Gunman shoots 18 people.

[Drudgewire]

Their guns don't make them safer and yet they never imagine their guns being used to cause harm! None of the gun owners do. We have a very, very powerful gun lobby in America and you can see the myths they promote and actual statistics not culled to promote this idea that guns at the ready make people safer.
The myths are on both sides, and no one side is guilty of finding stats that suit their argument while the other uses solid data.

And while I won't speak for other gun owners, I imagine my guns causing harm to innocent people all the time. Part of being a responsible owner is being vigilant in the care of them. If you become complacent and let it slip your mind you're carrying a potential instrument of death, you become a statistic.

[Rolfe]

Somewhere in the region of 50,000 people were affected by the change in the law.


My memory of the detail of this isn't perfect. Can you remind me (and perhaps all of us) what actually changed after Hungerford and then after Dunblane?

As far as I remember, after Hungerford some sorts of automatic weapons were banned, however handguns were not affected and people who legally owned guns were still able to keep them at home (under certain restrictions which you highlighted).

Then after Dunblane, was it not that handguns were entirely banned, and that owners of legal target-shooting weapons had to keep them on the gun club premises?

So, what is the breakdown of the 50,000 people?

Owners of handguns who couldn't keep them any more. However, this was always a small number of people, and most of these would in any case either have kept them at a gun club or if they kept them at home they would have been unloaded and locked up, with the ammunition locked away separately, all this subject to police inspection. And they would most emphatically not have been walking the streets with the things. Certainly, this didn't remove any significant number of weapons from the path of anyone bent on suicide.

And then there were owners of still-legal weapons who were then required to keep them at their clubs. However, I believe a substantial number of these people already kept the things on gun club premises before it was made a requirement. With that group, I don't think we can say that all of them who were actually affected by the new legislation really had to change their behaviour at all.

I know two people who were vocally bitching about the tightening of the legislation - one I heard bitching after Hungerford, and the other after Dunblane. However, neither of them even kept a gun at home before the change in legislation, and the tenor of the remarks in both cases was general anti-increased gun control in principle, rather than complaining that they had been personally obliged to alter their behaviour.

But supposing all the 50,000 people you quote as being "affected" were indeed obliged to remove a gun that had previously been in their home. Population of Britain, a bit over 60 million. At a guess, 50 million adults? So, 0.1% of the adult population.

This is the extent of the change that happened in 1997, that Gagglenash seems to think should have been evident in overall crime and suicide statistics.

Oh, even if the US could manage to get itself to the pre-Hungerford situation (1987) in Britain, I think their streets and the playgrounds would be a great deal safer than they evidently are.

Rolfe.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Why do you keep doing this?

You have been told several times now that what happened in 1997 was of essentially no significance to ordinary law-abiding citizens. They were not "disarmed", because they were never armed in the first place. Their guns were not "taken away", because they didn't have any.

There has never been any culture of ordinary lawabiding citizens keeping guns at home. The tightening of the law in 1997 affected only a tiny proportion of the population, target shooters who for some reason best known to themselves kept their guns at home. I don't know the number of guns removed from circulation at that time, but as a proportion of the adult population of the country it would inevitably have been insignificant - because only an insignificant percentage of the adult population kept such a weapon at home even before the legislation.

It is therefore completely irrelevant, and indeed intellectually dishonest, to post statistics such as suicide figures as evidence that this "gun ban" had no effect. Since these people had no access to firearms even before 1997, then it's hardly surprising there was no change in the situation.

In spite of being informed differently, you keep referring to this "gun ban", and "disarming lawabiding citizens" in terms that suggest that before 1997 Britain was like the USA, with a high percentage of the adult population owning guns and keeping them at home and even walking around with them, and that in 1997 these guns were "taken away". This is not so. Nobody was walking around the streets (legally, anyway) with a gun even before 1997, and very very few people kept guns in their homes. I don't know the details of the pre-1997 law, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody could legally keep a loaded weapon in their home then either.

The law was introduced to try to reduce even further the chance of something like Dunblane happening again. Thomas Hamilton was a member of a gun club, and, as was legal before 1997, he kept guns in his home. This was extremely rare. It was not usual behaviour at all. Nevertheless, the incident showed that allowing this to happen at all was something that could be exploited by homicidal maniacs.

There was no possibility that this legislation would affect suicide rates, because gun availability was so restricted even before 1997 that any possible change could never show up in statistics. It was intended to affect public massacres by madmen. In this, so far as we can tell with the limited data available, it has been successful.

Rolfe.

"Reduced," isn't, "eliminated," right? Just checking.

Oh - and - couldn't the tragedy have been stopped equally well by proper enforcement and review of the existing laws? Hadn't the shooter at Dunblane been kicked out of the gun club for gun-related jackassulation? Didn't the local guy in charge of issuing permits KNOW he'd been kicked out of the club and still issued the club permit anyhow?

Seems like an oversight program would have cost you guys a LOT less and accomplished the same goal.

Ain't hindsight wonderful.

ANYHOW!

The 1997, and there's that word again, draconian UK gun laws in Britain are held up as the NUMBER ONE reason the United states should pass gun laws involving the complete removal of handguns from the hands of private citizens, reduction in other types of firearms allowed to be possessed by private citizens, and federally mandated storage requirements for all firearms.

Sound familiar?

"gun ban," is easier to say than, "complete removal of handguns from the hands of private citizens, reduction in other types of firearms allowed to be possessed by private citizens, and legally mandated storage requirements for all firearms..."

and you DID BAN handguns, right?

(Oh - and - those Olympics in 2012? Are they planning to arrest the target shooting teams? Just asking. That seems to be the first instance where an Olympic event will have been outlawed.)

We are promised, for our significant investment of time, manpower and money, reduction in violence, murder and suicide rates, based on the low associated rates in Britain, which the the ones doing the promising attribute to YOUR law.

My point is that the promised reductions did not happen in Britain.

It wasn't the number of murders. That didn't change.

It wasn't the frequency. Apparently they'd only had two of these statistically insignificant stochastic event jackassulations. (You've got a 15-year MTBJ, right? Mean Time Between Jackassulation?)

It was just that you guys were bombarded by day after day of front page and television coverage of suffering and pain for the deaths of a few people while all the other deaths happened on page three of the paper and got a single mention on the evening news.

...and again - is there LESS suffering and pain because a knife was used as the murder weapon?

...and people say, "have you no heart that you don't care about these deaths?" Yes - I care about them. I even care about the ones on page three, which seem to slip by the ones fixated on the front page.

I just extend my sympathies, say my prayers and move on. I don't seek to change laws that will apply to a fifth of my country's population because of some odd-off tragedy that happens to spawn a media feeding frenzy.

If these promised reductions didn't happen in Britain, with you reasonably level headed, law-abiding, and admirably stiff upper lipped (and I'm not saying that facetiously... you all are AMAZING) guys, what chance does it have of working over here with us clamoring rednecks (again, not facetiously)?

Did you have a significant percentage of your handgun owners rolling around with those ridiculous and offensive, "They can take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers?"

We do.

Did you have people, way before the ban, going out and burying firearms caches in your public forests?

WE DO!

Did you already have nutcase, jackassulating, and well equipped military, "militias," already training in military maneuvers and tactics, preparing for the day when they'll be called to arms to fight for the right to take their rightful place as the leaders of a New America?

WE DO!!

AND THOSE ARE A FEW OF OUR CURRENTLY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!!!

The anti-gun people, here, are promising a HUGE payoff based on the results obtained elsewhere, when all the Elsewherians really got could have been just as easily gained by turning off the TV when the News came on. The law didn't stop the murders. It just moved them all back onto page three, where people seem to think they belong.

Out of sight, out of mind. Invisible insanity.

So, yes, I persist in calling it a ban, because it would be if it were implemented over here.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

ARRRRGH! A fixup - the Brits don't keep suicide stuff on, "all ages;" Just 17 and up. The addition of a mess of younglings to the population diluted the rate per 100,000.

This is a corrected table of the 17 and up suicides.

Year | UK Me | UK Wo | US Me | US Wo |US M NG|US W NG
1991 | 20.95 | 6.69 | 26.32 | 5.91 | 9.32 | 3.57
1992 | 21.07 | 6.70 | 25.60 | 5.79 | 9.08 | 3.54
1993 | 20.48 | 6.48 | 25.82 | 5.79 | 8.93 | 3.38
1994 | 19.90 | 6.13 | 25.68 | 5.61 | 9.10 | 3.31
1995 | 20.22 | 6.11 | 25.55 | 5.51 | 9.39 | 3.27
1996 | 19.19 | 5.99 | 24.90 | 5.48 | 9.15 | 3.26
1997 | 19.00 | 6.10 | 24.04 | 5.41 | 9.08 | 3.35
1998 | 21.10 | 6.24 | 23.78 | 5.42 | 9.11 | 3.35
1999 | 20.72 | 5.99 | 22.47 | 5.12 | 8.57 | 3.24
2000 | 19.92 | 6.20 | 22.32 | 5.06 | 8.60 | 3.18
2001 | 19.30 | 5.80 | 23.00 | 5.18 | 9.14 | 3.34
2002 | 18.68 | 5.83 | 23.39 | 5.40 | 9.46 | 3.61
2003 | 18.14 | 5.78 | 22.96 | 5.36 | 9.37 | 3.57
2004 | 18.08 | 6.03 | 22.97 | 5.76 | 9.84 | 3.86
2005 | 17.51 | 5.83 | 22.98 | 5.82 | 9.70 | 3.86

Since I felt like I had to do the correction, anyhow, I added the promised non-gun suicide rate as well.

