Violent crime in the UK

[Oddbod]

To all who say that giving a criminal what he wants is the answer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4333165.stm

Stabbed to death AFTER he handed over his wallet.

I can think of another answer that our Lords & Masters have denied us:

Return to us our RIGHT & MEANS to defend ourselves

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Incidents like this are generally an isolated case.

When I was the person who used to take huge amounts of money from the University to the bank. The police during our training and security consultants actually told us that the most effective way to avoid being injured is to not to panic and follow the demands.

Showing signs of panic, or sudden movements can lead a criminal to cause physical injury.

[promillo]

Incidents like this are generally an isolated case.


The propability of getting hurt or killed is more than three times as high, if you do not defend yourself than if you defend on any way.



When I was the person who used to take huge amounts of money from the University to the bank. The police during our training and security consultants actually told us that the most effective way to avoid being injured is to not to panic and follow the demands.

Showing signs of panic, or sudden movements can lead a criminal to cause physical injury.

No, being a helples victim will cause criminals to hurt you.

Your Policemorons are lying to you.
They surely know the criminological facts. So they lie by will, not by incompetence. Shame on them.

The best way to get out of those situations is if you are armed with a firearm.
The second best is, if you take anything you have, to defend yourself.
The most dangerous way is to be a good victim and do what the crim wants. Thats the best way to hospital or worse.
:-(

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm going off what the police and security consultants told myself and 2 other co-workers who shared this responsibility and the University's security staff who provided the escort to the bank.

So until I recieve training in another method then I'll assume this is the only correct way to deal with a situation.

[EsoognomEhT]

er, yeah so giving him a gun would have solved the problem?
of cworse! :roll:

[Oddbod]

If he, or the prior victims of these scum was armed, then there would be a likelihood that they would not be able to re-offend.

Callous? Yes
Reasonable? Yes

Likely outcome under the present Laws:

IF these pieces of human excrement are apprehended, charged & convicted, they will be jailed for 10-12 years.
After that they will be free to(more than likely) commit more crimes.

Will the naysayers please tell me why the Criminal should be allowed greater Rights than the Victim?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I never said the criminal should have greater rights at all. In any even even if you are armed the chances of you actually getting out your gun before the attacker has his gun sighted on you are pretty remote.

The police when I did training on armed hold up. Actually said that potential attackers if using a firearm usually have the gun pointed at you even before your aware that an attack is going to take place.

By trying to shoot an offender not only is your life in apperant more danger but also the lives of innocent bystanders. The police dont really care if a criminal gets killed. What they do not want to deal with is manslaughter charges because an innocent person has been killed in a shootout.

[MEGR]

er, yeah so giving him a gun would have solved the problem?
of cworse! :roll:

He might have been alive today.

[EsoognomEhT]

or, he might not. And 3 more people may be dead too.

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

Incidents like this are generally an isolated case.


The propability of getting hurt or killed is more than three times as high, if you do not defend yourself than if you defend on any way.



When I was the person who used to take huge amounts of money from the University to the bank. The police during our training and security consultants actually told us that the most effective way to avoid being injured is to not to panic and follow the demands.

Showing signs of panic, or sudden movements can lead a criminal to cause physical injury.

No, being a helples victim will cause criminals to hurt you.

Your Policemorons are lying to you.
They surely know the criminological facts. So they lie by will, not by incompetence. Shame on them.

The best way to get out of those situations is if you are armed with a firearm.
The second best is, if you take anything you have, to defend yourself.
The most dangerous way is to be a good victim and do what the crim wants. Thats the best way to hospital or worse.
:-(

I used to do the banking where I used to work and if someone tried to rob me, then they can have the money! If someone is trying to rob you then their perfect outcome is that you hand over the cash and they run away. If they get the cash then it is hugely unlikely that the robber will stand around and try to kill you, what would be the point?

If someone tries to attack you then that is a different situation. Their intent is so harm you and you must defend yourself or you will get hurt.

Sadly people like you don't make a very good case for the pro-firearms camp. If 60% of civilians have a gun whats to make you think that 90% of criminals won't?

The problem in the UK is the low prosecution rate. So the chances are that many criminals will not have a record and will not be stopped from getting their own gun.

[martinexsquaddie]

so nobody ever gets murdered in the us ?

[Buckeye67]

so nobody ever gets murdered in the us ?

They do. Mostly in the places where by law, they're not permitted to arm themselves.

[<Gypsum Fantastic>]

so nobody ever gets murdered in the us ?

They do. Mostly in the places where by law, they're not permitted to arm themselves.

rofl

[achilles]

I really do not see how arming the potential victims can prevent an injury or death...If Paul Tanner had a weapon, so could have those responsible for his death and we might be griefing for more dead people right now.

I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

[Buckeye67]

I really do not see how arming the potential victims can prevent an injury or death...If Paul Tanner had a weapon, so could have those responsible for his death and we might be griefing for more dead people right now.

At least if one is armed one has a chance.


I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

I was a police officer for five years.

How many assaults did I prevent? 0

How many robberies did I prevent? 0

How many rapes/murders/other violent crimes did I prevent? 0

The US Supreme Court has also ruled that the authorities are under no obligation to give any specific individual any protection at any given time.

Wanna try that again?


I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

Unfortunately, as has been repeated ad nauseam, crime statistics do not agree with your opinion.

[achilles]

I really do not see how arming the potential victims can prevent an injury or death...If Paul Tanner had a weapon, so could have those responsible for his death and we might be griefing for more dead people right now.

At least if one is armed one has a chance.

If one is armed there is a 50% chance that the bad guy is the one carrying a piece. If both are armed there is a good chance that both will find themselved six-feet under the next day. The trick is to maximize the possibility that none of them is armed.


I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

I was a police officer for five years.

How many assaults did I prevent? 0

How many robberies did I prevent? 0

How many rapes/murders/other violent crimes did I prevent? 0

This is you.And one person is the smallest sample from which we can draw any resonable conslusions/generilizations. My first cousin is a Chicago Police Officer and his stats differ quite a lot from what you are saying...

The US Supreme Court has also ruled that the authorities are under no obligation to give any specific individual any protection at any given time.




I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.
Wanna try that again?

Nope ;)

Unfortunately, as has been repeated ad nauseam, crime statistics do not agree with your opinion.

Which statistics are you referring to?
The weird thing is that unarmed societies suffer less crime than the American one...

[Buckeye67]

I'd rather take 50/50 odds than 100/0 odds, thanks.

...and please do tell of how many assaults, rapes and/or murders your cousin has prevented. You know - stopped them before they occurred. I guarandamntee you that the number is 0.

I'm sure he's repsonded to a hell of a lot of them...after they happened. I'm sure he may have even arrived at the scene while one is taking place. I'm also sure that there isn't a single one he prevented. Better yet - have him pop onto the site here and post it himself. Law Enforcement, no matter how hard it tries will always be reactive. Meaning 999 times out of 1000, it'll be there to photograph your corpse as it lay in a pool of blood... but they won't be there to save your ass while someone's killing you in your own home or as you walk down the street.

Yes, I'm calling total bull**** on you for that one.

The statistics I'm referring to are ones like this:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

..and you may want to check those homicide rates gain, mate.

[achilles]

Murders per 100,000.
1. Russia Federation 18.07
2. United States 6.32
3. Malaysia 2.73
Taiwan 1.17
Spain 1.08
Japan 0.58

Rape per 100,000.
1. United States 34.20
2. England and Wales 14.69
3. France 13.38
Taiwan 8.82
South Korea 4.38
Spain 3.23
Japan 1.48

Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40

Robbery/Violent Theft per 100,000.
1. Spain 169.85
2. United States 169.02
3. France 144.10
Taiwan 14.35
South Korea 11.74
Japan 2.71
The US is at least top 3. Compare the US and European murder rates...
Shall we legalize guns in Europe in order to acheive US crime rates? ;)


The link to the info quoted above are here (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231)

[Buckeye67]

Murders per 100,000.
1. Russia Federation 18.07
2. United States 6.32
3. Malaysia 2.73
Taiwan 1.17
Spain 1.08
Japan 0.58

Rape per 100,000.
1. United States 34.20
2. England and Wales 14.69
3. France 13.38
Taiwan 8.82
South Korea 4.38
Spain 3.23
Japan 1.48

Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40

Robbery/Violent Theft per 100,000.
1. Spain 169.85
2. United States 169.02
3. France 144.10
Taiwan 14.35
South Korea 11.74
Japan 2.71
The US is at least top 3. Compare the US and European murder rates...
Shall we legalize guns in Europe in order to acheive US crime rates? ;)


The link to the info quoted above are here (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231)

So what you've proven with these stats is that some countries with rigid gun control have murder and violent crime rates higher than the US, and some don't.

You've still not shown that the presence of guns = higher violent crime.

gg next board.

[achilles]

I'd rather take 50/50 odds than 100/0 odds, thanks.

...and please do tell of how many assaults, rapes and/or murders your cousin has prevented. You know - stopped them before they occurred. I guarandamntee you that the number is 0.

I'm sure he's repsonded to a hell of a lot of them...after they happened. I'm sure he may have even arrived at the scene while one is taking place. I'm also sure that there isn't a single one he prevented. Better yet - have him pop onto the site here and post it himself.

Yes, I'm calling total bull**** on you for that one.

The statistics I'm referring to are ones like this:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm

..and you may want to check those homicide rates gain, mate.

I posted without having seen this post of yours, to which i ll come back later.

Drawing phrases like 'total bull****' our of your eloquency drawer can only manage to reduce your credibility. Take it easy...i am no guns expert but i find the issue very interesting. Of course i might be wrong as opposed to you who are 100% that the opposite opinion is total bull****...ever though about running for a president? ;)


Later...

[achilles]

So what you've proven with these stats is that some countries with rigid gun control have murder and violent crime rates higher than the US, and some don't.

You've still not shown that the presence of guns = higher violent crime.

gg next board.

This is just your way of interpreting what i posted. I have shown that the US is second in murders after Russia (a post-Soviet, mafia-run, chaotic country). So that practically leaves you first and in fact you are outscoring by far the rest of the world (Europe mainly) in terms of murder and other crime rates.

Show me how guns prevent crime in your country...practically...

[Buckeye67]

I posted without having seen this post of yours, to which i ll come back later.

Drawing phrases like 'total bull****' our of your eloquency drawer can only manage to reduce your credibility. Take it easy...i am no guns expert but i find the issue very interesting. Of course i might be wrong as opposed to you who are 100% that the opposite opinion is total bull****...ever though about running for a president? ;)


Later...

I'll just call 'em like I see 'em.

President? Nah. I'd rather just live free.

[Buckeye67]

So what you've proven with these stats is that some countries with rigid gun control have murder and violent crime rates higher than the US, and some don't.

You've still not shown that the presence of guns = higher violent crime.

gg next board.

This is just your way of interpreting what i posted. I have shown that the US is second in murders after Russia (a post-Soviet, mafia-run, chaotic country). So that practically leaves you first and in fact you are outscoring by far the rest of the world (Europe mainly) in terms of murder and other crime rates.

Show me how guns prevent crime in your country...practically...

It isn't "my interpretation" at all. It's what your chart says. Per your chart Australia has twice the serious assault rate that the US has, despite strict gun control laws. Russia has a far higher homicide rate despite restrictive gun laws. The fact that, in your words, Russia is a "mafia-run, chaotic" country DESPITE having restrictive gun laws supports the idea that restrictive gun laws just don't work more than anything else.

Violent crime encompasses more than just "murder". Reread your statistics. The burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative. So far, you've not shown anything that would indicate a causative effect that the presence of firearms = higher violent crime rates (which is what you are asserting).

