Ron 7
Recommended Posts
sfc 0
QuoteQuoteIn general people were not armed before the ban, I lived there for over 30 years and never knew anyone that kept a loaded gun by their bed, I hardly knew anyone with a gun period, if they did it was kept in a secure location unloaded, after the gun ban they are still not armed I fail to see how this could affect the criminals attitude to attacking someone.
Your personal feelings do not count...no offense. I know PLENTY of people that have guns...And not one of them has ever killed anyone, much less gone postal as you like to say.
The affect is simple; if a criminal knows that there is no chance of a guy having a gun he will be more agressive.
These are not personal opinions, there was no concealed carry allowed before the ban, the ban did not change this. The only thing that changed is that handguns and automatics are no longer locked away in a few homes in the UK. People are no less likely to have a gun for self defense than before the ban. The only people carrying guns are criminals, both before and after the ban. You have presented no evidence that criminals think that people are less likely to be armed or any eveidence that people are less likely to be armed.
QuoteQuoteIt is possible, but there the only evidence is twisted statistics from anti-UK gun ban americans so I don't believe there has been any side affect.
The evidence in this case came for the UN and was in an English paper. The UN is not very friendly to the US, and the article was in an English paper, not the NRA magazine.
As I already pointed out the article said the study was suspect, you are choosing to ignore this piece of information and only use the part that supports your perspective, this makes your arguement very weak.
QuoteQuoteWhat about them, it has nothing to do with this discussion, you are trying to change the subject and then use it to justify your position.
#1. You never answered the question if the gun ban might have had other negative side affects.
#2. This relates to this article since some think that by denying the law abiding citizens the ability to have a weapon that violent criminals have become more agressive. And the stats *from the UN* show that. Remember the UN is not in the NRA's pocket.
#1 The only negative side affect I see is gun club and other gun businesses suffering. I do not believe there are any others.
#2 I was refering to your comment (which you deleted from your response).
Quote
What about how people from England who don't understand America seem to think the "Solution" they used will work here....do they have the right to make those statments, but we don't have the right to show where the gun ban might not be perfect?
The article and this discussion have nothing to do with this, this is not the topic of the original post, you are once again trying to change the subject and use it to support your arguement.
QuoteQuoteThese numbers are suspect, even the article quoted says this, however I don't expect that to have any influence on you using them to justify your opinion as you seem to believe it as gospel, as a result this part of the discussion is futile.
Numbers in this study and in others have shown the same thing.
I don't expect you to see that either since you think you are correct and refuse to look at any opinons other than your own.
Just because you think it worked does not mean it did...And just becasue I think it did not does not mean it did not.
But the biggie is that even if it did work in jolly ol' England, it does not mean it would work here, or anywhere else in the world....And that's if it did work.
The only opionion I have expressed is a disagreement with the original post by John, I have not used this as a soapbox to suggest banning guns in the USA (which in fact I do not support).
Just how many instances of someone going postal have been recorded in the UK since the ban?
I have not suggested that this ban would work in the USA.
Ron 7
QuoteIn general people were not armed before the ban, I lived there for over 30 years and never knew anyone that kept a loaded gun by their bed
Then you say:
QuoteThese are not personal opinions, there was no concealed carry allowed before the ban, the ban did not change this. The only thing that changed is that handguns and automatics are no longer locked away in a few homes in the UK. People are no less likely to have a gun for self defense than before the ban. The only people carrying guns are criminals, both before and after the ban. You have presented no evidence that criminals think that people are less likely to be armed or any eveidence that people are less likely to be armed.
Are you allowed in England to have a pistol in your home? Yes, or No?
Quote#1 The only negative side affect I see is gun club and other gun businesses suffering. I do not believe there are any others.
I see the increase in violent crime in England as evidence that there are other negative side affects. You will claim that the numbers are bad, but the numbers from the UN and other studies from England itself have shown the trend...you will of course ignore these and anything else that does not fit into your view.
QuoteThe article and this discussion have nothing to do with this, this is not the topic of the original post, you are once again trying to change the subject and use it to support your arguement.
Read it again...That was in responce to this from you:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an obsession with some people on this web site to continually bash this law even though they do not live in the UK and don't understand what the whole thing was about
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about how people from England who don't understand America seem to think the "Solution" they used will work here....do they have the right to make those statments, but we don't have the right to show where the gun ban might not be perfect?
