mr2mk1g 10 #201 October 26, 2004 QuoteThat's what they should have done with your 1997 law. Give it a finite period to demonstrate effectiveness, and if there doesn't seem to be any (and A CLIMBING GUN CRIME AND GUN MURDER RATE WOULD BE A SURE INDICATION OF A FAILURE) the law comes off the books. Hmm... would have been one idea... guess what - CRIME'S DOWN. Law stays. Cheers for the idea though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #202 October 26, 2004 QuoteGuns in the home were not a problem before the ban. No case needs to be made for why it was silly, pointless and stupid to take them away. Evidence presented to the Cullen Enquiry in 1996 stated that in 1994 there were 3,000 offences where a firearm was stolen from a private residence. Each of these offences may have involved the theft of more than one weapon. That was upwards of 3000 weapons per year going onto the blackmarket. That source is now gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #203 October 26, 2004 Quote Without denying that, the success of American action films abroad suggests that it's not merely us that are fascinated. And 007 is your baby. Quote Yes, and I like to watch Star Trek... it doesnt mean I should be allowed to start building my own rockets. Films, sure ... I like a good action flick.... Do I care if the weapon used was a mark4.5 with a dynoscopic sight and a easy touch recall? (forgive the innacurate gun speil) No.. I like a film that entertains, and dont style my life on John Wayne or 007, and am not even close to being upset I am not allowed to. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #204 October 26, 2004 And as for stats... here is a source http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #205 October 26, 2004 Quote Hmm... would have been one idea... guess what - CRIME'S DOWN. Law stays. Cheers for the idea though. Paulipod's given source shows a consistent increase of "gun crimes" from 1997/1998 to 2002/2003. But frankly I can't figure out this chart on: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm for England & Wales because it has 1997: 12410 1997/1998: 12805 ... 2002/2003: 24070 The two year groupings suggest the rate hasn't really changed, and is lower than the pre-1997 years, but that would mean that everyone was a good boy for 1998, commiting almost no crime, and then each year the rate increased back to where it started? Fishy stuff. Murders are worse: 1997: 59 1997/1998: 54. WTF? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #206 October 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteGuns in the home were not a problem before the ban. No case needs to be made for why it was silly, pointless and stupid to take them away. Evidence presented to the Cullen Enquiry in 1996 stated that in 1994 there were 3,000 offences where a firearm was stolen from a private residence. Each of these offences may have involved the theft of more than one weapon. That was upwards of 3000 weapons per year going onto the blackmarket. That source is now gone. Unless you're prepared to obliterate the 3 Million figure written about the black market size in 2001, 3k/yr is mere noise in the data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #207 October 26, 2004 The law changed after Dunblane, but was also influenced by Hungerford. "Do you, as a corrolary to that, state that prior to the ban in 1997 you were having a problem with gun crime due to private legal ownership?" The killings at Hungerford and Dunblane were comitted with legally held firearms so yes, prior to the ban we had two, albeit anomalous, incidents involving shocking murders and the use of legal firearms. It may have been a knee jerk reaction by the govt at the time do something, regardless of whether it was effective or not. There was a huge public outcry at the time. "Taking the guns away in the first place was the change in the status quo, and the decision never was rationalized, and still isn't being justified." Spilled milk. Fact is that we can't wind the clock back and undo the change. We don't have the same legislative structure you have, so saying that we can have laws on a time limited basis doesn't apply, although it is a good idea. "I never said that CCW would have saved this girl, or home ownership of firearms would have saved the girl." Yet you cited it as an example of gun crime, in a debate on whether we should change our current law. Why did you mention it at all? Nah enough, its just a distraction. "In every year since then, your gun crime has been increasing. YOU explain THAT. I'm listening." I don't have to explain the causality of crime or the make up of the victims perps etc, however its been done before in the past by MRM2 and Skyrad, look it up. Long story short its mostly in-fighting between gangs, and legal firearm ownership will have little impact upon it. "What I am advocating is a return to how things were before YOUR change." Which was gun ownership on a sporting basis, vermin control etc. Not for personal protection, not as a right, and certainly not as part of a militia. It required guns and ammo to be kept locked in separate 'gun safes'. Our previous legislation did not allow widespread firearm ownership for personal security purposes or CCW. A return to our previous status quo is not going to have a huge effect on gun crime, unless the legal gun owners break the law, which kinda defeats the purpose does it not?