ForumGarden

anastrophe wrote: oddly enough, in a country just a few hundred miles from england, virtually every home has in it a fully automatic machine gun. yet their violent crime rates are lower than england's.


Rubbish. Nothing *like* "virtually every home". Nearer 1 in 10.

Oh, and by the way, it's nothing *like* "virtually every home that has in it a See:

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html

the problem of course, is that the 'mad bastards' are unlikely to abide by the law. so they'll keep their guns, thank you very much.

laws only work on the law abiding.


Cobblers, laws work when there is a certainty that the perpetrators will be caught and the law itself has public backing, just look at your own prohibition era to see what I mean. We have a problem with gun related crime just because some people don't obey the law doesn't mean the solution is to arm everybody. That is a ludicrous arguement

Both the hungerford and Dunblane killers were not engaged in criminal activity, up until they went off their heads they were law abiding citizens. they were legitimate members of gun clubs which is why they had the weapons in the first place.

The point is if they had not had access to guns they would have not been able to kill as many people if any at all before they got stopped.

That is the way we look at it.

In the UK we have a totally different attitude, we pay and expect our police to protect us. No one wants their neighbour having a gun because he is nutty enough to think somebody might attack him so he wants a gun.

There is something wrong with someone who wants to possess a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill another human being ergo they should not have them. Our possessing a gun would make bugger all difference and would probably escalate the problem. There ends the debate at least in the UK. The hostility to the pro gun lobby-especially in Scotland was rather heated to put it mildly

This is us as free citizens demanding the government take action to do what we want them to do or face being voted out of office not an anti gun lobby foisting their attitudes on to us and us being oppressed by our government.

You really need to accept that we have a different attitude, it's right for us and owning guns is not a civil rights issue like it is in the states however much US commentators would like to think it is and portary us as victims rather than controllers of our government. Take other different attitudes for instance-identity cards-we don't have them and while david blunkett might try to introduce them they would have a problem getting us to accept it and carry them around with us.

Were I american I might feel totally differently about it. But you have a totally different history and set of problems as a result. Rather than worrying about guns maybe you should

gmc wrote: Cobblers, laws work when there is a certainty that the perpetrators will be caught and the law itself has public backing, just look at your own prohibition era to see what I mean.
let me fine tune what i said. laws are great. they do often allow us to punish the perpetrator after the fact. unfortunately, laws against objects cannot prevent people from misusing those objects - unless you find some magical way to make those objects vanish, wherever they are.



you can ban guns all you want. you can go door to door confiscating them. you cannot find and destroy every last one of them. the 'nutter', who doesn't give a hoot about the law, will find a way to get or keep a gun. after he perpetrates his crime, you can charge him with violating the ban. lot of good that will do the dead.



We have a problem with gun related crime just because some people don't obey the law doesn't mean the solution is to arm everybody. That is a ludicrous arguement
i'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, then attack me for them. i've not made that argument, why are you?



Both the hungerford and Dunblane killers were not engaged in criminal activity, up until they went off their heads they were law abiding citizens. they were legitimate members of gun clubs which is why they had the weapons in the first place.
the hungerford killer owned guns a good decade before becoming a member of a gun club. he was licensed to own his guns. and actually, it should be noted that he did *not* store his guns legally according to his licenses, so was in violation of the law.



The point is if they had not had access to guns they would have not been able to kill as many people if any at all before they got stopped.



That is the way we look at it.
that's fine, but again, unless you can magically vaporize every gun in the british isles, the 'nutter' will find a way to get one.



In the UK we have a totally different attitude, we pay and expect our police to protect us. No one wants their neighbour having a gun because he is nutty enough to think somebody might attack him so he wants a gun.
and in the US we have a totally different attitude as well. it is a matter of law with countless precedents that the police have no obligation to protect us. they are not required to risk their life and limb to protect an innocent person. i would wager the same precedent holds in the UK, but i don't know for certain.



also in the US, a great many people - anti gun folks as well - will quietly admit that they are glad that some people keep guns at home - because the fact that people are allowed to do so is a great deterrent to burglaries and home invasions - crimes that are rampant in the UK.



