Column: Limiting gun access does not reduce crime

[Geezah]

One of the most common defenses for owning or carrying a handgun is "It's my Second Amendment right." Although this argument appeals to the strict constructionist, it is less convincing to progressives who view the Constitution as more of a "living document," free to be interpreted as necessary for the current times apart from the explicit intentions of its founders. If gun owners are going to convince advocates of stringent gun control to ease up, they need to save the "it's my right" arguments for the courtroom and respond to gun control proponents who argue on the basis of gun violence statistics. Pro-gun laws are on a roll throughout the country, but their true impetus was changing hearts and minds, not in legalistic arguments.

Places where handgun carry is more common are better off for it. FBI statistics illustrate the fact that states allowing concealed weapon carry have much lower rates of violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault than states with significant restrictions. Conversely, restricting or eliminating the right to carry inevitably causes gun-related crimes to increase. A perfect example is Australia, where the crime rate was dropping steadily for 25 years prior to 1996, when the government banned private ownership of most guns. Then, in 2000, armed robberies were up 45 percent and gun homicides in the Australian state of Victoria were up 300 percent. A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent.

If you think about it, it makes sense, going back to that old axiom,

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Whether guns are legal or illegal, criminals always manage to get their hands on them.

Another factor in considering gun control is the character of the average gun owner. Unfortunately, there is a perception in the gun control movement that people who want to carry guns are at best questionable characters with itchy trigger fingers, and at worst, mean-spirited and insecure bullies looking for an opportunity to flash a weapon around at the slightest provocation. The truth is that overwhelmingly, those who regularly and legally carry concealed handguns are concerned law-abiding citizens, who are well-versed in laws regarding limits on self-defense. They know that a gun is an absolute last resort and not a first resource in any potentially dangerous situation.

Rather than worrying about the character of those who have no criminal record, we should worry about leniency given to violent criminals. Many gun control advocates are bad-mouthing law-abiding gun owners while convicts are walking out of prison early on parole — a problem which we fortunately do not have any longer in Virginia. Additionally, in a society where ****ography is becoming increasingly violent and people willingly allow themselves to be bound or gagged to play *** games, more violent rapists are arguing that the rape was consensual in spite of its violence, a tactic that gets some of them off the hook. Many women who foresee the possibility of rape have responded by arming themselves with concealed handguns. We don't hear about it in the statistics, but almost always it is enough simply to show that one has a gun to scare away a potential attacker. They cannot rely on the courts to deter rapists and so they legally and rightfully take the matter into their own hands.

The truth of the matter is that while much of the gun control movement is well intentioned in its goals to eliminate gun violence, the solution is to allow citizens to defend themselves. It is simply not reasonable to expect that prohibiting the carry of firearms will keep criminals from obtaining access to guns.


Full Article (http://collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=5667)

[Durandal]

A surprising story coming from a college newspaper.

Then I saw it was Virginia Tech. ;)

Edit: I wish the Lantern and News Record had been that even handed. You should have seen the editorial fights...and I was in design and layout.

*chuckle*

[Legion]

Although this argument appeals to the strict constructionist, it is less convincing to progressives who view the Constitution as more of a "living document," free to be interpreted as necessary for the current times apart from the explicit intentions of its founders.

The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

[CMNot]

A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent

Your author provides no sources for his figures :|

Well, it would seem from other sources that our 'gun' crime is very low; less than 0.5% of all crime in the UK involves a firearm.
SOURCE (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/)


And you'll also find that there has been a reduction in 'violent crime' since the '98 ban

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Violence_04.gif
SOURCE (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp)

I have to say, this mirrors my experiences of the country.

Thats my 2 cents ;)

[joe mama]

This guy is obviously insane. When you make something illegal, no one can have it any more. If you make all guns illegal, no one will have them, including criminals. It would be illegal for criminals to have them, and criminals don't do illegal things!

Now back to the real world...

Another factor in considering gun control is the character of the average gun owner. Unfortunately, there is a perception in the gun control movement that people who want to carry guns are at best questionable characters with itchy trigger fingers, and at worst, mean-spirited and insecure bullies looking for an opportunity to flash a weapon around at the slightest provocation. The truth is that overwhelmingly, those who regularly and legally carry concealed handguns are concerned law-abiding citizens, who are well-versed in laws regarding limits on self-defense. They know that a gun is an absolute last resort and not a first resource in any potentially dangerous situation.

Ever wonder why the anti gun crowd doesn't quote the large number of crimes comitted with legally owned guns? Could it be because there are no such numbers? If there were, this would be an excellent argument for them to use, I sincerely doubt they wouldn't use it.

[joe mama]

And you'll also find that there has been a reduction in 'violent crime' since the '98 ban

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Violence_04.gif
SOURCE (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp)

So what was the cause of the drop from 95 to 97? And what was the cause of the rise from 91-95? Did gun laws get looser during that time? If the ban caused the drop in 98, how could crime have already been dropping before the ban?

Before the ban, were there large numbers of crimes being committed with LEGALLY owned guns? I still have yet to hear anyone who's against allowing law abiding citizens who pass criminal background checks to have guns show the large numbers of crimes committed with legally owned guns by previously law abiding citizens that passed criminal background checks to get those guns.

