Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

[Bern80]

Can't believe how long this thread has gone on.

There is NO comparison between England and the United States, none.

The Magna Carta, and the Constitution are different documents.

American citizens aren't giving up their guns, aren't going to apply for a license, aren't going to line up like little sheep, and turn their guns in, it ain't happening, period.

Just as this thread under scores, your pissing in the wind, when you think Americans are giving up their guns, and laying down to GUN CONTROL.

In all fairness to Grump I think you're mischaracterizing his argument.

 

[Bern80]

Where do your freedoms start and mine end?

A little hard since we live in different countries, but I would say mine end when they infringe on yours.

Life is also about compromise. That is why we both live in societies where the people vote in politicians that supposedly enact the will of the people. If the will of the people is to ban certain types of guns or have licensing, then que sera sera, no?

I maintain that it's about choice. and despite that it is the best form available democracy/majority rule does have flaws in that the majority is not always right.

I know most people in the US distrust their govt, which probably says more about the US system than anything. You are wrong re govt. I see the govt as a tool of keeping a society civilised. Do they get nanny statish on occasion? Yup. They then get voted out. If we were all smart enough to figure out our needs, why have govt at all?

There are plenty of other things that gov't can do to help society other than trying to tell them how to behave.

You are wrong. IT is the person I don't trust, not the tool. As I said, the only times a see fully automatic weapons being bandied around are in third world countries. I'd rather live in my society than theirs...

So....you..... don't trust people in third world countries. I don't understand taht response.

This is where we get philosophical (although Loki would probably say not). I think there are many ways to settle disputes.At the barrel of a gun is not such a way. I think the odds of that happening are dramatically increased with the number of guns available in society.

It is a way a to settle a dispute. It's just not a compromise. Compromise requires reasonable people to compromise with and many people make the mistake that everyone is reasonable. For example if my home is broken into the compromise may be don't kill me and you can have my gold necklace. If the burglar says no, what then?

 

[eots]

Mao and stalin thought gun control was a good idea

 

[roomy]

If someone steps on your toes in America are you then allowed to shoot them to death when an apology isn't forthcoming?Sounds silly I know but Americans kill each other every day with their legal fire arms for sillier reasons and misunderstandings and complete accidents.We don't.

If I were to visit America am I to assume that everyone is carrying a gun and I am a potential victim, it doesn't happen in Britain.

Someone broke into my van the other day, if I had caught him, I would probably have beaten him up and maybe called the police and maybe even find myself arrested for assault, in America I could splatter him across the street with immunity.

The way the gun laws are in America, I can see why citizens are loathe to give up the right to carry them for protection and such, they are living in constant fear of everyone and everything.You made the rod for your own back though.You have to be willing to make the change and it has to start somewhere if you hope for a safer more law abiding environment to live in, or move to a safer country like Britain.

 

[trobinett]

roomy posts:

move to a safer country like Britain.

No thanks.

 

[sitarro]

If someone steps on your toes in America are you then allowed to shoot them to death when an apology isn't forthcoming?Sounds silly I know but Americans kill each other every day with their legal fire arms for sillier reasons and misunderstandings and complete accidents.We don't.

If I were to visit America am I to assume that everyone is carrying a gun and I am a potential victim, it doesn't happen in Britain.

Someone broke into my van the other day, if I had caught him, I would probably have beaten him up and maybe called the police and maybe even find myself arrested for assault, in America I could splatter him across the street with immunity.

The way the gun laws are in America, I can see why citizens are loathe to give up the right to carry them for protection and such, they are living in constant fear of everyone and everything.You made the rod for your own back though.You have to be willing to make the change and it has to start somewhere if you hope for a safer more law abiding environment to live in, or move to a safer country like Britain.

Been to Britain, it's cute, like Disneyland 50 years ago. Wouldn't even consider living there or anywhere else...... I like being able to shop at 3 in the morning and drive on the correct side of the road. Besides the Muslims are taking over Britain..... you'll soon have plenty of automatic weapons... but they will be pointed at you.

 

[roomy]

Been to Britain, it's cute, like Disneyland 50 years ago. Wouldn't even consider living there or anywhere else...... I like being able to shop at 3 in the morning and drive on the correct side of the road. Besides the Muslims are taking over Britain..... you'll soon have plenty of automatic weapons... but they will be pointed at you.