There is something wrong with someone who wants to possess a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill another human being ergo they should not have them. Our possessing a gun would make bugger all difference and would probably escalate the problem. There ends the debate at least in the UK. The hostility to the pro gun lobby-especially in Scotland was rather heated to put it mildly
okay. there is nothing wrong with me, and i own more than one gun. it is false that the sole purpose of guns is the kill other people, but i doubt i could convince you.



This is us as free citizens demanding the government take action to do what we want them to do or face being voted out of office not an anti gun lobby foisting their attitudes on to us and us being oppressed by our government.
okay. it's different here in the US. but that's sort of the gist of all of this.



You really need to accept that we have a different attitude, it's right for us and owning guns is not a civil rights issue like it is in the states however much US commentators would like to think it is and portary us as victims rather than controllers of our government. Take other different attitudes for instance-identity cards-we don't have them and while david blunkett might try to introduce them they would have a problem getting us to accept it and carry them around with us.
again. my issue generally is that the anti-gun lobbies in the US love to point to the UK as having 'effective gun control'. while ignoring again the different attitudes and cultures between our countries.



Were I american I might feel totally differently about it. But you have a totally different history and set of problems as a result. Rather than worrying about guns maybe you should
should what?

Bill Sikes wrote: Rubbish. Nothing *like* "virtually every home". Nearer 1 in 10.

Oh, and by the way, it's nothing *like* "virtually every home that has in it a See:

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html
thanks for the citation. i stand corrected. approximate 14 percent of homes. so about 1 in ten homes has a fully automatic assault weapon in it. and, as the anti-gun lobby in this country loves to suggest, that should be blood is running in the streets.

Bill Sikes wrote:

What, surely not dragging that hoary old one about Switzerland out?



Here's a table for you to look at that I swiped:





Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):



Homicide Suicide Unintentional



USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)



Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -



Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -



England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)



* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun



Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network



Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002.



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



If you care to mention which "violent crime rates" it may or may not make a

difference.
those are the most recent figures i've seen. the previous stats i was aware of showed england/wales homicide rates were slightly higher than switzerland.



it should be noted that firearm homicides in england have more than doubled since the ban. here in the US, homicide rates have been falling steadily, a rate that began falling before the much vaunted "assault weapon" ban and the 'brady bill' (which requires a five day waiting period and background check). the "assault weapon" ban expired very recently. i'm quite certain there will be no increase in our rates of homicide due to that, or even in general. but time will tell.

Anastrophe

okay. it's different here in the US. but that's sort of the gist of all of this.




again. my issue generally is that the anti-gun lobbies in the US love to point to the UK as having 'effective gun control'. while ignoring again the different attitudes and cultures between our countries.


I think essentially we are in agreement. It's such a difference in attitude one almost doesn't understand the other. Comparisons are a bit pointless. Some of the pro gun things I have seen seem to assume our lack of guns is not through choice which I find shows a complete inability to appreciate that we might actually choose that situation.

Nor can you transpose our approach and assume it will work.

I watched bowling for columbine-one of the comparisons he made was between canada-where they too have a gun culture, and america, but nothing like the number of homicides

sorry to turn to simplistic responses, but what is needed is not gun control, but crime control. something on the order of more than 60% of violent crime in the US is committed by repeat offenders. that means that violent criminals go to prison for some length of time, are let out, and recommit violent crimes upon release.


i'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, then attack me for them. i've not made that argument, why are you?


you can ban guns all you want. you can go door to door confiscating them. you cannot find and destroy every last one of them. the 'nutter', who doesn't give a hoot about the law, will find a way to get or keep a gun. after he perpetrates his crime, you can charge him with violating the ban. lot of good that will do the dead.