[Geezah]

A law in England that mandated handgun turn-in by 1998 produced similar results; in the five years following, total gun crimes almost doubled and gun homicides increased by 65 percent

Your author provides no sources for his figures :|

Well, it would seem from other sources that our 'gun' crime is very low; less than 0.5% of all crime in the UK involves a firearm.
SOURCE (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/)


And you'll also find that there has been a reduction in 'violent crime' since the '98 ban

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/BCS_Violence_04.gif
SOURCE (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp)

I have to say, this mirrors my experiences of the country.

Thats my 2 cents ;)

Your info doesn't mirror this though?



Effect upon criminal use

48. Gross figures are subject to inconsistencies in firearms identification and reporting. The complexities of recording and classifying offences suggest the need for an indicator of the trend of firearms in crime. For this purpose, the incidence of robbery[91] has been suggested as the most informative (Greenwood 1972, 155 ff).


49. Between 1976 and 1986 there were 19,161 firearms robberies reported; for the decade which saw the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 take effect (1987-97), the corresponding figure was 45,502, but the criminal use of firearms has been increasing since the late 1960s (Cullen 1996, 9.7). However, since this increase has coincided with a steep decline in the number of firearm and a moderate decline in the number of shotgun certificates on issue,[92] it can hardly be used as an argument for stricter controls. Whilst it used to be the case that few members of the public faced firearms criminally used, with the criminal use increasing of (fully-automatic) machine guns, which `in untrained hands can be virtually uncontrollable'[93], the bystander is at greater risk than ever before.[94] The machine gun has been classified as prohibited since 1937.


50. Despite a decline in the incidence of armed robbery, the criminal use of pistols increases: `There were more than one and a half times as many handgun offences in 1997 as in 1987' (CSE&W 1997, 3.8). The official statistics for robbery for the decade prior to 1997 show that although shotguns (whether sawn-off or unmodified) occur in a significant number of cases, the robber's preferred weapon—by a wide and increasing margin—is the pistol. Given that the ratio of firearms robbery to robbery of all kinds remains broadly constant, it should cause no surprise that the recently-noted decline in the incidence of robbery has brought a corresponding reduction in the incidence of firearms robbery too. But if the incidence of robbery is falling, the popularity of the pistol for the commission of serious crimes is rising. By 1997, pistols were used in robbery more than six times more frequently than shotguns; 10 years earlier, pistols had been used about twice as frequently.

Ratio of pistols to shotguns used in robbery (U.K.)
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap12.gif

`Killing culture where "respect" means only terror on our streets'—`Scotland Yard plays down the fears of the rise in gun law and instances of machine guns being fired off in the streets, pistols being whipped out in night clubs and fired triumphantly into the ceiling are rarely released, but within the culture that are becoming commonplace . . .A police study in 1998 of the use of firearms in London found that since 1996, guns were fired 291 times, of which 115 were multiple discharges . . . In some parts of London detectives say shootings are frequent occurrences. One detective said . . . `the public really only hears about the murders, but we are often being called to the scene of shootings and there is nothing there but the cartridge cases' (1 June 1999). This same issue also reported (on page 5) the armed robbery of a milkman in Bexhill, East Sussex.


51. The 1997 Acts, which placed pistols (other than historic pistols, narrowly defined)[95] in the `prohibited' category do not appear to have reduced this popularity.[96]


Notifiable offences involving handguns (England and Wales)
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap13.gif

Inspector Maybanks' cautionary conjecture (1992, 157) that extending prohibitions to arms already in circulation will tend to increase the criminal use of such weapons appears ever more ominous.


Memorandum by the Office of Legislative Affairs, Newton Hall, Cambridge (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm)


Gun Crime

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) gun crimes and (b) arrests relating to gun crime there were in (i) England and (ii) each police force area in each year since 1997. [223729]

7 Apr 2005 : Column 1812W

Caroline Flint [holding answer 24 March 2005]: The number of gun crimes recorded by police in England and Wales is shown in the table. The introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard nationally in April 2002 means that data for years before and after this date are not directly comparable. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

Statistics on the number of arrests relating to gun crime in England and Wales are not collected centrally.

Firearms offences (excluding air weapons) by police force area, 1997 to 2003–04
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1113490927_guncrime.1(small).jpg
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1113491087_guncrime2.1(small).jpg
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1113491147_guncrime3.1(small).jpg
(43) Information published for calendar years up to and including 1997 and financial years thereafter.
(44) There was a change in the counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998.
(45) Numbers of some recorded crimes may have been inflated by some police forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard before 1 April 2002.
(46) The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced nationally on 1 April 2002. Figures for some crime categories may have been inflated by this.
(47) Forces affected by boundary changes in April 2000.

7 Apr 2005 : Column 1813W


House of Commons:Gun Crime (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050407/text/50407w70.htm#column_1811)

I would say this mirrors the UK I'm used to ;)

Even with the change in how they record crimes commited with a firearm, they have seen it double in less than 10years, the future is not looking bright, and all this while our crime levels are at a 27yr low.