I might retire to Florida and get myself a gun or three.

 

[LOki]

Some people believe you do need those things. I don't have to explain my rationale, no more than you have to explain you having guns other than you "want them". That is my rationale, and where I come from, a pretty normal one.

I didn't ask for your rationale. I asked for rational criteria--you just don't have any, do you?

Of course it can't, but it can certainly limit the means by which those things can occur as I illustrated by the road rage example.

Your road rage example only succeeds because you don't allow that the fist fight is deadly.

No. Where I'm from most incidents are settled with fists. Have a brawl, shake hands afterwards, and go home.

Settling disputes with fist fights is your idea if civilized? Grump, it is clear that the problem with your country is that it is NOT civilized in the first place--if it were, you'd have no problem with your folks having guns, would you?

Let's pretend those instances involved guns instead. You think they'd be shaking hands at the end?

Certainly not if we're talking about the neanderthals you commiserate with--but yes, if we're talking about civilized folks.

How many people were killed by baseball bats last year? How many by firearms?

None, and none. What is your point?

You see, this is where I see cracks starting to appear. You offer a smart arse answer, when you know EXACTLY what I meant, and then ask What is your point? This does nothing constructive to the argument. You know I am comparing deaths where a baseball bat or a gun were the weapons of choice.

I think I understand you clearly, even if you don't understand yourself. I think I can recall 3 or 4 instances in this very thread where you stated clearly that you don't think guns cause crime. Yet you ask me to provide for you the number of murders caused by guns and baseball bats; a question whose explicit premise is that guns and baseball bats in fact do cause crime--a premise inconstent with your assertions. However, fully consistent with my own assertion that guns and baseball bats do not cause crime, I say they don't.

This is me submitting a "smart arse answer"? I think not. I think you cannot pose your question consistent with your disingenuously submitted position that guns don't cause crimes, such that my answer will not refute your genuine position that they somehow do.

But that is not the reason for licensing. You can put a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, all I'm seeing is "conspiracy theory". We've had licensing since I can remember. It has never been as issue here (shrug)...

I'm glad we now agree that assurance of proficiency is not the purpose of licensing. Now that that is out of the way, what the purpose of licensing?

Of course my problem is with guns. Why do you think we are having this conversation? I grasp at no straws. I live in a society, that for the most part, agrees with me. Your thoughts would probably be echoed by about 5% of our population, or even less. We do not fear our govt, and have enough belief in our police that, generally, they'll get the bad guy. We have a choice - every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a gun, or we limit their availability. We do the latter. Nobody but diehard gunnies are upset. They are a negligible minority. I am for limiting 1) How guns are obtained 2) And types of guns. Not ALL guns.

First, what society are you talking about? Secondly, your Toms, Dicks and Harrys don't have a choice--you've legislated it away. Third, I know you're for limiting how guns are obtained, and what types are obtainable, but you always avoid telling me the rational criteria for establishing such limits--all you've submitted thus far is that you don't like some guns.

You're reading far too much into my posts.

No I'm not--see above.

They do not cause crime, I have said so from the get-go. What I am saying, is they make it easier for perps to commit crimes, and generally, I don't trust even law-abiding citizens to have certain types of weapons. I make no apology for that mistrust.

So you're a conspiracy theorist just like those you accuse of not trusting their government? How nice that must be for you to point at the tin-foil hats of others, while your own fits so smugly.

Hey, you're the one who said that you had no doubt there was a tonne of people around you that had firearms - without backing it up. I believe you. You live there. I lived in England for three years. Nobody had firearms that I knew. They were hardly mentioned. Not even an issue. You can believe me or not.

You still have not stated how many guns the English had prior to the 1996 gun legislation. Until you do, you can't make the claim that "there were hardly any guns there to begin with."

No you are not. You are defining things and giving answers to questions without proof.

Nonsense. Your refusal to read my posts and the sources cited are not my failure to provide proof.

I am not.

You sure are.

You are assuming/inferring violent crime has increased since the new gun laws in England took place.

It has, I provided proof, you didn't look at it, and then claimed I didn't provide it.

I am not. I am saying I have no idea why there was an increase in violence.

