Should Britan be armed?

[Paulipod 0]

Damn, I hate agreeing with PJ but a gun ban does only initially remove legal weapons

HOWEVER (you knew this had to come!)

A ban also, deters criminals owning a gun (5 year minimum term for possesion) and amnesties allow handover of illegal guns....

see Home Office figures below....

Our 2003 Gun Amnesty – Get Guns Off the Streets – was a great success.

Between 31 March and 30 April 2003, the amnesty encouraged people to hand in illegally held guns and ammunition at local police stations without being charged.

We also encouraged people to hand in any other unwanted guns.

A total of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition were handed in and are no longer at risk of falling in the hands of criminals.

This compares to 22,939 guns and 695,197 rounds of ammunition relinquished during the previous amnesty in June 1996.

The items included:

6,529 prohibited firearms (including 5,734 handguns)
10,513 shot guns
13,974 air weapons
9,480 imitations
3,412 assorted rifles and other guns.
In addition 7,093 other weapons were also handed in including knives, swords and crossbows.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"How does that make any sense?"
I did say it was tenuous, but hey, its good to see you have not given up on this yet. You're stoicism is admirable.
Point is,
4 million illegal guns pre ban.
3 million illegal guns post ban.

Voila, one million illegal guns less .

Not that I'd seriously use estimates and unverifiable data sources to try and make a serious 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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

One reason I don't really like unregulated private firearms ownership, is that the owners can be irresponsible with them. I don't doubt that our regulars here are responsible with their weapons, its just that not everybody is.

Here is a story of a ten year old boy who murdered his own father with his mothers handgun.
"US youngster 'shoots father dead'"
From Texas, earlier this year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3609598.stm

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

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 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.

Why on earth would handgun crime be up since 1996 at all, if you banned all handguns in 1997? Shouldn't the intervening seven years have been enough time to corral up all the errant handguns, especially if there were so few of them, as you and others have been claiming? (In contradiction of my posts that reports indicate 3-4 million illegal guns in the U.K.)

Here is a very interesting link. It's the United Nations International Crime Victims Survey. It's the famed one that reports crime against the person is WORSE IN ENGLAND, WALES AND AUSTRALIA THAN IT IS IN THE U.S.A.

Here is the link,
and here is some of the text, in case yer feelin' lazy tonight.

(To use the link to find this text, look near the top of the yellow box, where it says "2000 Survey" and click "full text in PDF." You will, in fact, get another screen that has the text in html before you'd have to click again to get the PDF.)

Quote

The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. This report deals with seventeen industrialised countries which took part in the 2000 ICVS.
The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime.

Overall victimisation

The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The countries fall into three bands.
]b]- Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
- 20%-24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France, and USA
- Under 20%: Finland, Catalonia (Spain), Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland.
For countries in previous sweeps of the ICVS, the present results generally mirror previous ones as regards relative rankings. In terms of the number of crimes experienced per 100 people (an incidence rate), the picture is slightly different. The USA fares relatively worse on incidence rates than on prevalence rates. In contrast, the position of Denmark and Canada slip down somewhat. Incidence rates are highest in England and Wales, Australia and the Netherlands.



Contact crime

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%). In Japan the risk of contact crime was especially low (0.4%).

Robbery

Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%). On average, just over a third of victims of robbery said the offender(s) carried a weapon of some sort - in most cases a knife. There was a higher than average use of weapons in the USA, Catalonia, Scotland, and Portugal. Although not very statistically robust, the data indicate that guns were used relatively more often in Catalonia and the USA.

Assaults and threats

Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults or threats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%). Risks were lowest in Japan, Portugal, (under 1%) and Catalonia (1.5%). Offenders were known in about half the incidents overall. Men were less likely to know offenders than women. Weapons (especially knifes) were said to have been used (if only as a threat) in just under a quarter of incidents.