[CMNot]

From those figures it would appear that there is one firearms offense (a term that is as broad as it is long) per 5900 UK citizens. I would agree with the politicians that this is simply not cause enough to arm Joe Public, perhaps when it gets somewhere close to 67% of all murders and 42% of all robberies (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)) reported to the police in a year being committed with a firearm, the British people and the politicians that represent them should reconsider their stance.

[Geezah]

From those figures it would appear that there is one firearms offense (a term that is as broad as it is long) per 5900 UK citizens. I would agree with the politicians that this is simply not cause enough to arm Joe Public, perhaps when it gets somewhere close to 67% of all murders and 42% of all robberies (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)) reported to the police in a year being committed with a firearm, the British people and the politicians that represent them should reconsider their stance.

I'll give you kudos for trying but I don't think you can compare an increase(in the UK) over the last 7yrs to a percentage given for the last year in the States.

I think these graphs will paint a much better picture, of how our(in the States) firearm related crime is decreasing while firearm purchases are on the increase :cantbeli: how can that be, more guns=less crime p-)

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2002 and 2003.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif
Note: The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

After 1994, the proportion of nonfatal violent incidents involving a firearm declined.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.gif
Note: The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

After falling throughout the 1990's, gun crime reported to the police stabilized.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif
Note: Crimes include the UCR index offenses of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Source: FBI, The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

Firearm crime trends (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns)


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)

[joe mama]

From those figures it would appear that there is one firearms offense (a term that is as broad as it is long) per 5900 UK citizens. I would agree with the politicians that this is simply not cause enough to arm Joe Public, perhaps when it gets somewhere close to 67% of all murders and 42% of all robberies (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)) reported to the police in a year being committed with a firearm, the British people and the politicians that represent them should reconsider their stance.

Gun rights advocates...sorry, gun nuts...like me and Geezah are not saying we want the politicians to arm the public. We're in favor of allowing law abiding adults to be armed if they CHOOSE to be. You may not agree with most anti gun people, however your choice of words is very close to theirs - it implies if not out right states that us gun nuts want to surgically attach a gun to everyone's hand...

[Geezah]

From those figures it would appear that there is one firearms offense (a term that is as broad as it is long) per 5900 UK citizens. I would agree with the politicians that this is simply not cause enough to arm Joe Public, perhaps when it gets somewhere close to 67% of all murders and 42% of all robberies (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)) reported to the police in a year being committed with a firearm, the British people and the politicians that represent them should reconsider their stance.

Gun rights advocates...sorry, gun nuts...like me and Geezah are not saying we want the politicians to arm the public. We're in favor of allowing law abiding adults to be armed if they CHOOSE to be. You may not agree with most anti gun people, however your choice of words is very close to theirs - it implies if not out right states that us gun nuts want to surgically attach a gun to everyone's hand...


Thanks joe, I'm just good(or think I am) at finding the numbers, expressing all this in my owns words escapes me at the best of times ;)

[Macs.]

From those figures it would appear that there is one firearms offense (a term that is as broad as it is long) per 5900 UK citizens. I would agree with the politicians that this is simply not cause enough to arm Joe Public, perhaps when it gets somewhere close to 67% of all murders and 42% of all robberies (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)) reported to the police in a year being committed with a firearm, the British people and the politicians that represent them should reconsider their stance.

Gun rights advocates...sorry, gun nuts...like me and Geezah are not saying we want the politicians to arm the public. We're in favor of allowing law abiding adults to be armed if they CHOOSE to be. You may not agree with most anti gun people, however your choice of words is very close to theirs - it implies if not out right states that us gun nuts want to surgically attach a gun to everyone's hand...

True words ! woot

[CMNot]

I'll give you kudos for trying but I don't think you can compare an increase(in the UK) over the last 7yrs to a percentage given for the last year in the States

In the context of what I was saying - the state I think the British society needs to be in - I think it is right to compare.

I can appreciate that crime in the US is falling and crime in the UK is rising. One can call this a trend - and we all know trends change (remember the 80s clothing, change is good.

On this note though I would like to point out a thing or two about myself, as I am not prepared to be labelled 'anti-gun'. I am not. I lived in the UK all my life, until an oppurtunity arose in 2003 to move to South Africa and work their. The money was better, and their currency is weaker. Now when I come back to the UK, which is regularly, I still shoot with my brother and father. Out in South Africa I am beginning to develope quite the personal arsenal. Id arguably say that their are more 'guns' in South Africa than their are in the States - I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how many are legally owned though :|

The reason I way in on the side of the argument that I do is because I am always seeing it from the perspective of the British - I sincerely do not believe that there is enough violent nor gun related crime to warrant Joe Public arming themselves.

However, should you find me in Jo'burg on business, you can sincerely believe that I have at least one of my handguns with me, day or night. Thats just the way it has to be out there unfortunately :(

[Geezah]

I'll give you kudos for trying but I don't think you can compare an increase(in the UK) over the last 7yrs to a percentage given for the last year in the States

In the context of what I was saying - the state I think the British society needs to be in - I think it is right to compare.

Not really, you cannot legally purchase handguns in the UK, here you can yet our firearm relayted crime is on the decrease, that tells me allot!