My response was pefectly valid based on you stating "It is an obsession with some people on this web site to continually bash this law even though they do not live in the UK and don't understand what the whole thing was about"
And I asked what makes you or anyone else from England able to know the US? Answer you want it your way, but will not take the same medicine.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteSince these laws were introduced there have been no mass killings, so in that respect it worked.
Given how rare the events were to start with, that conclusion doesn't seem well founded.
Quote
I moved to the US from the UK and once or twice a month there is a news report of some killing at a company where some worker or other individual goes postal, it is so common that it hardly makes the news any more, this does not happen in the UK.
It makes the news EVERY time, and I think you'd have a hard time finding it "once or twice" per month.
The most recent such event happened in LA and involved a car and two trains. Certainly it has some concerned that there could be repeats of it elsewhere.
crozby 0
Quote***Are you suggesting that the NRA only draws attention to statistics that back their cause? That's outrageous!
Your reading comprehension is lacking. The source of my story was the United Nations. The NRA had nothing to do with it.
LOL... MY reading comprehension??? Re-read my post. I didn't state the NRA did it, only that they, or more specifically you as an NRA member, drew our attention to it.
JohnRich 4
Quote"third parties" who spent time in both UK and US cities and ask them where they felt safer (e.g. walking in the streets at night).
If the subjective opinions of just a few people are your idea of credible evidence and scientific proof, I'll pass on the method.
Quotethere are a lot of issues regarding US domestic politics that I do not comment on, because while I have visited the US numerous times, I have not lived there, thus really should not and would not make judgement on a whole range of domestic issues.
To each his own. There are plenty of others who have no problem attacking America.
QuoteAnd how do you know that the reporting systems and definitions are similar?
Because I've spent quite a bit of time studying England's Home Office reports and America's Uniform Crime Reports.
QuoteWhat is the agenda here?
"Guns don't cause crime." I thought that everyone had figured that out by now.
JohnRich 4
QuoteHow many more Hungerford or Dumblane mass killings have there been since the ban in the UK, zero, I guess it has worked...
Your guess is incorrect. Anyone who wanted to commit another such atrocity, could still do so. Guns are still available to the criminals. Just pick up any daily newspaper to see the reports of gun crime. The fact that there haven't been any more mass shootings, is just luck.
Hungerford was in 87, and Dunblane in 96. Two shootings, nine years apart. It's only been seven years since the gun confiscation. That's hardly sufficient time to conclude that the gun confiscation was effective at preventing more mass shootings. Especially since they were so rare to start with.
Quoteyou have to look at what drove the ban and not invent some other reason and then use that to blame the ban for not working.
I said that crime drove the ban. Hungerford and Dunblane were crimes. Do you disagree?
Oh, and it's "Dunblane", not Dumblane.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI moved to the US from the UK and once or twice a month there is a news report of some killing at a company where some worker or other individual goes postal, it is so common that it hardly makes the news any more, this does not happen in the UK.
First, where they get shot is irrelevant. A criminal with a gun can choose to shoot anyone, anywhere. An ineffective gun ban doesn't magically make the workplace immune from gun violence.
Second, since America has five times the population of England, even if the murder rates were identical, you would still hear about it five times more often in America. Beware of your perception.
Finally, the danger of making such an absolute statement is that I have to provide only one example to the contrary to prove your statement false:
"A tenant who shot his landlord at point-blank range had not intended to murder him, jurors were told." Story
More UK gun murders, from the news: BBC
JohnRich 4
Just because they didn't tell you they didn't have a gun, does not mean that they didn't. It's a personal thing, that most people don't go around blabbing to others. Especially in a country like the UK, where it was considered politically incorrect.
Burglars in America spend most of their time carefully selecting their target to strike when the occupants are not home. Why? Because they fear being shot. Prison interviews prove this. Only 13% of U.S. burglaries are to occupied homes.
In Britain, on the other hand, where there are few guns in homes, 56% of all attempted burglaries are to occupied homes. Thus, Brits are far more likely to face a violent confrontation with a young, strong intruder - because the criminals there are not deterred by the threat of armed homeowners.
Source: Kleck, "Point Blank - Guns & Violence in America". UK data from a 1982 British crime survey by Mayhew. US data from Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Survey for 1985.
mikkey 0
QuoteIf the subjective opinions of just a few people are your idea of credible evidence and scientific proof, I'll pass on the method.
You are using snippets of unreliable stats AND you have no first hand experience. I am criticizing that you make judgments about the UK judicial system and crime issues based on this.