I am perhaps taking you the wrong way, it looked as if you were suggesting that since some criminals can always get hold of guns then the solution is to arm everybody else. That I disagree with.

and in the US we have a totally different attitude as well. it is a matter of law with countless precedents that the police have no obligation to protect us. they are not required to risk their life and limb to protect an innocent person. i would wager the same precedent holds in the UK, but i don't know for certain.


That puzzles me, the police are there to enforce the law and protect the public, there are numerous cases where police, firemen etc risk their lives to protect people, not take stupid risks obviously. We rather expect the police to turn up and take action when called upon. I find it hard to believe that your police would not do the same if the situation called for it.

also in the US, a great many people - anti gun folks as well - will quietly admit that they are glad that some people keep guns at home - because the fact that people are allowed to do so is a great deterrent to burglaries and home invasions - crimes that are rampant in the UK.


Where did you get that from? Burglaries are rising in some areas usually it's a localised problem often with underage kids. It's not something that arming the people would solve there are other ways that are effective when applied. Bear in mind it means that we can be reasonably sure the guy breaking in doesn't have a gun. Home invasions? What weird misconceptions you have. Stop looking at those gun lobby sites

We again have localised problems with some gangs using guns amongst themselves, a large proportion are yardie gangs importing their violence its still rare enough to hit the headlines. Forget this idea about us all cowering in our houses terrified to go out, its a load of rubbish. Crime and violemce make a good story the press like having a stick to beat the government with. Yes we have a problem but we deal with these things differently.

Be wary of statistics, the average man in america has less than two legs. I would be willing to bet you are above average.

It makes little difference how you present them our homicide rate with guns is almost insignificant next to yours, if it rises from 1 per 100,000 to 2 per 100,000 may be a 100% increase comparisons but it doesn't really give a full picture does it.

should what? The phone rang and i got distracted (work bah).

I was going to say rather than worrying about keeping guns to protect your civil liberties maybe you should start worrying about what you may lose by the back door.

gmc wrote: I watched bowling for columbine-one of the comparisons he made was between canada-where they too have a gun culture, and america, but nothing like the number of homicides
and the secondary point well made but ignored, that the US has huge numbers of firearms, canada has huge numbers of firearms, our homicide rate is higher, theirs is lower - but doesn't that put the lie to the common saw that 'more guns equals more crime'?



I am perhaps taking you the wrong way, it looked as if you were suggesting that since some criminals can always get hold of guns then the solution is to arm everybody else. That I disagree with.
i don't believe that anyone should be armed who does not want to be armed. i do believe that it should be a matter of a private individual's choice. the govt in the UK has taken away that choice. they did so at the behest of the people, collectively. so i certainly can't argue against it, the UK is a sovereign nation, they can make their own laws, and conduct their culture how they choose. as shall we.







That puzzles me, the police are there to enforce the law and protect the public, there are numerous cases where police, firemen etc risk their lives to protect people, not take stupid risks obviously. We rather expect the police to turn up and take action when called upon. I find it hard to believe that your police would not do the same if the situation called for it.
it is the same here. the point of legal reference is the concept of 'obligation'. many people feel that the police are *obligated* to protect them. they are not. they may have a badge, they may carry a gun, nightstick, pepperspray, tasers, radios, whatever - but they are not required to risk their life to save yours. i certainly do not argue against that stance - considering the poor pay and the brutal side-effects of that profession (high domestic violence rates and suicide rates), why should they give up their life to save yours?



there are many cases - columbine for that matter - where the police have not taken swift, sure action to save lives, because they felt the risk to themselves was too great. and again, i can't fault them. however, relatives of victims on a regular basis file lawsuits against law enforcement, on the basis that they did not uphold their end 'of the bargain' -to protect innocent people. those lawsuits always fail.