If the presence of guns causes crime, why does Switzerland not have the highest homicide rate in Europe?

If the presence of guns causes violent crime - does the presence of matches cause arson?

[EsoognomEhT]

If the presence of guns causes crime, why does Switzerland not have the highest homicide rate in Europe?


its all about society, the Swiss arent a bunch of gun-ho rednecks with gardens full of nuclear bunkers for when the bomb drops, and they're left as the master race.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[promillo]

I really do not see how arming the potential victims can prevent an injury or death...If Paul Tanner had a weapon, so could have those responsible for his death and we might be griefing for more dead people right now.

The experience from every CCW-State shows, that you are wrong. Your phantasies are disproved in all these CCW-States again and again.
So whats more important? Phantasie or the real life-experience of those states who allow self defense?


I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.
And this has NOTHING to do with CCW and self defense. The bad boys get their weapons via black market. But the law abiding citizens dont. And so they are the perfect prey for every f**ing crim.

[promillo]

If the presence of guns causes crime, why does Switzerland not have the highest homicide rate in Europe?


its all about society, the Swiss arent a bunch of gun-ho rednecks with gardens full of nuclear bunkers for when the bomb drops, and they're left as the master race.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

The swis have more bunkers, compared with population than anyone else.
The civil defense in swizerland is exemplary.

[TacoDelRio]

If the presence of guns causes crime, why does Switzerland not have the highest homicide rate in Europe?


its all about society, the Swiss arent a bunch of gun-ho rednecks with gardens full of nuclear bunkers for when the bomb drops, and they're left as the master race.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

And who is? Are you implying such a place exists?

[EsoognomEhT]

of course not! :lol: :lol: , all those crazy nazi's living out in the woods, or kkk whatever they call themselves, or was that nra? (or have I been watching too many MM films heh)

I blame that Louis Theroux



The swis have more bunkers, compared with population than anyone else.
The civil defense in swizerland is exemplary.

but the swiss are responsible ;] , they have to be with all that cash lying around

[promillo]

of course not! :lol: :lol: , all those crazy nazi's living out in the woods, or kkk whatever they call themselves, or was that nra? (or have I been watching too many MM films heh)

I blame that Louis Theroux



The swis have more bunkers, compared with population than anyone else.
The civil defense in swizerland is exemplary.

but the swiss are responsible ;] , they have to be with all that cash lying around

BS.

The NRA supported blacks in the 60ies with their struggle for legal self defense. The NRA opposed racist gunlaws, disarming the blacks and favor KKK.
And they did this in a time, where leftists did nothing substantially to protect the victims of rascism.

You have many prejudices and no knowledge about the USA and the people of the USA.

go and read a history book.

And, it is no accident that of all things swizerland AND USA, both blessed with good civil and gun rights, have managed to keep peace and democracy for centuries, while the disarmed neighbours suffered genocide by genocide and dictatorship by dictatorship.

The only "reason" a state can have to disarm a people is a coming genocide or the planned destruction of civil rights.

[EsoognomEhT]

No thanks, Ive gone off history books of late.


The NRA supported blacks in the 60ies with their struggle for legal self defense. The NRA opposed racist gunlaws, disarming the blacks and favor KKK.
And they did this in a time, where leftists did nothing ubstantially to protect the victims of rascism

And you've just proved one american stereotype there about Americans and sarcasm :lol: :lol: :lol: ref:
of course not! Laughing Laughing , all those crazy nazi's living out in the woods, or kkk whatever they call themselves, or was that nra? (or have I been watching too many MM films heh)


Oh, and Ive got plenty of American family thankyou.

[achilles]

It isn't "my interpretation" at all. It's what your chart says. Per your chart Australia has twice the serious assault rate that the US has, despite strict gun control laws. Russia has a far higher homicide rate despite restrictive gun laws. The fact that, in your words, Russia is a "mafia-run, chaotic" country DESPITE having restrictive gun laws supports the idea that restrictive gun laws just don't work more than anything else.

You are forcing me to state the obvious...there are exceptions to every rule. I am not saying that USA should top every single crime rate index simply because guns are allowed. Nor do i say that gun-prohibiting countries are heavens on earth. All i am saying is that USA reaches a minimum of top 5 in ALL crime indices despite the vast number of guns that circulate freely there. The right to self-defense via weapons (if gun ownership has anything to do with it) does not work against crime. Thats an apparent, every-day case of which your country is a prime example.
Russia has restrictive laws indeed. But Russia does not have LAW ENFORCEMENT and this is what i stressed out. Russia is undergoing and will be undergoing a transitional phase towards being a developed nation for many years to come, and that makes it a special case. Its more wise to keep the comparisons among countries that are characterized by law enforcement.


Violent crime encompasses more than just "murder". Reread your statistics. The burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative. So far, you've not shown anything that would indicate a causative effect that the presence of firearms = higher violent crime rates (which is what you are asserting).

So what you are asking for is a strong positive correlation between guns and crime. Sorry i am out of stock at the moment. ;) What i am saying is implicit in the stats i provided: a country with a vast number of guns cannot tackle crime, given also that your police is doing a hell of a good job there...at least in comparative terms with other countries. So either gun ownership increases crime or has nothing to do with dealing with crime in the first place!

No you dont have to proove any negatives. But you still owe me a solid strong POSITIVE correlation between guns and lack of crime.In any place around the world

If the presence of guns causes crime, why does Switzerland not have the highest homicide rate in Europe?

When did i say that guns is the only parameter affecting crime? It is also very much related to mentality, gun-use tradition, law-enforcement, the effectiveness of police, among other things. Why does Switzerland not have the lowest homicide rate if guns have anything to do with it, as i ve already said?

If the presence of guns causes violent crime - does the presence of matches cause arson?

Thats an irrelevant and rather unfortunate analogy...does the existence of Chinese people induce the proliferation of the burds' flu? Cmon... p-)

[achilles]

The experience from every CCW-State shows, that you are wrong. Your phantasies are disproved in all these CCW-States again and again.
So whats more important? Phantasie or the real life-experience of those states who allow self defense?

I really dont know what you are babbling about...

And this has NOTHING to do with CCW and self defense. The bad boys get their weapons via black market. But the law abiding citizens dont. And so they are the perfect prey for every f**ing crim.

Banning guns and in fact prohibiting anything for that matter creates black markets. In the case of guns this seems to be good. It makes guns far more expensive and difficult to obtain. So under a no-gun scheme some bad guys will get weapons...under a pro-gun scheme all or most bad guys will have the chance to get one....cheaply

[achilles]

I'm sure he's repsonded to a hell of a lot of them...after they happened. I'm sure he may have even arrived at the scene while one is taking place. I'm also sure that there isn't a single one he prevented. Better yet - have him pop onto the site here and post it himself.

and BTW my cousin's name is Eddie Gevrekis:

Eddie Gevrekis, a police officer for the City of Chicago, testified that after his partner, Officer Tom Brant, and he had been briefed by Detective Sobolewski, they drove southbound on Leavitt. At 2741 Leavitt, he observed two male Hispanics at the opening of a gangway at that location, one wearing all black clothing and the other all white clothing. Officer Gevrekis identified the defendant as the individual dressed in the all white clothing. The two individuals were standing next to each other. The individual dressed in black displayed a weapon and began firing at the officers. As Officer Gevrekis returned fire, the defendant ran eastbound down a gangway that leads on to Hoyne Street where there is a courtyard.

I wont bother him about posting here cause its been a long time since i last called him. You got his name...you can easily contact him and ask him whatever you like ;) Last time we talked he didnt enjoy being shot at by legal or illegal gun owners...

[Buckeye67]

I'm sure he's repsonded to a hell of a lot of them...after they happened. I'm sure he may have even arrived at the scene while one is taking place. I'm also sure that there isn't a single one he prevented. Better yet - have him pop onto the site here and post it himself.

and BTW my cousin's name is Eddie Gevrekis:

Eddie Gevrekis, a police officer for the City of Chicago, testified that after his partner, Officer Tom Brant, and he had been briefed by Detective Sobolewski, they drove southbound on Leavitt. At 2741 Leavitt, he observed two male Hispanics at the opening of a gangway at that location, one wearing all black clothing and the other all white clothing. Officer Gevrekis identified the defendant as the individual dressed in the all white clothing. The two individuals were standing next to each other. The individual dressed in black displayed a weapon and began firing at the officers. As Officer Gevrekis returned fire, the defendant ran eastbound down a gangway that leads on to Hoyne Street where there is a courtyard.

I wont bother him about posting here cause its been a long time since i last called him. You got his name...you can easily contact him and ask him whatever you like ;)

Burglary = crime against property. Murder/Assault = crime against a person.

Foiling a burglary != preventing a murder or violent crime.

Better luck next time.

I'll reply to your other posts after I have a sleep.

[achilles]

I'll reply to your other posts after I have a sleep.

Either i am not making myself clear or you dont mean to understand what i am saying...in any case a nap will give you a boost, no doubt about that...

Just for the record...

Burglary = crime against property. Murder/Assault = crime against a person.

Foiling a burglary != preventing a murder or violent crime.

Better luck next time.

Dont they all sum up to 'crime' in general? I thought a large chunk of our dicsussion pertains to 'crime' and 'guns' which of course includes 'murder'.
Cheers...

[promillo]

The experience from every CCW-State shows, that you are wrong. Your phantasies are disproved in all these CCW-States again and again.
So whats more important? Phantasie or the real life-experience of those states who allow self defense?

I really dont know what you are babbling about...

And this has NOTHING to do with CCW and self defense. The bad boys get their weapons via black market. But the law abiding citizens dont. And so they are the perfect prey for every f**ing crim.

Banning guns and in fact prohibiting anything for that matter creates black markets. In the case of guns this seems to be good. It makes guns far more expensive and difficult to obtain. So under a no-gun scheme some bad guys will get weapons...under a pro-gun scheme all or most bad guys will have the chance to get one....cheaply


Complete nonsense.

A good hunting rifle (legal) costs some 1000 Euro. An AK47 is far below, maybe 500 Euro including some mags full of ammo.

An average sporting pistol from H&K (legal) costs 1500 Euro min.
A illegal Makarov costs 100-200 Euro, depending how far away from the eastern border you buy it.
Those relations are the result of the german police investigantions for this problems. I had an opportunity to talk to some policeofficers who work on this problem, last IWA in Nuermberg. And I dont think that the prices of illegal weapons got much higher since then.
As bigger the black market grows, the cheaper and easier to get the illegal guns will be.
The fees in germany you have to pay to get a legal weapon are in the range of those cheap makarows!!! Only the fees! Not the legal weapon.

Under a no-gun schema, like GB the average criminal has full auto. The petty-crim has "only" makarow. But they are armed. Because the black market is much more widespread than in a country with better gunlaw.

Under a free gunlaw, the citizens have also guns and therefore, they have a chance to defend themself. In a gunfree zone they dont have and the crim is alswys first.

I Think YOU dont know what YOU are babbling about.

[Geezah]

If the presence of guns causes crime, why does Switzerland not have the highest homicide rate in Europe?


its all about society, the Swiss arent a bunch of gun-ho rednecks with gardens full of nuclear bunkers for when the bomb drops, and they're left as the master race.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Would I be considered a Red-Neck?

[EsoognomEhT]

You're redder than red



Anyway, never mind all this crazy discussion. The majority dont want guns to be legal. End of story.

Why do yanks feel the need to come and tell us just how much cooler and safer we'd be with guns, but get ****ing annoyed when we tell them how much safer they'ed be without? Double standards methinks!

[promillo]

You're redder than red



Anyway, never mind all this crazy discussion. The majority dont want guns to be legal. End of story.


What is a rational reason for this? Why the majority of brainwashed GB wants more illegal guns?