QuoteTo each his own. There are plenty of others who have no problem attacking America.
Most non-US posters are only discussing (and criticizing) US FOREIGN policy not domestic issues.
QuoteBecause I've spent quite a bit of time studying England's Home Office reports and America's Uniform Crime Reports.
I think it has been demonstrated enough that cross border comparison of statistics is very difficult and filled with abnormalities. Again, I just refer to the one you started this thread with and the numbers for e.g. Russia and New Zealand.
Quote"Guns don't cause crime." I thought that everyone had figured that out by now.
I think what you fail to understand is that every country is different. There are difference in history, tradition, socioeconomics, demographics etc etc. I do not understand why you take a discussion about gun control in the US to the UK. There is only a very small minority in the UK against gun control.
If you look at the stats available with all the flaws they have (as per my point above) - you will see that most rich industrialised countries with gun control have lower gun related crimes and murder rates then the US. Then again you have exceptions like Switzerland which has high traditional gun ownership and very low crime rates. Again there are lots of reasons why this is the case.
What you want to do about guns in the US is up to Americans. In other countries like the UK or Australia the large majority is very happy with gun control and believes it makes them safer. Each to their own. I really don't think taking UK issues and using them for the purpose of the gun debate in the US is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuote***Are you suggesting that the NRA only draws attention to statistics that back their cause? That's outrageous!
Your reading comprehension is lacking. The source of my story was the United Nations. The NRA had nothing to do with it.
LOL... MY reading comprehension??? Re-read my post. I didn't state the NRA did it, only that they, or more specifically you as an NRA member, drew our attention to it.
Yes, you did state that the NRA did it.
If you had meant me, then you should have said so.
I was not speaking on behalf of the NRA, nor did I get the information from the NRA. The statistics came from the UN, and they were printed in a British newspaper.
You seem to really be having trouble keeping facts straight...
JohnRich 4
QuoteYou are using snippets of unreliable stats AND you have no first hand experience. I am criticizing that you make judgments about the UK judicial system and crime issues based on this.
Guns were banned. Gun crime went up. From this I conclude that banning guns doesn't reduce gun crime. You are free to draw your own conclusions.
Quotemost rich industrialised countries with gun control have lower gun related crimes and murder rates then the US. Then again you have exceptions like Switzerland which has high traditional gun ownership and very low crime rates. Again there are lots of reasons why this is the case.
I love it when an opponent makes my own case for me. Yes, those exceptions prove that it's not the gun ownership that is responsible for gun crime. It's the culture.
There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.
Conclusion: There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun murder rates.
Quotethe UK large majority is very happy with gun control and believes it makes them safer.
So you have the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Since the law-abiding gun owners weren't hurting anyone, the majority should have respected their rights and left them alone.
mikkey 0
I give up - you are on a crusade and only see what you want to see. Absolutely pointless.
Demonstrates my point. You just ignore the facts presented to you earlier in the thread and you continue with theses statements. Guns have been "banned" for a long time in the UK - the changes in 97 were a tightening of the law. And by the way here are the latest offical stats from the UK (released October 04):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm#graph
Note: There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show. But the figures, which cover the 12 months to June 04, also show a 15% drop in the number of shooting-related deaths.
And here is the key:
Also note this one:
QuoteGuns were banned. Gun crime went up.
Demonstrates my point. You just ignore the facts presented to you earlier in the thread and you continue with theses statements. Guns have been "banned" for a long time in the UK - the changes in 97 were a tightening of the law. And by the way here are the latest offical stats from the UK (released October 04):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm#graph
Note: There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show. But the figures, which cover the 12 months to June 04, also show a 15% drop in the number of shooting-related deaths.
And here is the key:
Quote
Separate quarterly crime figures compiled for the Home Office in the British Crime Survey on Thursday showed that general crime was down by 7%, according to householders interviewed for the study. Crime figures recorded by police also showed a 5% fall.
The government was keen to stress that the risk of being a victim of violent crime is at its lowest for nearly 25 years.
Also note this one:
Quote
But the Home Office figures show firearms-related deaths are comparatively rare.
Last year the number fell to 81 from 97 in the previous 12 months.
The small rises in gun crime for the last two years compare with a 34% increase recorded in 2002.
In 2003, the Home Office introduced a mandatory five-year minimum prison sentence for anyone caught in possession of an illegal firearm.
