BBC NEWS U.K. Gun Crime on the Rise

[Richard G]

Gun crime has risen by over a third during the last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2642977.stm

[Mr Manifesto]

Right on cue (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34182)

[Tony]

What's funny is that I was in the UK less than a week, and I met a person who not only had a gun, but carried it everywhere he went.

[ceptimus]

If gun crime keeps rising at this huge rate, it might reach American levels in twenty years or so.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony
What's funny is that I was in the UK less than a week, and I met a person who not only had a gun, but carried it everywhere he went.

Which I suspect says more about you, and the people you mix with than the U.K. I have lived here all my life and know a nimbe of people with guns, none of whom woudl dream of carrying them around.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Richard G

Gun crime has risen by over a third during the last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2642977.stm

Those figures are for 2001 - 2002. Got any for the last year?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Richard G

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2642977.stm

And your point being?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don
Which I suspect says more about you, and the people you mix with than the U.K. I have lived here all my life and know a nimbe of people with guns, none of whom woudl dream of carrying them around.


I agree. I generally applaud anyone's attempts to disobey and/or defraud a system of unjust and tyrannical laws.

But what you're missing is that it says that the UK gun laws dont keep guns out of the hands of people who really want them and/or need them.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony



I agree. But what you're missing is that it says that the UK gun laws dont keep guns out of the hands of people who really want them.

That's absolutely right, it keeps them out of the hands of the great majority of people who have no real idea of how to use them and keeps the number of people killed by guns exceptionally low.

Career criminals generally attack other career criminals with guns. I'd prefer it if they didn't just in case I get caught in the crossfire.

It's the great volume of accidental, "accidental" and (it seems) recreational killing that goes on in the U.S. with your combination of high gun ownership and propensity to use them on each other.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Please explain how these figures show gun crime is on the rise in the UK?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


That's absolutely right, it keeps them out of the hands of the great majority of people who have no real idea of how to use them and keeps the number of people killed by guns exceptionally low.



In other words, mommy gubmint has to protect you from yourselves.

[Jon_in_london]

"Gun crime has risen by over a third during the last year."


Those figures dont refer to last year.

Try again, I know its difficult.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony



In other words, mommy gubmint has to protect you from yourselves.

Well I'd say if gun crime has risen that much we should look at getting even tougher with people who are found to have guns illegally.


Perhaps a mandatory life sentence for anyone found in possession of an illegal gun?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony



In other words, mommy gubmint has to protect you from yourselves.

Absolutely, that way we won't be killing the 2,000 people a year we'd need to keep up with U.S. statistics

[Flo]

Originally posted by The Don


Absolutely, that way we won't be killing the 2,000 people a year we'd need to keep up with U.S. statistics


Tssss, you just proved to Tony we European have an inferiority complex ... ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat


Well I'd say if gun crime has risen that much we should look at getting even tougher with people who are found to have guns illegally.


Perhaps a mandatory life sentence for anyone found in possession of an illegal gun?

How long have you been a fascist?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


Absolutely, that way we won't be killing the 2,000 people a year we'd need to keep up with U.S. statistics


and you are telling me this because.......?..


I dont really care about statistics, I'm more interested in freedom.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony


How long have you been a fascist?

Gun, terrorist device, nucular (sic) weapon, it's just a matter of scale

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


Gun, terrorist device, nucular (sic) weapon, it's just a matter of scale

Not really, comparing a gun to a nuke is like comparing a water pistol to a land mine.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


How long have you been a fascist?

And why does my comment make me a fascist?

(Edited to add a speeling correction.)

(In case it helps I should perhaps clarify that in the UK it is very unusual for a "life sentence" to mean a lifetime in jail.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


Not really, comparing a gun to a nuke is like comparing a water pistol to a land mine.

But why are there limits on what "arms" that your government and courts allow you to have in the USA?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat


And why does my comment make me a fascist?


Maybe not a fascist, but it definitely makes you a tyrant. You want to put people in jail for life for committing a victimless and harmless crime. Do you even know what justice is?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat


But why are there limits on what "arms" that your government and courts allow you to have in the USA?

Before I can answer, you'll have to explain what you mean by "arms".

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


Maybe not a fascist, but it definitely makes you a tyrant. You want to put people in jail for life for committing a victimless and harmless crime. Do you even know what justice is?

Well I would say I want to put people in jail who break the laws that are passed by the democratically elected Parliment of the UK.