Why do yanks feel the need to come and tell us just how much cooler and safer we'd be with guns, but get f*** annoyed when we tell them how much safer they'ed be without? Double standards methinks!

It is proved, that libertarian gun laws reduce crime.
It is proven also, that strict gunlaws do not reduce crime.

That is the difference between pro-gunners and antis.

[Oddbod]

I'm not a "Yank" I'm an Englishman who believes that the Right of Law-abiding citizens to keep & bear arms should be restored to to them.

Robbery, Assault & "Hot" burglaries are all far higher in the UK than the US.
Violent crime is falling in the US - now at its lowest level in decades.
The same crimes are rising rapidly in the UK & at an increasing rate.

As for obtaining firearms in the UK. I could obtain an illegal gun in far less time than it takes to add a legal one to my FAC & cheaper as well.

[Geezah]

I really do not see how arming the potential victims can prevent an injury or death...If Paul Tanner had a weapon, so could have those responsible for his death and we might be griefing for more dead people right now.

You mean that currently in the UK, criminals do not have access to firearms or that with the proper checks and balances crimanls would not be able to purchase firearms thru legal channels?
You really are somewhat naive to believe that if the vicitm was armed he had a greater chance of being deader than he is now!
Be nice if you could give examples for your idea of a wild west shoot out when the vicitm is armed?



I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

Again, you mean giving them less access than they have today!



I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

The UK would is a great example of this, but wait, it's near impossible for the law abiding to own firearms!
So how are crimianls currently getting these boom sticks?


Crime is out of control, says Howard

The murder of a City financier in a suspected burglary at his Chelsea home (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/01/nmonc01.xml) was cited by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, as support for his party's claim that violent crime is "out of control".

Mr Howard clashed with Tony Blair during Prime Minister's Questions yesterday after raising the killing of John Monckton, 49, and the wounding of his wife, Homeyra.

He said violent crime had risen, detected offences were up and detection rates had slumped since Labour came to power in 1997. In London last year, 211 people were murdered and detection rates had fallen by more than 10 per cent since 1997.

"Criminals now have a better chance of committing a crime and getting away with it than at any time in the last 25 years," said Mr Howard. "The fight against crime is being lost and crime is out of control."

He made his comments as it emerged that detectives had arrested a man on Tuesday night, 24 hours after two attackers forced their way into the Moncktons' home in Upper Cheyne Row. Officers have so far not been allowed to conduct a full interview with Mrs Monckton, 45, who is still recovering from surgery following the attack, which took place when her husband opened their door to the pair at around 7.30pm on Monday.

Mr Monckton, a director with Legal & General, died in hospital from his injuries. His wife is in a serious but stable condition in St Thomas's Hospital in London and is not expected to be discharged for another week.

Police have also still to interview the couple's youngest daughter, nine-year-old Isabel Monckton, who was in the house at the time. Detectives want to know if she saw the struggle between her parents and the intruders.

Because of the difficulties in interviewing the mother and daughter, Scotland Yard was unable to elaborate on the description of the attackers as "youths". The age of the arrested man was not disclosed and he was released on bail last night.

In responding to Mr Howard, the Prime Minister said that overall, crime was falling after doubling under the Tory administration. He conceded that violent and gun crime were too high but said that new measures had been brought in to tackle them.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/02/nmonc02.xml)

New measures to tackle gun crime, ohhh, I can't wait to see what those are, maybe more ASBOs or another slap on the wrist :cantbeli:


Crime rate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/quick_guides/05/uk_politics_law_and_order/img/1.jpg

Labour promised to be "tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime".
After eight years in office, overall crime rates have been falling, as measured by the British Crime Survey.

But more than one in four households are still victims of crime each year and the recorded crime rate has gone up.

Many crimes - such as shoplifting and anti-social behaviour - are not fully recorded by either method.



Violent crime

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/quick_guides/05/uk_politics_law_and_order/img/2.jpg
There is a close relationship between alcohol and violent crime

More than one million people are the victims of violent crimes each year.
Recently there appear to be an increasing number of violent crimes - especially using guns - although some argue this is due to improved reporting.

Overall, violent crime rose by 11% last year, with the biggest increases in violence against the person and rape.

The government wants to tackle "yob culture" by giving the police more powers to tackle disorderly behaviour in town centres with on-the-spot fines.


I personally would look at harsher sentences for drunken louts and increase taxes on alchohol as this seems tobe a major contributer to violent crime!


Policing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/quick_guides/05/uk_politics_law_and_order/img/3.jpg

All parties have pledged to increase police numbers to fight crime.
The number of police has increased by 10% since Labour came into power and reached 139,000 by August 2004.

The Tories would add 40,000 more, the LibDems 10,000.

But crime clear-up rates are still low.

Both the government and opposition parties want more community policing, with the Conservatives calling for elected police commissioners.



Drugs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/quick_guides/05/uk_politics_law_and_order/img/4.jpg

In 2004 the government reclassified cannabis as a less dangerous Class C drug and said the police would not normally arrest people who use it.
The idea was to free up police time to pursue hard drugs and drug dealers.

The Conservatives say the move caused confusion among the public and will reverse the decision.

The Liberal Democrats have a long-term goal of legalising cannabis and ending imprisonment for personal use of any illegal drugs.



ASBOs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/quick_guides/05/uk_politics_law_and_order/img/5.jpg
The government wants to crack down on anti-social behaviour

The government believes that tackling minor crimes and anti-social behaviour is the key to reducing crime rates.
One of its key weapons is the anti-social behaviour order (ASBO).

This is a court order obtained by the police or local authority to prohibit individuals from disruptive behaviour.

Over 3,000 ASBOs have been granted since the law came into force in 1999.



Prisons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/quick_guides/05/uk_politics_law_and_order/img/6.jpg

The prison population has increased by 25,000 in the last ten years to a record high of nearly 75,000.
The rise in prison numbers reflect tougher sentencing policies, with more custodial sentences for burglary.

The Conservatives argue that even longer sentences without early release would help reduce the crime rate, and want 20,000 more prison places.

Half of prisons in England and Wales are overcrowded, with one in four sharing single cells.


I would say that the UK has a major problem and this is without the help of law abiding citizens being armed! :cantbeli:

[Geezah]

Why do yanks feel the need to come and tell us just how much cooler and safer we'd be with guns, but get f*** annoyed when we tell them how much safer they'ed be without? Double standards methinks!

I'm not a yank, I was born in West Middlesex Hospital, West London and moved here 8yrs ago and if current trends are anythign to go by the UK is worse off than when I left.

Also as I am now armed with a few boom stoicks I feel allot safer knowing that if someone comes into my home uninvited more than likely I will not be playing the part of helpless victim!

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I have recieved training that has proven that being armed and using a weapon against a would be attacker is worse then being passive.

Oh waite. I'm also a lefty so the police that conducted this training know nothing.

:cantbeli:

[Geezah]

I have recieved training that has proven that being armed and using a weapon against a would be attacker is worse then being passive.

Oh waite. I'm also a lefty so the police that conducted this training know nothing.

:cantbeli:

Look, you may like playing possum but I do not, basically you're trying to say it's ok to be a victim!
I don't care what any LEO is going to tell me, I will react to the situation as all encounters are unique!
Did the LEOs also tell you to call them if you got into trouble?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Why wouldent you call them once the situation became safe?

[EsoognomEhT]

Also as I am now armed with a few boom stoicks I feel allot safer knowing that if someone comes into my home uninvited more than likely I will not be playing the part of helpless victim!

Just as I feel a lot safer knowing that if someone comes into my home uninvited the chance they're carrying a gun is minimal, and Ill be battering the **** out of them with the nearest blunt object. Im not being scared into getting a firearm by the threat of nasty robbers.


It is proved, that libertarian gun laws reduce crime.
It is proven also, that strict gunlaws do not reduce crime.


Forget the crime aspect, people dont want guns. (again) End of story.

[promillo]

Also as I am now armed with a few boom stoicks I feel allot safer knowing that if someone comes into my home uninvited more than likely I will not be playing the part of helpless victim!

Just as I feel a lot safer knowing that if someone comes into my home uninvited the chance they're carrying a gun is minimal, and Ill be battering the f*** out of them with the nearest blunt object. Im not being scared into getting a firearm by the threat of nasty robbers.


Ok. But please accept the facts.
Today it is more common, that your foe is armed heavily than some years ago. Thanks of the strict gun laws who made it very easy to establish a black market where crims can get everything they desire for less than before.




It is proved, that libertarian gun laws reduce crime.
It is proven also, that strict gunlaws do not reduce crime.


Forget the crime aspect, people dont want guns. (again) End of story.


YOU do not want guns. But please accept the right of others to oppose your self choosen victim-state.

[EsoognomEhT]

My foe? My foe currently are terrorists, and yeah they are pretty well armed thanks to some arms deals from certain countries.



YOU do not want guns. But please accept the right of others to oppose your self choosen victim-state.


Do you live in Britain? Because I do, and I know very well that the vast majority here do not have even the slightest interest in owning a gun.

[promillo]

My foe? My foe currently are terrorists, and yeah they are pretty well armed thanks to some arms deals from certain countries.

...like russia, redchina and france.



YOU do not want guns. But please accept the right of others to oppose your self choosen victim-state.


Do you live in Britain? Because I do, and I know very well that the vast majority here do not have even the slightest interest in owning a gun.

If I where you I wouldnt bet on it.
:P

[promillo]

Why wouldent you call them once the situation became safe?

You mean, you call the police after you have been killed?
Great idea!
:cantbeli:

[Weasel]

I have recieved training that has proven that being armed and using a weapon against a would be attacker is worse then being passive.

Oh waite. I'm also a lefty so the police that conducted this training know nothing.

:cantbeli:

Damn. Could have been my words. ;)

[Geezah]

I have recieved training that has proven that being armed and using a weapon against a would be attacker is worse then being passive.

Oh waite. I'm also a lefty so the police that conducted this training know nothing.

:cantbeli:

Look, you may like playing possum but I do not, basically you're trying to say it's ok to be a victim!
I don't care what any LEO is going to tell me, I will react to the situation as all encounters are unique!
Did the LEOs also tell you to call them if you got into trouble?

Why wouldent you call them once the situation became safe?

That wasn't what I asked, how can you call them when you get into trouble or did they say call once the bad person/persons have left?

[Geezah]

My foe? My foe currently are terrorists, and yeah they are pretty well armed thanks to some arms deals from certain countries.



YOU do not want guns. But please accept the right of others to oppose your self choosen victim-state.


Do you live in Britain? Because I do, and I know very well that the vast majority here do not have even the slightest interest in owning a gun.

I'm from London, I was living in Stamford Brook just before I moved over here and knocked around with allot of lads form Ladbroke Grove and I can tell you now they had easy access to firearms!
And as far as the majority, how do you know or is it a case of everyone thinks guns=crime=bad rather than gun=tool=self-defence!

And why is it no-one here can tell what measures are currently in place to protect the women, old, sick, physically handicapped or physically injured from evil-doers?

[EsoognomEhT]

The Rozzers of cworse

[Geezah]

The Rozzers of cworse

Before, During or After the crime has taken place?

[Geezah]

Food for thought as to how crime/gun free the UK really is!


England has worst crime rate in world

England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.

According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.

During the period 1998-2000, Britain went from fifth to fourth worst in the world league table. An analysis of total recorded crime figures before 1998 also suggests that England and Wales have moved sharply up the league table since Labour came to power in 1997. Crimes fell from 5.5 million in 1993 to 4.5 million in 1997. By 1999, total crimes had risen again to 5.3 million.

Last night Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said: "This does rather blow a hole in David Blunkett's claim that New Labour has crime under control. It is a damning picture."