-------------------- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #208 October 26, 2004 Whatever the source (that was one I found with a quick search) The reason I showed it was to highlight that we do have a fairly small number of deaths each year from guns... circa 60s Whatever the reasoning for this, if it aint broke dont fix it! I doubt the figure would get better if anyone over here could buy a gun. Do we have more murders than the US? (ie with a knife or other) I have no stats... I would guess we dont.... I have lived in the US and the UK and wouldnt think that one society was much more violent than the other Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #209 October 26, 2004 "Unless you're prepared to obliterate the 3 Million figure written about the black market size in 2001, 3k/yr is mere noise in the data." According to one site I came across on a data mining trip, there were an estimated 4 million guns held illegally in this country in 1987. http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/hunger.htm#power So on the face of it the gun ban is taking guns out of circulation, but I reckon its a tenuous point.-------------------- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #210 October 26, 2004 Do we have more murders than the US? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap Much maligned source, (CIA, UN etc) but about 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK. If anyone has a better, more robust source, lets have 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #211 October 26, 2004 Quote "Do you, as a corrolary to that, state that prior to the ban in 1997 you were having a problem with gun crime due to private legal ownership?" I think that Dunblane and Hungerford highlighted the people who had a gun fascination and a large collection combined with a snapped pshyci are a bad combination! Hence I support licenced clubs but not ownership of guns per-se (ie a only use club issued weapons!) or ... a simple licence test for individuals.... Q. Do you want a gun? A. YES? You cant have one. A. NO? No problem... licence granted Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #212 October 26, 2004 I agree with PJ on this one. Besides which many gun clubs don't/didn't have secure premisis with a range but would use a shared range and maybe even meet away from the range. On top of which all this idea would achive is making a lovely target for criminals wanting to illegaly procure firearms by having alot of weapons in one place.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #213 October 26, 2004 If they didnt have secure premises... they shouldnt have a licence... Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #214 October 26, 2004 You can't have it both ways. We keep getting told on here that gun ownership is linked to the reduction of crime. We're told if we had guns people wouldn't get burgled as they'd be affraid of being shot. We wouldn't get mugged as we could shoot them. We wouldn't have our cars nicked as we could shoot them as they tried to hotwire it. Now I show statistics which indicate that since just before we banned handguns our overall crime rate is much much lower, and all kinds of different crimes have been slashed. Yet people still want to argue that the gun legislation has caused crime to increase and decide not to rely on figures for overall crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #215 October 26, 2004 Quote or ... a simple licence test for individuals.... Q. Do you want a gun? A. YES? You cant have one. A. NO? No problem... licence granted What would be required for such a licence? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Paulipod 0 #216 October 26, 2004 QuoteQuote or ... a simple licence test for individuals.... Q. Do you want a gun? A. YES? You cant have one. A. NO? No problem... licence granted What would be required for such a licence? Sorry? Dont follow what you mean I was trying to say.. if people want a gun they are not the right people to give them to.. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #217 October 26, 2004 To add to the debate..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #218 October 26, 2004 I agree with pretty much all of that. Recorded crime is up. British Crime Survey shows it's down significantly. What it leaves out is all the changes in the way the crime is recorded. In 97 Blair came to power on the "tough on crime" spin he used. One of the first things his govt. did was completely overhaul the way we collect and record our crime figures. Recorded crime figures simply cannot be compared to those of a few years ago. There are even inaccuracies introduced year on year by annual changes in record keeping. The British Crime Survey has not changed in this way. That is why it shows a decrease and it is why those in the industry rely more heavily on it than on any other source. Newspapers and Shadow Home Secretaries like to rely on recorded crime as it makes good headlines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #219 October 26, 2004 Hey......Come on! QuoteSince just before we banned handguns overall crime has FALLEN by 39%! Since just before we banned handguns vehicle crime and burglary has been CUT IN HALF! Since just before we banned handguns violent crime has FALLEN by over 33%! Since just before we banned handguns the risk of being involved in crime has FALLEN from 40% to 26% - the lowest level since our records began nearly 25 years ago! As you pointed out the figure above are from BEFORE the ban and surely you are not trying to claim that these drops are due to the handgun ban are you? Without taking into account the increse in the numbers of Police officers in England and Wales, the founding of NCIS, and the involvment of the Security Service in the fight against organised crime. Not to mention the massive increase in CCTV surviellance and the introduction of ASBOs to name only a few possible influencing factors.