples against various countries in the last week. Perhaps you're right that a firm rule is not necessary but on occasion I believe a response would be in order. But then… I don’t run this place .

[billvon 2,463]

>for those occasions the rules should be flexible enough to punish
>those who have done something reprehensible.

That's hard to do in a forum such as this. Flexibility as seen by one side is censorship as seen by the other.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>for those occasions the rules should be flexible enough to punish
>those who have done something reprehensible.

That's hard to do in a forum such as this. Flexibility as seen by one side is censorship as seen by the other.

The know it when I see it approach seems to have worked well since the reorg.

I can't take too much offense at the entire country being castigated - it certainly is funny to see someone railing about ignorance and then make such a sweeping generalization.

And I'm glad we can continue to mock the French! (Just so long as we don't put a trade ban on their wine)