The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.

Criminologists believe that a note of caution needs to be introduced into analysis of the data, because of the different ways in which UN member countries record crimes.

A Home Office spokesman said that officials had not yet seen the report and so could not comment.


Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html)


Police crime records 'inadequate'

Most police forces in England and Wales are still not recording crime properly, an Audit Commission report says.

Just 17 of the 43 forces have reached standards set by the Home Office, with four giving serious cause for concern.

As a result crime fighting efforts may not be concentrated in the right place, the public spending watchdog said.

Home Office minister Hazel Blears praised the "considerable efforts" made to meet standards but said "further work was needed".

But shadow home secretary David Davis said the findings suggested crime levels could be higher than reported.

The report found the majority of forces still had "some way to go" in recording crime.

Red ratings

The Metropolitan Police service(London + Greater London) was among four forces given a red rating in the commission's "traffic light" system, slipping from amber last year.

Cleveland, Cumbria and South Yorkshire were also given red ratings.

Seventeen authorities met the set national standard and were rated green - compared to 12 in 2003.

Twenty-two authorities were rated amber, compared to 21 in 2003.

BBC correspondent Neil Bennett said police were getting better in the way they recorded crimes, but that if forces did not record it accurately they would not know how to respond.

For instance, many had strategies for helping women who were victims of domestic violence, he said.

But if original 999 calls were not being logged properly there may not be the right intervention, creating a real risk to those involved.

Slipped category

Despite the failings in police record keeping, the Audit Commission said the official crime figures did give a broadly accurate picture.

But it said the figures on violent crime, which jumped 11% in the second quarter of the year, were the least reliable.

In total, three forces - the Met, Cumbria and Gloucestershire - slipped down a category in the traffic light system.

A further eight had shown deterioration but it had not been bad enough for them to be reclassified.


The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), which forces are meant to implement, was introduced by the Home Office in April 2002.

Work needed

Ms Blears said the police service had achieved "very high standards in recording target crimes".

But, she added: "Further work is needed and the Police Standards Unit will continue to engage with the service to ensure forces record all information in the clearest and most efficient way."


Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) spokesman and Northamptonshire chief constable Peter Maddison agreed forces had work to do, especially for those with a red rating.

But he added: "The fact most forces are rated green and amber is a huge improvement on what we had prior to NCRS.

"The police service now needs to build on these achievements."

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "It is essential for crime statistics to be recorded accurately.

"These findings suggest that crime levels may be even higher than is now reported."


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4112427.stm)


Gun Crime - Rising Every Year

The fear of gun crime in the city where Pc Ian Broadhurst was shot dead on Boxing Day last year is worse than the reality, a senior officer said.

Detective Chief Superintendent Grahame Bullock said there was a division between the perception of gun crime and the reality, with a high profile killing having a ripple effect throughout the community.

Mr Bullock, of West Yorkshire Police, said: “A high-profile killing has a significant impact and the perception goes further than just the people actually affected.

“We have to work to reassure people.

“Sometimes there is a ripple effect and the perception becomes disproportionate.”

But with the equivalent of one gun crime every hour in Britain, official figures show the problem has more than doubled in Leeds in the last six years.

“Every incident of gun crime has a critical effect on communities. We are never complacent about it,” said Mr Bullock, head of the West Yorkshire force’s community safety department.

He said the problems faced by officers in Leeds were not as serious as in other major cities in the UK, but that no one could afford to become complacent.

He told the Leeds Community Safety Partnership conference in March that the rationale for the service was reassurance and preventative patrol by mostly unarmed officers.

“In the UK, we’re still very into the confidence of the public. We know that,” he said.

“The British police service still enjoys, compared to other countries, high levels of public confidence. Again there’s no room for complacency, there have been blips, and we need to tackle that.

“It’s very much about working with people rather than imposing solutions on to people. It’s about engagement with communities, familiarity.

“We should be very proud of Leeds and West Yorkshire. Given the melee of society that we have, we still see relatively low levels of violent crime and gun crime.”

But across England and Wales the number of gun crimes have doubled since 1997 with 10,000 incidents a year.

And the number of incidents in West Yorkshire is rising year-on-year, according to the force’s annual reports.

There were more than 2,145 incidents involving firearms in the county in 2003/4, up from 2,041 the year before and more than double the 947 recorded incidents in 1998/99.

Colin Cramphorn, chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, said the murder of Pc Broadhurst had overshadowed a “challenging year” for the force.

In his annual report for 2003/4, he said: “Such incidents remind us all of the terribly high price police officers may be asked to pay in protecting us from crime and disorder. We are forever in their debt.”


Link (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3833860)


One in three young criminals is armed

Government research shows use of guns is on the rise and gangster films are blamed for making it seem 'cool'

One in three criminals under the age of 25 owns or has access to a firearm, the Government's researchers have discovered.
A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them.

The events of the past week have provided sobering evidence of how deeply ingrained Britain's new gun culture has become.

Officers patrolling the Notting Hill carnival last month said they had been prevented from searching a suspect, later found to be carrying a loaded 9mm pistol, for fear of inciting violence. Last Monday, doormen trying to break up a fight at the Epping Forest Country Club in Essex watched in horror as several revellers produced guns and began shooting at them. Two doormen were hit and seriously injured. A few hours later, a man was shot in the head during a 'road rage' row in south London.

Last Tuesday, three people were left fighting for their lives after a group of young Rolex robbers ambushed them in the driveway of their luxury home in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire. Millionaire Joe Martorana had just stepped out of his BMW when two men snatched the Rolex from his wrist.

When his wife, Josephine, tried to raise the alarm, she was shot once in the back by a handgun. As she lay bleeding, the gunmen snatched her Rolex. The couple's son, 18-year-old Steven, and his girlfriend, Isabella, had heard the shot from inside the house. They rushed through the front door to confront the robbers who gunned them down. Steven was hit by a bullet in his chest, and Isabella was shot in the stomach. A few hours later, a 28-year-old man was seriously injured after being shot at a London nightclub.

Last Wednesday, Essex builder Ronald Fuller was shot dead by a moped-riding gunman who waited near his home. Fuller, who has a child, was shot twice in the head and twice in the body at point-blank range. Fuller had been acquitted of stabbing a man to death at the Epping Forest Country Club. Police have not ruled out a link between his murder and the violence at the club.

Between 1997 and 1999 there were 429 murders in the capital, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years. At least 100 of them were drug-related; nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms. Dozens of other firearms incidents resulted in people being seriously injured. Last month eight people were wounded when a gunman began shooting indiscriminately outside Chicago's nightclub in Peckham High Street.

The picture is the same across the country. Last month a small-time cannabis dealer, Paul Rogers, was shot dead in front of his young son after two gunmen burst into his Liverpool home. In Birmingham and Manchester, police attend more than 100 firearms incidents every month. In Wales, armed police have been called into action every day this year.

Detectives say modern weapons are increasingly being held by young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory. They fear many youngsters are being strongly influenced by the rash of British crime movies such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and its newly released follow-up, Snatch, which have made gangsters chic.

Small shopkeepers, who in the past have found themselves threatened with iron bars, baseball bats or knives, are increasingly finding themselves facing handguns or even automatic weapons. A study by Independent Retail News shows that a third of all attacks now involve firearms.

Lee Jasper, who advises the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, on matters of race and policing, believes that, whereas guns were once reserved for the criminal élite, they are increasingly falling into the hands of younger, less experienced criminals.

'We have a culture developed where people think it is very cool to carry a gun, and are prepared to use it at the drop of a hat. The crime has moved on from just protecting your market and your market share to doling out punishment and intimidation. And the gun is the first resort - the weapon of choice - for settling arguments.'

Government researchers are hoping to track the source of black market weapons to devise more effective ways of combating the trade.

Controls such as the banning of handguns after the Dunblane tragedy have had no effect on the number of illegally held guns that are smuggled into the country, supplied by corrupt dealers or reactivated from supposedly decommissioned stock.

Meanwhile, makers of bullet-proof vests are reporting record profits. Vest sales have quadrupled, with 60,000 snapped up in the past two years at about £400 a time.


Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,363761,00.html)


Man pulled gun on two cops

TWO terrified police officers were confronted by a gunman at a Glasgow block of flats, a court has heard.

The two officers twice ordered 26-year-old Christopher McKenna to put the weapon down.
But when he refused, they called in the armed response unit, who cordoned off and surrounded a house in nearby Blairlogie Street, where McKenna had fled.
McKenna eventually gave himself up and was grabbed by two officers, who handcuffed him.
At the High Court in Glasgow, McKenna, of Boghall Street, Ruchazie, Glasgow, admitted presenting and aiming an imitation firearm at PCs David Hillhouse and Alan Stevenson and placing them in a state of fear for their safety.
The offence was committed in Boghall Street on September 18 last year and involved a ball-bearing gun.
Des Finnieston, defending, said he would make his plea in mitigation at McKenna's next court appearance.
Judge Lord MacPhail ordered a background report and deferred sentencing until next month. TWO terrified police officers were confronted by a gunman at a Glasgow block of flats, a court has heard.
The two officers twice ordered 26-year-old Christopher McKenna to put the weapon down.
But when he refused, they called in the armed response unit, who cordoned off and surrounded a house in nearby Blairlogie Street, where McKenna had fled.
McKenna eventually gave himself up and was grabbed by two officers, who handcuffed him.
At the High Court in Glasgow, McKenna, of Boghall Street, Ruchazie, Glasgow, admitted presenting and aiming an imitation firearm at PCs David Hillhouse and Alan Stevenson and placing them in a state of fear for their safety.
The offence was committed in Boghall Street on September 18 last year and involved a ball-bearing gun.
Des Finnieston, defending, said he would make his plea in mitigation at McKenna's next court appearance.
Judge Lord MacPhail ordered a background report and deferred sentencing until next month.

Link (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5036365.html)

It's a shame I no longer live in good old gun free blighty :(

[achilles]

Complete nonsense.

You remind me of someone sometimes....you are not the alter ego of machupichu are you? :lol:

A good hunting rifle (legal) costs some 1000 Euro. An AK47 is far below, maybe 500 Euro including some mags full of ammo.

If you had read my post more carefully you would have made both our lives easier. First, there is absolutely no comparison between a hunting rifle and an AK/47. A rifle can kill a certain number of persons wheareas an AK/47 can wipe out a platoon just for fun. Your comparison falls into the good old apples/oranges analogies.
Second: i didnt say CHEAPER. I said CHEAPLY. If an illegal AK/47 now costs 500 Euros in Germany illegally its reasonable to say that it would cost far less than that if we assume that guns become legal.
Third: You are talking about Germany...thats only one country out of....200 something? ;) You know **** about prices in Greece do you? Greece being of course one more example.
Fourth: I stressed out the ease with which you can buy a legal gun as opposed to an illegal one. Suppose i freak out and feel like killing my girlfriend's husband so we can both escape and live happily ever after to our country house in Albania p-). Guns are illegal and have no doubt that you need to go through a complicated and dangerous process here in Greece to find even a 9mm pistol. Had they been legal i could have bought it within minutes from my neighborhood's hardware store. Think of the obstacle that gun-prohibition can become in terms of how easy we can get one.

An average sporting pistol from H&K (legal) costs 1500 Euro min.
A illegal Makarov costs 100-200 Euro, depending how far away from the eastern border you buy it.
Those relations are the result of the german police investigantions for this problems. I had an opportunity to talk to some policeofficers who work on this problem, last IWA in Nuermberg. And I dont think that the prices of illegal weapons got much higher since then.
As bigger the black market grows, the cheaper and easier to get the illegal guns will be.

Again you are mentioning specific examples at specific places and based on that you are generalizing. You are right, though, that the bigger the black market that cheaper the product gets. But it will never be as cheap as it would be if the product under consideration was legalized. Its an unwritten economic law....prohibition makes the production, promotion and distribution of any product more costly. Add in to that the extra costs of protection from the authorities and you get a higher price.

I Think YOU dont know what YOU are babbling about.

Perhaps now you do :lol:


...and here is a little something for you to play with...
http://gungallery.euweb.cz/Pict/Al's%20autoloading%20pistol%20.22%20LR.jpg

[achilles]

You mean that currently in the UK, criminals do not have access to firearms or that with the proper checks and balances crimanls would not be able to purchase firearms thru legal channels?
You really are somewhat naive to believe that if the vicitm was armed he had a greater chance of being deader than he is now!
Be nice if you could give examples for your idea of a wild west shoot out when the vicitm is armed?

How effective can those checks and balances be? How can the authorities know who should get a weapon and who should not? That requires huge personal records and surveillance and reminds me a bit of the 'big brother' who is watching. Think of all the negative implications of 'conducting proper checks and balances'.

Deader? Of course not. I just said that other people as well might have been dead of the whole bunch of those involved were fully armed.

[quote=achilles]
I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

Again, you mean giving them less access than they have today!

What i said. I dont want to see wackos being able to get a gun.



I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

The UK would is a great example of this, but wait, it's near impossible for the law abiding to own firearms!
So how are crimianls currently getting these boom sticks?

**** man. Why do we have to talk about it in such absolute terms? Prohibition does not mean the absolute dissappearence of guns. Couldnt have meant that under any reasonable circumstances. Its all about minimizing the guns that are out there and therefore reducing the chances of them being used in an unfortunate way.

Your sources depict a specific problem, yet they do not consolidate that more guns would resolve it. Yes, Britain has serious crime rates and i have seen some a good deal of violence in the streets of generally 'calm' cities. Mate, you are kicking each other asses badly there anyway, and with all that alcohol you consume i prefer not to see you armed ;) And not letting drinkers get a gun is out of question isnt it? :lol:

[Oddbod]

Achilles
If you are going to pontificate on a subject, then please have the sense to know what you are talking about.

This...

"A rifle can kill a certain number of persons wheareas an AK/47 can wipe out a platoon just for fun"

...is complete drivel.

The AK series of assault rifles are less accurate & fire a lower powered cartridge than the average "hunting rifle" with their only possible advantage being the ability to fire on full auto - with a great loss of accuracy.

Firearms are now a "must have" for today's upwardly mobile young criminal & I see NO REASON why I should be denied the means to defend myself & my property from his attentions.
Why the Hell should I give my hard earned possessions to any scumbag that demands them?

[promillo]

Complete nonsense.

You remind me of someone sometimes....you are not the alter ego of machupichu are you? :lol:

No
But your quoting sucks.


A good hunting rifle (legal) costs some 1000 Euro. An AK47 is far below, maybe 500 Euro including some mags full of ammo.

If you had read my post more carefully you would have made both our lives easier. First, there is absolutely no comparison between a hunting rifle and an AK/47. A rifle can kill a certain number of persons wheareas an AK/47 can wipe out a platoon just for fun.
Your comparison falls into the good old apples/oranges analogies.
Second: i didnt say CHEAPER. I said CHEAPLY. If an illegal AK/47 now costs 500 Euros in Germany illegally its reasonable to say that it would cost far less than that if we assume that guns become legal.
Third: You are talking about Germany...thats only one country out of....200 something? ;) You know **** about prices in Greece do you? Greece being of course one more example.
Fourth: I stressed out the ease with which you can buy a legal gun as opposed to an illegal one. Suppose i freak out and feel like killing my girlfriend's husband so we can both escape and live happily ever after to our country house in Albania p-). Guns are illegal and have no doubt that you need to go through a complicated and dangerous process here in Greece to find even a 9mm pistol. Had they been legal i could have bought it within minutes from my neighborhood's hardware store. Think of the obstacle that gun-prohibition can become in terms of how easy we can get one.

first, you can buy a semi-auto hunting rifle thats also capable to wipe out a platoon...but why should I wipe them out?
second: Those AKs are stolen from any armies, they can allways be cheaper than legal ones.
third:Even in greece, that very close on the former yugoslavia.
fourth: Maybe greece has libertarian gun laws, so that there is no black market. Or you are just blind and dont want to see, that every drugdealer can easily offer you weapons too.
In GB, the country with the strictest laws, the black market is now availlaable to everybody and more and more crims are heavily armed with fullauto.


An average sporting pistol from H&K (legal) costs 1500 Euro min.
A illegal Makarov costs 100-200 Euro, depending how far away from the eastern border you buy it.
Those relations are the result of the german police investigantions for this problems. I had an opportunity to talk to some policeofficers who work on this problem, last IWA in Nuermberg. And I dont think that the prices of illegal weapons got much higher since then.
As bigger the black market grows, the cheaper and easier to get the illegal guns will be.

Again you are mentioning specific examples at specific places and based on that you are generalizing. You are right, though, that the bigger the black market that cheaper the product gets. But it will never be as cheap as it would be if the product under consideration was legalized. Its an unwritten economic law....prohibition makes the production, promotion and distribution of any product more costly. Add in to that the extra costs of protection from the authorities and you get a higher price.



BULLHIT!!!!!

I told you, even the fees for a firearmlicence are as high as the whole weapon on black market.

The mentioned Makarov costs (without fees) app 30% more than the illegal ones. Yes, in Germany, with its txes...but as an example that you just dont know what you are talking about.



I Think YOU dont know what YOU are babbling about.

Perhaps now you do :lol:


...and here is a little something for you to play with...
http://gungallery.euweb.cz/Pict/Al's%20autoloading%20pistol%20.22%20LR.jpg

Yes, now I know that you are talking about an utopian World, created in your mind and without any links to the real world.

[Geezah]

You mean that currently in the UK, criminals do not have access to firearms or that with the proper checks and balances criminals would not be able to purchase firearms thru legal channels?
You really are somewhat naive to believe that if the vicitm was armed he had a greater chance of being deader than he is now!
Be nice if you could give examples for your idea of a wild west shoot out when the vicitm is armed?

How effective can those checks and balances be? How can the authorities know who should get a weapon and who should not? That requires huge personal records and surveillance and reminds me a bit of the 'big brother' who is watching. Think of all the negative implications of 'conducting proper checks and balances'.

Well it seems to work over here, any firearm that is purchased by a law abiding citizen through an FFL(Federal Firearm Licensee) has to go through a background check that is phoned in the FBI.
They will give you one of the following three responses, Proceed, Delayed or Denied. I always seem to be delayed.
As far as huge personal records, well shouldn't the dealers keep records on who they've sold firearm to? :cantbeli:



Deader? Of course not. I just said that other people as well might have been dead of the whole bunch of those involved were fully armed.

Amazing how you can't paint a scenario of everyone being armed but are unable to provide exampls to back up this John Wayne movie :cantbeli:





I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

Again, you mean giving them less access than they have today!

What i said. I dont want to see wackos being able to get a gun

So, giving them less access than they currently have to today in gun/crime free Britain?
And this was all done with the aid of gun control, push heavy restrictions ont he law abiding and the criminals reap the rewards!





I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

The UK would is a great example of this, but wait, it's near impossible for the law abiding to own firearms!
So how are crimianls currently getting these boom sticks?

**** man. Why do we have to talk about it in such absolute terms? Prohibition does not mean the absolute dissappearence of guns. Couldnt have meant that under any reasonable circumstances. Its all about minimizing the guns that are out there and therefore reducing the chances of them being used in an unfortunate way.

I guess you ignored my earlier posts, even with gun control being in place the UK, criminals still have access to firearms, so no amount of minimizing will get them out of the hands of those that do not need them!



Your sources depict a specific problem, yet they do not consolidate that more guns would resolve it. Yes, Britain has serious crime rates and i have seen some a good deal of violence in the streets of generally 'calm' cities. Mate, you are kicking each other asses badly there anyway, and with all that alcohol you consume i prefer not to see you armed ;) And not letting drinkers get a gun is out of question isnt it? :lol:

Of course they do not say that more guns would solve the problem, what they would have to do about face and tell the Britain, by the way we fuct up, gun control doesn't work!
Well being T total doesn't really bother me, but I agree that the British have a problem where alchohol is concerned, also here's something from the British Guberment on the benefits of gun control!


4. GUNS AND CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES(a) The Use of Firearms in Crime

4.1 It is often argued, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, that tighter controls on firearms would increase public safety. After the horror of Dunblane, public and media pressure on the government to take action to prevent a recurrence was intense and the subsequent legislative changes appeared to be seen by some as a panacea to the problems of certain crimes, particularly violent crimes.However, as previously mentioned, available evidence shows that violent crimes such as robbery and homicide are rarely committed with legally-held guns. The great majority of violent crime involving the use of a firearm is committed with an illegal weapon and consequently further bans on guns are unlikely to bring about reductions in gun-related crime (Hansson and Broadhurst, 1999).

Scroll down page to #4 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=gun+cultur+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap28.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)


6. That the low level of armed crime in the UK must be due to the rigour of our gun licensing system is a misconception; but firearms control is more complicated a subject than at first sight it might appear. Whereas "banning" removes the opportunity to regulate (and is tacit acknowledgement that the police cannot be relied upon to enforce the law), control requires regulation.[59] Those who would legislate with the aim of reducing firearms crime should be aware that prohibition is not the same as control; indeed, prohibition and control are mutually exclusive. Striving to take guns `out of circulation' is probably a waste of effort and money, for illegal supply may be expected always to fulfil criminal demand.


9. As crime control measures, the amending Acts of 1988 (certainly) and 1997 (probably) will prove to have been counter-productive. The shootings at Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) brought a rush to legislate: an already ill-conceived system of firearms control was further misdirected. The 1997 Acts have reduced the likelihood of further `amok' shootings only in the sense that henceforth licensed pistols cannot be used for them—because the licence has been abolished. The cost to the taxpayer of removing from circulation those pistols at risk of being used for firearms crime (Firearms [Amendment] Acts 1997), has been disproportionately high—approaching 400 times their market value (Annex A); nor is it likely that the effect of the removal of so few will be noticed. Good governance demands that the failings of past legislation be identified by a thoroughgoing review, the `fundamental appraisal of firearms law' as called for by the Labour Party (Labour Party 1996, para 12).

15. Inevitably, a small number of legally-held firearms will find their way into the illegal pool. The number will be smaller than the total of legally-held firearms which are stolen: some stolen arms are recovered, others discarded. Of those that remain unlocated, not every one will be used for criminal purposes.

Firearms control legislation in the UK and public safety (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

It's almost comical in a surreal sort of way, the British Guberment opnely admit that they what they are currently doing does ntoing to safe guard the law abiding :cantbeli:

Sorry achilles, next.

[EsoognomEhT]

And there was me thinking Charles Clarke was the home secretary..

[achilles]

bla bla bla


why dont you propose to the armies that are currently using AK's to switch to super accurate hunting rifles? :lol:

Listen, i am not weapons expert and i am not planning to become one.
Since you know what you are talking about-and you ended up talking about something irrelevant to our main theme here- please tell me which gun would you take with you if you wanted to cause major damage...kill a whole bunch of people basically. A hunting beretta or an AK/47?

[Geezah]

bla bla bla


why dont you propose to the armies that are currently using AK's to switch to super accurate hunting rifles? :lol:

Listen, i am not weapons expert and i am not planning to become one.
Since you know what you are talking about-and you ended up talking about something irrelevant to our main theme here- please tell me which gun would you take with you if you wanted to cause major damage...kill a whole bunch of people basically. A hunting beretta or an AK/47?

semi or full auto/select fire?