As for your question about arms, I used it because isn't it the word used in the 2nd admendment?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


Maybe not a fascist, but it definitely makes you a tyrant. You want to put people in jail for life for committing a victimless and harmless crime. Do you even know what justice is?

Well I would say I want to put people in jail who break the laws that are passed by the democratically elected Parliament of the UK.

As for your question about arms, I used it because isn't it the word used in the 2nd amendment?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Tony:
What's funny is that I was in the UK less than a week, and I met a person who not only had a gun, but carried it everywhere he went.

That or else he was really, really pleased to make your acquaintance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat


Well I would say I want to put people in jail who break the laws that are passed by the democratically elected Parliment of the UK.


That's a crap excuse. I guess if a "democratically elected parliment" made slavery legal, that would be just? A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

As for your question about arms, I used it because isn't it the word used in the 2nd admendment?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

But what did you mean by it? Are nukes included?

But to answer your question, the reason why the government and courts have enacted limits is because they are influenced by tyrannical special interest groups and they inject their own morality and biases while passing the law, the constitution be damned.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony
What's funny is that I was in the UK less than a week, and I met a person who not only had a gun, but carried it everywhere he went.

What did he use it for? There are many people who have a legitimate use for a gun, and are licenced to have them. Gamekeepers, farmers, and so on.

Illegitimate uses include carrying them with you when you're down the pub because it makes you feel hard.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony

A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.


One of the thing that makes me laugh in these gun control threads is the overblown rhetoric that always comes out.

"Tyranny" indeed :D You have no idea what it means to face tyranny if you think this is it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


What did he use it for? There are many people who have a legitimate use for a gun, and are licenced to have them. Gamekeepers, farmers, and so on.



I just met the guy, I didnt have a conversation with him. But he was a (somewhat paranoid) drug dealer, so I assume his line of work is such that he feels he needs it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


One of the thing that makes me laugh in these gun control threads is the overblown rhetoric that always comes out.


You have just a hard time dealing with the fact that you are indeed on the offending side of that tyranny.

"Tyranny" indeed :D You have no idea what it means to face tyranny if you think this is it.

This is tyranny, just not as bad or oppressive as something you'd find in other states. But make no mistake it is tyrannical nonetheless.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony

This is tyranny, just not as bad or oppressive as something you'd find in other states. But make no mistake it is tyrannical nonetheless.

It is not tyranny. It is simply something you disagree with.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


It is not tyranny. It is simply something you disagree with.

Yes, I disagree with a government wielding tyrannical power over my life.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


Yes, I disagree with a government wielding tyrannical power over my life.

Good luck with the rest of the world :D

You must disagree with all preventative laws then, eh?

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm

You must disagree with all preventative laws then, eh?

"Preventative laws" are an illusion. Ultimately, they don’t prevent, but they do hinder freedom and give the government more power. Which is a bad thing.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


"Preventative laws" are an illusion. Ultimately, they don’t prevent, but they do hinder freedom and give the government more power. Which is a bad thing.

I was thinking of things like speed limits. Surely they're not a bad thing?

[ceptimus]

Even Tony wants the government to ban things. He just sets the limit differently to most Europeans.

bow and arrow
air gun
crossbow <- European ?
gun
semi-automatic
machine gun <- Tony ?
RPG
tank
attack helicopter
nuclear weapon

[Darat]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Even Tony wants the government to ban things. He just sets the limit differently to most Europeans.

bow and arrow
air gun
crossbow <- European ?
gun
semi-automatic
machine gun <- Tony ?
RPG
tank
attack helicopter
nuclear weapon

This was exactly the reason I was asking as it appears that many people just choose a different point on the scale.

However from Tony's words above I would have to say he would agree with people having nuclear weapons.

"But to answer your question, the reason why the government and courts have enacted limits is because they are influenced by tyrannical special interest groups and they inject their own morality and biases while passing the law, the constitution be damned. "

[Richard G]

On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'

http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2314

[geni]

Originally posted by ceptimus
tank


It is quite legal for a private indivdal to own a tank in the uk (why you would want to is another question).

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by geni


It is quite legal for a private indivdal to own a tank in the uk (why you would want to is another question). Yes, but an individual is not allowed to own a fully functioning tank, complete with live rounds of ammunition. The gun barrel or breach has to be modified in some way, rendering it unusable, I believe? The same applies to ex military aircraft. If I was rich enough, I could own a Spitfire, but not one with working guns.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Still waiting for an explanation as to how this article shows a rise in gun crime in the UK...........??

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Yes, but an individual is not allowed to own a fully functioning tank, complete with live rounds of ammunition. The gun barrel or breach has to be modified in some way, rendering it unusable, I believe? The same applies to ex military aircraft. If I was rich enough, I could own a Spitfire, but not one with working guns.

Yes, that's true. I used to have a friend who owned a tank, and he had to make the gun inoperable in some way and could not own live ammunition (he did have some duds).

In fact, you can even drive a tank on the public roads just like a car, perfectly legally. My friend did that a couple of times, he used to say the feeling was like driving a Volvo but much more so...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


Yes, that's true. I used to have a friend who owned a tank, and he had to make the gun inoperable in some way and could not own live ammunition (he did have some duds).

In fact, you can even drive a tank on the public roads just like a car, perfectly legally. My friend did that a couple of times, he used to say the feeling was like driving a Volvo but much more so...

But obviously not as safe.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Looks like this is another of Richard G's hit and run threads. You know, the ones where he makes a case based on a colossal factual mistake, and then legs it and turns up 2 weeks later with some more factually inaccurate rubbish.

Ho hum........

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Looks like this is another of Richard G's hit and run threads. You know, the ones where he makes a case based on a colossal factual mistake, and then legs it and turns up 2 weeks later with some more factually inaccurate rubbish.

Ho hum........ I think what he did was look at the 'total' field at the bottom of the list and noted that it went up from 7,362 in 2000-2001 to 9,974 in 2001-2002. This is an increase of 35.48%, "over a third". I suppose if you charitably read "last year" as "the last year for which records are available" then maybe Richard G was right?

Also, the report he linked to begins:

Gun crime has risen by over a third during the last year. To see how your area has been affected check the table below.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Darat


But obviously not as safe.

Not for the other road users maybe, but you'd be pretty safe inside...

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by ceptimus
I think what he did was look at the 'total' field at the bottom of the list and noted that it went up from 7,362 in 2000-2001 to 9,974 in 2001-2002. This is an increase of 35.48%, "over a third". I suppose if you charitably read "last year" as "the last year for which records are available" then maybe Richard G was right?

Also, the report he linked to begins:



Oh Ceptimus c'mon!!!:D

Look at the thread title.

Then look at the article........

[ceptimus]

No. I don't get it. I realize it's a report from about a year ago. is that what you mean?

Here's another. Another BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm)

[ceptimus]

Here's a more up-to-date BBC report on gun crime.

The report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3112818.stm)

Edit: and another report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3195908.stm)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Forgive me Ceptimus, this is a little bit of a hobby horse of mine, so bear with me.....

The title of the thread refers to "UK" guncrime.

The BBC article shows the figures for England and Wales.

Now, unless I have fallen asleep through the biggest Constitutional upheaval since the creation of the Irish free state, England and Wales is not the UK. Scotland and NI are part of the equation too. It irritates me beyond belief that people can't even get the country name right. Anyway.........

However, Scotland presents a little problem for Richard "The UK expert" G as it doesn't quite fit in with his "Gun crime is caused by the gun ban" fantasy. As

these statistics (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00276-05.asp) from the Scottish executive show, gun crime is falling and the biggest factor in this has been the gun ban. In 1995 there were 43 attempted murders with firearms. In 2002 there 24. Dunblane was in 1996 so I tend not to use it as a comparison.



Hmm, same gun laws, different trends..........


Could it possibly be that the "Gun ban causes gun crime" scenario is simplistic trash of the worst kind, and takes no account of other cultural and social factors in the UK. You decide........

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


I just met the guy, I didnt have a conversation with him. But he was a (somewhat paranoid) drug dealer, so I assume his line of work is such that he feels he needs it.

LOL. That is the funniest thing I have read this week.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus

In fact, you can even drive a tank on the public roads just like a car, perfectly legally. My friend did that a couple of times, he used to say the feeling was like driving a Volvo but much more so...

You need a special permit in Australia because of the damage the skid steer tracks to to the road. For that reason I only drive my tank round and round my own yard.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony


Not really, comparing a gun to a nuke is like comparing a water pistol to a land mine.

No, You'd have to be terrifically unlucky to be killed by a water pistol, phenomenally unlucky to be killed by a nuclear weapon but death but death by gun and land mine is almost routine in some parts of the world.

The U.S. (quite rightly) went ape ***** when over 3,000 of her citizens were killed by terrorists. They started two wars, invaded a couple of countries, severely curtailed the human rights of their own people. 11,000 + people die every year from shootings and yet you condone this.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Richard G
On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'

http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2314

Are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. populace represent a well regulated militia.

Is the drugs dealer with his personal arsenal in Compton part of this well regulated militia ?

Was the Washington sniper part of this militia ?

Is the valium addled soccer mom with her neuroses and sense of futility part of this militia ?

Is the sexually inadequate man who carries a gun to make himself feel hard (in more than one sense of the word), part of this militia ?

Is the slack jawed southern cracker stereotype with his intolerance fro racial diversity part of a well regulated militia ?

If you want safe gun ownership AND the ability to deliver your well regulated militia follow the Swiss model. THey have high (even by U.S. standards) levels of gun ownership and very low levels of gun mis-use. Apart from the wide range of socio-economic factors which makes their society so different (and which should not be ignored) they also have a culture of properly responsible gun ownership and use.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


No, You'd have to be terrifically unlucky to be killed by a water pistol, phenomenally unlucky to be killed by a nuclear weapon but death but death by gun and land mine is almost routine in some parts of the world.


Well, you missed the point.


The U.S. (quite rightly) went ape ***** when over 3,000 of her citizens were killed by terrorists. They started two wars, invaded a couple of countries, severely curtailed the human rights of their own people. 11,000 + people die every year from shootings and yet you condone this.

So you're advocating even more human rights abuses? Is that it? I assume I can consider you a supporter of the Patriot Act?

And no, I don’t condone it. I’m just smart enough to know that taking away freedom for no reason isn’t a solution.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


LOL. That is the funniest thing I have read this week.

You should take to reading more than coloring books.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony
[B

And no, I don’t condone it. I’m just smart enough to know that taking away freedom for no reason isn’t a solution. [/B]

There are plenty of good reasons why firearms are banned. And it is not a basic freedom as far as we are concerned to own a man made, manufactured object like a gun. The right to bear arms without reference to any laws never been recognised in UK law at any time, nor has it been applied to everyone.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


There are plenty of good reasons why firearms are banned.

What have you done to deserve to have that freedom taken away from you?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


What have you done to deserve to have that freedom taken away from you?

What freedom?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


What freedom?

The freedom to own a gun. Why do you deserve to be stripped of that freedom and personal choice?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


The freedom to own a gun. Why do you deserve to be stripped of that freedom and personal choice?


Why cant I drive at 100mph down a 20mph back street?

Incidentally how can I be stripped of a "freedom and personal choice" that I have never had, the access to arms having been proscribed and limited as far back as the Bill of Rights in 1689?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Why cant I drive at 100mph down a 20mph back street?


False analogy, by it's very nature, driving that fast on a narrow street is dangerous, to yourself, other cars, and pedestrians. A gun, in and of itself is not dangerous, neither is a person who owns a gun. A more accurate analogy would be "Why can't I own a car?".

Incidentally how can I be stripped of a "freedom and personal choice" that I have never had, the access to arms having been proscribed and limited as far back as the Bill of Rights in 1689?

Evidence?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


False analogy, by it's very nature, driving that fast on a narrow street is dangerous, to yourself, other cars, and pedestrians. A gun, in and of itself is not dangerous, neither is a person who owns a gun. A more accurate analogy would be "Why can't I own a car?".

Tomas Hamilton had a gun. I think most sensible people would agree he was very dangerious, as the parents of Dunblane can attest.

Evidence?

"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

In other words, as every single Constitutional historian I have ever read agrees with, the right to bear arms (limited to Protestants) is subject to control by parliament (the Law)

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


False analogy, by it's very nature, driving that fast on a narrow street is dangerous, to yourself, other cars, and pedestrians.

So should it be illegal to drive that fast down a narrow street, or should the police have to wait until you hit something to pull you over?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Tomas Hamilton had a gun. I think most sensible people would agree he was very dangerious, as the parents of Dunblane can attest.


What are you talking about?

Assuming you are talking about some guy who killed someone with a gun, I'll say that its bigoted to assume everyone with a gun is the same. Furthermore, you have yet to contest my point that a gun in and of itself is not dangerous. Did this gun majically get up, walk itself somewhere, and kill this person? No, it took a mad man to do it. Going after people with guns who did nothing, because this guy did something is akin to a mob going after all black men because one happened to rape someone. You're basically painting everybody with the same brush.