The suicide rates are NOT nearly identical, after all - just similar. Still, if so many of our suicides are gun related, and, as the anti-gun folks say, banning guns will eliminate the suicides, then why is the rate so high in the UK, and the question remains: Why was there no significant drop after all the guns were unloaded and locked up or removed?

[volatile]

Is research really that hard?

"The 2012 Olympics: Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Olympic_Games) to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been the case previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Commonwealth_Games).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#_note-olympics)"

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Yes... they all parrot the same lines courtesy the NRA... they use statistics to convince themselves that the guns aren't the cause of the US's very high homicide rate...

Here are their basic myths and the answers: http://www.guninformation.org/

,,,and yet, your, "answer," to my posts from GB's home office DO NOT ADDRESS THE CRIMES you guys harp on: Homicide and suicide.

I notice that they've also abbreviated the Y axis somewhat to make the change look larger. I'll only address the dark solid line and the bottom line to demonstrate the range....

Your chart:
http://www.guninformation.org/bcscrime9703.jpg

A 20% reduction? Wow.

GB's actual Home Office chart, All Crime:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_TOTAL_RECORDED_CRIME_06.gif

20% reduction? Not seeing it.

Burglary in a dwelling:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files/images/TREND_Burglary_in_a_dwelling_06.gif

A real drop there,
__________
So: Why don't they address homicde, suicide, violent crime, robbery, drug offences, criminal damage, and theft from the person of another... you know... the kinds of crimes where guns are most often used?

For cites and more charts, please go over to another post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3507092&postcount=881).

Lesse - how do I spell dis-in-gen-you-us....

Oh - and - I am no longer associated with the NRA, refuse to be so because of their support for jackassulating law-breakers, and decline to use any of their data, providing I know it's theirs.

Oh - and - ROLFE: SEE?!?!!? 1997 made your country a crime-reducing paradise on EARTH!!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
... snip ...

I know two people who were vocally bitching about the tightening of the legislation - one I heard bitching after Hungerford, and the other after Dunblane. However, neither of them even kept a gun at home before the change in legislation, and the tenor of the remarks in both cases was general anti-increased gun control in principle, rather than complaining that they had been personally obliged to alter their behaviour.
Wow - being concerned for the rule of law and the population at large instead of their own self-interest!

Them SUNZABICHES!

But supposing all the 50,000 people you quote as being "affected" were indeed obliged to remove a gun that had previously been in their home. Population of Britain, a bit over 60 million. At a guess, 50 million adults? So, 0.1% of the adult population.
Yes - who really cares about majority rule, minority rights, if it only applies to a VERY small minority, right? Well - law determines rights, after all, and you guys just gave it up. We'll have a bit of a harder time of it because of that whole constitution and second amendment thing, but still....

This is the extent of the change that happened in 1997, that Gagglenash seems to think should have been evident in overall crime and suicide statistics.
See long, boring, opinion-laden other post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3517044&postcount=253) about my concern.

Oh, even if the US could manage to get itself to the pre-Hungerford situation (1987) in Britain, I think their streets and the playgrounds would be a great deal safer than they evidently are.

Rolfe.
I surely wish I could find some of that pre-1987 statistical data so I could see how things were working out for you. Do you happen to have any links to it?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Is research really that hard?

"The 2012 Olympics: Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Olympic_Games) to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been the case previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Commonwealth_Games).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#_note-olympics)"

'Tis when you're knee-deep in reposting Home Office charts and fixing spreadsheets. ;) Thanks for the word.

[Rolfe]

Hi

Wow - being concerned for the rule of law and the population at large instead of their own self-interest!

Them SUNZABICHES!


Er, no. Not at all concerned about the rule of law and the population at large. Merely concerned about the possibility of their pet hobby being curtailed. And as these two people happen to be good friends of mine, I don't really appreciate them being described in such terms.

Yes - who really cares about majority rule, minority rights, if it only applies to a VERY small minority, right? Well - law determines rights, after all, and you guys just gave it up. We'll have a bit of a harder time of it because of that whole constitution and second amendment thing, but still....


Way to totally change the subject.

Your point was that after this massive step of taking "everybody's" guns away, you would have expected to see some change to suicide and/or crime statistics. My point was that guns were "taken away" from only the very small minority (Darat pegged it as 0.1% of the population) who actually had such guns in the first place. Nowhere near enough change to imagine you'd see any difference in these statistics.

The question of "rights" wasn't even an issue in the discussion of these numbers.

Though, as it happens, the public discussion at the time was rather to the effect that the ordinary citizens' and their children's right not to be massacred by some crazed gun nut rather trumped anyone's "right" to indulge in a hobby of target shooting.


See long, boring, opinion-laden other post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3517044&postcount=253) [and entriely irrelevant] about my concern.

I surely wish I could find some of that pre-1987 statistical data so I could see how things were working out for you. Do you happen to have any links to it?


How things were working out for us then was that a surprising amount of lattitude was actually allowed in terms of gun ownership and even keeping them at home, so long as they were locked up unloaded, and the ammunition locked up separately. However, gun ownership was still a very minority interest, very few people did indeed keep such guns at home, and (as now) nobody legally walked the streets armed.

In spite of this, nobody was afraid to go to bed at night, "home invasions" were unheard-of, and there was no lobby demanding any extension of rights to keep weapons.

Rolfe.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Hi


Did you have people, way before the ban, going out and burying firearms caches in your public forests?

WE DO!



And so did we. They are called the Irish Republican Army. I believe some American gun owners know them quite well.

[Gagglegnash]

Er, no. Not at all concerned about the rule of law and the population at large. Merely concerned about the possibility of their pet hobby being curtailed. And as these two people happen to be good friends of mine, I don't really appreciate them being described in such terms.

Way to totally change the subject.

Sorry- forgot the smiley.

It did seem to me that you were saying that their concenrs were non sequiter to the argument because they had no personal involvement.

My response was rebuttal in absurdium in that people are supposed to be concerned about the law, even when it doesn't directly concern them.

I'm sorry if I offended.

...and to be totally honest, you were the one that brought it up.

Your point was that after this massive step of taking "everybody's" guns away, you would have expected to see some change to suicide and/or crime statistics. My point was that guns were "taken away" from only the very small minority (Darat pegged it as 0.1% of the population) who actually had such guns in the first place. Nowhere near enough change to imagine you'd see any difference in these statistics.
My point is that's how it's being pitched to the populace, over here.

1 out of 5 American adults are gun-owners, with something like 220 million guns in LEGAL circulation, something like 65 million of them handguns. The anti-gun guys say that, if we adopt the current British style of firearms control, then we can expect the current British levels in crime.

Is it too much to point out that the current style of firearms control has had no measurable effect on THEIR firearm-relate crime? If such measures are expected, in the US, to have HUGE results, shouldn't we have seen SOME reaction in British crime?

Though, as it happens, the public discussion at the time was rather to the effect that the ordinary citizens' and their children's right not to be massacred by some crazed gun nut rather trumped anyone's "right" to indulge in a hobby of target shooting.
So, we disarm and rigidly control all Xs when some individual nutjob takes an X and Ys a mess of people to death in a crowd to make Ying more difficult?

Either your nutjobs aren't very inventive (EVERY ONE of these walk-in-start-shooting/classroom/school killings are copycats... An American invented it in 1966), or you just don't have that many kind of nutjobs.

In the US, we have nutjobs aplenty, and, as has already been shown, for some reason we excel at inventing new ways of wrongdoing (oh - for what it's worth: Americans invented train robbery, too).

With a crime with a mean time between occurrences of about 15 years (TWO since it was invented in 1966), you'd be expected to have to wait until about... 1996 + 15 = 2011... 2011 to see if you've even slowed them down.

Yes - I personally honestly believe that taking away ANY individual person's rights because someone has successfully blown smoke up your collective skirts is wrong.

You're a rational fellow: Show me some statistics that show you to be any safer now from some nut grabbing one of those machine guns you can buy in London (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23419742-details/'I+bought+a+sub-machinegun+within+24+hours'/article.do) (for less than I can buy one for legally over here!) and shooting the place up than you were before?

Two occurrences in forty years is pretty sparse data.
How things were working out for us then was that a surprising amount of lattitude was actually allowed in terms of gun ownership and even keeping them at home, so long as they were locked up unloaded, and the ammunition locked up separately. However, gun ownership was still a very minority interest, very few people did indeed keep such guns at home, and (as now) nobody legally walked the streets armed.
Good for you! I admire that you guys can do that to yourselves. Now, you've done imitation samurai swords, and you're working on knives. Scotland's done glasses.

Let me know when you're finished. Won't there ALWAYS be something in the headlines, whose adherents are only a tiny fraction of the population, who don't, "need," whatever it is, that will make people feel safer about random law breaking?

I hope you're finished before you're all wearing the same colored, same cut clothing and shoes (you don't NEED different colors and styles, and if everyone looks alike, no one will now who to murder) (whom to murder) (whatever), driving the same kind of car (Who NEEDS other kinds of cars, and these are so much SAFER), and eating... I don't know... Purina (http://www.purina.com/) European Chow (for the prevention of obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease).
In spite of this, nobody was afraid to go to bed at night, "home invasions" were unheard-of, and there was no lobby demanding any extension of rights to keep weapons.

Rolfe.
That was then. This is now.

Two homes attacked by arsonists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7212061.stm)
Romanian family's home attacked (http://search.bbc.co.uk/click/p/3/ds/autonomy/t/News%2520%252D%2520Northern%2520Ireland%2520%252D% 2520Romanian%2520family%2527s%2520home%2520attacke d/id/17231391421615120527467016581352000/-/http%253A%252F%252Fnews%252Ebbc%252Eco%252Euk%252F 2%252Fhi%252Fuk%255Fnews%252Fnorthern%255Fireland% 252F7276165%252Estm)
Armed thieves beat up businessman (http://search.bbc.co.uk/click/p/9/ds/autonomy/t/News%2520%252D%2520London%2520%252D%2520Armed%2520 thieves%2520beat%2520up%2520businessman/id/17231391421615120527467016581352000/-/http%253A%252F%252Fnews%252Ebbc%252Eco%252Euk%252F 2%252Fhi%252Fuk%255Fnews%252Fengland%252Flondon%25 2F7203427%252Estm)
Man has surgery after home attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/7206774.stm)
Gang attacks man in raid on home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7272623.stm)
Masked gang attack family in home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7273836.stm)
Youth jailed for pensioner murder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7195993.stm)
Son killed father in knife attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7220025.stm) Mmm - like the OP, too...
Pair attack man outside own home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7228145.stm)
Two men charged over attack death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/7234633.stm)
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

No one's afraid of it over here, either.

We've got GUNS!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
And so did we. They are called the Irish Republican Army. I believe some American gun owners know them quite well.

Yeah. I wouldn't thank they'd need to bury anything.

:mad: Make a phone-call to Boston or New York and get a new shipment in a week. :mad:

[Darat]

My memory of the detail of this isn't perfect. Can you remind me (and perhaps all of us) what actually changed after Hungerford and then after Dunblane?



Your summary is pretty much accurate.

...snip...



But supposing all the 50,000 people you quote as being "affected" were indeed obliged to remove a gun that had previously been in their home. Population of Britain, a bit over 60 million. At a guess, 50 million adults? So, 0.1% of the adult population.

This is the extent of the change that happened in 1997, that Gagglenash seems to think should have been evident in overall crime and suicide statistics.

...snip...

And you have to remember not one of those 50,000 people legally had a loaded gun in their home, not even locked in a cabinet since the law at the time required guns to be kept unloaded and locked up when not required. So there is no way that those 50,000 could have been a "deterrent" to burglars and other criminals prior to 1997. Indeed I wonder if being one of those 50,000 people would have made you more of a target for some criminals since you would have something they would particularly want i.e. a gun!

[Architect]

I seem to recall that polls have always shown near-universal support for strict gun control in the UK. Must see if I can find a link.

[Darat]

For all that I am for gun control legislation (like most people even in countries like the USA) I have argued many times here that the change in legislation in 1997 was not required and was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic but singular event.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
For all that I am for gun control legislation (like most people even in countries like the USA) I have argued many times here that the change in legislation in 1997 was not required and was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic but singular event.

(MOST people in the USA don't even vote, so they may be for or against this and that, but not enough to go out and DO something about it for a couple of hours, one day every four years.) :(

[Architect]

For all that I am for gun control legislation (like most people even in countries like the USA) I have argued many times here that the change in legislation in 1997 was not required and was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic but singular event.

I could follow the ban on automatic weapons, inasmuch as there seemed to be no reasonable civilian purpose for posessing such firearms, however I would have thought the Thomas Hamilton/Dunblane issue was more to do with a failure to read the warning signs and take steps to remove his licence.

However politicians felt they had to be seen to act in the face of national outrage/shock/disbelief. There is an argument that a precautionary approach, whether proportionate or otherwise, was not an unreasonable way forward.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
... snip ...

This is the extent of the change that happened in 1997, that Gagglenash seems to think should have been evident in overall crime and suicide statistics.

... snip ...
...and, again, which the anti-gun lobby is holding up as the primary reason that the USA should do the same thing. You did see the "crime reduction since 1997," chart (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3517144&postcount=256), right? You remember, the one that was pretty much nothing like your Home Office crime chart and cherry-picked the declining burglary rate, which was declining BEFORE 1997, and left out the crimes where guns are normally used?

You're a rational guy. If you outlaw blue cars, and the anti-blue-car lobby goes on and on about how much safer you are because there are NO BLUE CAR-RELATED INJURIES AND DEATHS, but the accident and fatal accident rate had nor declined, even a little bit, wouldn't you be suspicious?

I use that as an example because that's what they did with that, "assault weapons," ban a few years back. The definition of said, "assault weapons," was cosmetic in nature, banning things like folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, where the magazine attached on pistols, barrel shrouds, and weight.

The only thing that was about the way the weapon worked was limits on magazine size, but since 1) magazines are removable, and 2) you could still get 30-round mags as long as you had provenience that the mag was from before the ban, it had little effect on who had large magazines.

After the ban, they were very proud that there were, "significantly fewer crimes committed with these types of weapons," and when confronted by the fact that there were no fewer firearms crimes being committed, responded by saying that the number of crimes being committed with these types of weapons was statistically insignificant BEFORE the ban, so you wouldn't expect to see a change.

Now, I don't know about YOU, but when I buy a medicine, I expect it to work better than a jelly bean on my disease.

Shouldn't I be allowed to extend the same requirements to my laws (which, by the way, cost a whole lot more)?

....

Oh!

My!!

God!!!

That's it, isn't it?

You guys bought a PLACEBO!

You bought it because your newspapers and government sold it to you and sold it HARD, and like wooers everywhere, you'll now defend the purchase to your deaths because it, "made you feel better."

LOL!!

Sorry - just now thought of that.
Law-On: Apply to your entire society!

Law-On: Apply to your entire society!!

Law-On: Apply to your entire society!!!

[Rolfe]

I could follow the ban on automatic weapons, inasmuch as there seemed to be no reasonable civilian purpose for posessing such firearms, however I would have thought the Thomas Hamilton/Dunblane issue was more to do with a failure to read the warning signs and take steps to remove his licence.

However politicians felt they had to be seen to act in the face of national outrage/shock/disbelief. There is an argument that a precautionary approach, whether proportionate or otherwise, was not an unreasonable way forward.


I agree very much with Architect's post. The Dunblane thing was more of a failure of existing controls than a deficiency of the controls themselves. Nevertheless there was a huge public outcry for stricter controls at the time, and I think it was probably necessary for the government to be seen to be doing something.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the move was a bad thing. What are handguns for? Not hunting, or vermin control, or euthanasia of livestock or whatever legitimate uses of firearms there are. They're for shooting people, and failing that, for target shooting - which is arguably just practice for shooting people. Did they have any real place in British society in the 1990s?

The only legitimate thing you can do with a handgun is shoot at targets. It's a hobby. It was quite a popular hobby in the years following the war, when there are more people who had had military experience with these things and wanted to keep their hand in. Some people were very good at it and Olympic medals were a regular event.

However, is a hobby, however harmless, sufficient reason to argue against a ban on the sort of weapons that were involved at Dunblane? Even if we get Olympic medals out of it? Public opinion seemed to be saying no. Tough luck, pistol shooters, but children's lives are more important. Maybe this was an over-reaction, maybe there wasn't another Thomas Hamilton waiting in the wings or maybe he'd have been stopped by proper enforcement of existing controls, but it was hard to make a compelling case just to protect a minority hobby.

Rolfe.

[Drudgewire]

The only legitimate thing you can do with a handgun is shoot at targets
Thankfully, here we consider protecting our lives and livliehoods legitimate. :)

[Rolfe]

Perhaps more interesting is the situation before Hungerford. There's a book on that incident (http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/hunger.htm) available online which gives quite a lot of background information (note, this was written pre-Dunblane).

Nor was there anything illegal in this arsenal kept in the Ryans’ brick-built, end-of-terrace council house. On the contrary, Ryan had held a shotgun licence since 1978. As his collection had expanded to include other firearms, so his licence had been amended accordingly, as required by law. The Thames Valley Police had, in the twelve months before August 1987, vetted the young gun enthusiast on at least three occasions, once in November 1986 and twice in early 1987. As the storage facilities were found to be in order, there was no good reason for the relevant authorization to be withheld, and it was not.

Under the terms of his firearms certificate Ryan was entitled to own five guns. It was his constant chopping and changing of his weaponry which had prompted the police visits. Constable Ronald Hoyes, the Hungerford community beat officer, was one such official visitor to the Ryan household. He explains: ‘Having worked in Hungerford for thirteen years, I had had no previous dealings with Ryan at all and I knew that he had never been in any trouble with the police, apart from one single speeding offence. He appeared to me to be a fit and responsible person to hold a firearms certificate.’
PC Hoyes’s visit was required because Ryan had again applied for a variation to his certificate in order to include a Smith and Wesson, a .38 pistol, for target shooting. The amendment came through without undue delay. Everything was in accordance with the law.

Another police constable, Trevor Wainwright, also a member of the Hungerford constabulary, took the same view as his colleague on his visits to 4 South View. In fact he lived just around the corner in Macklin Close. These judgements were supported by Ryan’s own doctor, Dr Huigh Pihiens, whose name had been associated with Ryan’s original application. Again, both PC and GP found Ryan to be sane and safe. Additional legal requirements were duly fulfilled by the purchase and installation of a Chubb steel cabinet, which was then bolted to Ryan’s bedroom wall. But in reality the licensee kept the guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the garden shed, a flimsy structure which had long been the nerve centre of Ryan’s quasi-military operations, as many neighbours knew.

‘Michael was always fascinated by guns,’ his aunt, Constance Ryan, confirms. ‘It seemed to me as if he felt more important and powerful because of them - perhaps because he wasn’t all that big himself, I don’t really know. But I do remember Michael telling me that once he had met a person while out rabbit shooting and this person had started getting saucy. Michael pulled a revolver out of his pocket and pointed it at the man, and then watched with satisfaction as he ran off. I remember the lesson he drew from this incident very clearly. "That," he said, "shows the power a gun gives you, Auntie."’

Michael Ryan’s fixation with weaponry might have made him something of an exception in Hungerford. But he was by no means unusual in terms of the country as a whole. For in the summer of 1987 Britain’s gun culture was very widespread indeed. Ryan was just one among 160,000 licensed holders of firearms and 840,000 licensed holders of shotguns. However, the number of shotguns in legitimate circulation at that time was estimated at around three times that number, because several could be held on a single licence. And according to an estimate published in the Police Review there were then possibly as many as four million illegally held guns in the country. Gun shops and gun centres were also widespread, with more than two thousand legitimate dealers trading in arms, many extremely successfully, and some eight thousand gun clubs where the enthusiast could hone his skills.

In his love for guns, then, Michael Ryan was not alone. So when he applied to join the Dunmore Shooting Centre at Abingdon in Oxfordshire in September 1986, there was nothing particularly remarkable in his application. For Ryan membership of the Dunmore club was particularly attractive because it incorporated what it claimed was one of the biggest gun shops in the country. Ryan proved to be a good customer, spending £391.50 on a Beretta pistol shortly before Christmas 1986, and then buying a Smith and Wesson for £325, a Browning shotgun, a Bernadelli pistol and two other shotguns during the following year. Ryan borrowed the money to finance these transactions, a Reading finance company handling his repeated applications for funds.

There was more besides to attract the young gun enthusiast, for the Dumnore Centre’s shooting gallery had a 25-metre, fullboard, seven-lane range with television-monitored targets. The Centre, situated not far from Ryan’s home, also had a turning-target system, enabling him to practice rapid fire and combat exercises, an area of gun expertise known as practical shooting. Here, accuracy is tested not on Bisley-style targets where closeness to the bull’s-eye gains the most marks, but under simulated combat conditions, firing at representational figures, usually life-sized depictions of terrorists. The aim here is to kill or maim the ‘enemy’. In the summer of 1987 there were no fewer than forty ‘survival schools’ scattered around Britain, and magazines like Desert Eagle, Combat and Survival, Soldier of Fortune and Survival Weaponry were then enjoying a rapidly rising circulation. Michael Ryan was simply one of the gun-loving crowd.


I think the author exaggerates a bit with the "crowd" reference. If he means, a social group interested in guns then yes, that sort of "crowd". However, even in 1987 gun ownership was an extreme rarity among ordinary middle-class lawabiding people. And even then, the law on gun storage prevented lawabiding people from keeping loaded weapons at home, so owning such a thing to protect property wasn't a legal option.

And yet, it wasn't hard to get hold of the things, and it wasn't hard to flout the law on storage, as Michael Ryan was obviously doing left right and centre. This should have been the nightmare scenario as presented by the US posters. Relatively easy availability of weapons, but no legal way citizens could keep these weapons in such a way as to provide a defence against the sort of attack the Americans seem so concerned about.

But life was normal. Nobody was shaking with fear at the prospect of a "home invasion", nobody was demanding relaxation of the law so as to be allowed either to carry firearms in the street, or to keep a loaded gun on their bedside table.

Then it happened. Michael Ryan, whose attitudes seem eerily familiar in the light of some of the contributions from US posters here, took advantage of the leeway in the legislation to assemble a fair-sized arsenal, and then went on the infamous rampage.

No doubt someone is going to declare that the events of Wednesday 19th August 1987 could have been much ameliorated if there had been armed citizens at hand to gun Ryan down before he finally did the job himself. That debate could go on and on. However, in the aftermath of the incident there was no demand at all for such a development. On the contrary. The entire focus of public concern was to reduce gun availability in order to prevent as far as possible a repetition of the incident. Guns were most emphatically seen as the problem, not as the solution to the problem.

Which approach has been the more successful? This isn't about overall crime. This isn't even about "criminals". This is about apparently ordinary people who embark on a rampage of random killing.

We've had precisely one more incident, Dunblane in 1996. Which, as I said, simply renewed calls for gun restrictions. That was twelve years ago. There haven't been any more.

How many similar incidents have there been in the USA over the past 20 years? The population of Britain is one-sixth of the population of the USA, so on a simplistic population-based score, we would have expected six times as many incidents. I don't know how many there have been but it seems to me to be more than that.

And at the same time, is the cruelly disarmed British population shaking in its collective boots because of all those criminals who (of course) will be able to get guns anyway, and will have a field day attacking the helpless population?

Not last time I looked.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I agree very much with Architect's post. The Dunblane thing was more of a failure of existing controls than a deficiency of the controls themselves. Nevertheless there was a huge public outcry for stricter controls at the time, and I think it was probably necessary for the government to be seen to be doing something.

...snip...

I do hold that "necessary to be seen to be doing something" does not make for a good starting point for well thought out legislation.


However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the move was a bad thing. What are handguns for? Not hunting, or vermin control, or euthanasia of livestock or whatever legitimate uses of firearms there are. They're for shooting people, and failing that, for target shooting - which is arguably just practice for shooting people. Did they have any real place in British society in the 1990s?

...snip...

As a hobby I don't see why not - for instance we still have hobbyist archers and the like. Different folk, different strokes and all that. (Personally guns are one the few things that really unsettle me, not an entirely rational thing and certainly not any reason why other people shouldn't play with them.)


...snip...

However, is a hobby, however harmless, sufficient reason to argue against a ban on the sort of weapons that were involved at Dunblane? Even if we get Olympic medals out of it? Public opinion seemed to be saying no. Tough luck, pistol shooters, but children's lives are more important. Maybe this was an over-reaction, maybe there wasn't another Thomas Hamilton waiting in the wings or maybe he'd have been stopped by proper enforcement of existing controls, but it was hard to make a compelling case just to protect a minority hobby.

...snip...

I see this from the other way wrong: we had no evidence to support the idea that this singular tragic event represented a real and significant danger to children or any one else and plenty to support the idea that it was indeed a quite singular tragic event. So I think for the legislation that was passed it should have been argued for on the grounds of exactly how much safer we were making society, and I don't think anyone ever made a compelling argument for that.

[Ranb]

.....What are handguns for? Not hunting, or vermin control, or euthanasia of livestock or whatever legitimate uses of firearms there are. They're for shooting people, and failing that, for target shooting - which is arguably just practice for shooting people. Did they have any real place in British society in the 1990s?.....

Are handguns permitted to be used for hunting or any other legal use typically associated with rifles in Great Britain? I'm guessing it is difficult to find away around the near total ban on handgun ownership in order to use them for sport.

In the USA, handguns are used for the same activities rifles are. That it is more of a challenge to hunt with handguns just adds to the appeal for some, including myself. Thanks.

Ranb

[Rolfe]

I do hold that "necessary to be seen to be doing something" does not make for a good starting point for well thought out legislation.

As a hobby I don't see why not - for instance we still have hobbyist archers and the like. Different folk, different strokes and all that. (Personally guns are one the few things that really unsettle me, not an entirely rational thing and certainly not any reason why other people shouldn't play with them.)

I see this from the other way wrong: we had no evidence to support the idea that this singular tragic event represented a real and significant danger to children or any one else and plenty to support the idea that it was indeed a quite singular tragic event. So I think for the legislation that was passed it should have been argued for on the grounds of exactly how much safer we were making society, and I don't think anyone ever made a compelling argument for that.


I think that's a very reasonable argument. It's not one that was easy to get heard at the time though!

I suppose it's a difficult balance to assess. Even if the decrease in risk is tiny, it's difficult to prove it doesn't exist. And to balance that possible decrease in risk, just people continuing with a hobby.

I wouldn't care to call that one either way, but I wouldn't like to be the politician who decided the risk was low, and so the hobby could continue, if there had actually been a repeat incident.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

In the USA, handguns are used for the same activities rifles are. That it is more of a challenge to hunt with handguns just adds to the appeal for some, including myself.

To the best of my knowledge, handguns are banned and that's it - saving for Police, etc.

[Architect]

Thankfully, here we consider protecting our lives and livliehoods legitimate. :)

Sorry about the delay in posting, I had to step over the huge pile of bodies gunned down in our streets......no, erm, wait a minute.........that doesn't happen here. Ah well.

[Darat]

Are handguns permitted to be used for hunting or any other legal use typically associated with rifles in Great Britain? I'm guessing it is difficult to find away around the near total ban on handgun ownership in order to use them for sport.

In the USA, handguns are used for the same activities rifles are. That it is more of a challenge to hunt with handguns just adds to the appeal for some, including myself. Thanks.

Ranb

Good site for information like this is : http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/

[Drudgewire]

Sorry about the delay in posting, I had to step over the huge pile of bodies gunned down in our streets......no, erm, wait a minute.........that doesn't happen here. Ah well.
Yup, so you don't need guns.

Does here, so I do.

[Rolfe]

Yup, so you don't need guns.

Does here, so I do.


Does it ever even occur to you that you might have confused cause with effect?

Rolfe.

[Drudgewire]

Does it ever even occur to you that you might have confused cause with effect?

Rolfe.
I'm not living in a sociology class. I'm living in a society where bad people have guns and changing the laws to remove them from the hands of people who aren't committing crimes with them only hurts my chances of survival.

[Rolfe]

How many similar incidents have there been in the USA over the past 20 years? The population of Britain is one-sixth of the population of the USA, so on a simplistic population-based score, we would have expected six times as many incidents. I don't know how many there have been but it seems to me to be more than that.

And at the same time, is the cruelly disarmed British population shaking in its collective boots because of all those criminals who (of course) will be able to get guns anyway, and will have a field day attacking the helpless population?

Not last time I looked.

Rolfe.


?

Rolfe.

[Drudgewire]

?

Rolfe.
I guess you're just all around better people than us.

Then again, young punks don't run up to us on the street and slap us in the face because they know we're unarmed and outnumbered. So there's that.

ETA: And yes, I know you're not British Rolfe.

[SpitfireIX]

Sorry to barge in on this thread. Rolfe, please clean out your in-box. I've got some pictures of Bootsie and Kim's kids for you.

And as long as I'm here, here are a few lies, damn lies, and statistics for everyone to ponder.

Murder rates, per 100,000 population (source (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)):

Mexico (gun laws similar to Great Britain, but stiffer penalties): 13.0
United States: 4.2
France 1.7
Australia: 1.5
Canada: 1.5
United Kingdom 1.4
Germany 1.2
Switzerland (almost every male of military age has a military weapon and ammunition in his home): 0.9
Japan (undoubtedly the strictest gun control of any democracy): 0.5

Suicide rates, again per 100,000 population (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)):

Japan: 24.0
France: 18.0
Switzerland: 17.4
Germany: 13.5
Australia: 12.7
Canada: 11.9
United States: 11.0
United Kingdom: 7.0
Mexico: 4.0*

*more recent source (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/mexi.pdf)

[Drudgewire]

And as long as I'm here, here are a few lies, damn lies, and statistics for everyone to ponder.

Murder rates, per 100,000 population

*United States: 4.2
*France 1.7


So... if someone was to board a plane from America and fly to Paris and kill a bunch of French people, would that count towards their stats or ours?

Y'know, just pondering. v:)v

[Rolfe]

Sorry to barge in on this thread. Rolfe, please clean out your in-box. I've got some pictures of Bootsie and Kim's kids for you.


Sorry, sorry, I hadn't realised it was full. :blush:

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I guess you're just all around better people than us.

Then again, young punks don't run up to us on the street and slap us in the face because they know we're unarmed and outnumbered. So there's that.

ETA: And yes, I know you're not British Rolfe.


I don't know that being "unarmed and outnumbered" has anything to do with why teenagers are obnoxious. Different countries, different problems. Nobody's perfect.

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

Rolfe.

[Drudgewire]

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....
And you're a good man for it.

Me? I prefer the inherent politeness that comes with never knowing for sure who's going to find said hooliganism a shooting offense. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[Architect]

ETA: And yes, I know you're not British Rolfe.

:confused:

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
I don't know that being "unarmed and outnumbered" has anything to do with why teenagers are obnoxious. Different countries, different problems. Nobody's perfect.

True that.

I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

Rolfe.

Ah, but they do.

Just not legal access.

Happy-slappers (that's what they call it, right? Happy-slapping?) probably don't worry much about using guns. As jackassulation goes, it's pretty low-end, and I doubt that the reason it's not very popular over here has anything to do with who's packing.

[Ranb]

Good site for information like this is : http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/

Nice link. I noticed that they had a link in there about maintenance for moderators (silencers). Does the general gun owning public in England think moderators are normal? Or do they think that they are somehow immoral or illegal like most of the gun owning public in the USA does?

Ranb

[Architect]

Nice link. I noticed that they had a link in there about maintenance for moderators (silencers). Does the general gun owning public in England think moderators are normal? Or do they think that they are somehow immoral or illegal like most of the gun owning public in the USA does?


(cough)

[Rolfe]

And you're a good man for it.


Er, who are you calling a man? (In the same tone as "who are you calling English...?")

Me? I prefer the inherent politeness that comes with never knowing for sure who's going to find said hooliganism a shooting offense. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif


Me, I don't fancy the insincere, forced politeness that comes with the realisation that anyone you might offend, even inadvertently, might decide that such offence is a capital crime.

Carrying a gun means nothing unless there is the perception that it might be used. Otherwise, it's just one more reason to thumb the nose and go "nyah nyah, you can't touch me".

I don't see that having a society where people are really prepared to shoot obnoxious teenagers for the crime of being obnoxious is anything to boast about.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Ah, but they do.

Just not legal access.


This is a point I've been making again and again, though not so much in this context. Indeed, guns are available to the determinedly criminal. But not one single ordinary lawabiding citizen is walking the streets with a gun, or is sleeping with a gun on his bedside table.

So, why are we not all being overwhelmed by "home invasions" and being robbed at gunpoint in the streets and so on? I mean, that's what you believe would happen in the US if gun availability to the lawabiding was similarly restricted.

Rolfe.

[Drudgewire]

Er, who are you calling a man? (In the same tone as "who are you calling English...?")
My sincerest apologies. I sometimes forget we're a civilized board here so it's not a filthy sausage fest. I go to so few of those. :o

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The original comment:
I'd just rather the punk doing the slapping didn't have access to a gun, doncha know....

Rolfe.

This is a point I've been making again and again, though not so much in this context. Indeed, guns are available to the determinedly criminal. But not one single ordinary lawabiding citizen is walking the streets with a gun, or is sleeping with a gun on his bedside table.
Well then! Thank God and the Government that you're infinitesimally and statistically insignificantly safer from armed attacks, robberies and home invasions by law abiding people!

That is absolutely true, though, since any former law abider that did keep a handgun by his bed would now be, ipso facto, a criminal. Exactly in the same way that, when someone decides to actually go through with a crime, they cease to be law abiding.

Do you seriously think that anyone who has abstracted themselves from humanity sufficiently to consider the mass-murder of children a desirable goal will stop and say, "oh, but handguns are illegal, so I can't do it?" Some of these guys take days... weeks to assemble their gear. A few posts ago, I threw you a link from BBC news about some kid off the street that had asked for a submachine gun and it was provided for him in 24 hours.

Anyone thinking about blood on the local elementary school floor read that article, too.

This has been the point I've been making again and again: Passing laws that take firearms from law abiding people, who are not inclined to break the law in the first place, doesn't really do you any good.

If I said that the real reason you haven't had another horrible massacre was because I had been praying for you and your nation (which, by the way, I do) would you accept that as causative? Why would you reject something that has just as much statistical evidence behind it as the 1997 law?

So, why are we not all being overwhelmed by "home invasions" and being robbed at gunpoint in the streets and so on? I mean, that's what you believe would happen in the US if gun availability to the lawabiding was similarly restricted.

Rolfe.

Mmm... Ok.... at what point in this whole, "break into elderly peoples houses to rob and beat them senseless, sometimes to death," do you become, "overwhelmed?" The one picture of the poor old woman in the hospital, having been beaten nearly to death in her own home, pretty much overwhelmed me.

Did you check those links I posted? 10 home invasions since January of this year, all of brutal outcome, and the only reason I stopped linking was because three per month of a crime that didn't even exist before seemed enough.

In this one particular crime I do believe that it's rarer over here because housebreakers don't know which of the little old men and women living alone have shotguns by the bed or handguns on the nightstand, and are thus inclined more to stealing the checks out of their mailboxes.

...and over here, "The Defenseless," often DO have shotguns and pistols available, and they know how to use them. My first introduction to concealed carry was a frail, elderly woman, a friend of my godfather, who carried a snub nosed .38 Special in her shoulder bag.

Anecdotally: The first ten people in line at the police station in Dallas (I think it was) the day that Texas started issuing concealed carry licenses were all female, all over 70 years old, and all from the same high-crime neighborhood. No proof. Just a story.

Home invasions, rare anyhow, dropped to ZERO in communities in the south where local ordnances required property owners to own a firearm. Other nearby communities did have a corresponding rise in their rate, though, indicating to me that the kind of people who do this sort of thing cherry-pick their targets.

Robbery at gunpoint tends to drop in communities implementing concealed carry licenses, too, for what it's worth. They just turn to an easier, safer kind of robbing.

So, yes - in any crime where the perpetrator has to come face to face with the victim in private, I DO believe that even the possibility of running into armed prey helps to modify the bad guys' thinking.

It doesn't change their mind about the crime. It just changes their mind about the who and where part.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

This just in (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpPW56_nDtfg15JJWlGZrRY7T8-AD8VCV0IO2) from the Associated Press, through Google News:

Okla. House Passes Campus Gun Bill

By TIM TALLEY

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The state House agreed Thursday to allow people with specialized firearms training, such as military personnel, to carry concealed weapons on the state's college campuses, despite opponents who said it made no sense following shootings at schools across the country.

The measure was approved 65-36, and now heads to the state Senate for a vote.

Introduced by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, the law would authorize active-duty military and National Guard and reserve personnel, honorably discharged veterans and others with firearms training certified by the Council on Law Enforcement Education who hold a state concealed weapons license to carry guns on college and university campuses.

The legislation is more narrow than Murphey's original proposal, which would have allowed anyone at least 21 years old with concealed handgun carrying rights to carry weapons on campus. That version was similar to a Utah law.

"This has to be the craziest thing I have ever seen," said Rep. Ray McCarter, D-Marlow, one of several lawmakers who said the measure is opposed by college administrators.

Supporters argued that the measure would make college campuses safer by putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Hmmm... on a vote of 65 to 36. I don't think I have to add any emphasis to that last sentence, do you?

"The concealed carry law is about 12 years old. It's worked out very well," Murphey said. He said more than 60,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry concealed weapons and there has been no widespread gun violence in the state, which opponents had warned of.

100,000 in Indiana, and no widespread gun violence here, either. Funny that it always seems to work like that.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes in the state Senate.

[Drudgewire]

Well, I'm officially pulling for the Sooners to win the Big 12 tourney this weekend now.

BOOMER SOONER!!! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

[Drudgewire]

Oklahoma 54
Colorado 49

:cheerleader1

[jimbob]

Hi
Originally Posted by articulett
The other countries don't have near the number of massacres we do... or homicides... or even suicides of young people.
Better check your facts. Britain and the US have nearly IDENTICAL suicide rates. The suicide rate spiked the reporting period AFTER 1997, too, when all of their guns were heavily controlled or confiscated. In 2005, the US had a slightly LOWER suicide rate than Britain.

I don't know about ALL other countries, but Britain ALWAYS had lower overall crime rates, but even there, the crime rates are on the rise. If guns cause crimes, and fewer guns mean LESS crime, why is the british rate going up?

As for massacres: We invented it. We're better at it.

Again, why do you think that the death of 10 people in a clump more tragic than 10 people killed, spread all over the country?



I think the death of a clump of ten people, and the death of ten people spread out more tragic than either on their own.

How does one prevent the other?



Originally Posted by articulett
You can't seriously believe that all gun victims would have died via chemical bombs or something.... Certainly not the kids mentioned in the OP... or the family killed by the son who got the gun his dad kept to protect his family (which wouldn't have worked to protect anyone in a chemical bomb attack, I might add.)
Then what's killing the Brits?

There was NO decline in homicide rates or suicide rates after they went all... as everyone in this country says, "draconian," only the anti-gun people say it like it's a GOOD thing.

Shouldn't there have been SOME effect?

Not really, because the guns weren't there. Before Hungerford, I knew one rifle-shooter, who also made and fired black-powder weapons (he had special dispensation to do this). My school CCF had an armoury. Several people had shotguns. Hardly a pervasive gun-culture.

This might seem like an anecdote, but I believe it also reflects the real situation before and after the Dunblane gun-laws.



The kid in the OP was almost an Eagle scout. That means that he had an axe and knew how to use it. Would it have been less tragic if he'd killed them with it?

I doubt he would have managed to kill 18 people, at the very least many more would have been able to run away, secondly it would be hard work, and thirdly, there would be far more chance of overpowering the person. In the Wolverhampton machette attack, the nursery nurse managed to protect the children, and two men chased the perpetrator away.

[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by articulett
I strongly suspect many of these guns are used because they're available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilization_behavior
I suspect so, too, but other things are available as well. Well- they apparently are in Britain, anyhow.
[/QUOTE]
But the homicide rate is less than half the US homicide rate

Originally Posted by articulett
You don't see chemicals and think "gee, it would be so easy to make a chemical bomb..." People do see triggers and think, I wonder what would happen if I just pulled this. I can change everything... in an instant. I can kill myself and make a whole lot of other people suffer as well. And some do. Quit pretending that this kid would have used or done something else... that is really a stretch... but one that "gun enthusiasts" often seem to make.
Well - actually, I do. Your tax dollars at work.

I used to take bombs apart for the Army, and the training I received to that end have left me thinking a little differently than most people. Everywhere I go, I'm doing a risk analysis and escape plan. <<shrug>> Chemicals in the grocery store, culvert under the street, oncoming cars in traffic all get tallied up as I go along.

I doubt that chemical bombs would cause as many fatalities as guns,

Hi


...or drop in at the grocery store and buy a few bottles of liquid chlorine laundry bleach and household ammonia.

It's a dangerous world.

Think that'd make the papers?

I think it would make the papers as the Tokyo Underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway) gas attack is still remembered. Ii had 12 fatalities, and sarin is more effective than chlorine. ( I have recently read Robert Graves' autobiography "Goodby to all that" and he described one allied chlorine gas attack during WWI. It wasn't outstandingly successfull. Fiasco might be a better word.)


ANYHOW: Just because YOU see triggers and think, "I wonder what would happen if I just pulled this", doesn't mean everyone does. I see a trigger and immediately check which way the muzzle is pointed. I was trained with THOSE, too.

It isn't most gun owners, it is the wierdos that are going to commit massacares.

There is a qualitiative difference to killing with a gun and a knife. For certain disturbed individuals, the gun would give them an ability to "play god" that a knife wouldn't. The minimal effort required to quickly kill at a distance could be quite attractive, "oh look, I can point at that person and they are dead". Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are also far more effective at killing than knives. They also require less planning to commit a massacare than bombs.


A stretch to think that an Eagle scout could have used an axe? I almost guarantee there was one around the house, garage or tool shed, and he knew how to use it. A gun being around is an excuse too. Available is available, as the homicide rates form Britain have shown pretty well.

Less than half the US rate, and little change in gun ownership in my lifetime.

[jimbob]

On the self-protection aspect.

Would allowing access to flintlock pistols privide this, but make it hard for mass killings?

[Drudgewire]

On the self-protection aspect.

Would allowing access to flintlock pistols privide this, but make it hard for mass killings?

I have a semi-auto (three really, but only one at the ready) for the singular reason* I'd consider pulling off a home invasion without a partner incredibly stupid so why should professionals think any differently? So honestly I'd rather not be in a position where I have to say "hey, sorry I put a bullet in your friend. Now if you wouldn't mind giving me a minute to reload I'd really appreciate it."

And the first rule once you've made that terrible decision to take someone else's life to save your own is "three center mass." This is because even policemen who go through tireless training will experience the physical trauma your mind and body go through in that moment of unimaginable fear and adrenaline rush. It's not deer hunting where you aim and wait for your target to walk into your optimum line of fire, you're going through a thousand emotions in a split second. You BETTER have more than one shot.

Oh, and did I mention that unlike in the movies people don't drop dead the second a bullet tears through them? After a person's mortally wounded they can still do a lot of damage.

It's a cute fantasy, but carrying a pea shooter for self-defense is probably more dangerous than carrying a knife. It's just going to really annoy the person you're hoping to protect yourself from.













*OK, so singular is an overstatement. There are a hundred reasons I love my Glock. :cool:

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
On the self-protection aspect.

Would allowing access to flintlock pistols privide this, but make it hard for mass killings?

What happens when two people start jackassulating? Am I allowed a brace of pistols? A bandoleer? How many pistols am I allowed to have?

What percent of the population do you suspect will commit mass killings in their lifetime? How many will not? How many men will commit rape in their lifetimes? How many will not? How many men will commit murder in their lifetimes? How many will not?

Is it anywhere near fair or reasonable to treat all persons in possession of a penis as if they were imminent rapists and murderers?

