Should Britan be armed?

[mr2mk1g 10]

True, you're not PJ. I guess I used "you" to mean "people who argue we should change our laws back to the pre 97 state".

As for looking things up - how hard is it to type "british crime survey 2004" into Google? I'm not here to hold PJ's hand.

The BCS doesn't have the problem of completely Government produced figures - their reporting is essentially unchanged since for more than 20 years. Any changes are accounted for in their report.

That's why they're a more reliable source when comparing trends.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As for looking things up - how hard is it to type "british crime survey 2004" into Google? I'm not here to hold PJ's hand.

Not good enough. Doesn't ensure that everyone concerned is reading the same document. Or makes them waste time just confirming that they are. Much easier for people citing to actually indicate where they read the document, if available in an electronic form. If it's trivial to find, it's trivial for you to list it.

Quote

The BCS doesn't have the problem of completely Government produced figures - their reporting is essentially unchanged since for more than 20 years. Any changes are accounted for in their report.

That's why they're a more reliable source when comparing trends.

Maybe. Doesn't seem like that's accepted as gospel by opposing politicians though. It may be as simple as reporting rates are higher now, or it may indicate a problem with the survey.

Here the pollsters for the election don't know what to do about the increasing number of people without land lines to call. It has some effect on the results - likely undercounts the 20-34yos that are more likely to vote than the rest of their cohort.

[mr2mk1g 10]

If someone hasn't got the intelligence to be able to figure out what report they’re reading they have no real business posting in this thread. I am not here to hold people's hands.

[Skyrad 0]

Looks like we in the UK DO have the right to defend ourselves in our own homes after all, could it be that mr2mk1g was right and you were wrong after all?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041026/344/f5apu.html

Tuesday October 26, 10:37 AM




Judge backs farmer who shot burglar

Victim support groups have called for clarification of the law after a burglar shot during a raid on a farmhouse was jailed for seven years while the farmer who fired at him was backed by a judge.

Derby Crown Court heard how John Rae, 22, had targeted 73-year-old Kenneth Faulkner's isolated home three times last year before the pensioner hit back.

Mr Faulkner's treatment contrasted with the prosecution of Tony Martin, who was jailed for the manslaughter of a burglar at his isolated Norfolk farmhouse seven years ago.

Mr Martin served two-thirds of his five-year sentence for killing 16-year-old Fred Barras before being freed in July last year.

His conviction provoked a tide of public sympathy and his supporters said the 58-year-old should not have been jailed for protecting his property.

Victim support organisations called for clearer guidelines for householders on what constitutes "reasonable force" when protecting their homes against intruders.

Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, backed Mr Faulkner.

He said: "The law does not need changing, it just needs to be explained in layman's terms to the public about what reasonable force can they use to protect themselves, their families and their homes.

"Every householder has the right to protect themselves and their property and the law says that they can use what force they believe is necessary.

"The law is on the side of the householder, not the criminal."

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If someone hasn't got the intelligence to be able to figure out what report they’re reading they have no real business posting in this thread. I am not here to hold people's hands.

No, the problem is figuring out what report *you're* reading, not which one I am. Are you reading a full abstract, the summary, or a highly partisan misreporting? It's a lot easier to bullshit when you don't cite. And then backpedal when caught.

Regarding the BCS- two thoughts.
1- It's strikes me as a bit fuzzy how numbers are downsized by values of 10-50% to "correct" the results.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/comparingbcs.pdf

2- This quote from the BBC:
"The British Crime Survey (BCS) is compiled each year from interviews with 37,000 householders about their experience of illegality.

It does not routinely cover drug offences, sexual assaults, murders, fraud or crimes against under-16s."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3732244.stm

In a discussion that has centered around murder and gang violence, or self defense, this survey thus seems a bit out of place.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I have continually cited my figures here. They are from either the BCS, the US equivalent or from UK reported crime figures. There should have been no difficulty for anyone here to go back to the sources I quoted.

I'm not quoting from abstracts or misreported nonsense from pressure groups. The document I have before me is this one: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004l.pdf It is compiled by the Home Office from both the BCS and reported crime figures. It is the most reliable source available. There's no bullshit - just Home Office figures.

Now let go of the apron strings.

[dingley 0]

Okay, I'd like to clear the air.

Peacefull Jeffrey...I apologise. You're, right, under the rules of the forum, I should be banned. In my defence, I was replying after having read your demolition of Britain and its laws. As someone with an impressive mastery of the language you're very carefull, but let's not pretend that you don't use personal insults, however veiled. Talking to people like schoolchildren, and coming on like the only authority on this subject is provocative and incendiary. Don't get so upset about people knowing little about guns. I don't need to know what type of peas they fire to be against their widespread ownership.