But you are willing to assert that because there are more murders in the US than in England, there is a greater violent crime in the US than in England; and since there are more guns in the US than in England, guns are the cause of the greater violent crime rate (that you manufactured out of nothing), and that US society is somehow less civilized.

So no, not disingenuous and certainly not the same standard. How are mine self-contradictory?

Certainly disingenuous, and as for self contradictory start with the "guns don't/do cause murder" discussion above. Then consider everything you've posted regarding licensing, and restricting gun ownership with--and I quote you exactly, "I think there is no correlation between the laws and any crime."

Err, that's because I'm not trying to. I think there is no correlation between the laws and any crime. I think the laws have had negligable or no affect on crime, period.

Then why do you assert that laws limiting how guns are obtained, and what kinds of guns are obtainable, have some effect on crime?

If there is no correlation between gun control laws and any crime, then you agree with me that gun control laws are have no effect on any crime. Having no effect on crime, gun control arguments citing hopeful effects on crime are not valid.

It looks to me like the murder rate remains higher than it was in 1996 when the legislation was adopted. I see the decline over the last three years, that has yet failed to bring the murder rate below the 1996 level, and refute my assertion.

You talk about me arguing semantics and being disingenuous and then post the above.hhhhmmm... That decline is almost at 1996 levels. Are you going to argue that decline is due to the legislation? Thought not....

Semantics? What? As there were no additional gun contol measure adopted (that I'm aware of) at the begining (2002/03) of the decline you cite, so you can't claim gun control measures are resposible for that decline.

Show me where I have claimed that? I was asking YOU if you were going to use that as a reason for the decreases....I absolutely think it is semantics (just like when I talked about baseball bat used in murders vs gun murders, you said neither of them killed anything - you knew what I meant but decided to be a smartarse about it). The homicide trend in England is falling, but because it is not quite at 1996 levels you think that still validates your (incorrect IMO) argument that the new laws were somehow responsible or the crime rise...

Oh. You didn't claim England's gun control laws of 1996 were responsible for the decline in Englands violent crime rate from an apex in 2002/03 that you pointed out with graph you linked to. Nor did you mean to imply such correlation. It does beg why, you supplied it, but I'll fix my reply, to replace my offending use of the word "you" to "I", as appropriate, because it does not change my point one bit; and I will place it in it's appropraite context because doing so blocks your transparent attempt at misdirection.<blockquote>Post by LOki edited to make Grump a happier person:
"Semantics? What? As there were no additional gun contol measure adopted (that I'm aware of) at the begining (2002/03) of the decline you cite, so I can't claim gun control measures are resposible for that decline. It is not disingenuous to argue, based upon the correlation that you deny exists, that the dramatic rise in violent crime rate (that you deny is a higher violent crime rate than that of the US) after adoption of the 1996 legislation is, at least, one result of that legislation. I won't try to mimic your argumentative strategy by asserting that the post 2002/03 decrease is due to the relaxation of gun laws pertaining to the Olympic shooting teams--I'll just say it's likely due to something like England's adoption of harsher punishment and deterrence strategies in response to the dramatic spike in violent crime resultant of legislation disarming the civilized folks of England."</blockquote>I understand the notion that correlation does not necessarily mean causality--but the correllation still supports the argument I make. You're right in that the legislation, of itself, did not result in more violnet crime, but the disarming effect (for civilized folks ) of that legislation enhance the security of person for those who would commit violent crime by crippling the deterrent effect of the self-defense capacity of their victims, leading to a greater violent crime rate after adopting said civilized person disarmament legislation.

BTW and FYI: Recorded crime statistics show a 2% increase in violent crime in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05.

And while gun control laws are being relaxed in the US, including the ban on assault/wicked-cool-looking weapons, violent crime rates have declined (since 1994), reaching the lowest level ever in 2005.

You have inferred that violence in England has increased since the gun ban, and it is the ban that is the reason for the increase. If you are NOT saying that, then I stand corrected. If you are, pony up the evidence, that that is the reason. And if it is the reason, how come since 2002, the number of homicides are almost down to pre-1996 levels?

And better yet,

Per head of population the US DOES have a higher rate of violence than England.

I was worried that the lightly stale statistics I have used to demonstrate how entirely wrong you are about this might be the reason you have steadfastly resided in this state of denial of yours--so I tried to get the freshest data I could, and what do I discover?