Trends in crime

Generally speaking, the ICVS suggests that crime rose between 1988 and 1991, stabilised of fell in 1995, then fell back more in 1999. This is the dominant pattern in many individual countries.
The picture in North America differs from that in Europe. Crime levels are lower than in 1988. In the three European countries with four ICVS measures (England and Wales, Finland, and the Netherlands), crime levels are still higher than in 1988. Compared to 1991, risks also fell more in North America than in five of the seven European countries showing falls. Since 1995, there has been more consistent falls in property crime. Changes in violent crime are variable.

Okay, you all love the U.N. -- who's gonna argue with their study?

-Jeffrey

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

One reason I don't really like unregulated private firearms ownership, is that the owners can be irresponsible with them. I don't doubt that our regulars here are responsible with their weapons, its just that not everybody is.

Here is a story of a ten year old boy who murdered his own father with his mothers handgun.
"US youngster 'shoots father dead'"
From Texas, earlier this year.

U.S. accidental gun deaths at all-time low

"The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety."


According to every source I've found on the subject -- with the notable exception of anti-gun lobby sources -- accidental death due to gunshot in the U.S. has decreased in every year since statistics have been kept on the subject. Keep in mind that every single year, we add about 3-5 million new guns into private ownership. So even as the number of guns owned increases heavily, the deaths decline. Amazing, isn't it?

Here's another good link

"Child Gun Deaths Continue to Decline
Dateline: 07/27/00

A Health and Human Services report released on Monday, July 24, 2000, indicates the number of children and teens killed with guns in 1998 declined by 10 percent from 1997 and by 35 percent from 1994. The report shows 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms compared to 4,223 in 1997 and 5,833 in 1994.

The decrease as reported in, "Deaths: Final Data for 1998," prepared by the CDC also represents a decrease from 16 in 1994 to 10 in 1998, the number of children killed per day by gunfire."

Don't forget, though, that in trying to pump UP the number of "children" killed by gunfire (and we are not limited to "accidental deaths" in this category, either, I would remind you) the CDC defines "children" as up to 19 years old, or 25, depending on the study. Shit, if they're gonna be that dishonest about it, they could call a 75-year-old a "child," since he had to come out of someone's womb, after all!

-Jeffrey

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Why on earth would handgun crime be up since 1996 at all

Read my post. Try and remember some of my posts from the thread last time we discussed the topic. I’ve posted many times before about the influx of Yardi gangs since 1997 and the battles they have with each other and with Turkish heroin gangs. Add to them the influx of Eastern Europeans and you have a massive influx of gun culture – a culture that was not here before.

And if I don’t sound too much like an old codger – we now have the odd anomaly of pistols as fashion accessories; a phenomenon which is often attributed to the depiction of them in US gangsta’ rap videos and tracks.

Quote

who's gonna argue with their study?

Not me - I don't dispute the general content. I have not said that our overall risk of involvement in crime in general is less than in the US. I've tried to avoid direct comparisons unless drawn on the issue as I know it gets you Yanks so upset when you see your firearms murder rate next to ours.

The only points I've made about our general crime rate is that it's DOWN since an all time high just before we banned handguns, to an all time low this year. I didn't say it was lower than the US see - just lower than before we banned handguns.

Don't be mistaken that I am drawing a causal link between the reduction and the ban mind - I think it's far more complicated than that.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

U.S. accidental gun deaths... etc

You fail to address Nac's point - the article he linked to has nothing to do with accidental gun deaths.

At least have the decency to actually read the posts to which you are replying.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Damn, I hate agreeing with PJ but a gun ban does only initially remove legal weapons

HOWEVER (you knew this had to come!)

A ban also, deters criminals owning a gun (5 year minimum term for possesion) and amnesties allow handover of illegal guns....

And life in prison is the deterrent that keeps people from murdering others, right? So surely those five years scare the shit out of anyone considering packing heat!

Did you mean to be funny?

