Why you american so obsess with guns??

[KC5AV]

In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are rolling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are roling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

 

[ribbon13]

It takes me a trip to the hardware store and half an hour.

Knowledge is free, and guns aren't going anywhere.

 

[rikadik]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are roling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

That may be true, but how is that useful? Does that mean there is a massive problem? There could have been 10 gun crimes in a year and that statistic could still apply.

The UK definitely has no where near the problems with guns that America does - fact. You can look up figures, I can't be bothered right now. And considering the relative populations, the gun crime per person is much, much worse in the US.

IMO, it's not owning guns thats the problem. In the UK you can own rifles and shotguns etc, with a licence, because they have a genuine sporting use. The problem is handguns, which are illegal in Britain. They are designed to be pocketable and portable. I can't imagine many people hunting deers with their 9mms.

It seems rediculous that even if someone is a convicted murderer, who killed people with guns, and has now been released from prison - STILL has the constitutional human right to own a handgun.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: KC5AV
In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are roling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

That may be true, but how is that useful? Does that mean there is a massive problem? There could have been 10 gun crimes in a year and that statistic could still apply.

The UK definitely has no where near the problems with guns that America does - fact. You can look up figures, I can't be bothered right now. And considering the relative populations, the gun crime per person is much, much worse in the US.

IMO, it's not owning guns thats the problem. In the UK you can own rifles and shotguns etc, with a licence, because they have a genuine sporting use. The problem is handguns, which are illegal in Britain. They are designed to be pocketable and portable. I can't imagine many people hunting deers with their 9mms.

It seems rediculous that even if someone is a convicted murderer, who killed people with guns, and has now been released from prison - STILL has the constitutional human right to own a handgun.

They don't.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: KC5AV
It seems rediculous that even if someone is a convicted murderer, who killed people with guns, and has now been released from prison - STILL has the constitutional human right to own a handgun.

They don't you alarmist moron.

 

[rikadik]

Ok... well... good then!

I still agree with the rest I said though, unless you can shoot holes in that as well. :s

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: KC5AV
In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are roling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

That may be true, but how is that useful? Does that mean there is a massive problem? There could have been 10 gun crimes in a year and that statistic could still apply.

The UK definitely has no where near the problems with guns that America does - fact. You can look up figures, I can't be bothered right now. And considering the relative populations, the gun crime per person is much, much worse in the US.

IMO, it's not owning guns thats the problem. In the UK you can own rifles and shotguns etc, with a licence, because they have a genuine sporting use. The problem is handguns, which are illegal in Britain. They are designed to be pocketable and portable. I can't imagine many people hunting deers with their 9mms.

You can't compare the US to the UK. They are two entirely different countries. About the only similarity is that they are both English speaking countries...although even that is debatable. I don't agree that gun crime is much much worse in the US. The fact is that most of the gun crimes happen in the inner cities. While it is a problem there it is not a widespread problem in the rest of the country. Gun crimes are much much lower in rural areas and in the suburbs. I am about as worried about being a victim of gun crime as I am of being hit by lightening.

Nobody hunts deer with a 9mm handgun. That caliber would be totally inadequate for that job. BTW-The plural of deer is deer...

It seems rediculous that even if someone is a convicted murderer, who killed people with guns, and has now been released from prison - STILL has the constitutional human right to own a handgun.

No, he doesn't. Convicted felons do not have the right to own guns and they cannot buy them legally. For someone who is spouting off on this subject you should really know a little about it first. BTW-It's spelled ridiculous...:roll:

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are roling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

Maybe you didn't see my last post? Armed robbery in the UK is 2.3% of that in the US. The crime rate always has more to do with economic conditions than gun laws. With hundreds of millions of guns produced around the world, it will always be possible to get your hands on them.

With UK gun homicides at 40 - 50 per year and armed robbery at 5,000 per year, I think the whole UK topic has been quite squashed.

You should come back with real numbers next time anyway. 90% of something = something. Very useful.

 

[TekXoID]

What's wrong with shooting people?

No seriously...all I have is a Remington 12-gauge for round-the-clock home protection. That, and trip-mines.
Serves me well, I even got to blow a few chunks out of a couple of stoner teenie trespassers a while back.

My, that was some fun shootin' wasn't it cleetus?!

 

[0roo0roo]

i'm sure the uk statistics are massaged down for all forms of crime, not just murder rates. don't dig up rates without understanding how those numbers were come up with. else u end up comparing apples to oranges.

http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
Gun Control?s Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
By Joyce Lee Malcolm


On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article?s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year?s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America?s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world?s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England?s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England?s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London?s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England?s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England?s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America?s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world?s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don?t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual?s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone?s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual?s right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law?s enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

Another M.P. pointed out that while "society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender."