YOU ARE STILL WRONG!!!!!!

There were 1,220,198 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06, an increase of two per cent.

The population of the UK is 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)

Which amounts to a crime rate of 20.13 violent crimes per 1000 in the UK.

There were about 5.2 million violent crimes in the US in 2005.

The population of the US is 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)

Which amounts to a crime rate of 17.42 violent crimes per 1000 in the US.

That's 20.13 (and rising) in the UK, vs 17.42 (and falling) in the US.

The crime rate in the US is lower than the crime rate in the UK.

Savvy that Jasper? THE CRIME RATE IN THE UK IS HIGHER THAN THE CRIME RATE IN THE US!!!!

CRIME RATE = HIGHER IN THE UK!!!!!

NEVER FORGET!

You didn't, Bern80 did, but you answered on his behalf (post 78)...Also, if you are not afraid of a tyrannical govt, why do you give a shit about licensing being another form of a confiscation list.

Nowhere in my answer you cite from post 78 do I claim "...guns would save [me] from a tyrannical govt."

Nor did I say I was not afraid that a tyrranical government might gain control of my nation--I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

I will say this now: Without guns, I, and others like me, alone or together, have no chance what-so-ever to resist a tyrranical government.

You don't know about the case do you? I said he put them to sleep. They didn't even know they were being murdered. It was only after he tried to get one of his victim's wills changed, her daughter became suspicious, and the whole house of cards came flying down. They reckon there were 243 victims and least.....So, no, a gun would not have been of use.

I insist that my reply was valid, and this misdirection of yours is not.

You see it that way, which is fine. I see them as making for a more civilised society by taking away an extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act.

If this "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" is the primary test for resricting guns, why aren't you first demanding the restricting chainsaw use?

Again, pony up the stats were a chainsaw is the murder weapon vs a gun. To me, that's all that matters (shrug)..

I do not need statistical analysis to defend the notion that a chainsaw murder is more violent than a shooting murder.

What you need to do, is defend your notion that gun murder is such an "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act", so much so, that "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" becomes the primary consideration for restricting only guns, and somehow takes precedence over other allegedly less violent means of murder.

I'll repeat my suspicion: I think your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period.

As already stated in this post. You've just clicked?

Then stop rationalizing your problem with guns through concerns over murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization...just explain the problem you have with guns.

 

[Bern80]

If someone steps on your toes in America are you then allowed to shoot them to death when an apology isn't forthcoming?Sounds silly I know but Americans kill each other every day with their legal fire arms for sillier reasons and misunderstandings and complete accidents.We don't.

Nope, and actually they don't

If I were to visit America am I to assume that everyone is carrying a gun and I am a potential victim, it doesn't happen in Britain.

no again

Someone broke into my van the other day, if I had caught him, I would probably have beaten him up and maybe called the police and maybe even find myself arrested for assault, in America I could splatter him across the street with immunity.

No a third time, you're doing great so far

The way the gun laws are in America, I can see why citizens are loathe to give up the right to carry them for protection and such, they are living in constant fear of everyone and everything.You made the rod for your own back though.You have to be willing to make the change and it has to start somewhere if you hope for a safer more law abiding environment to live in, or move to a safer country like Britain.

You obviously no nothing about gun laws in the U.S. and have been paying very little attention to this conversation. I don't live in fear at all. The vast majority. Why woud I fear an inanimate, object? I know it tough for lib, but try saying what you really mean.

 

[roomy]

Nope, and actually they don't



no again



No a third time, your doing great so far



I obviously no nothing about gun laws in the U.S. and have been paying very little attention to this conversation. I don't live in fear at all. The vast majority. Why woud I fear an inanimate, object? I know it tough for lib, but try saying what you really mean.

I love it when I am called a lib, what exactly do you fundamentalists believe a liberal is?

 

[Bern80]

I love it when I am called a lib, what exactly do you fundamentalists believe a liberal is?