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #220 October 26, 2004 No I'm not claiming the ban caused those figures. I'm heading off the suggestion that it increased crime. If crime was higher before than it is now the ban itself cannot have increased crime as some people are claiming. What caused those decreases are likely to be a large number of different factors - possably including the removal of handguns, possably not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #221 October 26, 2004 Not at all, as the firearms were not kept on the premises but at the home of the firearm owner. For full bore weapons the ranges are outside! How could an outdoor range in the middle of nowhere be the place to store weapons?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #222 October 26, 2004 An interesting article ***http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...04/10/22/ixhome.html***When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #223 October 26, 2004 Do you have any figures on the use of handguns before the ban and since the ban?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #224 October 26, 2004 QuoteYou can't have it both ways. We keep getting told on here that gun ownership is linked to the reduction of crime. We're told if we had guns people wouldn't get burgled as they'd be affraid of being shot. We wouldn't get mugged as we could shoot them. We wouldn't have our cars nicked as we could shoot them as they tried to hotwire it. Now I show statistics which indicate that since just before we banned handguns our overall crime rate is much much lower, and all kinds of different crimes have been slashed. Yet people still want to argue that the gun legislation has caused crime to increase and decide not to rely on figures for overall crime. I'm not sure how I'm having it both ways. I am not PJ. If you want to have a serious discussion, you should keep that in mind. You have not produced anything - you said "look it up." Government producted statistics tend to be more accurate than those from advocates, but there is a serious problem with how the data is collected. Reagan redefined unemployment in the US to not include people who were unable to find work in 26 weeks. He would say they weren't really trying. Crime statistics can similarly be redefined, making trends harder to read. Newspapers are the worst - they cite statistics with none of the footnotes definitions or process. Paulipod's citation, otoh, was either crap accounting, or contradictory to your claim. It showed a consistent rising line that would match what the NRA claims. The absolute numbers sound lovely, but the trend is not, even though I agree that a 100% increase of 5% of the US crime level would still be nicer than a 30% decrease here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #225 October 26, 2004 I don't have those figures. The 96 report didn't particularise handguns unfortunately. I understand that it has risen. Pundits point to the rise of, handguns as fashion accessories, Turkish heroin dealers, Yardi gangs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 9 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Paulipod 0 #204 October 26, 2004 And as for stats... here is a source http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #205 October 26, 2004 Quote Hmm... would have been one idea... guess what - CRIME'S DOWN. Law stays. Cheers for the idea though. Paulipod's given source shows a consistent increase of "gun crimes" from 1997/1998 to 2002/2003. But frankly I can't figure out this chart on: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm for England & Wales because it has 1997: 12410 1997/1998: 12805 ... 2002/2003: 24070 The two year groupings suggest the rate hasn't really changed, and is lower than the pre-1997 years, but that would mean that everyone was a good boy for 1998, commiting almost no crime, and then each year the rate increased back to where it started? Fishy stuff. Murders are worse: 1997: 59 1997/1998: 54. WTF? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #206 October 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteGuns in the home were not a problem before the ban. No case needs to be made for why it was silly, pointless and stupid to take them away. Evidence presented to the Cullen Enquiry in 1996 stated that in 1994 there were 3,000 offences where a firearm was stolen from a private residence. Each of these offences may have involved the theft of more than one weapon. That was upwards of 3000 weapons per year going onto the blackmarket. That source is now gone. Unless you're prepared to obliterate the 3 Million figure written about the black market size in 2001, 3k/yr is mere noise in the data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #207 October 26, 2004 The law changed after Dunblane, but was also influenced by Hungerford. "Do you, as a corrolary to that, state that prior to the ban in 1997 you were having a problem with gun crime due to private legal ownership?" The killings at Hungerford and Dunblane were comitted with legally held firearms so yes, prior to the ban we had two, albeit anomalous, incidents