I can appreciate that crime in the US is falling and crime in the UK is rising. One can call this a trend - and we all know trends change (remember the 80s clothing, change is good.

Yes trends change, but we have yet to see this happen in the UK, to be honest with you I have seen the situation progressively get worse from 91 on, this is whenI started raving and was exposed to some of the seedier sides of London, even though I was always drug free :cantbeli: for some reason I always gained allot of respect for my firm stance I took on not drinking, smoking, taking drugs and not even drinking tea or coffee, everyone just wrote it off as that's what he does.

Anyway as far as trends go, I found the following on drug abuse and the percentage of people that have been jailed since 76.


Drugs

Tom Cox:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) men and (b) women have been charged with drug offences in magistrates courts within the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [209927]

Caroline Flint:It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.

Mr. Hepburn:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the levels of drug-related crime in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK were in each year since 1997. [222558]

Ms Blears:It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.

Mr. Jim Cunningham:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of reported drug overdose deaths. [206977]

Caroline Flint:It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.

Dr. Kumar:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment his Department has made of the consequences of prolonged cannabis use. [220683]

Caroline Flint:It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.

Dr. Kumar:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been conducted on the dangers of crystal meth. [220684]

Caroline Flint:I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 14 March 2005, Official Report, column 42W.

Paul Flynn:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of inmates in prisons in England and Wales were serving sentences for drug-related convictions in each year since 1975; and what the cost was of accommodating the inmates. [223702]

Paul Goggins:The population in prison establishments in England and Wales under an immediate custodial sentence for drug offences as a percentage of the total population under an immediate custodial sentence, in each year since 1976, is provided in the table. Information is not available for 1975.

The Prison Service does not collect data relating to the costs of keeping prisoners in custody by offence type, nor does it retain information readily to hand on costs as far back as 1975. However the overall cost per prisoner for 2003–04 was £25,718 in public sector prisons and £25,377 in contracted out prisons.

These figures exclude headquarters overheads, including the cost of capital on all Prison Service land and buildings plus the cost of depreciation on buildings.

Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland would be a matter for my colleagues at the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Office.

7 Apr 2005 : Column 1805W

Population in prison establishments under an immediate custodial sentence England and Wales, 30 June

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1113509519_drugs.1(small).jpg
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/461_1113509573_drugs1.1(small).jpg

42) Figures for 1976–1978 include fine defaulters

Paul Flynn:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the cost of provision of x-ray scanning and ultrasound equipment to be used on persons arrested under suspicion of possessing Class A substances, as set out in the Drugs Bill. [211233]

Caroline Flint:It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.

Paul Flynn:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent estimate his Department has made of the cost of the illegal drugs trade to the UK economy in a year. [223700]

Caroline Flint:Estimates of the costs of the illegal drugs trade are not available. However, a recent study published by the Home Office provides estimates of the total economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales and puts these in the range of £10.1 to £17.4 billion for the year 2000. Total economic costs, or reactive expenditure, is estimated to fall within a range of £2.9 billion to £5.3 billion in 2000.

Note:


The full report "The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drug Use in England and Wales, 2000" is available in the Library or from the RDS website at the following address: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors249.pdf

Paul Flynn:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug-related offences occurred in England and Wales in each of the past 10 years; and how many of these crimes were classified as (a) trafficking or dealing and (b) possession. [223701]

Ms Blears:There are no figures available specifically on drug-related crime. The available information relates to recorded offences of trafficking and possession in England

7 Apr 2005 : Column 1806W

and Wales and is published in Table 2.04 of "Crime in England and Wales 2003/04", Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/04. A copy of this publication is available in the Library and it is also on the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0304.html.

Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

Paul Flynn:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of people regularly using (a) heroin, (b) cocaine, (c) cannabis and (d) alcohol in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; and how many of the regular users of each of these are regarded as addicts. [223704]

Caroline Flint:It has not been possible to provide an answer in the time available before Prorogation.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how levels of cannabis use have changed since the declassification of the drug to class C; and if he will make a statement. [220923]

Caroline Flint:Government figures on prevalence of cannabis use available for any period since reclassification come primarily from the British Crime Survey (BCS). The BCS for 2003–04 shows cannabis use for 16 to 59-year-olds who have taken the drug in the last 12 months to be at 10.8 per cent. The figure for 2002–03 was 10.9 per cent. In addition, the BCS figures show cannabis use declining steadily amongst 16 to 24-year-olds between 1998–2004 from 28.2 per cent. to 24.8 per cent.

Cannabis was reclassified on 29 January 2004 to a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2004 contains the preliminary key findings of a survey of secondary schoolchildren aged 11 to 15. The figures show a decline in cannabis use in the last year from 13 per cent. in 2001 to 2003 to 11 per cent. for 2004.


House of Commons:Drugs (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050407/text/50407w68.htm#column_1804)

There is no trend here(apart from on the rise) and I do see the same thing happening with firearm related crime in the UK!




The reason I way in on the side of the argument that I do is because I am always seeing it from the perspective of the British - I sincerely do not believe that there is enough violent nor gun related crime to warrant Joe Public arming themselves.