In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued: "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy. I do not think any government has the right, though they may very well have the power, to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves." But he added: "Unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it."

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."

The original common law standard was similar to what still prevails in the U.S. Americans are free to carry articles for their protection, and in 33 states law-abiding citizens may carry concealed guns. Americans may defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime. Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be "very heavy."

The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber?s victim in respect of his person and property."

A sampling of cases illustrates the impact of these measures:

? In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

? In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

? In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

? In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British jibes about "America?s vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate?

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York?s homicide rate consistently about five times London?s. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England?s more restrictive policy was established in 1967.

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn?t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America?s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair?s government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect?s previous crimes.

This is a cautionary tale. America?s founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America?s "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.

Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University Press.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Excellent post 0roo0roo. I think we can put this thread to rest now. :thumbsup:

U.S. gun owners win!

Gun grabbing foreigners and school children spouting fallacious antigun propaganda...well, you lose!

 

[noremacyug]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
1) Its a Right afforded to us by our Constitution
2) Its a sign of a free country
3) Its a enjoyable sport

amen

 

[Lifted]

Agreed. Unless anybody has any new B.S. claims for me to smack down, let this thead die.

 

[noremacyug]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Gun epidemic? You sound like someone who has been brainwashed by anti-gun groups. Pick up a pamphlet for HCI recently?

Remind me never to vote you into any elected office in my state or country.

here:

In 2000, there were 29,573 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day.

In 2000, 75,685 people suffered firearm gunshot injuries.

Gun deaths per 100,00 people in '99:

England/Wales 0.12
Scotland 0.12
Switzerland 0.50
Canada 0.54
USA 4.08

So the US had over seven times the rate of the next person in the list, and that was several years ago...

More facts? here's some for you all:

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.


But yeah, guns are a fantastic idea...

I'd rather save the above lives and have them fight along my side in case of government oppression.

Also, if your government does turn against you for some reason, do you really think you're going to stop the US army with your small arms? Remember that rifle vs tank video posted here not so long ago?

do us all a favor and add yourself to the statistics.

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: noremacyug
do us all a favor and add yourself to the statistics.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: KC5AV
In the UK, armed robbery and assault account for over 90% of the gun crime (I guess they are roling homicide in with those). To me, that says that the gun ban in the UK hasn't made the streets safer. Criminals still have guns, and they use them.

Maybe you didn't see my last post? Armed robbery in the UK is 2.3% of that in the US. The crime rate always has more to do with economic conditions than gun laws. With hundreds of millions of guns produced around the world, it will always be possible to get your hands on them.

With UK gun homicides at 40 - 50 per year and armed robbery at 5,000 per year, I think the whole UK topic has been quite squashed.

You should come back with real numbers next time anyway. 90% of something = something. Very useful.

So now guns aren't the problem, the economic conditions are?

 

[loic2003]

Gooooooood evening everybody, how are we all getting along tonight? Very well, I hope.
Splendid....

Well, it's that time of day again so lets get stuck in, shall we?

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: loic2003
Here in the UK we have very few gun deaths, very few armed robberies, our government is not trying to opress us and no military forces are trying to attack us. There aren't huge mobs of deer or any other wild creature with massivley overcrowded populations, despite a lack of natural predator such as tigers, lions or terradactyl.

Text

Whoa kids, before you wear out the letters 'p','w','n' and indeed, 'd' on your semen-encrusted input devices (for those of you that developed) lets first take a look at the article in question.

For a discussion about the neccessity of guns within modern, advanced civilisation, it's interesting -to say the least- to link to an article that does not contain a single instance of the words "firearm", "weapon", "rifle", "handgun", "shotgun" "armed", "pistol" or even "gun", and then to assume it makes any kind of relevant point. So lets break up this dancing-round-the-flagpole party and cool off your collectively-induced chubbies shall we

Sure we have an issue with crime in the UK, but there's a significant difference between a chav half-inching a Vauxhall Nova and a couple of kids going nuts with automatic weaponry, or some nut showing off his sniper skills to the general public in a dramatic manner.
"pwned" indeed...

Let us continue.

An interesting point of view about the British gun problem was provided by a gentleman named Paul Evans. This chap was from Boston (that's in america) and he used to be a police commissioner there. He did some valiant work with reducing gun crime in Boston. This guy came to England not so long ago and took a detailed look at the gun issues over here. Although work needs to be done on the gun issues in the UK, Paul felt positive. To sum up his opinions I have this choice quote from him:

You have got a very, very small gun problem compared to what I have experienced.