In your particular case, someone who attempts to find ways to absolve people of the consequences of their choices. In this case removing guns instead of people who make poor choices. It is fairly common trait, here in the U.S. that our left tries to absolve people of responsibilty whenever possible. That is my basis for calling you a lib. Further, if you weren't you wouldn't have an issue with guns

 

[roomy]

In your particular case, someone who attempts to find ways to absolve people of the consequences of their choices. In this case removing guns instead of people who make poor choices. It is fairly common trait, here in the U.S. that our left tries to absolve people of responsibilty whenever possible. That is my basis for calling you a lib. Further, if you weren't you wouldn't have an issue with guns

I don't have an issue with them, I live in England, we don't have them, we don't need them, if I lived in the US I would make a beeline for the nearest gun shop and sort myself out with the latest equaliser.

So you are wrong and I guess that means I am not a liberal afterall.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I live in England, we don't have them, we don't need them

Since England banned most ownership and carry of guns, crime has skyrocketed in places like London and its surroundings. Violent crime rates there now exceed those in New York City.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Sounds like England's draconian gun laws only took away law-abiding citizens' guns.

The criminals, who don't obey those laws and kept their guns, coordially thank you for making their chosen occupation safer. They devoutly hope you will keep believing you "don't need them" despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bern80]

I don't have an issue with them, I live in England, we don't have them, we don't need them, if I lived in the US I would make a beeline for the nearest gun shop and sort myself out with the latest equaliser.

You are very similar to Grump in this sense. You list off a bunch completely unrealistic negative scenarios involving guns and them claim you don't have a problem with them.

So you are wrong and I guess that means I am not a liberal afterall.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but so far you have displayed two very liberal traits IMO. The first im my previous post. The second in being unobjective in thinking that the sum of what you have been exposed to is the entire truth.

 

[roomy]

Since England banned most ownership and carry of guns, crime has skyrocketed in places like London and its surroundings. Violent crime rates there now exceed those in New York City.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Sounds like England's draconian gun laws only took away law-abiding citizens' guns.

The criminals, who don't obey those laws and kept their guns, coordially thank you for making their chosen occupation safer. They devoutly hope you will keep believing you "don't need them" despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

Crime or gun crime?

I agree that gun crime is on the increase due, in the main to the yardie gangs that have wangled their way over here, but in the main it doesn't happen very often at all.You shouldn't believe everything you read.Knife crime on the other hand is becoming a bigger problem than ever.

 

[roomy]

You are very similar to Grump in this sense. You list off a bunch completely unrealistic negative scenarios involving guns and them claim you don't have a problem with them.



If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but so far you have displayed two very liberal traits IMO. The first im my previous post. The second in being unobjective in thinking that the sum of what you have been exposed to is the entire truth.

Sorry, I didn't understand a word of that

 

[Bern80]

Crime or gun crime?

I agree that gun crime is on the increase due, in the main to the yardie gangs that have wangled their way over here, but in the main it doesn't happen very often at all.You shouldn't believe everything you read.Knife crime on the other hand is becoming a bigger problem than ever.

Now think logically about that for a second. What is one possible reason why this group has chosen to 'wangle' into new territory. You have to allow for the fact that one of those reasons is they know that no matter where they go they can now worry less about being shot by someone trying to defend themselves from them

 

[roomy]

Now think logically about that for a second. What is one possible reason why this group has chosen to 'wangle' into new territory. You have to allow for the fact that one of those reasons is they know that no matter where they go they can now worry less about being shot by someone trying to defend themselves from them

The police will catch up with them eventually, at the moment they are killing each other over drugs and turf.In this country we have more faith in our police force than you seem to have in yours.

 

[sitarro]

The police will catch up with them eventually, at the moment they are killing each other over drugs and turf.In this country we have more faith in our police force than you seem to have in yours.

you kinda have to, don't you?

 

[Bern80]

The police will catch up with them eventually, at the moment they are killing each other over drugs and turf.In this country we have more faith in our police force than you seem to have in yours.

Enough faith that they will get to you before whoever is trying to assail you, kills you? I have plenty of fath in ours but know they are not supermen with the ability to overcome such obstacles as space and time.

This is very basic easy math: Group A is law abiding gun owners, B is non-law abiding. x = all guns held by both groups.

represented as an equation the thought is that if A + B = X , then A + B - X = 0 (guns) thus B = 0. I can't see why anyone would be worried about A.

This assumes that for god know what reason B is just gonna give 'em up. In reality what you would be left is A - X = B.

It's just plan stupid to think that getting rid of all guns (making them illegal) will actually get them away from the people you are afraid of using them.