Government officials claimed there was anecdotal evidence from the police that the move is having a deterrent effect, but that it was too early for this to be reflected in Thursday's figures.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
skydyvr 0
QuoteI give up - you are on a crusade and only see what you want to see. Absolutely pointless.
And yet another John Rich gun debate ass kicking comes to it's grisly conclusion.
. . =(_8^(1)
sfc 0
Ok, here is a bunch of data points that I found on kqed, these prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the attitude towards guns in the US is responsible for a gun culture that has killed over a million American in the last 32 or so years, to cover up this national disaster, right wing gun advocates divert attention by bashing other nations approach to gun control, crazy when you consider that the number of deaths in the UK in the whole of last year is less than the number of americans that will die by gunshot this weekend. It just does to show that the right wing gun slingers are so selfish about their "right" to bear arms that they are prepared to allow this massacre to continue by blaming others.
The point of this post is to prove that if you look on the internet you can find info to support your point of view and write an immotive diatribe to accompany it, you can then bury your head in the sand and ignore all rational argument.
Quote
Every hour in America, four people are killed by firearms. (Centers for Disease Control)
A gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993)
Gun violence is the second-leading cause of injury-related fatalities in the US after car accidents. In Alaska, Maryland and Nevada as well as D.C., firearm death rates in 1998 exceeded those for car accidents. (CDC & Natnl. Vital Statistics Report, 1999)
One million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962. (Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997; Deaths: Final Data for 1995- 1997, National Vital Statistics Report)
The point of this post is to prove that if you look on the internet you can find info to support your point of view and write an immotive diatribe to accompany it, you can then bury your head in the sand and ignore all rational argument.
skydyvr 0
Quote. . . their "right" to bear arms. . .
No need to use quotes, the right to bear arms is written in stone.
All of the data you posted merely indicates that the US has high gun crime rates. I don't think anyone here diputes that, and it doesn't seem to be the thrust of anyone's argument.
. . =(_8^(1)
mnealtx 0
QuoteNote: There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show. But the figures, which cover the 12 months to June 04, also show a 15% drop in the number of shooting-related deaths.
So....... gun crime is up 5% over two years, but DEATHS are down 15% so it's ok, then....
Quote
But the Home Office figures show firearms-related deaths are comparatively rare.
Last year the number fell to 81 from 97 in the previous 12 months.
As above: You've still got the crime, the only thing that's improved is that fewer people are being killed by gun-wielding criminals.
Quote
The small rises in gun crime for the last two years compare with a 34% increase recorded in 2002.
Ah, now the truth comes out... almost a 40% increase in gun crime since 2002? Yeah, we can see where that ban is really working for you...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
crozby 0
QuoteI was not speaking on behalf of the NRA, nor did I get the information from the NRA. The statistics came from the UN, and they were printed in a British newspaper.
I'm curious John, how did you stumble accross this statistic buried in an English newspaper?
You seem to be suggesting you weren't directed to it by some other source. Is that the case? Did you really find it yourself?
Kennedy 0
Your data points are about as useful as a Brady Center press release.
Yes, there is a problem in the US with the number of people killed each year. However, I have to ask, would you feel better about being killed with another tool instead ofa firearm? If not, this is not really a gun issue, but a violent crime issue.
If you want to cherry pick statistics, let's talk about how the victimization rate in the UK is 26%, while in the US it is about 4%, or the fact that the UK violent crime rate and contact crime rates are worse than in the US.
That study has been thoroughly trashed by anyoen who looks into the methodology.
So what? Would you rather be stabbed to death? A gun is a very effective tool. It can be used to commit horrible crimes, and it can be used to prevent horrible crimes.
In fact, guns are used to prevent anywhere from 1 to 3.6 million crimes every year. (studies by Clinton DOJ, Kleck, and others)
Yes, so we have a violent crime problem, and suicides still happen. What's your point? Would it matter to you if I posted the number of Americans who drowned or died in car accidents since 1962?
What does this nubmer mean to you? Or are you just going for some shock value without providing context or comparisons?
QuoteEvery hour in America, four people are killed by firearms. (Centers for Disease Control)
Yes, there is a problem in the US with the number of people killed each year. However, I have to ask, would you feel better about being killed with another tool instead ofa firearm? If not, this is not really a gun issue, but a violent crime issue.
If you want to cherry pick statistics, let's talk about how the victimization rate in the UK is 26%, while in the US it is about 4%, or the fact that the UK violent crime rate and contact crime rates are worse than in the US.
QuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993)
That study has been thoroughly trashed by anyoen who looks into the methodology.
QuoteGun violence is the second-leading cause of injury-related fatalities in the US after car accidents. In Alaska, Maryland and Nevada as well as D.C., firearm death rates in 1998 exceeded those for car accidents. (CDC & Natnl. Vital Statistics Report, 1999)
So what? Would you rather be stabbed to death? A gun is a very effective tool. It can be used to commit horrible crimes, and it can be used to prevent horrible crimes.
In fact, guns are used to prevent anywhere from 1 to 3.6 million crimes every year. (studies by Clinton DOJ, Kleck, and others)
QuoteOne million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962. (Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997; Deaths: Final Data for 1995- 1997, National Vital Statistics Report)
Yes, so we have a violent crime problem, and suicides still happen. What's your point? Would it matter to you if I posted the number of Americans who drowned or died in car accidents since 1962?
What does this nubmer mean to you? Or are you just going for some shock value without providing context or comparisons?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
Kennedy 0
QuoteEvery hour in America, four people are killed by firearms. (Centers for Disease Control)
I also have to point out two major flaws with this little tidbit.
First, people aren't killed by guns, they are killed by other people or themselves.
Second, there are 8760 hours in one year. There were between 15 and 16 thousand homcides last year, and of those 9,683 were firearms related. That is barely more than one per hour. To get up to four per hour, suicides and non gun murders must be counted in the total.
numbers from FBI UCR for 2003
Including suicides is hardly relevant to a discussion on violent crime and murder, don't you think?
Kind of blows holes in your idea that statistics supporting gun control are so easy to find, doesn't it? Well, at least if you confine your search tot he truth anyway.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
skydyvr 0
QuoteKind of blows holes in your idea that statistics supporting gun control are so easy to find, doesn't it?
Let's not forget his use of Washington D.C. as an example of a city with high gun crime rates. Nice bit of irony there.
. . =(_8^(1)
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteGuns were banned. Gun crime went up.
Demonstrates my point. You just ignore the facts presented to you earlier in the thread and you continue with theses statements.
Guns have been "banned" for a long time in the UK - the changes in 97 were a tightening of the law.
I don't see how you can say that I am ignoring the facts. Your own statements support the fact that gun crime has gone up. To wit:
There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, and The small rises in gun crime for the last two years compare with a 34% increase recorded in 2002.Thus, over three years, it went up 39%! So how is it that I'm the one ignoring facts? Me thinks you have things bass-ackwards.
As for crime in general, guns have nothing to do with things like car theft, so the drops on those other crimes are unrelated and irrelevant to this gun-related focus. You're not claiming that the gun ban is responsible for the drop in auto theft are you? Because if you are, I'd sure like to hear your logic on the causation these.
You misrepresent the 97 gun law. That is when all handguns and semi-auto long guns were banned and confiscated. There were still legal prior to that date.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteI give up - you are on a crusade and only see what you want to see. Absolutely pointless.
And yet another John Rich gun debate ass kicking comes to it's grisly conclusion.
It is humorous how you jumped to that conclusion before I had even posted my response to his message (See message #99). Is that your idea of considering both sides of a story?
So, as for "seeing only what you want to see", well, you seem to have fulfilled that prophecy yourself.
Your personal feelings do not count...no offense. I know PLENTY of people that have guns...And not one of them has ever killed anyone, much less gone postal as you like to say.
The affect is simple; if a criminal knows that there is no chance of a guy having a gun he will be more agressive.
The evidence in this case came for the UN and was in an English paper. The UN is not very friendly to the US, and the article was in an English paper, not the NRA magazine.
#1. You never answered the question if the gun ban might have had other negative side affects.
#2. This relates to this article since some think that by denying the law abiding citizens the ability to have a weapon that violent criminals have become more agressive. And the stats *from the UN* show that. Remember the UN is not in the NRA's pocket.
Numbers in this study and in others have shown the same thing.
I don't expect you to see that either since you think you are correct and refuse to look at any opinons other than your own.
Just because you think it worked does not mean it did...And just becasue I think it did not does not mean it did not.
But the biggie is that even if it did work in jolly ol' England, it does not mean it would work here, or anywhere else in the world....And that's if it did work.
Plus you seem to refuse to look at the possibility that while it may have fixed one problem that it created another.
You are right, we have nothing to discuss if you hold those views.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites