CDZ Culture: Scotland had a mass shooting; last year, Scotland had two unlawful gun homicides

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Jan 1, 2017
10,923
1,635
290
D.C.



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.

 
Scotland and America are very different countries.
America has a large population of criminals.
Americans want to be able to protect themselves from the Democratic Party's criminals.
 



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.


You will never...NEVER....take guns out of the hands of Americans. There are too many guns held by private citizens.

We have the 2A for a reason. Trying to limit the rights of the people for the mirage of safety, won't work. It is tyrannical.
 
Americans remember kicking 'british' azz back to the old country 'blighty' a couple hundred years ago and we might have to do similar sometime again in the future Xelor .
 



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.




Have you ever been to Scotland, England in general? Probably not. See, you got a piece written to show how nice a place is because folks can’t have guns. This is stupid. If you went where my folks are from you would be the American who got mugged and slashed up. Trust me, Scotts have guns. Civilians in the empire own the guns. They are just criminals for doing so.




But to the article, only the very wealthy get to own guns and hunt. But here gun ownership isn’t just for the Gentry. If that’s what you want them move there?



Oh, and you reference the founders, do you happen to remember why the brits were in Boston the night of The Boston massacre? There was one aspect of their mission everyone forgets to mention, they were to secure the armory and powder magazine. America isn’t Scotland.
 



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.



sorry.....Britain and Scotland were always less violent than the United States...even before they banned guns.....and currently, gun crime is increasing across England and Wales.....

As to Japan...it is their culture, not their gun control which has kept their gun crime very low...all crime in Japan is low.......and until recently, the Yakuza would use guns and grenades when they would go to war...which was infrequent because their criminal culture focused on making money, not killing each other. Yet, in 2006, they had another gang war that lasted 7 years...guns and grenades were used .......

Just last year they were on the verge of another gang war....and the only thing that stopped shooting and grenade throwing? The Japanese instituted Long Prison Sentences for being caught in possession of a gun....I have posted about this before......they also fine the heads of the Yakuza when their minions shoot people...something we can't do here......

Britain...

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.


 



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.



And on Japan...this is what stops gun crime in Japan as a whole...
Japan: Gun Control and People Control

Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.



Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.


In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.
 



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.



This is how Japan stopped gun crime among their actual criminals....long prison sentences...which, by the way, is what American supporters of the 2nd Amendment keep telling you guys is the only way to stop gun crime .....not by targeting law abiding gun owners.....

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”
 



Scots, though a far less numerous than Americans, share an historical, thus cultural and ideology-driving, antecedent with the U.S: existential despotism at the hand of the English. I point this out because often enough, gun rights advocates remark that gun possession/ownership is crucial to so vehemently supports their Second Amendment right to bear arms is because they fear a despotic regime usurping American sovereignty and/or liberty -- a nasty legacy of English colonial rule in the Americas.

Unlike every other Western democracy in the world, the U.S. response to gun violence, lo outright gun massacres, is reactive rather than proactive. Whereas the rest of the Westernised world, in response to gun violence and in recognition of the fact that where there are guns, there will inevitably be some gun violence, opted to manage access to the instruments of gun violence as their tactic for enhancing their citizens' safety, American conservatives would prefer to arm teachers or maybe even provide schools/children with bullet-proof blankets or vests.

The gun culture of Scotland and England differs greatly from that of the U.S. The UK's gun culture centers almost exclusively around hunting (the exception being for sanctioned law enforcement purposes) [1]; thus guns there are viewed mainly as an instrument for field sports -- and not, as in the US, for self-defence, or as offensive instruments of vigilantism and vengeance. Consequently, banning guns not central to the grand “huntin’ and shootin’” tradition -- pistols and semi-automatics -- does bit impinge, for example, on the country's grouse, pheasant, hart, and target shooting traditions. Indeed, UK law acknowledges and maintains gun culture (to the extent it entails hunting, skeet and target shooting) as a recreational pursuit. Today shotgun licenses cost ~£80, despite it costing the police about £200 for firearm background checks. And grouse moor are subsidised by government at a rate of £56 per hectare.

Dunblane, in a terrible way, has saved lives. And that is what Americans really should contemplate in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting: for all the sorrow and the pain that came with vengeance upon those kids and their families, what should also born from that horror is, as happened in Scotaly, a country with less guns and less gun violence. [2]


Notes:
  1. To wit, the movie Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is a comedy plotted around the theft of a pair of treasured hunting shotguns.



    The point being that in the UK, the preponderant gun culture is cultured, that is to say, it's overwhelmingly this...

    0a235797490b4d68bc67e9b7805e387c.jpg


    325dc1419a75b00d0f8591d2dafe48bb--hunting-cabin-duck-hunting.jpg


    whh_news_670x360px-ardn.jpg



    ...not this....






    There are, of course, sporting hunters in the U.S., but sport hunters don't really need bulletproof vest and deer and other game hunters don't march through city streets, armed for bear, carrying rifles, and trying to look as "badass" as they can.
  2. Overview comparison of crime rates in Scotland and the U.S. The site also provides some count data, but given the population size differences between the two countries, count data aren't of any intrinsic value for this thread's topic.

  • As a preface to the following and as an epilogue to the above note, I must note that statistics don’t illustrate the stark terror that a victim of gun violence feels, a feeling that can linger for years after the event. And they don’t map the tears that mark the faces of those grieving the victim of a gunshot.


    Despite gun control measures undertaken since Dunblane, there are still plenty of guns in mainland Britain. Scotland has ~75K licensed firearms and shotguns. England and Wales even more, with about 1.8 million in circulation. And these guns have impact.

    In the ten years between 2003 and 2012, there were 182 recorded allegations of firearms being used in a school or college in Scotland. There were five years in that decade in which gun murders committed in Scotland still remain unsolved until this day. In those ten years, almost 40% of allegations of attempted murder with a firearm in Scotland still remain open cases with the police. And over 50% of allegations of robberies with a firearm in Scotland remain unsolved.

    Despite these facts, it is highly suggestive that those gun controls implemented after 1996 worked. The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002.

    Today, in Scotland, firearms account for just 2% of all homicides, and the graph opposite starkly shows how gun deaths in Scotland have dropped since the introduction of those handgun laws.

    The biggest signifier of change, though, might be the role of handguns in crime since Dunblane. In England and Wales, !28% of all criminal use of guns involved handguns. They were actually fired in just 11% of cases – about 250 times. Compare this to the U.S. where handguns account for the overwhelming majority of all firearm-related homicides.

    Many say to such figures: well if you take away guns, people will just use other weapons to kill, won’t they? Well, in England and Wales, it seems this is not the case. The rate of violent attacks resulting in injury declined from 1995, when there were 56 incidents per 1,000 adults, to 15 incidents in 2015. This is a drop of 73% -- higher even than the decline in gun crime.

    It is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

    Not surprising, some might think. It seems logical that stricter gun controls will result in less gun deaths. In a country like Japan, where it’s virtually impossible to own a gun, there are essentially no gun deaths. Whereas, in the U.S., where there are over 300 million firearms, over 10K people were unlawfully shot and killed in 2017 (and guns account, in the U.S., for about 70% of all homicides).

    It would be wrong, though, to say conclusively that Dunblane’s gun laws have reduced gun violence. Just as the Founders, in mustering a revolt against England, took inspiration and actual guidance from the Scots, so again have the Scots shown the way to balance legitimate gun ownership and use with the need for public safety.



t is also worth noting that in 1996 there was another mass shooting on the other side of the world. That year, in Tasmania saw a gunman kill 35 people using semi-automatic weapons. That shooting, as in Dunblane, triggered a political response that resulted in the implementation of rigorous gun control laws throughout Australia. A large array of weapons were banned and the government imposed a mandatory gun buy back. The results of such government action have been striking: there were 13 mass shootings in Australia in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996, but none since.

This implies that Australian gun control stopped their mass public shootings....and that is a lie.....as I posted on another thread...they have had about a dozen shootings in public places since the ban as well as family shootings........in each case the Australian gun laws did not stop the shooter from going to a mall, a school or a theater and shooting lots of people.....the only thing that stopped the shooter was his own agenda, and that the people he shot didn't all die from their gun shot wounds...

This lie about mass public shootings in Australia needs to be exposed....

Xelor...can you explain how Australian gun control laws stopped these public shootings from becoming mass public shootings?

Here is just a short list of shootings in public spaces....how were these stopped by Australian gun control laws?

.2011 Hectorville siege - Wikipedia
Monash University shooting - Wikipedia
Melbourne gangland killings - Wikipedia
Silk–Miller police murders - Wikipedia
The La Trobe University shooting
Millewa state forest killings
Peter James Knight abortion clinic shooter
2002 Cabramatta wedding shooting, 7 people shot, not killed
Jean Eric Gassy - Wikipedia
2007 Melbourne CBD shootings - Wikipedia
2011 Hectorville siege - Wikipedia
—-25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman were shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney, the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families. Twenty-four-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom. Up to 100 shots were fired into the house by four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.
—28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast, Queensland, shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[108][109][110][111
Queen Street Mall, Brisbane - Wikipedia
2014 Sydney hostage crisis - Wikipedia
–10 September 2015 – Karin Lock was shot dead in a McDonald’s restaurant in the Gold Coast by her ex-husband Stephen Lock, who then turned the gun on himself and shot himself dead.[140][141][142]
2015 Parramatta shooting - Wikipedia
–7 March 2016 – Finks bikie gang member Wayne Williams armed himself with an AK 47 rifle and shot and killed Michael Bassal and shot and wounded his brothers Terry Bassal and Mark Bassal outside an industrial building in the suburb of Ingleburn Sydney. Williams then barricaded himself inside the building and took three hostages, resulting in a siege and stand off with police. He later released the three hostages and shot himself dead. The shootings were committed as a result of a business deal gone wrong.[citation needed]
 
Why don't these liberal assholes move there? That would be GREAT. Then they could leave us and our rights ALONE. We REAL AMERICANS are not fearful of a "gun around every corner" and we shouldn't have to pay or give up ANYTHING because of your fucking fear.
 
I hate these liberal douchebags. I wish they would all pack up and move to fucking Scotland. Let them be an annoyance over there for a change!


Scotland and England are becoming way too violent for them....they would hate it over there....
 
The post about Japan was fascinating.

I have long envied the Japanese -- ever since I read that you can actually walk down the street at midnight and you will be perfectly safe.

I hope that the Japanese do what it takes to maintain their peaceful and orderly society.
 
The post about Japan was fascinating.

I have long envied the Japanese -- ever since I read that you can actually walk down the street at midnight and you will be perfectly safe.

I hope that the Japanese do what it takes to maintain their peaceful and orderly society.


You did read where their police can search you anytime, for any reason....right? The house visits without warrants? And that their prosecutors can coerce confessions from prisoners...right?
 
So when BLM is against police brutality the gop sides says that we need cops it's the blacks being wrong.

Now with the last incident of murder at school these same folks say that we don't need the cops to protect us..

Talk about your losers on parade...
 
So when BLM is against police brutality the gop sides says that we need cops it's the blacks being wrong.

Now with the last incident of murder at school these same folks say that we don't need the cops to protect us..

Talk about your losers on parade...


Yes....black lives matter is wrong....the problem is not police brutality or police shooting black men......that is a lie....the problem is black males shooting other black males

And the black neighborhoods....they want more police...it is the left wing activists who want the police kept out...not the actual people in those neighborhoods....
 
Xelor/2aguy
Xelor posted a long article providing stats on gun violence decreasing in Scotland after gun control was imposed. 2AGuy immediately countermoved with a long article providing stats that gun violence is dramatically increasing in Scotland and Britain generally.

Which am I -- or any of us -- supposed to believe? Who do I trust? I LOVE the Australian Prime Minister's statement at the press briefing with President Trump: "We have basically no semiautomatic weapons--let alone automatic--in our country."

God, I wish we could say that here, because as I advocated JUST for the elimination of weapons like the AR-15, I have been schooled by gun rights supporters that ALL semiautomatics perform the same way, are as fast and as deadly. Where does that lead me in the argument? Well, not toward no control, I'll give you a hint.

I'm not the only gun control advocate who is at a disadvantage in these arguments because I don't have a lot of technical knowledge about the firepower and performance of different kinds of guns. I don't plan on spending a lot of time researching it either, because in the end they'll just turn and argue the 2nd Amendment, or the "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns," which has no answer.

I wish someone could be trusted to give us the absolute truth on this issue without putting their political spin or wishes into the argument. I don't know where to go for that. The posts from Xelor and 2AGuy show the problem. It isn't that either of them is lying. But they completely contradict each other. What is the answer?
 
I am not at all suggesting that limiting gun ownership/possession will reduce crime overall. I don't know why anyone suggests that a net decrement in crime is the purpose of gun control proposals.

There are two genres of theory (science sense of the term) about the etiology of criminality: psychological, sociological and biological, each having their own approach:
  • Behavioral
    • Psychological -- construes the etiology of criminality as follows:
      • Foundations of criminal behavior's etiology:
        • The individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories.
        • Personality is the major motivational element that drives behavior within individuals.
        • Normality is generally defined by social consensus.
        • Crimes then would result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual.
        • Criminal behavior may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses certain felt needs.
        • Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, i.e., a diseased mind, inappropriate learning or improper conditioning, the emulation of inappropriate role models, and adjustment to inner conflicts
      • Sociological approach-- Whereas purely psychological approaches to understanding criminal behavior's etiology focus on identifying motivators in the individual, sociological approaches integrate impulsive individuality with external forces to identify factors that often but not always coalesce with one's extant mental state to convince individuals of their anomie, which, in turn, leads in some individuals to antisocial behaviors, one of which is criminal activity. Thus the sociological approach, though sometimes described as separate from the psychological one, is inextricably linked to human psychology, so closely that comprehension of each's etiological explanation for criminality can occur in isolation, application of each disciplines solution propositions/implications are best undertaken in unison for humanity cannot separate within individuals the impelling effects of one's own mind and those of the society in s/he dwells.
        • Connects the issues of the individual’s criminality with the broader social structures and cultural values of society, familial, or peer group.
        • Explains how the contradictions of the multiplicity of interacting groups and cultural factors contribute to criminality.
        • Identifies the ways these structures cultures and contradictions have historically developed.
        • Describes the current processes of change within and among social groups undergo during any given period.
        • Criminality is evaluated from the point of view of the social construction of criminality and its social causes.
  • Biological -- The biological approach ascribes criminality to:
    • Heredity
    • Neurotransmitter dysfunction
    • Brain abnormalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or trauma

Among the two genres of criminality's etiology, public policy can be developed and implemented to evaluate, by individual, the net impact of the interplay of all three. Doing so to determine who among us can and cannot contain their emotions so as to refrain from using firearms to facilitate their antisocial objectives, however, is financially prohibitive and likely economically inefficient given that, roughly, a human life is worth between $5M and $9M. [1] Consequently, the public policy solution approaches to curtailing the incidence of fatal outcomes of the antisocial behavior, specifically the one called "unlawful gun-related homicide," have drawn primarily from sociological findings and used with psychology's general findings about the nature of human behavior as a secondary basis.

Efforts to fix the etiology of criminal behavior in such social and psychological factors as "the broken home," "habits of thought," "incompetent or indifferent parents," "evil associates," "inadequate supervision," etc., have, to the extent they seek to isolate the source to any one driver, met with failure. No piece of research has as yet adequately demonstrated that criminal behavior is due primarily to the operation of any one of the above social conditions or of others that could be mentioned. Each criminal is unique despite surface similarities with other offenders; thus the duality of social and psychological considerations that must be addressed by any given solution for attenuating the incidence of unlawful gun-related homicides.

Instead of talking about the influence of this and that factor, the broken home and so forth, I prefer to examine the offender's past for evidence of emotional deprivation. In this manner one can account for the existence of those criminals (and normal persons) who had a broken home or what not, yet who suffered no real emotional deprivation as they found adequate or compensatory satisfaction elsewhere.