[achilles]

bla bla bla


why dont you propose to the armies that are currently using AK's to switch to super accurate hunting rifles? :lol:

Listen, i am not weapons expert and i am not planning to become one.
Since you know what you are talking about-and you ended up talking about something irrelevant to our main theme here- please tell me which gun would you take with you if you wanted to cause major damage...kill a whole bunch of people basically. A hunting beretta or an AK/47?

semi or full auto/select fire?

Lets say you have to choose between a hunting shotgun and any automatic assault gun. Or pick whichever case you like...

I ll come back to your other post later

[Geezah]

bla bla bla


why dont you propose to the armies that are currently using AK's to switch to super accurate hunting rifles? :lol:

Listen, i am not weapons expert and i am not planning to become one.
Since you know what you are talking about-and you ended up talking about something irrelevant to our main theme here- please tell me which gun would you take with you if you wanted to cause major damage...kill a whole bunch of people basically. A hunting beretta or an AK/47?

semi or full auto/select fire?

Lets say you have to choose between a hunting shotgun and any automatic assault gun. Or pick whichever case you like...

If I'm looking to take people out, I would use an M1/M14 semi-auto or a Garand, would leave bigger holes. Depends on what my motive is.



I ll come back to your other post later

Yeah alright, take your time ;)

[MEGR]

or, he might not. And 3 more people may be dead too.

So it's better to have three violent goons instead of a man who at the time was defenseless and in submission?

[Oddbod]

Achilles
I know what is relevant to this thread, as I started it. :backhand: :P

As far as a choice between an AK & a hunting rifle(NOT a shotgun as you erroneously stated), I would go for something like a Remington 700 in .308 Winchester/7.62x51 NATO.
This is a Bolt Action, NOT a semi-auto.

As far as the original incident I posted goes, I would be far happier if the victim had managed to KILL his assailants & thereby removed their capability to reoffend.

[achilles]

Achilles
I know what is relevant to this thread, as I started it. :backhand: :P

As far as a choice between an AK & a hunting rifle(NOT a shotgun as you erroneously stated), I would go for something like a Remington 700 in .308 Winchester/7.62x51 NATO.
This is a Bolt Action, NOT a semi-auto.

As far as the original incident I posted goes, I would be far happier if the victim had managed to KILL his assailants & thereby removed their capability to reoffend.

With the danger to find the tree but loose the forest while comparing which type of gun can be more leathal ;) , i will just ask you this...why mentioning a shotgun is erroneous? Geezah wanted a more specific comparison and i compared A with B. If you feel like comparing A with C (rifle instead of shotgun) thats an issue of your own.
As for the rest of your post, its all Greek to me ;) . I just know a couple of brands of hunting guns with which i have shot , and have fired with 4-5 assault rifles and a couple of pistols during my military service. End of story.

Its just that if i wanted to chop some ass i would go with a military weapon and not a hunting one. But thats me ;)

[achilles]

How effective can those checks and balances be? How can the authorities know who should get a weapon and who should not? That requires huge personal records and surveillance and reminds me a bit of the 'big brother' who is watching. Think of all the negative implications of 'conducting proper checks and balances'.

Well it seems to work over here, any firearm that is purchased by a law abiding citizen through an FFL(Federal Firearm Licensee) has to go through a background check that is phoned in the FBI.
They will give you one of the following three responses, Proceed, Delayed or Denied. I always seem to be delayed.
As far as huge personal records, well shouldn't the dealers keep records on who they've sold firearm to? :cantbeli:

Its not only about who bought what but also about who did what in his/her past. :cantbeli: In order to have detailed records of that sort, the 'big brother' should become somewhat stricter dont you think? I am just not very willing to sacrifice privacy and freedom for the sake of 'personal security', if guns have anything to do with the latter, as i already said. Making guns legal will most likely have such a side-effect among others...



Deader? Of course not. I just said that other people as well might have been dead of the whole bunch of those involved were fully armed.

Amazing how you can't paint a scenario of everyone being armed but are unable to provide exampls to back up this John Wayne movie :cantbeli:

Since you are longing for a scenario i will give you one. Me and you, punk!
I am the good guy and you are the scumbag...you take promillo with you to do a nice armed robery to me, a usual pedestian going back to his home after work. We come accross each other...
No gun scenario: you either have knives or nothing with you...i might be able to defend myself or might get hurt and get away with it. Of course i might get killed. But there are a lot of possibilities.
Spaghetti Western Scenario: We are all armed. Most likely we will all pull our guns out. The most optimistic case would be that, at least, someone will get hurt...if not killed. Either me, or you punks, or all of us including perhaps 'collateral damage' i.e. a passing by old man, kid or woman or you name it. I really dont see how me carrying a gun can prevent anything...but i can see how the presence of the police can do that for me...
So where i am getting at is....the more pieces are out there, the more shooting will take place and the greater the chances for someone to get hurt.




I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

Again, you mean giving them less access than they have today!

What i said. I dont want to see wackos being able to get a gun

So, giving them less access than they currently have to today in gun/crime free Britain?
And this was all done with the aid of gun control, push heavy restrictions ont he law abiding and the criminals reap the rewards!





I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

The UK would is a great example of this, but wait, it's near impossible for the law abiding to own firearms!
So how are crimianls currently getting these boom sticks?

**** man. Why do we have to talk about it in such absolute terms? Prohibition does not mean the absolute dissappearence of guns. Couldnt have meant that under any reasonable circumstances. Its all about minimizing the guns that are out there and therefore reducing the chances of them being used in an unfortunate way.

I guess you ignored my earlier posts, even with gun control being in place the UK, criminals still have access to firearms, so no amount of minimizing will get them out of the hands of those that do not need them!



Your sources depict a specific problem, yet they do not consolidate that more guns would resolve it. Yes, Britain has serious crime rates and i have seen some a good deal of violence in the streets of generally 'calm' cities. Mate, you are kicking each other asses badly there anyway, and with all that alcohol you consume i prefer not to see you armed ;) And not letting drinkers get a gun is out of question isnt it? :lol:

It's almost comical in a surreal sort of way, the British Guberment opnely admit that they what they are currently doing does ntoing to safe guard the law abiding :cantbeli:

Its just that arming people doesnt seem to lead anywhere close to 'safeguarding the law abiding'. Now if you insist that the right to have a gun is a fundamental personal right thats a different story.

Sorry achilles, next.

:lol: Feels good to be well informed or what? :lol: Mate, it seems that guns consume a considerable chunk of your life. I would be surprised if you were not well-equipped as far as the issue of guns is concerned.
I have been watching gun-related topics pop-up and fade away for quite some time now but i was avoiding engagement. Now i decided to join one with the purpose to pose questions and see how far the pro-gun argumentation can go. Of course there are sound pro-gun arguments....but noone have managed to solidly demonstrate that legalizaing guns will resolve any practical problems as far as crime-rates are concerned.

[achilles]

Here is something interesting i found on the internet:

Do more guns cause less crime? (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf)

[promillo]

And here you can read Lotts answer to Lambert.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm

[Geezah]

How effective can those checks and balances be? How can the authorities know who should get a weapon and who should not? That requires huge personal records and surveillance and reminds me a bit of the 'big brother' who is watching. Think of all the negative implications of 'conducting proper checks and balances'.

Well it seems to work over here, any firearm that is purchased by a law abiding citizen through an FFL(Federal Firearm Licensee) has to go through a background check that is phoned in the FBI.
They will give you one of the following three responses, Proceed, Delayed or Denied. I always seem to be delayed.
As far as huge personal records, well shouldn't the dealers keep records on who they've sold firearm to? :cantbeli:

Its not only about who bought what but also about who did what in his/her past. :cantbeli: In order to have detailed records of that sort, the 'big brother' should become somewhat stricter dont you think? I am just not very willing to sacrifice privacy and freedom for the sake of 'personal security', if guns have anything to do with the latter, as i already said. Making guns legal will most likely have such a side-effect among others...

Huh....that's what a background check is for, if I've been convicted of abuse be it a fight on the street or spousal abuse then it's going to flag when it's called into the FBI plus I'm breaking the law by doing so.
The records that the FBI keep are only on file for so long but the FFL(Federal Firearm Licensee) must keep all documenttion from the sale for the BATFE if they ever come to check the books. But I'm not sure how this is an invasion of prvacy if it doesn't bother me? :cantbeli:
You now just don't make any sense, you don't want firearms in the law abiding hands even if there are checks and balances you have to go through in order to purchase a firearm and the reason for this........invasion of privacy rofl

Any Form 4473 experts out there confirm if it has to be a conviction or arrest that would go against me buying a firearm?





Deader? Of course not. I just said that other people as well might have been dead of the whole bunch of those involved were fully armed.

Amazing how you can't paint a scenario of everyone being armed but are unable to provide exampls to back up this John Wayne movie :cantbeli:

Since you are longing for a scenario i will give you one. Me and you, punk!
I am the good guy and you are the scumbag...you take promillo with you to do a nice armed robery to me, a usual pedestian going back to his home after work. We come accross each other...
No gun scenario: you either have knives or nothing with you...i might be able to defend myself or might get hurt and get away with it. Of course i might get killed. But there are a lot of possibilities.
Spaghetti Western Scenario: We are all armed. Most likely we will all pull our guns out. The most optimistic case would be that, at least, someone will get hurt...if not killed. Either me, or you punks, or all of us including perhaps 'collateral damage' i.e. a passing by old man, kid or woman or you name it. I really dont see how me carrying a gun can prevent anything...but i can see how the presence of the police can do that for me...
So where i am getting at is....the more pieces are out there, the more shooting will take place and the greater the chances for someone to get hurt.

I wasn't looking for a movie script, I was after an example....a real life example to back up your claims that more people would be dead if the victim was armed, obviously this must have happened in the real world for you to make such a claim?







I prefer to see wackos NOT having free access to any sort of guns and let the police do its work to the best possible extent, than enforce the very ambiguous 'personal right to self-defense'.

Again, you mean giving them less access than they have today!

What i said. I dont want to see wackos being able to get a gun

So, giving them less access than they currently have to today in gun/crime free Britain?
And this was all done with the aid of gun control, push heavy restrictions ont he law abiding and the criminals reap the rewards!

What no answer here?







I tend to believe that the more weapons there are out there, the more dangerous it gets.

The UK would is a great example of this, but wait, it's near impossible for the law abiding to own firearms!
So how are crimianls currently getting these boom sticks?

**** man. Why do we have to talk about it in such absolute terms? Prohibition does not mean the absolute dissappearence of guns. Couldnt have meant that under any reasonable circumstances. Its all about minimizing the guns that are out there and therefore reducing the chances of them being used in an unfortunate way.

I guess you ignored my earlier posts, even with gun control being in place the UK, criminals still have access to firearms, so no amount of minimizing will get them out of the hands of those that do not need them!

Again, no answer here, what's up, am I proving my point?







Your sources depict a specific problem, yet they do not consolidate that more guns would resolve it. Yes, Britain has serious crime rates and i have seen some a good deal of violence in the streets of generally 'calm' cities. Mate, you are kicking each other asses badly there anyway, and with all that alcohol you consume i prefer not to see you armed ;) And not letting drinkers get a gun is out of question isnt it? :lol:

It's almost comical in a surreal sort of way, the British Guberment openly admit that what they are currently doing does nothing to safe guard the law abiding :cantbeli:

Its just that arming people doesnt seem to lead anywhere close to 'safeguarding the law abiding'. Now if you insist that the right to have a gun is a fundamental personal right thats a different story.

Maybe during all your lurking, you missed the following?


Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 27-Year Low


Guns.The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 30.7 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 2000 2003.4

Gun Owners.The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (about 294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have indicated that just under half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," due perhaps to the policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry.The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2003, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 27%, murder by 32%, robbery by 45%, and aggravated assault by 20%.9

"Less Gun Control."As violent crime has declined, many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of RTC laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 45 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime.The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 200312 and in the first six months of 2004.13 In 2003, the violent crime rate fell to a 27-year low, lower than any time since 1976. Murder rates, while fluctuating slightly, have been lower in recent years than at any time since 1965. The 2003 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 37%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 43%; rape, 24%; robbery, 48%; and aggravated assault, 32%.14

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix ( www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm ).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" ( www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms ).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2003" ( www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/abstract/bcft03.htm ).
5. Bureau of the Census ( http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html ).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, ( www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ ).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003 ).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2003 ( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius ) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws ( www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm ).
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 ( www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797 ); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, ( http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151 ); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 ( www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Research/Koper_aw_final.pdf ); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 ( www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm ); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 ( http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html ).
12. Note 9 and BJS ( http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/ ).
13. FBI ( www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/pressrel121304.htm and www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf ).
14. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics." Note that National Crime Victimization Surveys indicate violent crime at a 30-year low ( www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv03pr.htm ).


Link (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126)




Sorry achilles, next.

:lol: Feels good to be well informed or what?

It does actually, if you noticed the majority of information I have supplied has come from unbiased sources, you could even go so far to say that they are in favour of gun control but the facts are the facts ;)



:lol: Mate, it seems that guns consume a considerable chunk of your life. I would be surprised if you were not well-equipped as far as the issue of guns is concerned.

And this has what to do with the cost of fish? :cantbeli:
Is this your rebuttal, to question my ownership of firearms :cantbeli:



I have been watching gun-related topics pop-up and fade away for quite some time now but i was avoiding engagement. Now i decided to join one with the purpose to pose questions and see how far the pro-gun argumentation can go. Of course there are sound pro-gun arguments....but noone have managed to solidly demonstrate that legalizaing guns will resolve any practical problems as far as crime-rates are concerned.

Maybe the fact that gun ownership in the US is up, there are more States that allow Concealed Carry and crime is at a 27yr low! I would say that definitely pushes towards firearm ownership by the law abiding as a good thing?

You never did comment on the following information form the British Guberment, you knwo where they state that gun control is an absolute failure in the UK?


4. GUNS AND CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES(a) The Use of Firearms in Crime

4.1 It is often argued, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, that tighter controls on firearms would increase public safety. After the horror of Dunblane, public and media pressure on the government to take action to prevent a recurrence was intense and the subsequent legislative changes appeared to be seen by some as a panacea to the problems of certain crimes, particularly violent crimes.However, as previously mentioned, available evidence shows that violent crimes such as robbery and homicide are rarely committed with legally-held guns. The great majority of violent crime involving the use of a firearm is committed with an illegal weapon and consequently further bans on guns are unlikely to bring about reductions in gun-related crime (Hansson and Broadhurst, 1999).

Scroll down page to #4 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=gun+cultur+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap28.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)


6. That the low level of armed crime in the UK must be due to the rigour of our gun licensing system is a misconception; but firearms control is more complicated a subject than at first sight it might appear. Whereas "banning" removes the opportunity to regulate (and is tacit acknowledgement that the police cannot be relied upon to enforce the law), control requires regulation.[59] Those who would legislate with the aim of reducing firearms crime should be aware that prohibition is not the same as control; indeed, prohibition and control are mutually exclusive. Striving to take guns `out of circulation' is probably a waste of effort and money, for illegal supply may be expected always to fulfil criminal demand.


9. As crime control measures, the amending Acts of 1988 (certainly) and 1997 (probably) will prove to have been counter-productive. The shootings at Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) brought a rush to legislate: an already ill-conceived system of firearms control was further misdirected. The 1997 Acts have reduced the likelihood of further `amok' shootings only in the sense that henceforth licensed pistols cannot be used for them—because the licence has been abolished. The cost to the taxpayer of removing from circulation those pistols at risk of being used for firearms crime (Firearms [Amendment] Acts 1997), has been disproportionately high—approaching 400 times their market value (Annex A); nor is it likely that the effect of the removal of so few will be noticed. Good governance demands that the failings of past legislation be identified by a thoroughgoing review, the `fundamental appraisal of firearms law' as called for by the Labour Party (Labour Party 1996, para 12).

15. Inevitably, a small number of legally-held firearms will find their way into the illegal pool. The number will be smaller than the total of legally-held firearms which are stolen: some stolen arms are recovered, others discarded. Of those that remain unlocated, not every one will be used for criminal purposes.

Firearms control legislation in the UK and public safety (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)

Next p-)

[five-five-sixer]

Very interesting read you produce ;)

As to murder-after-robbery issue... Apparently a proffesional criminal is unlikely to kill you after you give him what he wants. Why would he do that?
Well, yes, think about the reasons for a 'proffesional' to backstab you when he's already got the things he wanted. If it's something valuable he might be afraid of you indetifiying him later. And if he really is good, than you're probably somewhere where nobody can see you and killing is relatively safe for the criminal.
It's definitely not worthy risking being charged with murder for just a few bucks.
But when you are assaulted by an ordinary thug (which usually looks like a thug and can be avoided) you never know. Those guys don't think too much and thus are unpredictable. You may become a target because you look weak, rich, or just 'cos they don't like your hairstyle. If guy's intention is to kill you, than it won't stop him from saying 'Gimme da ****in wallet you motha****a'.

I, personally, prefer to run ;)

[Geezah]

I, personally, prefer to run ;)

Hard to run if you're backed into a corner ;)

[promillo]

I, personally, prefer to run ;)

And I prefer not to be robbed.
If (and its proven that it does) CCW decreases the possibility for every citizens, even the unarmed, to get robbed, then I am for CCW and libertarian gun-laws.
Even if I would not carry a weapon myself.

just because CCW decreases the propability for me (and everyone) to get in trouble.

[five-five-sixer]

I, personally, prefer to run ;)
And I prefer not to be robbed.

And that makes two of us :D

[achilles]

Huh....that's what a background check is for, if I've been convicted of abuse be it a fight on the street or spousal abuse then it's going to flag when it's called into the FBI plus I'm breaking the law by doing so.
The records that the FBI keep are only on file for so long but the FFL(Federal Firearm Licensee) must keep all documenttion from the sale for the BATFE if they ever come to check the books. But I'm not sure how this is an invasion of prvacy if it doesn't bother me? :cantbeli:
You now just don't make any sense, you don't want firearms in the law abiding hands even if there are checks and balances you have to go through in order to purchase a firearm and the reason for this........invasion of privacy rofl

Of course, what i meant is that violations of privacy can be one potential reason, among the other ones i mentioned, for not engaging in a gun-legalization process. Yet, your persistence in downgrading what i say is somewhat remarkable ;) . I never said this:

you don't want firearms in the law abiding hands even if there are checks and balances you have to go through in order to purchase a firearm and the reason for this........invasion of privacy
Your posts are legitimate and well backed up. I am willing to accept that privacy violations may not be a big issue in some cases but it might well be in other cases. You sound pretty reassured that checks and balances do not mean stricter record keeping and unavoidably more people having access to personal information on criminal records, among other things.


I wasn't looking for a movie script, I was after an example....a real life example to back up your claims that more people would be dead if the victim was armed, obviously this must have happened in the real world for you to make such a claim?

And i suppose your guns have saved your own life a number of times so now you appear so sure about what you say?
I described a 'template' which describes a good number of real life scenarios: a bunch of good and bad guys...the more guns there are there the more blood is spilled. From where i stand, this is not just a spaghetti-western case with Enio Moriccone music playing at the background.




So, giving them less access than they currently have to today in gun/crime free Britain?
And this was all done with the aid of gun control, push heavy restrictions ont he law abiding and the criminals reap the rewards!

What no answer here?

At the end of my post i will gladly give you a cookie for pushing my answers on this one. Seems that you are longing for that cookie :D
"Push heavy restrictions on the law abiding and the criminals reap the awards" is just one of the cases which may take place under one assumption: that criminals ,(or people who shouldnt have access to firearms anyway) can get their gun anyway. It might be the case that criminals can have less access to guns under a no-gun legislation than otherwise. Of course black markets may work in the opposite way...Equally, who can guarantee that all the 'law abiding' should have weapons in the first place? What about kids? Wont they have easier access to weapons once they are legal? One reason for that is that simply there are more guns around..




I guess you ignored my earlier posts, even with gun control being in place the UK, criminals still have access to firearms, so no amount of minimizing will get them out of the hands of those that do not need them!

Again, no answer here, what's up, am I proving my point?

Be patient...the cookie is on its way p-) ...my answer lies withing the previous part of this post. Besides, the fact a case holds true in one, maybe two, countries does not mean that your claims can be universally applied. It might be the case-and i am just speculating here- that black markets are effective enough in the countries you have mentioned so as to provide the bad guys with all the guns they want irrespective of what the legislation says...



Maybe during all your lurking, you missed the following?

Of course i did not have the time, neither the willingness to go through all your, otherwise credible and well-researched, sources. So during my lurking i was simply trying to question the pro-gun argument just in order to see how far it can go...




And this has what to do with the cost of fish? :cantbeli:
Is this your rebuttal, to question my ownership of firearms :cantbeli:

Its a good thing you ask, because the answer is no...I have a WWII revolver myself that i have not yet used...legacy from the grandpa ;)
I was pointing out the fact that guns, indeed, are an important of your life and this naturally endows you with more sources and eventually with a more solid, well-thought opinion. Too bad you are ruining it with this 'next' kind of style of yours...

oopps here it is again...


Next p-)

This goes to your reassurance that more guns mean less crime, no matter what:

More Data, More Guns, More Crime
In a critique of econometric studies such as Lott's[15] Ted Goertzel makes an important point--for any study that involves a multiple regression that finds a significant association, it seems that there is another study that applies a different model to the same data and gets a different answer. There are several examples of this happening with Lott's study below.
Goertzel argues convincingly that

When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis.
In the case of Lott's model we are in the fortunate position of being able to test its predictive power. Lott's original data set ended in 1992. Between 1992 and 1996, 14 more jurisdictions (13 states and Philadelphia) adopted carry laws. We can test the predictive power of Lott's model by seeing if it finds less crime in those jurisdictions. Ayres and Donahue [2] have done this test. They found that, using Lott's model, in those jurisdictions carry laws were associated with more crime in all crime categories . Lott's model fails the predictive test.
Ayres and Donahue go on to examine all the states adopting carry laws using data up to 1997 and found that carry laws were associated with crime increases in more states than they were associated with decreases. They rather pointedly observe that

Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime- inducing effect of shall issue laws.link (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node8.html)


It seems to me that the whole issue is under examination and no 100% safe conclusions can be drawn. There are equally strong cases for and against. The Greek reality is telling me that letting people carry guns freely would complicate things and eventually cause more crime. I believe that it largely depends on how effective black markets are..

And since promises are promises....
http://www.allenmugs.com/beads/cookie.jpg

j/k ;)

[moughoun]

let's go back to the reign of Richard the III when you were required by law to be armed at all time's....can anyone guess what caused the largest percentage of fatalities back then? ;)

[walford]

let's go back to the reign of Richard the III when you were required by law to be armed at all time's....can anyone guess what caused the largest percentage of fatalities back then? ;)Prior to the development of modern medicine, high infant moratlity was an accepted part of life as were periodic epidemics.

Man was a relatively rare creature on Earth until the creative powers were unleashed by having economic success attainable by effort and risk rather than inherited cronyism. Once Natural Law was put into practice, wealth no longer rested solely in the aquisition of land and precious minerals.