Having said that, my apology still stands. Your writing often keeps this thread going, for various reasons. On a lighter note, the comment about still drinking from lead goblets was very funny.

Skyrad - I don't really want anyone banned. I sympathise with the moderators, especially when it comes to national insults. What I wrote made me look like a ranting nationalist, which I'm not. We don't do patriotism like the Americans, which I feel is a good thing, as it can border on nationalism and, as you stated, xenophoia. I have too many connections with America, both professional and familial, to write it off. It may be a shock to some, but we all like our own countries best, and may well respond to attacks. Americans travelling, and taking in other cultures, is obviously a good thing (that applies to all nationalities). I, too, happily socialise with people whose beliefs make me sweat.

So, the gun debate. I can't imagine anyone anti or pro-gun having their opinions changed by reading any of this. What's frustrating is the amount of ducking and diving in the face of facts, and the constant shifting of emphasis when the contributor doesn't have an answer to them. The defence that accurate shooting is difficult, and that most shots miss was, I think, particularly specious reasoning.

Someone mentioned the British Crime Survey, amongst other statistics. I think that this survey, in particular, illustrates that the perception of crime is just as important as the reality. It's probably safe to make the generalisation that the British are not as scared of being attacked as Americans are. Fear seems rife: fear of felons, of robbers, of foreign cultures, even fear of their own government. All of these are used to justify arming themselves to the teeth.

I could be shot, but don't think I will be. I certainly don't want to have to carry a heavy gun around, and hope that I can 'draw' quicker than the guy attacking me. I don't think that an 'armed society is a polite society'. I think that it's a terrfied, paranoid and insecure one. Of course I'd be polite to an armed person, because I'd be praying that I lived long enough to report them to the Police.

Knives - you can't ban knives because, yes, they're a tool. However, why would a young (or not so young) man or woman going to a pub require a blade? That's pretty clear cut (no pun intended), and I'd like to see them taken away in those situations. Kids in gangs do not 'need' knives. Suggesting that people need guns to protect themselves against people with knives is like saying people should be issued machine guns in neighbourhoods with lots of pistols. It could go on and on.

I won't be contributing to the scientific and legal arguments, because there are people far better qualified than me (mr2mk1g, I bow to your expertise and patience). I just don't ever want to see people owning guns in my country without a reason beyond personal protection, and everything else is just detail.

Another detail...PJ - Olympians having to train abroad - I think I agree with you on that one. The lack of outrage about this over here perhaps shows, once again, our cultural differences. I was horrified when my less-than-sporty son took up target shooting as a hobby. I didn't stop him, and he lost interest, but I found it hard to accept as a sport. Before anyone mentions it, of course skydiving is dangerous, but parachutes were not designed to kill.

PJ - one more thing. You used the idea that those suggesting restrictions on gun ownership were implying that you're a danger to the public, simply because you carry (sorry, I can't be bothered with cutting and pasting, but I'm sure you said it). I don't, for one minute, think that you'd use a gun without serious consideration. I do know, however, that there are plenty of scumbags over here who would gladly swap their knives for firearms, and I'm glad that it's difficult for them to get hold of them. More guns mean more shootings, and far more deaths, as your crime statistics show.

I'll leave it at that, and will continue to read all your comments with interest.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

How do your current figures stack up against the figures you amassed before your 1997 gun ban? They're HIGHER

No they're not - see above.

Go read some actual reports yourself instead of simply blindly swallowing the propaganda your gun mag's feed you.

When the gun mags link to the BBC website and the Guardian and others, news websites, that's propaganda?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Whoa whoa whoa, what the f*ck does arming "everyone, including every single person with criminal intent" have to do with our discussion?

The three options on this poll which are next in popularity to keeping everything the same are for people to be armed and carry the weapon.

If you allow people to arm themselves you also arm people who have no criminal record but have criminal intent.

That is the same risk you take with giving people the freedom to buy gasoline and matches; automobiles; kitchen or hunting knives; baseball bats; chainsaws...

But you single out guns, which a person could very easily be purchasing for completely lawful purposes (and with background checks, that is much more able to be surmised, and still no one does background checks of a person's driver's license or criminal history when they sell him a car, a knife, or gasoline)

Your line of argument treats people as though they were children who had misbehaved. Because a few were bad, no one gets a snack. Because a minute fraction of the gun-owning public commits crimes with them, no one can have them. (Even in the U.S., it is a minute fraction of the gun owners who are ever a problem, even in the course of their entire lives.) You advocate prohibition of a useful item based strictly on the near-anomalous use of that item for evil. I think that's wrong.