P.S. Gun "buybacks" and "turn-ins" are notoriously unsuccessful at getting crime guns off the streets. They attract granny who still has grampa's wartime .38 in the attic, and other rusty non-serviceable weapons. You can't point to a single successful gun turn-in program the world over. They fail everywhere to do much noticeable good. The guns turned in are junk -- and what makes you think a criminal who depends on his gun for his criminal enterprises will just hand that thing over?? It's totally counterintuitive to believe in these farces.

Quote

see Home Office figures below....

Our 2003 Gun Amnesty – Get Guns Off the Streets – was a great success.

Between 31 March and 30 April 2003, the amnesty encouraged people to hand in illegally held guns and ammunition at local police stations without being charged.

We also encouraged people to hand in any other unwanted guns.

A total of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition were handed in and are no longer at risk of falling in the hands of criminals.

This compares to 22,939 guns and 695,197 rounds of ammunition relinquished during the previous amnesty in June 1996.

The items included:

6,529 prohibited firearms (including 5,734 handguns)
10,513 shot guns
13,974 air weapons
9,480 imitations
3,412 assorted rifles and other guns.
In addition 7,093 other weapons were also handed in including knives, swords and crossbows.

With all these guns turned in WELL AFTER they became illegal, you still presume to argue that there are not illegal guns floating around England? Or do you really believe that after this amnesty turn-in, "the last of them are now in police custody" or something?

I'll never understand why it matters more to the police to get ONE gun from a criminal -- who may have three or four, anyway -- and give him amnesty while you destroy the gun (which he may have used to kill people!), than possibly catch him with the gun instead, link it to a crime, and possibly get him for murder! Think of all the guns that have been turned in for smelting, which may have been used to convict people of very serious crimes, but instead were traded for amnesty from the crimes!

Having a single-specimen gun is worth more to your society than charging a person with violent crimes -- and the criminal probably goes out and acquires another gun anyway, or maybe he just turned in the one he really did use, and kept the ones he had yet to use to shoot people. Dumb dumb dumb.

And I don't really believe that the program got that many guns turned in. That's anomalous. Every indicator I've ever seen shows that such turn-ins are pitifully small. Yours is probably citing guns turned in late by those who had them as licensed guns before, and who were never a threat to anybody with them.

-Jeffrey

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"How does that make any sense?"
I did say it was tenuous, but hey, its good to see you have not given up on this yet. You're stoicism is admirable.
Point is,
4 million illegal guns pre ban.
3 million illegal guns post ban.

Voila, one million illegal guns less .

Not that I'd seriously use estimates and unverifiable data sources to try and make a serious point.

Do you have anything -- anything at all -- that indicates that the authorities in Britain received ONE MILLION ILLEGAL guns since the ban?! (We can't count the legal ones turned in by those who had had them registered and properly owned them in accordance with the law.)

I did not mean to give the impression of "4 million guns pre-ban / 3 million guns post-ban" if that's how you saw it. It was more like, "Somewhere I saw an estimate of 4 million illegal guns in the U.K., but when I went looking for a citation, all I found (or the first one I found) was one that said '3 million illegal guns in the U.K.' "

It was not meant to show a 1 million gun decrease by any means!

But it doesp illustrate how easily you can be duped into accepting -- and then repeating -- erroneous data!

edit by the Python in me: "But it does mean that when he says a bed is two foot long, it is in fact sixty feet long..."

-Jeffrey

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Did you read it??? the kid didn't die, he shot his own father, on purpose, with his mother's handgun.
Not really an accident, but should it be murder....he was only 10 years old after all.

Good job in reducing accidental deaths though, especially those of the wee ones.
Also I don't think those two reports stack up though.....the numbers don't gel. 99 saw 834 deaths, previous year it was 3792, thats a huge chunk.

Oh what are "Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety"

Guns and ammo locked away separately feature in there at all?

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

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

Good job in reducing accidental deaths though, especially those of the wee ones.
Oh what are "Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety"

Guns and ammo locked away separately feature in there at all?