Thus there was an economic incentive to develop the technology that led to the innovations in agriculture and medicine that significantly reduced the previous cause of the 'largest percentages of fatalities.'

Tragically, however, the forces of tyranny and centralized control were not eradicated -- and thus the main cause of war and poverty were permitted to survive. Consequently the new technologies were used to make real the concept of wholesale slaughter both in warfare and domestic savagery.

[moughoun]

let's go back to the reign of Richard the III when you were required by law to be armed at all time's....can anyone guess what caused the largest percentage of fatalities back then? ;)Prior to the development of modern medicine, high infant moratlity was an accepted part of life as were periodic epidemics.

Man was a relatively rare creature on Earth until the creative powers were unleashed by having economic success attainable by effort and risk rather than inherited cronyism. Once Natural Law was put into practice, wealth no longer rested solely in the aquisition of land and precious minerals.

Thus there was an economic incentive to develop the technology that led to the innovations in agriculture and medicine that significantly reduced the previous cause of the 'largest percentages of fatalities.'

Tragically, however, the forces of tyranny and centralized control were not eradicated -- and thus the main cause of war and poverty were permitted to survive. Consequently the new technologies were used to make real the concept of wholesale slaughter both in warfare and domestic savagery.

I was going to say the bollock knife but you took the wind out of my sail's, you ruined my bit of trivia :(

[Geezah]

let's go back to the reign of Richard the III when you were required by law to be armed at all time's....can anyone guess what caused the largest percentage of fatalities back then? ;)

AXES p-)

[walford]

It seems to me that the whole issue is under examination and no 100% safe conclusions can be drawn. There are equally strong cases for and against. The Greek reality is telling me that letting people carry guns freely would complicate things and eventually cause more crime. I believe that it largely depends on how effective black markets are..Given America's history with firearms, to remove them from law-abiding citizens will increase violent crimes. Lott's study proves this conclusively -- but only for the United States.

One thing that was not studied was cultural differences [vis-a-vis firearms] between nations. If a given country has little crime involving firearms, introducing them will not necessarily be beneficial.

From what I understand in the UK, home invasion-type burglaries are higher per capita in the US. Some have speculated that this is due to criminals being more confident that the resident will be unarmed.

That being said, I cannot automatically say that things that work in the US will necessarily be right elsewhere.

[achilles]

let's go back to the reign of Richard the III when you were required by law to be armed at all time's....can anyone guess what caused the largest percentage of fatalities back then? ;)

slingshots mough...slingshots just like this one:
http://westafricaimports.com/slingshot.jpg

p-)

[achilles]

That being said, I cannot automatically say that things that work in the US will necessarily be right elsewhere.

This is what i basically had in mind when i joined this thread. To claim that more guns lead to less crime universally is out of proportion.

Nice posts, thanks...

[Geezah]

That being said, I cannot automatically say that things that work in the US will necessarily be right elsewhere.

This is what i basically had in mind when i joined this thread. To claim that more guns lead to less crime universally is out of proportion.

Nice posts, thanks...

Actually I disagree, it has been recorded that the defensive use of firearms was quite the norm in the UK, less than 100yrs ago but it was the Guberments goal to change this. Unfortunetly, it would take time to bring them back into society to be excepted as the norm but it could happen.

achilles, I'm going to answer your post, it's just going to take me abit of time, you will have a response today ;)

[M4ko]

EDIT: ok this was posted already.



dont know if its been posted but there was another one yesterday in

England: some 35 year old guy was chopping off some 50 year old guy's head with a Midievil Axe in daylight , in the middle of the street. Bypassers were yelling at the killer but he wasnt reacting at all and kept trying to chop off the guys head.

[achilles]

achilles, I'm going to answer your post, it's just going to take me abit of time, you will have a response today

I get it...you are planning to bombard me with a busload of sources once more :D . Too bad i have run out of ammo...

Take your time and fire away...its an interesting topic whatsoever...

[Geezah]

Huh....that's what a background check is for, if I've been convicted of abuse be it a fight on the street or spousal abuse then it's going to flag when it's called into the FBI plus I'm breaking the law by doing so.
The records that the FBI keep are only on file for so long but the FFL(Federal Firearm Licensee) must keep all documenttion from the sale for the BATFE if they ever come to check the books. But I'm not sure how this is an invasion of prvacy if it doesn't bother me? :cantbeli:
You now just don't make any sense, you don't want firearms in the law abiding hands even if there are checks and balances you have to go through in order to purchase a firearm and the reason for this........invasion of privacy rofl

Of course, what i meant is that violations of privacy can be one potential reason, among the other ones i mentioned, for not engaging in a gun-legalization process. Yet, your persistence in downgrading what i say is somewhat remarkable ;) . I never said this:

You talked about an invasion of privacy and if it bothers you that much you have the choice to not purchase any firearms, simple as that. For me invasion of privacy as you put it, does not bother me, it's not like they know how many pieces of paper it takes to wipe my arse p-)




you don't want firearms in the law abiding hands even if there are checks and balances you have to go through in order to purchase a firearm and the reason for this........invasion of privacy
Your posts are legitimate and well backed up. I am willing to accept that privacy violations may not be a big issue in some cases but it might well be in other cases. You sound pretty reassured that checks and balances do not mean stricter record keeping and unavoidably more people having access to personal information on criminal records, among other things.

The background check i done by the FBI(and are not public record) and they can only keep this information on hand for so long.
Now somethign that's happeneing in Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer is publishing th enames of all the people in their area that have CCWs, this is their way of trying to put people of getting them, problem is it defeats the whole object of people not knowing you're carrying concealed(as this is a detterrent in itself) but I expect that loophole to close fairly soon as the media as abusing the access they currently have. It's only the media that can gain access to the information.




I wasn't looking for a movie script, I was after an example....a real life example to back up your claims that more people would be dead if the victim was armed, obviously this must have happened in the real world for you to make such a claim?

And i suppose your guns have saved your own life a number of times so now you appear so sure about what you say?

? So in order to justify owning guns for the security of myself and my family, they first have to be used to save my life? :cantbeli:



I described a 'template' which describes a good number of real life scenarios: a bunch of good and bad guys...the more guns there are there the more blood is spilled. From where i stand, this is not just a spaghetti-western case with Enio Moriccone music playing at the background.

No, you could not provide information on somethjing that happened becuase you're be hard pushed to find anythign to back up your claims. Me on the other hand, I can provide information on innocent law abiding citizens being beaten, raped, killed, robbed burglared everyday!




So, giving them less access than they currently have to today in gun/crime free Britain?
And this was all done with the aid of gun control, push heavy restrictions ont he law abiding and the criminals reap the rewards!

What no answer here?

At the end of my post i will gladly give you a cookie for pushing my answers on this one. Seems that you are longing for that cookie :D
"Push heavy restrictions on the law abiding and the criminals reap the awards" is just one of the cases which may take place under one assumption: that criminals ,(or people who shouldnt have access to firearms anyway) can get their gun anyway. It might be the case that criminals can have less access to guns under a no-gun legislation than otherwise. Of course black markets may work in the opposite way...Equally, who can guarantee that all the 'law abiding' should have weapons in the first place? What about kids? Wont they have easier access to weapons once they are legal? One reason for that is that simply there are more guns around..


I guess you missed this?


4. GUNS AND CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES(a) The Use of Firearms in Crime

4.1 It is often argued, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, that tighter controls on firearms would increase public safety. After the horror of Dunblane, public and media pressure on the government to take action to prevent a recurrence was intense and the subsequent legislative changes appeared to be seen by some as a panacea to the problems of certain crimes, particularly violent crimes.However, as previously mentioned, available evidence shows that violent crimes such as robbery and homicide are rarely committed with legally-held guns. The great majority of violent crime involving the use of a firearm is committed with an illegal weapon and consequently further bans on guns are unlikely to bring about reductions in gun-related crime (Hansson and Broadhurst, 1999).

Scroll down page to #4 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=gun+cultur+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap28.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

As far as kids having greater access, that's why you teach them about firearms and what to do and not to do if they come across one unsupervised, but this is no different to telling your kids not to go off with strangers.





I guess you ignored my earlier posts, even with gun control being in place the UK, criminals still have access to firearms, so no amount of minimizing will get them out of the hands of those that do not need them!

Again, no answer here, what's up, am I proving my point?

Be patient...the cookie is on its way p-) ...my answer lies withing the previous part of this post. Besides, the fact a case holds true in one, maybe two, countries does not mean that your claims can be universally applied. It might be the case-and i am just speculating here- that black markets are effective enough in the countries you have mentioned so as to provide the bad guys with all the guns they want irrespective of what the legislation says...

Well lets see, the flood of arms that are entering th eUK are coming from the Balkans, it's called Supply and Demand.




Maybe during all your lurking, you missed the following?

Of course i did not have the time, neither the willingness to go through all your, otherwise credible and well-researched, sources. So during my lurking i was simply trying to question the pro-gun argument just in order to see how far it can go...

OK, well that's good and I'm not trying to push firearms on everyone, I just think we should atleast be able to make that choice ourselves ratehr than some stuck up politician that has 24/7 armed security!





And this has what to do with the cost of fish? :cantbeli:
Is this your rebuttal, to question my ownership of firearms :cantbeli:

Its a good thing you ask, because the answer is no...I have a WWII revolver myself that i have not yet used...legacy from the grandpa ;)
I was pointing out the fact that guns, indeed, are an important of your life and this naturally endows you with more sources and eventually with a more solid, well-thought opinion.

I'm 35 this year and this will be my third year owning firearms, but when I get into something it's head first and full steam ahead, reason being I like to be well versed on the subject at hand and gain as much experience as possible. To be honest my Wife and family are most important thing in my life and firearms just play a part in helping protect the ones I love.



Too bad you are ruining it with this 'next' kind of style of yours...

Well I have to spice it up just a little p-)



oopps here it is again...


Next p-)

Next p-)




This goes to your reassurance that more guns mean less crime, no matter what:

More Data, More Guns, More Crime
In a critique of econometric studies such as Lott's[15] Ted Goertzel makes an important point--for any study that involves a multiple regression that finds a significant association, it seems that there is another study that applies a different model to the same data and gets a different answer. There are several examples of this happening with Lott's study below.
Goertzel argues convincingly that

When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis.
In the case of Lott's model we are in the fortunate position of being able to test its predictive power. Lott's original data set ended in 1992. Between 1992 and 1996, 14 more jurisdictions (13 states and Philadelphia) adopted carry laws. We can test the predictive power of Lott's model by seeing if it finds less crime in those jurisdictions. Ayres and Donahue [2] have done this test. They found that, using Lott's model, in those jurisdictions carry laws were associated with more crime in all crime categories . Lott's model fails the predictive test.
Ayres and Donahue go on to examine all the states adopting carry laws using data up to 1997 and found that carry laws were associated with crime increases in more states than they were associated with decreases. They rather pointedly observe that

Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime- inducing effect of shall issue laws.link (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node8.html)


You offer one source that looks like a blog, well you got me, even though more States are pushing through CCW, they haven't seen an increase in crime from the law abiding, so it would be nice if this blog to back up their claims of {b]more guns, more crime[/b] :cantbeli:




It seems to me that the whole issue is under examination and no 100% safe conclusions can be drawn. There are equally strong cases for and against. The Greek reality is telling me that letting people carry guns freely would complicate things and eventually cause more crime. I believe that it largely depends on how effective black markets are..

Under examination by who, even when there was a report done by a biased bunch of academics they still had a hard time pushing in favour of gun control. I'll supply the link Monday as I have it at work.



And since promises are promises....
http://www.allenmugs.com/beads/cookie.jpg

j/k ;)

It like it's got rabbit poop in it? p-)