Quote

Do you have a magic mind machine which can tell which people are going to commit a crime at some time in the future? Are you able to exclude them from owning a gun on that basis?

So your position, I take it, is, "If I can't be 100% sure you won't use X for criminal purposes, I won't sell you X. Period. Ever." That is the most specious reasoning I've ever heard. And it is exactly what your government has enshrined in law.

Quote

In the absence of such a magic mind reading machine you end up licensing people to carry who have criminal intent or maybe even have committed crimes but have yet to be caught.

You do the same with a 4,500 lb. automobile. And you do the same with gasoline and matches. And those things are used to kill more people each year than guns are.

Quote

That’s what it has to do with the argument. You provide a licence and unsavoury people will obtain that licence as it’s far from easy to tell who is an unsavoury person.

I find this amazing. Now, it's not enough that gun owners have to be vetted, fingerprinted, and undergo background checks (all of those things done to me, even here in "gun-happy" Florida): what you really want is some sort of mind-reading to assure that a person doesn't have any criminal potential whatsoever -- and nothing will satisfy you that a person is properly vetted to own a gun, short of that. So since your criterion is impossible to achieve, no one should get to have a gun.

That means you think the background check process here in the states is worthless and far short of what should be done (which of course is the impossible "mind scan" of which you speak).

Incredible.

Quote

Wow betide anyone who prevents “Bob” from owning a dozen hand guns when he’s not ever been convicted of something – it’s his right after all. Every criminal has to commit his FIRST offence – till he’s caught for that he’s free to own right?

And every rapist has to commit his first rape; every arsonist his first arson; every stabber his first stabbing; every bludgeoner his first bludgeoning; every vehicular homicider his first vehicular homicide...

Yet ALL of these people, you don't propose vetting before they can have their penises; matches; knives; baseball bats; automobiles... The ONLY thing you think is so bad for people to have... is guns.

Quote

Quote

And I doubt that 68 is all that were killed with firearms in your whole country in one year. Where's a link to that statistic?

You better believe it buddy. That’s right – our “rampant” gun crime means we had 68 people IN TOTAL murdered in this country in the last year. Guess what dude... that figure's DOWN!

As for a link, I don’t have one. I have the actual report sat on my desk. It’s the British Crime Survey 2004 – published last week. It’s one of the reports that started this thread Jeffrey; DO pay attention.

Well, I'm afraid I'm going to cop out, here. I don't have an actual study on my desk; I have relied on reports of reports, that I've read in various places. YES, that includes articles on the crime rate in U.K. that appear in the NRA magazine, which I give full faith and credit as being factual and if not unbiased, at least truthful. (This is absolutely 180º from what the anti-gun information sources manage to be.) My cop-out is that I am going to entreat JohnRich to trot out statistics that I am certain he must have that refute your claims that crime in U.K. has fallen across the board.

I mean really: you not only have made the claim that gun crime and violent crime have not gone up in U.K., you've presented statistics that claim that everything's gone down, and this flies in the face of all kinds of published stories on BBCnews and elsewhere that crime is going crazy and making people nervous all over Britain! So it seems like you're making such grandiose claims that you may have gotten carried away with yourself, perhaps exaggerating things -- or maybe just citing a study that isn't worth its salt. I don't know the origin of this survey you cite.

So JohnRich, please, if you're reading this, help out and find the study or press release or whatever that shows the crime in England increasing. I'm just no good with finding that stuff around the internet. Thanks.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

you've presented statistics that claim that everything's gone down

No, not everything's gone down - I have not stated so. But I have not posted anything that is incorrect or without a clear reference. Each of those references is to an official Home Office document or study.

Face it - our "failing" laws allowed 68 firearms murders this last year. Each one is one too many - that's why we're never going to convince politicians to license handguns again.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"we're never going to convince politicians to license handguns again."

Is everybody listening?

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

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

Is everybody listening?

You mean is anybody listening?

[nacmacfeegle 0]

The important folks obviously are.

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

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

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

But you single out guns, which a person could very easily be purchasing for completely lawful purposes

ok, so if we take sport out of the equation (becuase people could use a club owned gun that is chained to a bench - you get the idea) and what other reason is there to have a gun than to shoot people or threaten to shoot people?

You keep spouting on about cars and knives and bats - Get a grip, a rock could be used to kill someone - yes we cant ban them all.... WE CAN AND HAVE BANNED GUNS!

And guess what, not too many people are missing them.

We single out guns, becuase (barring sport) there is only violent acts they exist for, albeit you may argue defensive.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Ah, you meant to respond to PJ didn't you?

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

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

[Paulipod 0]

sorted lol

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[nacmacfeegle 0]

What a mistake to make.