Why is it you would not like to see the British public make that choice for themselves, there are those that would say otherwise and would be quite happy owning a firearm for personal protection, do you distrust the British public that much? Do you not consider yourself to be somewhat of a hyprocrite becuase you think it's ok to be armed in SA but not ok in the UK?



However, should you find me in Jo'burg on business, you can sincerely believe that I have at least one of my handguns with me, day or night. Thats just the way it has to be out there unfortunately :(

How would you rate the difference between where you live in Jo'burg to where your from in the UK?

[CMNot]

Where I live in Joburg mate (apartment in a district called Hillbrow) is seriously like Baby Beirut, I literally dont even notice the gunshots anymore. Parts of the city you dont even bother looking at the traffic lights at night - it is that foolish to stop. People harp on about areas of Washington and LA, but no ****, it really is a different world. Shame is the rot is spreading to other cities. You are more likely to be shot than suffer any other kind of unnatural death in South Africa.

But the culture and social problems between South Africa and Britain are just total 100% opposites; to look at it you wouldn't even notice anyone trying to change things.

Saying that, leave the cities and enter the affluent 'white' towns and villages and the story changes drastically. At my parents house in a town called Knysna, they dont even lock their cars!! This concept I admit I find hard to deal with, as to do that in my Britain anytime during my lifetime would be to court disaster.

Even with this graph you supplied here...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.gif

...there is approximately one firearm crime per 550 people. Compare that with the approximate figure of one per 5900 in the UK and you see what I was suggesting. Whilst I commend both the various US adminisrations and the American people for taking this matter into their own hands, I just don't see the correlation between the figures giving enough of an argument to arm the public in the UK, its that simple from my point of view Of course, if you want me supply figures on SA gun crime, and what happens when gun control is mismanaged, I would be more than happy too ;)

[Durandal]

Although this argument appeals to the strict constructionist, it is less convincing to progressives who view the Constitution as more of a "living document," free to be interpreted as necessary for the current times apart from the explicit intentions of its founders.

The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Yeah, I wonder if we can interpret free speech in a different manner...like only at home and with friends. :roll:

[Durandal]

Gun rights advocates...sorry, gun nuts...like me and Geezah are not saying we want the politicians to arm the public. We're in favor of allowing law abiding adults to be armed if they CHOOSE to be. You may not agree with most anti gun people, however your choice of words is very close to theirs - it implies if not out right states that us gun nuts want to surgically attach a gun to everyone's hand...

X2

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

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 ).

Same old link from the NRA aye Geezah.

As much as the sources it uses are independant. The NRA would only be publishing information that supports it's case.

:petting:

[henksmoeder]

Look at social psychological research done by Berkowitz and LePage, who show that the presentation of a weapon stimuli makes people more aggressive, which would in turn promote crime.

Look Geezah, no matter how you turn in, there is just as much evidence supporting both cases. Social psychology for one, (a subject which is actually a social science, instead of some columnists selecting facts which support their case) is momentarily in favor of the gun-control part. You can post a sh*tload of more articles, but it will not change anyones opinion. Anti-gun people will remain anti-gun, and pro-gun people will remain pro-gun.

Although on one hand I would advise you to keep your posts considering this subject coming (they are an amusing and sometimes interesting read), on the other hand, you might put it on a lower pit, since you're not changing any opinions here, mate.

[Oddbod]

The moment I see the words "Social" & "Science" in the same sentence, I just KNOW that the same results could be inferred from disembowelling a chicken on the altar of Baal........... :roll:

[Durandal]

As much as the sources it uses are independant. The NRA would only be publishing information that supports it's case.

Yeah damn those guys for protecting our rights...

[Lifeinasmallbox]

my favorite line ive heard about guns is

guns cause crime like flies cause garbage

[Durandal]

Look at social psychological research done by Berkowitz and LePage, who show that the presentation of a weapon stimuli makes people more aggressive, which would in turn promote crime.

*chuckle*

That's like arguing giving condoms to kids encourages more ****** activity.

[henksmoeder]

no, the difference is that this was actually supported by research

[joe mama]

no, the difference is that this was actually supported by research

That must be why since I started getting my guns in 2002, I've killed 37 people with the guns, 13 with my car, 6 with my bare hands, 3 with a hammer, 2 with a screwdriver, and 1 with a pillow case full of pepsi cans. I've also been in 233 fights; raped 344 women, 2 dogs and 1 chicken; and robbed 19 banks, 5 liquor stores, and 2 preschools.

Now it's either that, or I'm more cognizant of the laws relating to guns then I ever used to be, and I'm even more careful then I ever was about avoiding dangerous people, places and situations whenever possible.

That research must also be a good tool to explain why millions of legally owned guns are used illegally. Here's the part where I wait, AGAIN, for somebody to show me some proof that LEGALLY owned guns are used in large numbers of crimes. (insert chirping cricket sounds)

[joe mama]

my favorite line ive heard about guns is

guns cause crime like flies cause garbage


my fav:
Guns cause crime like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

[Geezah]

Look at social psychological research done by Berkowitz and LePage, who show that the presentation of a weapon stimuli makes people more aggressive, which would in turn promote crime.