Interesting.

As for gun deaths in the US being limited to cities, some have researched the issue and have found differently.

More interesting facts?

Although the exact number of Americans killed by gun violence in the 20th century will never be known, it is now all but certain that it will, by any measure, vastly exceed the number of Americans shot and killed on battlefields since 1900. In fact, more Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858)

This research highlights that killings of passion are reduced when guns are removed from the equation.

As for defending yourself in the home, some feel differently:

In fact, a gun in the home increases the risk of being a murder victim by three times and by 20 times if there has been a previous domestic violence incident in the home.

Enough. On to the aptly named "Gun Control?s Twisted Outcome" cleverly linked by 0roo0roo... twice!
Well, it certainly is an interesting paper with some valid point, for sure. Gun crime will increase in the short term when guns are removed from the law-abiding citizens. However, for those of you at an advanced-level or beyond level of education, you'll know it is common practice to approach all papers with a degree of scepticism. A lack of references should raise eyebrows, but the blatantly obvious ulterior motive would make most people balk.

It is for this same reason that until now I am yet to make reference to the findings of Michael Moore in his documentary Bowling for Columbine. He raises some very interesting points that reflect very badly upon america, but you must take these findings with a pinch of salt since the guy is making money from it. Similarly, the media like to dramatise their stories in order to captivate the audience.

On a side note, I find it curious as to why other high profile americans feel they should tell the world their feelings on the current status of their country.

Anyhow, it's conclusion time as I, like you, am tired of this thread.
Suffice to say that neither of us will convince the other. Americans like the feeling of power that a gun provides, would feel their rights are infringed is more control was put in place, and enjoy the security it supposedly provides. Britains like to be more conservative and have tigher control of these weapons. A generalisation, of course.
Obviously I feel that we should move on beyond the levels of kill for kill as I think this is a truly dated mentality and we will not advance as a civilisation if we remain this way. If we require weaponry to defend ourselves simply going about our daily lives then the social source of the problem should be addressed rather than having to arm the public.
When saddam was thought to have chemical weapons we didn't just give the public gas masks, we instead eliminated the source so he was no longer a threat (whether he really was is another discussion entirely).
Perhaps my feelings are somewhat utopian, but I would like to feel that in this day when we in the western world have such power, stability, technology and ultimately a uniform goal for living conditions, that we can eliminate the need for dated brutal killing devices amongst our law-abiding public.

I leave you with a quote from Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General:

"The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."

 

[KC5AV]

Originally posted by: Lifted


Unless you can find me statistics showing that armed roberies are high*

Was the * intentional? If so, what would you consider high?

 

[KingPhil]

Crap, and this moron is GOLDEN!

Guns aren't meant just for shooting animals or people.

I like the skill of target practice at the range! What is the harm in that!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: loic2003
Gooooooood evening everybody, how are we all getting along tonight? Very well, I hope.
Splendid....

Well, it's that time of day again so lets get stuck in, shall we?

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: loic2003
Here in the UK we have very few gun deaths, very few armed robberies, our government is not trying to opress us and no military forces are trying to attack us. There aren't huge mobs of deer or any other wild creature with massivley overcrowded populations, despite a lack of natural predator such as tigers, lions or terradactyl.

Text

Whoa kids, before you wear out the letters 'p','w','n' and indeed, 'd' on your semen-encrusted input devices (for those of you that developed) lets first take a look at the article in question.

For a discussion about the neccessity of guns within modern, advanced civilisation, it's interesting -to say the least- to link to an article that does not contain a single instance of the words "firearm", "weapon", "rifle", "handgun", "shotgun" "armed", "pistol" or even "gun", and then to assume it makes any kind of relevant point. So lets break up this dancing-round-the-flagpole party and cool off your collectively-induced chubbies shall we

Sure we have an issue with crime in the UK, but there's a significant difference between a chav half-inching a Vauxhall Nova and a couple of kids going nuts with automatic weaponry, or some nut showing off his sniper skills to the general public in a dramatic manner.
"pwned" indeed...

Let us continue.

An interesting point of view about the British gun problem was provided by a gentleman named Paul Evans. This chap was from Boston (that's in america) and he used to be a police commissioner there. He did some valiant work with reducing gun crime in Boston. This guy came to England not so long ago and took a detailed look at the gun issues over here. Although work needs to be done on the gun issues in the UK, Paul felt positive. To sum up his opinions I have this choice quote from him:

You have got a very, very small gun problem compared to what I have experienced.