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

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Am I likely to be robbed at gunpoint? Not really but even if I were.. I give the money and let the police dis-arm them.

So you're pretty much depending on the good will of a guy that held a gun to your head for money. That is a major cultural difference across the ocean.

Quote

Yes, and the Florida newspapers are abuzz about the murder, in Mexico, of a 16-year-old girl and a 20-something man. The two were traveling with another woman who was pregnant. The pregnant woman's life was spared because the killers couldn't bring themselves to kill her in her delicate condition.

ALL of them begged for their lives. Didn't help the 16-year-old girl, or the guy. Um, dare I say, "That's what you get when you beg the people who are robbing you at gunpoint to be merciful people!"

Here's text from a story on sun-sentinel.com, which requires free registration:

Quote

The body of murdered 16-year-old Ashley Linn Dininger was released to a Mexican funeral home on Sunday, officials said.

Few details were available Monday about the investigation into Ashley's murder, and that of 22-year-old Reynaldo Valdez, of Houston, in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero on Thursday night.

Ashley was traveling on a remote country road with Valdez and Vanessa Burgos, 22, of Lantana, when they were abducted by a group of armed men. Ashley and Valdez were shot to death, and Burgos reportedly was spared because she was pregnant.

The New York Times reported the four men arrested were Francisco Velazquez Paredes, 58; Reynaldo Hernandez Ramirez, 38; Isidro Diaz Pineda, 29; and David Bernal Cordero, 37. They are all from Tierra Caliente, the Times said.

Burgos told her mother, Norma Irizarry, that Ashley begged for her life on the side of the road before her captors shot her in the head.

'Nuff said about the reliability of begging for one's life. If it doesn't work for an attractive 16-year-old girl, it's gonna work for a 30-something dude?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

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.

Yes, replaced by former Soviet bloc countries with a more-than-adequate supply of black-market Makarov pistols and Kalishnikov rifles. You're all much better off, now.

I'm assuming that they smuggle the guns into the country inside the bales of marijuana.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

'Nuff said about the reliability of begging for one's life. If it doesn't work for an attractive 16-year-old girl, it's gonna work for a 30-something dude?

Ok, firstly... let me clarify, I am a pretty damn cute 30-something Dude - dont underestimate my begging-appeal

But in repsonse... let me just go back through our media reports... and find the last person in the UK that was robbed at gunpoint and killed....

hmmm.... flick.... flick.... hmmm.....

I am sure there are lots... just with such an abbundance I dont know which one to pick from.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

And as for stats... here is a source

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Oh, geez, would you make it a damned clicky?! It's not so hard!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"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.

How does that make any sense? The gun ban, by its nature, took the guns away from those who previously had registered them -- strictly speaking, the only guns it had the power to take away were the legal ones. Illegal ones, unregistered to their "owners" with the government, could not be accounted for, and by logic are probably still out there. Modern manufactured guns (shit, even 19th century guns!) have a useful life of well over a hundred years, so you can forget about the hope that maybe they're not serviceable before long.

All I'm trying to get you to accept and acknowledge is the fact that England is not some anomalous place where the typical social laws that give rise to black markets in desired goods or services do not apply. You have criminals. Criminal trade is expedited with guns. Your criminals will get guns. They can start with the 4 million illegal ones that were in your country ca. 1987.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Could a 16 yo girl have legally carried a gun?

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

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

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.

I hate to be the fly in your ointment, but YOU YOURSELF posted this:

Quote

We had 68 firearms murders IN TOTAL this last year!
That’s 15% DOWN on the previous year!
Armed robbery with a firearm is DOWN 13% from the previous year!
There were 7% FEWER offences involving a handgun than the previous year!
ONLY 0.4% of offences against the person involve the use of a firearm!
Since 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!

But now you're admitting to handgun crime being UP...

A moment ago you were citing this crime survey and defending it as a more accurate way of reporting than the others, and yet here you are conceding a point that is contradicted by the source data you provided.

Odd.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

It's not at all odd darling - actually read the figures and you will see there is no contradiction.

I said that robbery with a firearm and offences involving a handgun are DOWN since 2003. It is - see the reports.

I then said that handgun crime is up since 1996.

Do you understand that there is a slight difference between the year 1996 and the year 2003?

Is it really that difficult to comprehend that whilst I understand that handgun crime in general since 1996 is up (though I can produce no firm figures to that effect) the recent trend shows both robbery with a firearm and offences involving handguns to be falling over the more recent past.

They're two different statistics dear - they show different things. They're not supposed to be the same or they would have the same years by them see. That's what we call "different" not a "contradiction".