I'll counter your social science with my hard research ;)


Is a Gun an Effective Means of Self-Defense?


Summary

Contrary to myth that using a gun in self-defense is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim or innocent bystanders and fail to successfully thwart the crime rather than the criminal, the evidence, as opposed to selective anecdotes, suggests the opposite. (Of course this doesn't mean that all people should have a gun, or a gun should be used in all life-threatening situations.)

Discussion

Florida State University criminologist,, Gary Kleck (http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html), analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm) (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)
"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from
earlier NCVS data suggested (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_previous.html). Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)

Kleck summarizes the effectiveness and risks of victim self-protection measures, gleaned from NCVS data, in this table (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html).

Are the lower rates of injury and property loss with defensive gun use simply due to the victims having a more favorable set of circumstances than non-gun victims? Perhaps the criminals failed to surprise gun defending victims giving them time to ready their weapons. Kleck responds to this speculation by writing:

"These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to tother self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances. More dangerous situations apparently prompt victims to adopt more dangerous self-protection measures. Two pieces of information available in the NCVS support this view. First, victims who used guns were substantially more likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection measures to face offenders armed with guns — 32.7 percent of victims who attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8 percent of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple offenders — 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun and 34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used self-protection measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent with the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to victims are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to the speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims merely because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more likely." (pp. 291-92)
Further supporting his contention Kleck writes:


"The simple percentage table results concerning robbery completion and injury rates are, however, supported by more sophisticated multivariate analysis of NCVS robbery incidents. In a logistic regression analysis, Kleck and Miriam Delone ("Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery," Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9 [1993]: 55-82) found that robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used any other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist. This was true even when controlling for other characteristics of the robbery situation that could influence the effectiveness of defensive actions, such as the number of robbers, the number of victims, whether the robbery occurred in a private place, whether it occurred when it was dark, whether the robbers were armed, the age and gender of victims, and so on. Thus, there is no support for the speculation that gun defenders do well merely because of other advantageous crime circumstances associated with defensive gun use." (pp. 293-94)
Appearing to contradict Kleck's assertions are the pre-self-protection injury rates. 27% percent of victims were injured prior to taking any self-protection measures, but only 5% of gun-defenders were injured prior to taking their actions. However, "injuries are less common in gun robberies than in nongun robberies... Analysts typically attribute the lower injury rate among gun robbery victims to their lower rates of resistance. Although this is part of the explanation, gun robbers are also less likely to attack or injure their victims, even controlling for resistance. Further, since resistance often follows injury, it is not clear that the resistance-injury association indicates that resistance provokes robber attack. To the extent that injury precedes resistance, one cannot entirely explain the lower injury rates of gun robberies by less frequent victim resistance... Murder of the victim is more likely in gun robberies than non-gun robberies." (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. pp 238-39. [numerous citations omitted])

Regardless of whether gun-defenders faced easier circumstances or not, as Kleck concludes, defensive gun use is often an effective form of self-defense.

How often do gun owners accidently shoot a family member in the course of defensive gun use? Again in Targeting Guns (p. 310), after reviewing studies, Kleck claims this kind of accidental shooting is rare. He estimates that less than 2% of fatal gun accidents (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html) occur during defensive gun use. With approximately 1,000 fatal gun accidents annually, that would imply 20 per year.

If defensive gun use is common then many criminals should certainly have encountered armed resistance. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? (http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html)by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).


Gun Cite (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html)

[Legion]

my favorite line ive heard about guns is

guns cause crime like flies cause garbage


my fav:
Guns cause crime like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

Rosie's personal chef:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20040123/450stirfry.jpg

[Durandal]

no, the difference is that this was actually supported by research

*chuckle*

If that was the case then why, in the United States, 2001/2001 did violent crime go down? But New firearm purchase were up 300%?

And why, in the District of Columbia, where no one can legally buy a gun is there such a high level of violent crime...higher per capita than the rest of the nation.

joe mama said.

Since I began owning guns I have become a SAFER person, because I respect the potential firearm.

It is a proven fact, that here, in the United States a majority of conceal carry laws lower crime...that is violent crime. Yet, non-violent crime increases. A criminal is criminal, period.

Your argument (and theirs) is that without X, Y is less likely to happen. More than HALF of the firearm deaths in this country are suicides. Are you telling me that a significant number would not have committed this act if they had not owned guns?

[henksmoeder]

no, the difference is that this was actually supported by research

*chuckle*

If that was the case then why, in the United States, 2001/2001 did violent crime go down? But New firearm purchase were up 300%?

And why, in the District of Columbia, where no one can legally buy a gun is there such a high level of violent crime...higher per capita than the rest of the nation.

joe mama said.

Since I began owning guns I have become a SAFER person, because I respect the potential firearm.

It is a proven fact, that here, in the United States a majority of conceal carry laws lower crime...that is violent crime. Yet, non-violent crime increases. A criminal is criminal, period.

Your argument (and theirs) is that without X, Y is less likely to happen. More than HALF of the firearm deaths in this country are suicides. Are you telling me that a significant number would not have committed this act if they had not owned guns?