Where did you get that from? Burglaries are rising in some areas usually it's a localised problem often with underage kids. It's not something that arming the people would solve there are other ways that are effective when applied.
the Home Office's own statistics show that all violent crime in the UK is rising. home invasion robbery has increased significantly, because the perpetrators have a reasonable expectation that they will *not* be faced with lethal force. now, the attitude in the UK, as expressed by someone else here on forumgarden, is that it's not worth it defending a TV and VCR. however, that's not always what's at stake. lives can be at stake as well. in the US, 'my home is my castle', and if i find a stranger in my living room in the middle of the night, his intentions are certainly not benevolent, and it is indeed my right to use lethal force against him. if the criminal doesn't want to die, then he can simply stay out of my home. and the fact is, home invasions are extremely rare in the US - because the criminals know that there's a 50/50 chance the homeowner is armed.



Bear in mind it means that we can be reasonably sure the guy breaking in doesn't have a gun.not really, actually. crime committed using guns continues to rise in post-ban UK.



Home invasions? What weird misconceptions you have. Stop looking at those gun lobby sites
i do wish you wouldn't lapse into this sort of argument. you are suggesting that i get all my facts from 'gun lobby sites'. you have no basis to make that suggestion. do you get all your data from anti-gun lobby sites? i wouldn't presume that you do. why do you presume i do?



is the UK's Home office a gun lobby site? you tell me:



http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page108.asp



have a look at the stats for homicide, rape, home invasion (robbery of personal property), possession of weapons, and on and on and on. if the ban on handguns and severe restrictions on long guns in the UK is so effective, why have the rates not plummetted? how can anyone make the claim that the UK has "effective gun control" when the rates are not going down, not staying steady, but going UP?



Be wary of statistics, the average man in america has less than two legs. I would be willing to bet you are above average.
true enough.



It makes little difference how you present them our homicide rate with guns is almost insignificant next to yours, if it rises from 1 per 100,000 to 2 per 100,000 may be a 100% increase comparisons but it doesn't really give a full picture does it.
it does not, but it is important to note that your rates are going up, not down.



I was going to say rather than worrying about keeping guns to protect your civil liberties maybe you should start worrying about what you may lose by the back door.
i don't see a mutual exclusion. i'm concerned about both.

the Home Office's own statistics show that all violent crime in the UK is rising. home invasion robbery has increased significantly, because the perpetrators have a reasonable expectation that they will *not* be faced with lethal force.


Nope it because the expectation of being caught is low to almost non existent for burglary, it's nothing to do with not being armed. Quite often the crime wave is caussed by a few people, cathhing and proving itg was them is incredibly difficult.

not really, actually. crime committed using guns continues to rise in post-ban UK.


True bit having an armed populace would do nothing to solve the problem.

Re statistics, a 1 in a 100,000 rise to 2 in a 100,000 is a 100% percent rise in the crime rate but it's hardly the full story is it. You need to look a bit deeper. Statistics are a piece of information you need to keep it in context. Our politicians are good at it as well, it seems if you reel off a load of statistics people assume you know what you are talking about and lack the critical capacity to look at what the statistic really is.

In scotland for instance someone being shot woth an air gun is recorded as a gun crime, it's a bit different to being shot by a pistol or a rifle. Serious enough but that's why there are calls to tighten up on who can hace these weapons -currently 16 year olds can buy them, and also have them registered-again most people are heartily in favouir of such control. It's more a take the guns off the little sods attitude rather than shoot them.

I know you are getting the links of our home office, but gun crime rising to it's because the population needs to be armed is a leap of logic that makes no sense at least in a British context.

and the secondary point well made but ignored, that the US has huge numbers of firearms, canada has huge numbers of firearms, our homicide rate is higher, theirs is lower - but doesn't that put the lie to the common saw that 'more guns equals more crime'?


So what is the difference? It is a peculiarly american problem personally I'm not sure comparing you with us is very helpful.

One of the things that puzzles me on some of these pro gun sites and other articles I have seen when they do use us as comparison is they seem unable to comprehend that we may have chosen he present situation and seem convinced it is the result of some cecret government plot. It almost seems that since they feel unable to control their government and can't depend on democracy to defend their freedoms everyone must be in the same boat and theyu hold to their guns like a drowning man to his liferaft.

i don't believe that anyone should be armed who does not want to be armed. i do believe that it should be a matter of a private individual's choice. the govt in the UK has taken away that choice. they did so at the behest of the people, collectively. so i certainly can't argue against it, the UK is a sovereign nation, they can make their own laws, and conduct their culture how they choose. as shall we.




they did so at the behest of the people, collectively. so i certainly can't argue against it, the UK is a sovereign nation, they can make their own laws, and conduct their culture how they choose. as shall we.