There never were "10 children a day" dying from gunfire. That's a bullshit statistic cooked up by Handgun Control Inc. by including "children" as old as TWENTY FIVE YEARS, to make the "problem" (which, as we said, has diminished each year since 1930) worse than it is. They never could even get their numbers straight -- sometimes it was 16, other times 13, other times 10, other times 8...

And if you actually went to the link I took the time to post, you'd see that near that quote about Jeff Cooper, there is a link to the rules. Try it. Burn a couple of calories clicking on it, maybe.

-Jeffrey

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

From the link I posted and you repeated.."And according to an estimate published in the Police Review there were then possibly as many as four million illegally held guns in the country"
This was referring to period around the time the Hungerford Hoplophile fucker was building an arsenal. Pre-ban era.

The next reference we saw to an estimate of the number of illegal handguns in circulation was post ban era, and it was 3 million.

But like I said, I'm not hanging my hat on these numbers.

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

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"There never were "10 children a day" dying from gunfire. That's a bullshit statistic cooked up by Handgun Control Inc."

Huh?
So what is it laddie, a bullshit statistic, or a good link?
Your words from a couple of posts up
"Here's another good link
Here's an extract from the GOOD LINK
"Child Gun Deaths Continue to Decline ..
blah blah...
""Each day, 10 children and teens are killed by firearms"

Still looking for the 4 rules for gun safety be right back.......
Edit>>>
Okay, they are not the rules for gun safety I've seen before, but they do have a nice picture of a gun, showing which part is the slide, the chamber, and the magazine. Handy!

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

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]

I dont even know where to start.... but here goes...

Do I think that all the guns have been handed over? No of course not, but I think alot have.

Is the serious criminal detered by any form of punishment for a crime? (ie they dont think they will get caught anyway!) I would bet some are..

If I were a mugger in the UK, and I thought that if I got caught carrying a gun would get 5 years I would probably think of my alternatives.

If I did have the intention to kill people, then no youre right... probably no deterent will help.

It probably is a sad fact it is still too easy to get a gun, but I put that down to the stupidity of some nations giving guns to anyone willing to wait a few days and can write their name.

Should we correct this problem by relaxing our laws? I think not, just tighten our control, increase our penalties and weed out the people that dont deserve to live in a safe environment.

Quote

And I don't really believe that the program got that many guns turned in

Well, instead of giving you government figures, I should maybe provide you what my mate at the pub said as my credible source.

FACT. I have seen tables full of handed-in weapons that quite frankly have never been legal in the UK.
And so did my mate from the pub if that helps.

For some reason, you have painted a picture in your head that crimes of the nature you encounter in the US / ie Gun robbery / Gun assaults / murder happen here too... well, they dont nearly quite as often as you think.

Sub 100 deaths each year, for our 55m+ population... hmm, how many ACCIDENTAL gun deaths did you say in the US? Over 800?

I dont need to say more.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[mr2mk1g 10]

I've been lazy about the issue up to this point, but seeing as it's becoming a bit of an issue I felt I ought to point it out.

The 4 million figure is far from authoritative. It came from pundits - not from within the industry. While considering the figures Home Affairs Select Committee were in 1996 provided a number of estimates.

They noted the 4 million figure and concluded that most experts considered it to be far too high. A further figure of 200,000 was provided by the police and was generally considered to be far more accurate although it was acknowledged that this figure itself could prove to be slightly low.

My point is – the 4 million figure branded about which PJ brilliantly sourced as “I read it somewhere once” is a) far from accurate and b) far from accepted. There are many other estimates – the most generally accepted being a figure somewhere slightly in excess of 200,000. The figure of 4 million is preferred by scare mongerers and tabloid newspaper headlines.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

They noted the 4 million figure and concluded that most experts considered it to be far too high. A further figure of 200,000 was provided by the police and was generally considered to be far more accurate although it was acknowledged that this figure itself could prove to be slightly low.