Interesting.

As for gun deaths in the US being limited to cities, some have researched the issue and have found differently.

More interesting facts?

Although the exact number of Americans killed by gun violence in the 20th century will never be known, it is now all but certain that it will, by any measure, vastly exceed the number of Americans shot and killed on battlefields since 1900. In fact, more Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858)

This research highlights that killings of passion are reduced when guns are removed from the equation.

As for defending yourself in the home, some feel differently:

In fact, a gun in the home increases the risk of being a murder victim by three times and by 20 times if there has been a previous domestic violence incident in the home.

Enough. On to the aptly named "Gun Control?s Twisted Outcome" cleverly linked by 0roo0roo... twice!
Well, it certainly is an interesting paper with some valid point, for sure. Gun crime will increase in the short term when guns are removed from the law-abiding citizens. However, for those of you at an advanced-level or beyond level of education, you'll know it is common practice to approach all papers with a degree of scepticism. A lack of references should raise eyebrows, but the blatantly obvious ulterior motive would make most people balk.

It is for this same reason that until now I am yet to make reference to the findings of Michael Moore in his documentary Bowling for Columbine. He raises some very interesting points that reflect very badly upon america, but you must take these findings with a pinch of salt since the guy is making money from it. Similarly, the media like to dramatise their stories in order to captivate the audience.

On a side note, I find it curious as to why other high profile americans feel they should tell the world their feelings on the current status of their country.

Anyhow, it's conclusion time as I, like you, am tired of this thread.
Suffice to say that neither of us will convince the other. Americans like the feeling of power that a gun provides, would feel their rights are infringed is more control was put in place, and enjoy the security it supposedly provides. Britains like to be more conservative and have tigher control of these weapons. A generalisation, of course.
Obviously I feel that we should move on beyond the levels of kill for kill as I think this is a truly dated mentality and we will not advance as a civilisation if we remain this way. If we require weaponry to defend ourselves simply going about our daily lives then the social source of the problem should be addressed rather than having to arm the public.
When saddam was thought to have chemical weapons we didn't just give the public gas masks, we instead eliminated the source so he was no longer a threat (whether he really was is another discussion entirely).
Perhaps my feelings are somewhat utopian, but I would like to feel that in this day when we in the western world have such power, stability, technology and ultimately a uniform goal for living conditions, that we can eliminate the need for dated brutal killing devices amongst our law-abiding public.

I leave you with a quote from Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General:

"The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."

Hmm, you drop in and quote a bunch of obscure or questionable references yet you don't address any of the excellent points made in the last 24 hours.

Yeah, I'm going to take this post seriously...:roll:

 

[Valurei]

When you're talking about the gun deaths or injuries caused by guns and how those statistics relate to the UK (or any other country where-in guns are illegal) one can't fairly compare them.

The US has one of the highest standards of living and a exponentially decreasing level of domestic happieness (I was lucky enough to participate in one of these surveys, yay me). While many Euro nations have vrry high levels of domestic happieness.

You can't argue- US has postal workers>Postal workers> Postal workers go nuts and kill peopple> Postal workers are people>US citizens are people: therefore US citizens must be Postal workers and must go nuts and kill people.
You have to take into account a country's social health, which in America is VERY poor.
So yes, if you take our guns away, we will find another to kill eachother . . .which actually could be worse.

If street thugs relied on an item, then they are nothign w/o said item, but if they utilize said item without needing it (cause they also have mad hand-tohand ski77z (I don't talk that way, I'm joking)) then it could very possibly lead to increased officer assults (which in all honesty, would be fine with me).

 

[busmaster11]

It's one thing to justify keeping one in the house for protection.

But for many people, American or not, they're just rednecks on a power trip. If this statement makes you mad, ask yourself why stun guns or tazors haven't phased out the majority of guns used for self-defense. And yes, the technology is there to make these weapons very usuable.

In America, and every place they can afford it, its ALL about the ego.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: KingPhil
Crap, and this moron is GOLDEN!

Guns aren't meant just for shooting animals or people.

I like the skill of target practice at the range! What is the harm in that!

I target shot for two years.
I go clay pigeon shooting.
I have no gun at my home.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: KingPhil
Crap, and this moron is GOLDEN!

Guns aren't meant just for shooting animals or people.

I like the skill of target practice at the range! What is the harm in that!

I target shot for two years.
I go clay pigeon shooting.
I have no gun at my home.

You have no gun in your home because you CAN'T own a gun legally.