involving shocking murders and the use of legal firearms. It may have been a knee jerk reaction by the govt at the time do something, regardless of whether it was effective or not. There was a huge public outcry at the time. "Taking the guns away in the first place was the change in the status quo, and the decision never was rationalized, and still isn't being justified." Spilled milk. Fact is that we can't wind the clock back and undo the change. We don't have the same legislative structure you have, so saying that we can have laws on a time limited basis doesn't apply, although it is a good idea. "I never said that CCW would have saved this girl, or home ownership of firearms would have saved the girl." Yet you cited it as an example of gun crime, in a debate on whether we should change our current law. Why did you mention it at all? Nah enough, its just a distraction. "In every year since then, your gun crime has been increasing. YOU explain THAT. I'm listening." I don't have to explain the causality of crime or the make up of the victims perps etc, however its been done before in the past by MRM2 and Skyrad, look it up. Long story short its mostly in-fighting between gangs, and legal firearm ownership will have little impact upon it. "What I am advocating is a return to how things were before YOUR change." Which was gun ownership on a sporting basis, vermin control etc. Not for personal protection, not as a right, and certainly not as part of a militia. It required guns and ammo to be kept locked in separate 'gun safes'. Our previous legislation did not allow widespread firearm ownership for personal security purposes or CCW. A return to our previous status quo is not going to have a huge effect on gun crime, unless the legal gun owners break the law, which kinda defeats the purpose does it not?-------------------- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #208 October 26, 2004 Whatever the source (that was one I found with a quick search) The reason I showed it was to highlight that we do have a fairly small number of deaths each year from guns... circa 60s Whatever the reasoning for this, if it aint broke dont fix it! I doubt the figure would get better if anyone over here could buy a gun. Do we have more murders than the US? (ie with a knife or other) I have no stats... I would guess we dont.... I have lived in the US and the UK and wouldnt think that one society was much more violent than the other Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #209 October 26, 2004 "Unless you're prepared to obliterate the 3 Million figure written about the black market size in 2001, 3k/yr is mere noise in the data." According to one site I came across on a data mining trip, there were an estimated 4 million guns held illegally in this country in 1987. http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/hunger.htm#power So on the face of it the gun ban is taking guns out of circulation, but I reckon its a tenuous point.-------------------- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #210 October 26, 2004 Do we have more murders than the US? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap Much maligned source, (CIA, UN etc) but about 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK. If anyone has a better, more robust source, lets have 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #211 October 26, 2004 Quote "Do you, as a corrolary to that, state that prior to the ban in 1997 you were having a problem with gun crime due to private legal ownership?" I think that Dunblane and Hungerford highlighted the people who had a gun fascination and a large collection combined with a snapped pshyci are a bad combination! Hence I support licenced clubs but not ownership of guns per-se (ie a only use club issued weapons!) or ... a simple licence test for individuals.... Q. Do you want a gun? A. YES? You cant have one. A. NO? No problem... licence granted Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #212 October 26, 2004 I agree with PJ on this one. Besides which many gun clubs don't/didn't have secure premisis with a range but would use a shared range and maybe even meet away from the range. On top of which all this idea would achive is making a lovely target for criminals wanting to illegaly procure firearms by having alot of weapons in one place.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #213 October 26, 2004 If they didnt have secure premises... they shouldnt have a licence... Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #214 October 26, 2004 You can't have it both ways. We keep getting told on here that gun ownership is linked to the reduction of crime. We're told if we had guns people wouldn't get burgled as they'd be affraid of being shot. We wouldn't get mugged as we could shoot them. We wouldn't have our cars nicked as we could shoot them as they tried to hotwire it. Now I show statistics which indicate that since just before we banned handguns our overall crime rate is much much lower, and all kinds of different crimes have been slashed. Yet people still want to argue that the gun legislation has caused crime to increase and decide not to rely on figures for overall crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #215 October 26, 2004 Quote or ... a simple licence test for individuals.... Q. Do you want a gun? A. YES? You cant have one. A. NO? No problem... licence granted What would be required for such a licence? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #216 October 26, 2004 QuoteQuote or ... a simple licence test for individuals.... Q. Do you want a gun? A. YES? You cant have one. A. NO? No problem... licence granted What would be required for such a licence? Sorry? Dont follow what you mean I was trying to say.. if people want a gun they are not the right people to give them to.. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #217 October 26, 2004 To add to the debate..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/22/ncrime22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixhome.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #218 October 26, 2004 I agree with pretty much all of that. Recorded crime is up. British Crime Survey shows it's down significantly. What it leaves out is all the changes in the way the crime is recorded. In 97 Blair came to power on the "tough on crime" spin he used. One of the first things his govt. did was completely overhaul the way we collect and record our crime figures. Recorded crime figures simply cannot be compared to those of a few years ago. There are even inaccuracies introduced year on year by annual changes in record keeping. The British Crime Survey has not changed in this way. That is why it shows a decrease and it is why those in the industry rely more heavily on it than on any other source. Newspapers and Shadow Home Secretaries like to rely on recorded crime as it makes good headlines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #219 October 26, 2004 Hey......Come on! QuoteSince just before we banned handguns overall crime has FALLEN by 39%! Since just before we banned handguns vehicle crime and burglary has been CUT IN HALF! Since just before we banned handguns violent crime has FALLEN by over 33%! Since just before we banned handguns the risk of being involved in crime has FALLEN from 40% to 26% - the lowest level since our records began nearly 25 years ago! As you pointed out the figure above are from BEFORE the ban and surely you are not trying to claim that these drops are due to the handgun ban are you? Without taking into account the increse in the numbers of Police officers in England and Wales, the founding of NCIS, and the involvment of the Security Service in the fight against organised crime. Not to mention the massive increase in CCTV surviellance and the introduction of ASBOs to name only a few possible influencing factors.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #220 October 26, 2004 No I'm not claiming the ban caused those figures. I'm heading off the suggestion that it increased crime. If crime was higher before than it is now the ban itself cannot have increased crime as some people are claiming. What caused those decreases are likely to be a large number of different factors - possably including the removal of handguns, possably not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #221 October 26, 2004 Not at all, as the firearms were not kept on the premises but at the home of the firearm owner. For full bore weapons the ranges are outside! How could an outdoor range in the middle of nowhere be the place to store weapons?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #222 October 26, 2004 An interesting article ***http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...04/10/22/ixhome.html***When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #223 October 26, 2004 Do you have any figures on the use of handguns before the ban and since the ban?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #224 October 26, 2004 QuoteYou can't have it both ways. We keep getting told on here that gun ownership is linked to the reduction of crime. We're told if we had guns people wouldn't get burgled as they'd be affraid of being shot. We wouldn't get mugged as we could shoot them. We wouldn't have our cars nicked as we could shoot them as they tried to hotwire it. Now I show statistics which indicate that since just before we banned handguns our overall crime rate is much much lower, and all kinds of different crimes have been slashed. Yet people still want to argue that the gun legislation has caused crime to increase and decide not to rely on figures for overall crime. I'm not sure how I'm having it both ways. I am not PJ. If you want to have a serious discussion, you should keep that in mind. You have not produced anything - you said "look it up." Government producted statistics tend to be more accurate than those from advocates, but there is a serious problem with how the data is collected. Reagan redefined unemployment in the US to not include people who were unable to find work in 26 weeks. He would say they weren't really trying. Crime statistics can similarly be redefined, making trends harder to read. Newspapers are the worst - they cite statistics with none of the footnotes definitions or process. Paulipod's citation, otoh, was either crap accounting, or contradictory to your claim. It showed a consistent rising line that would match what the NRA claims. The absolute numbers sound lovely, but the trend is not, even though I agree that a 100% increase of 5% of the US crime level would still be nicer than a 30% decrease here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #225 October 26, 2004 I don't have those figures. The 96 report didn't particularise handguns unfortunately. I understand that it has risen. Pundits point to the rise of, handguns as fashion accessories, Turkish heroin dealers, Yardi gangs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