My point is – the 4 million figure branded about which PJ brilliantly sourced as “I read it somewhere once” is a) far from accurate and b) far from accepted. There are many other estimates – the most generally accepted being a figure somewhere slightly in excess of 200,000. The figure of 4 million is preferred by scare mongerers and tabloid newspaper headlines.

You got some means of establishing authoritatively that this 200,000 figure is "most generally accepted"?

On exactly whose behalf are you presuming to speak, regarding this general acceptance?

-Jeffrey

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

On exactly whose behalf are you presuming to speak

Lawyers. Got a problem with that?

And it was the conclusion of the Cullen Enquiry. Try reading it.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"On exactly whose behalf are you presuming to speak, regarding this general acceptance? "

Its just a fucking chat room, but for what its worth, he can speak for me, I'm off to lunch.

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

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

On exactly whose behalf are you presuming to speak

Lawyers. Got a problem with that?

And it was the conclusion of the Cullen Enquiry. Try reading it.

Nah! If something I read changed my mind and made me start agreeing with you, think of all the fun we wouldn't have!

Just like if you started reading the facts that the NRA presents, you'd agree with me and our fun would end.

-Jeffrey

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Nah! If something I read changed my mind and made me start agreeing with you, think of all the fun we wouldn't have!

Nothing quite like the wilfully ignorant hey.

Quote

Just like if you started reading the facts that the NRA presents, you'd agree with me

I have - they don't do too well with facts regarding UK gun crime. They might be able to present US figures in a nicely biased way which suits their position but that doesn't curry much favour with me in a discussion about the UK. The NRA is hardly what you'd call an independant party.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Nothing quite like the wilfully ignorant hey.

I deal with them all the time.

Quote

Quote

Just like if you started reading the facts that the NRA presents, you'd agree with me

I have - they don't do too well with facts regarding UK gun crime. They might be able to present US figures in a nicely biased way which suits their position...

Yeah... Like all those bullshit manufactured stories that can't be, like, easily verified with Google searches of the attributed newspaper articles, about people who used their guns to save the lives of themselves and/or their families... Nothin' but unverifiable pseudo-facts and lies from that NRA. Especially when they give the newspaper name and date of the story. Such lies!

-Jeffrey

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Never said they lie - just that they only present the info they want you to have. Official studdies and figures give you both the good and the bad.

And try to think how individual accounts are indicative of overall trends. Sure if you see a lot of them that might show you a trend... but when you only see the accounts they want you to see you only see the trend they want you to see.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Oh what are "Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety" [/reply

(1) Every gun is loaded.
I don't care if you just unloaded it, checked it, and put it down. It's still loaded.

(2) Never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy.

(3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

(4) Be sure your target and what's behind it.

Quote

10 kids a day

It's never been ten kids a day. That has always been a garbage statistic. If you use anything up to 17 years old, it's not even close to 3,650 a year. If you use only up to 14 or 15 year olds (the limit of children in my mind) then that number is a joke.

That number was reached by including suicides accidents and murders, and by using up to age 25. Suicides are tragic, but hardly count as "gun vioence." Going up to age 25 is the biggest sham. I do'nt have to tell you why that's ridiculous.

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

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

From the link I posted and you repeated.."And according to an estimate published in the Police Review there were then possibly as many as four million illegally held guns in the country"
This was referring to period around the time the Hungerford Hoplophile fucker was building an arsenal. Pre-ban era.

The next reference we saw to an estimate of the number of illegal handguns in circulation was post ban era, and it was 3 million.

But like I said, I'm not hanging my hat on these numbers.

But you certainly did when you wrote: "Voila, one million illegal guns less . "

If either number is remotely correct, you got a buttload of guns in a relatively small place. I'm not sure 200k is much better when most of your police are unarmed, and all your citizens, I mean subjects, are.

The advantage of a ban is it prevents criminals from having a record free friend be the keeper of weapons. But giving a 5 year sentence for having one accomplishes nothing more than our laws and punishments for criminals that own or attempt to purchase. (at least if it is enforced) It's especially ineffective if the reputation of the courts is that they will go easy and release early.