That is not my argument. Although i don;t have time to fully go into it now, in people's cognitions are influenced when seeing weapons. So their behaviour in social aggression-stimulating situations is more extreem.

[Geezah]

no, the difference is that this was actually supported by research

*chuckle*

If that was the case then why, in the United States, 2001/2001 did violent crime go down? But New firearm purchase were up 300%?

And why, in the District of Columbia, where no one can legally buy a gun is there such a high level of violent crime...higher per capita than the rest of the nation.

joe mama said.

Since I began owning guns I have become a SAFER person, because I respect the potential firearm.

It is a proven fact, that here, in the United States a majority of conceal carry laws lower crime...that is violent crime. Yet, non-violent crime increases. A criminal is criminal, period.

Your argument (and theirs) is that without X, Y is less likely to happen. More than HALF of the firearm deaths in this country are suicides. Are you telling me that a significant number would not have committed this act if they had not owned guns?

That is not my argument. Although i don;t have time to fully go into it now, in people's cognitions are influenced when seeing weapons. So their behaviour in social aggression-stimulating situations is more extreem.

I call bullsh!t on that, I own firearms, a can of CS gas, a stun gun and a extendable batton, the only thing that has been used in a violent situation is the CS gas, and that was to stop an unfair fight!

So please, make the time to fully explain yourself!

[California Joe]

Hey Geez, I had the builder put in a wicked cool gun closet behind another closet in my new house. Cool hidden sliding door and all. Course he wants to buy half of the guns I built...heh.

[Geezah]

Hey Geez, I had the builder put in a wicked cool gun closet behind another closet in my new house. Cool hidden sliding door and all. Course he wants to buy half of the guns I built...heh.

Man...we just got outbid on a house(twice, mind you) that had a nice entrance into part of the attic that I was going to turn into my gun room, I'm starting to run out of space ;)

The search continues but once we find a new house, I'll have my panic room just for my firearms.

[California Joe]

I'm sure my son has told all his pals at school about Dad's cool room for his guns so it's really not that hidden anymore. :P

[Durandal]

I'm sure my son has told all his pals at school about Dad's cool room for his guns so it's really not that hidden anymore. :P

rofl

[henksmoeder]

no, the difference is that this was actually supported by research

*chuckle*

If that was the case then why, in the United States, 2001/2001 did violent crime go down? But New firearm purchase were up 300%?

And why, in the District of Columbia, where no one can legally buy a gun is there such a high level of violent crime...higher per capita than the rest of the nation.

joe mama said.

Since I began owning guns I have become a SAFER person, because I respect the potential firearm.

It is a proven fact, that here, in the United States a majority of conceal carry laws lower crime...that is violent crime. Yet, non-violent crime increases. A criminal is criminal, period.

Your argument (and theirs) is that without X, Y is less likely to happen. More than HALF of the firearm deaths in this country are suicides. Are you telling me that a significant number would not have committed this act if they had not owned guns?

That is not my argument. Although i don;t have time to fully go into it now, in people's cognitions are influenced when seeing weapons. So their behaviour in social aggression-stimulating situations is more extreem.

I call bullsh!t on that, I own firearms, a can of CS gas, a stun gun and a extendable batton, the only thing that has been used in a violent situation is the CS gas, and that was to stop an unfair fight!

So please, make the time to fully explain yourself!

That's not the thing that I am arguing mate. Do a google on social cognitions. These get influenced by seeing weapons, which in turn can elicit an 'overreacted' reation. Once again, I would stimulate you to read the research that I mentioned earlier.

[Durandal]

Well, I read some of the research. Like anything it appears to be simply one side of the coin, neither truly proven or not.

Nor is it really valid to this discussion.

Especially when you compare nations that have fairly liberal gun ownership, take these three:

U.S.
Canada
New Zealand

I pick these three, because gun ownership is the most prolific in these nations.

Canada has more legal gun owners per capita than the United States (a higher percentage of households with guns...regardless of type).

New Zealand also has fairly liberal gun owning laws. In fact, in New Zealand its FAR easier to purchase a machinegun/selectfire/automatic weapon. The number of per capita gun owners is less than the United States though.

The United States...we have less gun OWNERS per capita than Canada. Military grade or automatic weapons are HEAVILY restricted (it takes an act of God to legally own one theses days). However, we have a massive proliferation of firearms (i.e. We have the most legally owned guns).

The problem is not about the firearm its about certain parts of our society. We have a large population...roughly 2 to 3% that is willing to commit a crime. Currently 1% of our population is in jail for one reason or another and unlike either of the other two nations, we have massive inner city and minority on minority crime.

You never see gun violence in the country side or in rich urban neighborhoods.

If you think out the accidents and the suicides, a majority of gun related crime is caused by blacks and hispanics, usually involved in an illegal act of some type, the gun is either being used or aggravates by possession, and the crimes are USUALLY committed against another person within their own minority subgroup.

[joe mama]

Look at social psychological research done by Berkowitz and LePage, who show that the presentation of a weapon stimuli makes people more aggressive, which would in turn promote crime.

Doesn't almost every (or is it every?) home in Switzerland have at least one modern millitary assault rifle in it? And I'm not talking about some semi auto gun that looks evil, I'm talking fully automatic machine gun that's the EXACT same as what the military uses. That must be why the Swiss are world renowned for being more aggressive and why there's so much crime there.