Recognizing that "frustration leads to aggression," we can at least begin to understand the criminal act and thereby devise effective attenuation means and modes. Emotional deprivation, with its subsequent feelings of frustration and consequent aggressive reaction, if continued over a long enough period of time, may lead to antisocial behavior -- manifested either as neuroses or an unlawful act -- as a means of satisfying ego demands. The fact that a given person becomes a neurotic rather than a criminal depends, I think, upon the development in him of sufficient superego -- catalyzed via his own irrational conjurations or by the influences upon him from parents, from peers, or unconnected-to-him parties who, unbeknownst to them, have high influence on his thinking -- at the time he is suffering from emotional deprivation.

A sudden loss of a job, a disappointment in sexual reception/adjustment and myriad other precipitating factors acting upon a person predisposed to aggression (even if the aggressive behavior isn't expressly intended by the person to be gun-homicide) because of emotional deprivation, may produce a criminal act. After all, few people turn overnight to crime. Careful and detailed psychological analysis of the offender and his social constellation usually produces evidence that he gradually became inured to criminal activities, as Abrahamsen puts it, over a long period of time. At the same time one must remember that we all have criminal tendencies and the fact that we do not act on them depends on our entire psychological adjustment to our fellows and their property as well as to the society in which we live.

As time goes on and the sensitized person begins to repress the memory of his/her emotional deprivations, there arises a chronic feeling of anxiety-tinged, free-floating aggression. In the absence of restricting superego factors this person is the potential criminal who may commit an overt criminal act under pressure of one or more initiating events. After the pattern of criminal behavior is set and reinforced by repetition, the criminal thus inculcates receptive traits in his personality which produce a criminal response. [2]

What, then, is the explanation of the criminal act? Crime is a product of an individual's tendencies and the situation of the moment interacting with his mental resistance. Letting 'C' stand for crime, 'T' for tendencies, 'S' for situation, and 'R' for resistance, one may derive the following formula: C=(T+S)/R.

The "T" factor is not simply "aggressive tendencies" since they are present in all men. "T" also refers to adequately extreme (irrational) aggressive inclinations of an indirect nature in the form of, for instance, projections, rebellious hostility towards anyone, protest reactions, or excessive motor activity. A criminal act does not take place solely because of the release of repressed aggression, but rather occur also once the offender has built up a defense of aggression which is expressed tangentially by projections, rejection of authority, protest' reactions, etc.

"S," the situation, is an indeterminate factor in mobilizing the criminal act. As each person has a unique psychological composition, it follows from the psychological findings about criminal behavior that only he can achieve a particular aim in a given environment. Sociology's findings inform us, however, that multiple individuals' psychology may lead to the same behavioral outcome.

This is why public policy solutions must be designed using the guidance from both disciplines. We know there are "nut jobs" in society, but we haven't the resources to identify them on an individual level; thuse public policy must curtail "nut jobs" access to the means by which they can conduct their most opprobrious antisocial behaviors. I think most folks would concur that while crime in general is scurrilous, the crime of cowardly and from a safe-for-oneself distance killing innocent individuals, unlawful gun homicide, is among the most odious among them. The realization that all criminal behavior cannot be prevented (ihus is it uneconomic to try doing so) and having the undelightful onus of choosing what among the population of committable crimes a society is willing to bear, public policy makers opt, at present, to take action to make unlawful gun homicides as difficult and as "unsatisfying/unprofitable" as possible.



Notes:
  1. Assuming 15K unlawful gun homicides in a year, the economic value of life lost would be $75B. While the government, a firm or an individual might invest $7B to obtain $75B of ROI on a financial investment, it cannot afford to that kind of spending on a single endeavor to identify "gun unworthy" individuals because the cash cost to the government of such an endeavor is but part of the total cost of doing so. There is also a private sector component.
  2. The cycle is the same for us all for all activity that is [1] deemed inappropriate to a well ordered society and thus made unlawful and (2) that individuals, in spite of the activity's prohibition, undertake anyway. The only difference between how a criminal and law abider makes choices about behavior is the extent of one's reticence for enduring the consequences of most of us exhibit when evaluating the risk-reward profile of any given criminal activity. This is why the guy who will, for instance, speed won't necessarily and also embezzle, burgle, rape or murder.
 

Forum List

Back
Top