How many mass killers just jump up and grab a gun and start killing? Let me answer that for you. None. They all sit around and they plan it. They roll it round in their imaginations as they collect ammunition and magazines, and as they think of where best to do it....

and how no one will ever, EVER forget their names.

How do you suppose that these things are always extended against the weak and undefended?

Anyone that wants to get a firearm can get one... or MAKE one. (It's far easier to make a submachine gun than a semiautomatic pistol. Want a website?) Even in Britain, with it's fairly stringent gun control laws, a kid got a MAC-10 in 24 hours!

If someone decides it's Ok to go around murdering rooms full of school kids, do you think that he or she is going to pay attention to any of the lesser laws, like firearms possession? If so, why do you think that?

Do you expect your released criminals to allow police into their houses without at any time, without notice, and without probable cause? What's your national rate of recidivism? I'm asking because I don't know. Over here. parolees, criminals released from prison but still under police supervision, don't get treated like that.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
... clip ...

Oh, and did I mention that unlike in the movies people don't drop dead the second a bullet tears through them? After a person's mortally wounded they can still do a lot of damage.

... clip ...

Rule #5 of the Gunfight: Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice.

[Drudgewire]

Rule #5 of the Gunfight: Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice.
At least. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
I think the death of a clump of ten people, and the death of ten people spread out more tragic than either on their own.

How does one prevent the other?

I'm sorry, but I can't parse that first sentence.

As for the second, it doesn't prevent it. Neither, apparently, does spending several million pounds sterling on the implementation of a law, and how much every year in enforcement of that law, that appears to have accomplished nothing at all.

Not really, because the guns weren't there. Before Hungerford, I knew one rifle-shooter, who also made and fired black-powder weapons (he had special dispensation to do this). My school CCF had an armoury. Several people had shotguns. Hardly a pervasive gun-culture.

This might seem like an anecdote, but I believe it also reflects the real situation before and after the Dunblane gun-laws.
Your experience seems to mirror others', so I'll go with it.

If the guns weren't there, and the statistics indicate that an effect wasn't there, either, what reason to spend millions of British money-things in support of a law which, by your own admission (in saying, "the guns weren't there," aren't you defending the fact that there's no statistical change?) has done nothing?

I doubt he would have managed to kill 18 people, at the very least many more would have been able to run away, secondly it would be hard work, and thirdly, there would be far more chance of overpowering the person. In the Wolverhampton machette attack, the nursery nurse managed to protect the children, and two men chased the perpetrator away.
The question was specifically about the original post, right? A murder done late at night with the other family members in bed?

But the homicide rate is less than half the US homicide rate.
It ALWAYS was. If your gun control measures haven't cut down you homicide rate, in a nation of fairly level-headed non-murdering people, what chance does it have over here in the wilds of the USA?

I doubt that chemical bombs would cause as many fatalities as guns.
Ever seen the pictures the Kurds have posted about Saddam Husain's use of chemicals on their people? If you're talking about home-made ones, yes, so far they've been weak.

I think it would make the papers as the Tokyo Underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway) gas attack is still remembered. Ii had 12 fatalities, and sarin is more effective than chlorine. ( I have recently read Robert Graves' autobiography "Goodby to all that" and he described one allied chlorine gas attack during WWI. It wasn't outstandingly successfull. Fiasco might be a better word.)
Yes. It was used outdoors and the wind changed, if I remember correctly. It still scarred a mess of allied soldiers lungs, reducing them to cripples for the rest of their lives (if it's the one we learned about in Chemical Warfare school).

In a closed area, like a closed classroom, for instance, it's very different. It pushes the air away so that every breath you take is pretty much all chlorine.

Chlorine would actually be my last choice, though. I used it as an example of what can be done in about half an hour with no real preplanning.

I would go for a propane or natural gas (available in very large tanks at every farm in the USA) (propane, probably - it has a much better heat signature) fuel-air explosive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk) bomb, myself.

A suicide note left on the YouTube, and I'm famous!

See, again, I used to do this professionally. My job was to STOP the jackassulants from using stuff like fuel-air explosives on people.
It isn't most gun owners, it is the wierdos that are going to commit massacares.
My point exactly. Weirdos don't much give a care about gun control laws, either.

There is a qualitiative difference to killing with a gun and a knife. For certain disturbed individuals, the gun would give them an ability to "play god" that a knife wouldn't. The minimal effort required to quickly kill at a distance could be quite attractive, "oh look, I can point at that person and they are dead". Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are also far more effective at killing than knives. They also require less planning to commit a massacare than bombs.
I'm coming to agree with that. You do know that you can build a submachine gun from plumbing parts, right? you do know that some British kid on the street bought a submachine gun on those same British streets in 24 hours, right?

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE! THOSE LITTLE, HARD, ROUND THINGS THAT COME OUT THE FRONT KILL PEOPLE!!

Anyhow: Should we outlaw clothes that aren't fastened on with bent wires because they make rape easier? Should we outlaw easy-to-access groceries and office supplies because they make shoplifting easier?

"Easier," ain't, "Gonna," and, "Harder," ain't, "Can't."

Less than half the US rate, and little change in gun ownership in my lifetime.
No lessening of overall crime, either,and significant rises after 1997 of violent crimes and homicides. All of a sudden, too, your old people are getting beaten in their homes for stuff like a fish dinner or 40 pounds.

At the same time, the British government spent how much and is spending how much every year for a program whose only apparent goal is to prevent law-abiding people from murdering others and which seems to have had no other measurable effect.

Congratulations. I'm glad it's working out so well for you.

[jimbob]

Here is an example of "anarchy" in a British city of 750,000 people:

Police deny 'anarchy' after gun deaths

A senior police officer investigating a double killing in Leeds - the ninth shooting in the city in the last two months - has denied the streets are descending into anarchy.




The bodies of Clifton Bryan, 29, and Denis Wilson, 38, were found in a car in the suburb of Harehills on Monday. Both had been shot.

Four people have been killed in Leeds in the past two months and six others seriously injured.





Home office report (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/gun-crime-figures-07?version=1):


there were 566 serious or fatal injuries involving guns between March 2006 and April 2007; of those, 59 resulted in deaths
In the more recent period between October 2006 and September 2007 there were 49 gun-related deaths

The guns weren't there, partly for cultural reasons, and partly because the gun control laws already were strict compared to the US.


Originally Posted by jimbob
I think the death of a clump of ten people, and the death of ten people spread out more tragic than either on their own.

How does one prevent the other?
I'm sorry, but I can't parse that first sentence.
I'll try to clarify my point in the first sentence:




Again, why do you think that the death of 10 people in a clump more tragic than 10 people killed, spread all over the country?


I read your point as implying that there was a choice between a mass killing of 10 people, or 10 individual killings.

The lack af availability of firearms in the UK seems to prevent mass killings with guns, individual murders are a different tyope of killing.

The gun-toting wierdo is a differet type of person to the gun-toting criminal, or indeed the gun-owning citizen.

On the subject of gun massacres, the fact that there aren't other types of civilian massacres seems to suggest that the availability of guns and their ease of use enables massacres to take place that otherwise wouldn't.


I'm coming to agree with that. You do know that you can build a submachine gun from plumbing parts, right? you do know that some British kid on the street bought a submachine gun on those same British streets in 24 hours, right?

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE! THOSE LITTLE, HARD, ROUND THINGS THAT COME OUT THE FRONT KILL PEOPLE!!

Ammunition is also hard to get hold of in the UK.

I used to shoot at school, and the empty cartridge cases had to be accounted for, let alone any actual live rounds.


Anyhow: Should we outlaw clothes that aren't fastened on with bent wires because they make rape easier? Should we outlaw easy-to-access groceries and office supplies because they make shoplifting easier?

These are fundamentally different. These might make the potential victim more vulnerable, but it is the potential victim's actions and free choice that affects these examples. Easy access to guns make it easier for the perpetrator.

Easily available ricin would make poisioning easier, however ricin is controlled; why should you not ban easy-to-access groceries and office supplies because they make shoplifting easier?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Here is an example of "anarchy" in a British city of 750,000 people:

... snip ...

The guns weren't there, partly for cultural reasons, and partly because the gun control laws already were strict compared to the US.

Yup. In Indinapolis, Indiana, a city of 800,000, we had 107 murders last year.

It's the wild, wild, west, here, for sure.

However, the 100,000 licensed firearms carriers in the state have a lower overall crime incidence than the general public, and there's been less than 1,000 licenses revoked, and we lose our licenses fairly easily. Indiana holds gun carriers to a somewhat higher standard, and the gun carriers meet that standard or they lose their licenses.

What I'm trying to say is that, over here, almost all crime is committed by criminals. How many of those 566 gun-related serious or fatal injuries involving guns were committed by persons otherwise in compliance with the law?

You guys have always been saner than us. Is it that much of a surprise to see that you're saner about killing each other off?
I'll try to clarify my point in the first sentence:

I read your point as implying that there was a choice between a mass killing of 10 people, or 10 individual killings.

The lack af availability of firearms in the UK seems to prevent mass killings with guns, individual murders are a different tyope of killing.