[pathfinder82]

"Limiting gun access does not reduce crime"

How could eliminating access to one tool in which you can take a human life with make a dent in "crime" when their are thousands of objects to take a human life with. Ive never argued for a complete ban on firearms in this country for civillians, thats silly, what I do argue is we NEED actual gun laws. Those kids from colorado simply placed an order on the internet for some parts and a shotgun if I remember correctly, thats wrong. Having a private entity like the NRA in this country prevents common sense measures from being adopted, they always like to say they are "law abiding citizens" , well fellow "law abiding citizens" are losing their lives because their are no solid gun control laws in this country and the NRA only makes it tougher, that is quite literally their job. I have said this before, you want a hand gun or a shotgun to protect your family in the highly unlikley event you ever have a home intruder bent on taking your lives not just stealing your jewelry which is the case over 90% of the time, cool. No civillian in this country needs an automatic weapon, their is no practical need for it, unless of course you wanna grab a sixer of old style and shoot stumps near the local drainage ditch.

[Oddbod]

"Limiting gun access does not reduce crime"

How could eliminating access to one tool in which you can take a human life with make a dent in "crime" when their are thousands of objects to take a human life with. Ive never argued for a complete ban on firearms in this country for civillians, thats silly, what I do argue is we NEED actual gun laws. Those kids from colorado simply placed an order on the internet for some parts and a shotgun if I remember correctly, thats wrong. Having a private entity like the NRA in this country prevents common sense measures from being adopted, they always like to say they are "law abiding citizens" , well fellow "law abiding citizens" are losing their lives because their are no solid gun control laws in this country and the NRA only makes it tougher, that is quite literally their job. I have said this before, you want a hand gun or a shotgun to protect your family in the highly unlikley event you ever have a home intruder bent on taking your lives not just stealing your jewelry which is the case over 90% of the time, cool. No civillian in this country needs an automatic weapon, their is no practical need for it, unless of course you wanna grab a sixer of old style and shoot stumps near the local drainage ditch.

You can't legally purchase firearms online without them being sent to an FFL.
What's this stuff about the "need" for "automatic weapons"?
Nobody "needs" a TV.
FA weapons have been highly regulated since 1937 & no new production, or importation (except for LEO's & a favoured few others) has been allowed since 1986.
Why the Hell shouldn't you be allowed to shoot an intruder who is intent on stealing from your home?
It's one certain way of stopping them from reoffending AND any person doing a "hot" burglary will likely be prepared to use violence.

[Pandy]

...(it takes an act of God to legally own one theses days)...

Isn't that the truth... took me eight months to legally GET the M16A1 (M4 Looking Rifle) from my dad... and he already owned it...

[Geezah]

"Limiting gun access does not reduce crime"

How could eliminating access to one tool in which you can take a human life with make a dent in "crime" when their are thousands of objects to take a human life with.

The bad guys will always have access, no matter what excuses you try and come up with, it's only right that the law abiding should be allowed to fight fire with fire!



Ive never argued for a complete ban on firearms in this country for civillians, thats silly, what I do argue is we NEED actual gun laws.

No, the laws currently in place need to be enforced, creating a new ban because a previous failed is not the answer!

Also, please stop contradicting yourself!




Those kids from colorado simply placed an order on the internet for some parts and a shotgun if I remember correctly, thats wrong.

No you do nto remember correctly and being an officer of the law, being that you enforce current laws, you should knwo that any firearms have to be sent to an FFL if purchased over the internet unless blackpowder which are not considered firearms( :cantbeli: )

The firearms that the arseholses from Columbine had were precured illegally!



Having a private entity like the NRA in this country prevents common sense measures from being adopted,

The same could be said of the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the senseless text they wanted added into HB12, which both the FOP and Buckeye Sheriff's Assc were against!

Anyway, without the NRA we wopuld be in th esame position as Great Britain or Australia!



they always like to say they are "law abiding citizens" , well fellow "law abiding citizens" are losing their lives because their are no solid gun control laws in this country and the NRA only makes it tougher, that is quite literally their job.

Well, Einstien what do you suggest? Maybe would could follow th eUKs lead?

Just out of curiosity, how do you sleep at night....you know not being at everyones side 24/7?



I have said this before, you want a hand gun or a shotgun to protect your family in the highly unlikley event you ever have a home intruder bent on taking your lives not just stealing your jewelry which is the case over 90% of the time, cool.

There you go with numbers again....would be nice if you could back them up, you knwo just like the drugs lords that have is semi-auto or full auto......I can't seem to remember becuase last time you spewed out this stuff you didn't make sense!



No civillian in this country needs an automatic weapon, their is no practical need for it, unless of course you wanna grab a sixer of old style and shoot stumps near the local drainage ditch.

:cantbeli:

This is America, when we are only supplied with what we NEED, we will be one step closer to Communism, and as far as I'm concerned it's all about WANT!

[Pandy]

Damn, I need a beer....

[Durandal]

Damn, I need a beer....

Hey, come down on April 30th and I'll buy. ;)