Jolly decent of you old chap

I suspect if I was american i would probably be inclined to agree with you on principle, but guns won't really protect your freedom the biggest enemy of that is apathy amongst the electorate, just as it is here. Currently we have the most right wing home secretary for decades-ID cards, oaths of allegiance for immigrants they are really losing the plot.

Picture from the Labour party conference in one of the tabloids, a banner saying things are getting better with two armed policemen standing under it. The irony is lost on our governmemt. Historically the british have a habit of putting up with a lot and then getting pissed off enough to change things, our democracy tends to come from below rather than above.

gmc wrote: Nope it because the expectation of being caught is low to almost non existent for burglary, it's nothing to do with not being armed. Quite often the crime wave is caussed by a few people, cathhing and proving itg was them is incredibly difficult.
i would submit it's not black&white. it can be a matter of both - low expectation of being caught, low expectation of being confronted with deadly force.





True bit having an armed populace would do nothing to solve the problem.

that, of course, is debateable.





I know you are getting the links of our home office, but gun crime rising to it's because the population needs to be armed is a leap of logic that makes no sense at least in a British context.
that's interesting and valid about air guns being included in the statistics thus skewing the numbers upward. however, that's only one of a dozen statistics i pointed to from the same source - the rest deal with actual violent crime, and they are all UP, rather than down. my point is not that everyone needs to be armed - i'll repeat that i've never suggested that. however, the fact that criminals can very safely be assured that they will not face deadly force if they attack someone removes a significant disincentive to crime. if the gun control in england were effective, violent crime would be going down, or at worst holding steady. it is not. it is going up.



in a great many states here in the U.S., laws have been passed allowed concealed carry of pistols (to do so legally, a license must be obtained that includes a background check). violent crime goes down, across the board. concealed carry has a dual benefit - it protects even those who are not armed, because the criminal has no way of knowing who is and isn't armed.



So what is the difference? It is a peculiarly american problem personally I'm not sure comparing you with us is very helpful.
i agree. that's why i brought it up. The anti-gun lobby compares the U.S. to other countries that have lower violent crime rates, and uses that as an argument for more gun control here in the U.S.. It is a specious argument.



I suspect if I was american i would probably be inclined to agree with you on principle, but guns won't really protect your freedom the biggest enemy of that is apathy amongst the electorate, just as it is here.


as before, i would submit that there is no mutual exclusion here. i believe that guns do protect our freedom, and i believe that apathy is also a significant problem. i don't believe that apathy alone is the biggest enemy of freedom.



Historically the british have a habit of putting up with a lot and then getting pissed off enough to change things, our democracy tends to come from below rather than above.
same here. we had a little party a bit more than two hundred years ago when we threw you scoundrels out. :yh_bigsmi :yh_bigsmi :yh_bigsmi

as before, i would submit that there is no mutual exclusion here. i believe that guns do protect our freedom, and i believe that apathy is also a significant problem. i don't believe that apathy alone is the biggest enemy of freedom.


Different countries different attitudes different solutions its a circular arguement that really goes nowhere, you need to sort your own problems. I suspect if you went to switzerland or canada where they have guns you will be able to find pockets especially in urban areas where violent crime is on the increase. No doubt in switzerland you would be able to blame it on the eec even if they are not members.

same here. we had a little party a bit more than two hundred years ago when we threw you scoundrels out.


Just remember where you pinched your best ideas from

We had a republic long before you the problem is we let the puritans (read fundamentalist christians) take over and they were so bad the king seemed great in comparison. It has been suggested that a characteristic british aversion to extremes stems from a cultural memory of the period.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsi ... /benn.html