The gun-toting wierdo is a differet type of person to the gun-toting criminal, or indeed the gun-owning citizen.

On the subject of gun massacres, the fact that there aren't other types of civilian massacres seems to suggest that the availability of guns and their ease of use enables massacres to take place that otherwise wouldn't.
Thanks for the clarification. What I was asking about was the perception of one death being less painful to the families of the bereaved than another death, and if a death on the front page was more tragic than another death that doesn't get off of page 3 and the obituaries.

Before 1965, I could buy rifles with a check through the mail. In 1966, an ex-Marine with a brain tumor and some rifles climbed the Texas Tower and invented a new kind of wrongdoing.

If guns were the problem, why were there no tragedies of that sort before.

When I was in high school (grades 9 through 12), about half of the school were farm kids, driving their parents pickup truck to school. Virtually ALL the trucks had gun racks, and the racks held guns. Most of them were loaded, and ammunition for all of them was under the seat. People carried pistols and revolves in their glove compartments, as well, and everybody, and I mean really everybody carried a knife.

If simple exposure to firearms and knives were causative, why were there so few stabbings and school massacres back before 1969?

You guys have had two mass killings since the crime model was introduced. That gives you a 20 year mean time between occurrences. Your two happened 9 years apart, so I split the difference and project a 15 year mean time between occurrences.

You guys won't know until 2011 if your measures have even slowed it down.

...and on the subject of non-gun massacres: No one's done one successfully yet, so there's no model to copy. Every one of these, "walk into where people are defenseless and shoot them," crimes is a copy of the original model, right?

What can I say. There's probably an American, right now, thinking up some new way to make other people's lives miserable.

Ammunition is also hard to get hold of in the UK.

I used to shoot at school, and the empty cartridge cases had to be accounted for, let alone any actual live rounds.

I've heard about this form of control before. A friend who lived in Africa for some time said that the government of the country where he lived used it with some success. Furthermore, the ammunition is the bit that's fairly hard to make in the whole, "If I can't buy a gun, I'll MAKE one," model.

I'm not sure how it would wash in the States, though. A lot of serious shooters go through 200 rounds a week, so being forced to buy 5 or 10 rounds at a time would definitely be seen as a hardship.
These are fundamentally different. These might make the potential victim more vulnerable, but it is the potential victim's actions and free choice that affects these examples. Easy access to guns make it easier for the perpetrator.

Easily available ricin would make poisioning easier, however ricin is controlled; why should you not ban easy-to-access groceries and office supplies because they make shoplifting easier?
All of these types of crimes have a victim and a perpetrator.
Potential victim more vulnerable = Easier for the Perpetrator
Why do you suppose that your elderly are being targeted by thugs. What happens of the victim's actions and free choice happen to include carrying a handgun?

82,500 crimes PREVENTED over here with handguns.

Even at that, these massacre-minded... animals who simply happen to walk on their hind legs and eat with cutlery... cherry-pick helpless targets. The pick on children and people in, "Gun Free," zones (which means that the law-abiding people in that zone don't have guns: The jackassulants don't CARE about the law and take in guns anyhow).

About stuff being controlled: Recreational pharmaceuticals a controlled, too, right? What success has Britain had, legislating those out of existence? The US has had no success at all. It's pretty obvious to me that a country where drugs are flowing through the borders to supply the desire can not successfully ban illegal guns anyhow.

...and we don't ban easy access to groceries and office supplies because that's not the model we use to sell them. It's all about what your customers (or, say citizens) will stand for.

Depart from the model too much and you're out of business.

I really admire you guys' efforts to make yourselves more civilized. I think you left the bad guys out of the calculation, though, and as they say, the Devil's in the details.

[jimbob]

I have found an an analysis (http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related-activities/523667-1.html) on this:

Sloan et al. (1988) compare the crime rates in Seattle and Vancouver, two similar cities in terms of population, climate, income per household, poverty, and unemployment rates. The only significant demographic difference lies in the racial composition of minorities, with more Asians in Vancouver and more Hispanics and blacks in Seattle. Gun regulations are much stricter in Vancouver. In Seattle, handguns may be purchased legally for self-defense in the street or at home. After a 30-day waiting period, a permit can be obtained to carry a gun as a concealed weapon. Handguns need not be registered. In Vancouver, self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason to carry a gun. Concealed weapons are not permitted. The purchase of a gun requires registration and a restricted-weapons permit. Handguns can be transported in a car, but only if stored in a locked box in the trunk. As a result, an estimated 41 percent of Seattle inhabitants own a gun compared to only 12 percent of Vancouver inhabitants.

The authors find that the two cities essentially experience the same rates of burglary, robbery, homicides, and assaults without a gun. However, in Seattle the rate of assault with a firearm is 7 times higher than in Vancouver, and the rate of homicide with a handgun is 4.8 times higher. The authors conclude that the availability of handguns in Seattle increases the assault and homicide rates with a gun, but does not decrease the crime rates without guns, and that restrictive handgun laws reduce the homicide rate in a community

If a substitution effect exists, the correlations between gun ownership percentages and rates of homicides and suicides by other means than a gun would be significantly negative. They are not (respectively, 0.441 and -0.015, both nonsignificant). The correlation of 0.441, although not significant with this small sample, suggests that the number of homicides by means other than a gun increases with raising levels of gun ownership. Thus, the data do not support the existence of a compensation effect for homicides. Similar conclusions were reached by Duggan (2000).

[Gagglegnash]

I have found an an analysis (http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related-activities/523667-1.html) on this:

Difference #1: On is in Canada, the other in America.
Difference #2: One is a mecca for run-aways and disenfranchised young people, the other is not.
Difference #3: Meccas for disenfranchised young people are profitable illegal drug use areas. I have no idea what that drug use rate is in Vancouver.

The factor that I'd like to see examined is how many of those murders in the US were committed by recidivists or persons otherwise involved in other felonies at the time of the homicide. If I'm in ur warehowzez steelin' ur munnyz and I bust a cap in someone, it's no longer a robbery but a homicide, right?

Here in the US, the drug trade fuels an awful lot of jackassulation.

About recidivism: This about Indiana homicides from, "The Social Ecology of Murder in Indiana (http://www.in.gov/cji/special-initiatives/The%20Social%20Ecology%20of%20Murder%20in%20Indian a.pdf)," from http://www.in.gov/
Ninety-two percent of offenders in each sentence type group had a criminal history prior to the committing the instant offense. Most (84% or more) had been arrested at least once as an
adult. More than half had been arrested as a juvenile. The highest proportion of juvenile
arrests was seen among death penalty offenders, followed by life without parole and then
determinate offenders. The opposite trend is true of adult arrests, the highest proportion of
adult arrests were found among determinate offenders, followed by life without parole and death
penalty offenders.

The average number of juvenile and adult arrests combined did not differ significantly by
sentence type group. On average, offenders in each group had been arrested about eight
times, some with only one arrest and others with as many as 43 arrests.

... snip ...

Sixty-two percent of all offenders had been arrested for at least one violent offense (i.e., an
offense against a person) prior to committing the instant offense. Proportionally more death
penalty offenders (72.5%) had a prior arrest for a violent offense than either life without parole
(60.3%) or determinate (59.4%) offenders. Only 27% of all murderers previously had been
arrested for a weapons offense, which were more characteristic of those who had received the
sentence of life without parole.

... snip ...

Table 7-1: The top five reasons for murders committed by offenders in this study were: To
facilitate the commission of another crime (i.e., ‘felony murder,’ 43% of all offenders); to acquire
money or property (non-drug-related; 34% of all offenders); over an intimate or familial situation
(24% of all offenders); to silence someone who witnessed the defendant or a codefendant
during the commission of a crime (21% of all offenders); and hatred, retaliation, animosity, or
revenge (16% of all offenders).

It seems that MOST of the murders were committed by persons that were not allowed to possess firearms in the first place, and at least 43% of them were directly attributable to other criminal jackassulation.

Beside that, Americans are bigger jerks than Canadians, eh?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Hmmm... it says, "criminal history," and not, "criminal record," so my evaluation about the illegal possession of firearms is not supported by the data.

D'OH! (_8(|)

[Architect]

Damn. I hit the "New Thread" button. What happened there?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Damn. I hit the "New Thread" button. What happened there?

LOL! Thread Inertia!

[jimbob]

The big question is why the US seems to be more violent then Britain.

Historically, I don't think that was the case.

Anyone have any ideas of crime rates in UK and (eastern US) cities in the mid 19th century?

[Rolfe]

Certainly, it was interesting the way Jerome instantly claimed that the lower life expectancy of US males was entirely due to firearms deaths, when it was pointed out to him in the healthcare thread.

Not something I'd be wanting to boast about, even if it were true.

I don't know about more violent as such. Some posters have even claimed it's more polite (as if the false, scared politeness born of believing that the other person may kill you if you get on his wick is, like, a good thing?). But it certainly seems to manage to make the violence more lethal.

I wonder why that is?

Some posters also claim that the more guns there are, the safer everyone is. So again, one looks at these excess figures in the mortality statistics, and wonders why that should be so.

Rolfe.