"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

In other words, as every single Constitutional historian I have ever read agrees with, the right to bear arms (limited to Protestants) is subject to control by parliament (the Law)

That's the problem, you are subjects and thus your rights are subject to the whims of those who rule you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


So should it be illegal to drive that fast down a narrow street, or should the police have to wait until you hit something to pull you over?

It depends on the street really. But the analogy is still false, speed limits are more comparable to laws saying you cant walk around town firing off rounds indiscriminately.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


It depends on the street really. But the analogy is still false, speed limits are more comparable to laws saying you cant walk around town firing off rounds indiscriminately.

Fine. So if the government decided that the best way to ensure that you can't walk around town firing rounds indiscriminately was to ensure that nobody could carry a gun while in the town, would you agree that it was a reasonable solution? Depending on the town, perhaps?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


That's the problem, you are subjects and thus your rights are subject to the whims of those who rule you.


Ha ha. Nice dodge. They dont rule us, they represent us. We are subjects of the MONARCHY, which is proscribed and limited by Parliament, elected by the people to represent us.

You really have no idea how Government works over here do you?

FYI, Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 schoolchildren with legally held firearms and ammunition. There are plenty of loonies in the country, but loonies with guns do a shed load more damage than ones who dont. Do get as much ammunition as TH took into that school that morning is prety much impossible. If that means taking away rights (that we have never had) of a few gun owners, then the British people have decided that is a price worth paying.

Guns are unique tony. If someone threatens you with a knife you could run away, you might even be able to overpower them. You cant outrun bullets. The chances of you overpowering someone with a gun is slim. The curent laws in Britain make events likie Hungerford and Dunblane much less likely and we are happy with that. And frankly, we aren't really interested in what people from a country with a far higher incidence of gun crime think. Our democracy is secure, stable and ingrained in the fabric of our society.

Incidentally, after Hungerford, (another big massacare with legally held weapons) the (small) gunlobby in this country used their political influence to block proposals that would have enabled sporting gun users to continue their sport under much more tightly regulated rules. They cited the same crap they came out with after Dunblane.

They had their chance...............

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


Fine. So if the government decided that the best way to ensure that you can't walk around town firing rounds indiscriminately was to ensure that nobody could carry a gun while in the town, would you agree that it was a reasonable solution?

Not really. Why not just make it illegal to fire off rounds in the town?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Guns are unique tony. If someone threatens you with a knife you could run away, you might even be able to overpower them. You cant outrun bullets. The chances of you overpowering someone with a gun is slim.

Shaun - I've applied my Psychic Helmet and looked into the future. The answer to this is going to be something along the lines of:

That is why it is important that you have a gun too

I now restore the fragile veil to the future, and invite you to cross my palm with silver (dammit, should have done the crossing bit first).

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by richardm


Shaun - I've applied my Psychic Helmet and looked into the future. The answer to this is going to be something along the lines of:



I now restore the fragile veil to the future, and invite you to cross my palm with silver (dammit, should have done the crossing bit first).

I think your right. But you can see his point. If the schoolteacher had an m-16 by her side at morning assembly it would never have happened. Sounds like a lovely little paradise to live in dont you think?

Will you take golden pennies from a tin of quality street by the way? I'm a bit strapped........

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


Not really. Why not just make it illegal to fire off rounds in the town?

Well, you've bought a gun legally. You carry it legally. Why should it be illegal to use it when and where you want? I seem to recall that there was an issue of "Freedom" brought up on the other page. You're a responsible gun user. If you want to fire rounds in the town, why shouldn't you be able to?

Or perhaps you concede that there are instances where you might want to make something illegal "just because" it might be unsafe?

I think we both agree that there are lines that must be drawn regarding guns - You draw the line at the point where you effectively say "Some people will use guns in an unwise way, and must be punished if they do". I draw the line where I say "Some people will use guns in an unwise way, and we must limit their opportunities to do so by limiting access to guns".

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


I think your right. But you can see his point. If the schoolteacher had an m-16 by her side at morning assembly it would never have happened. Sounds like a lovely little paradise to live in dont you think?

The irony is that it probably would still have happened; he'd just have taken the teacher out first.

The American Dream Society, it appears, would like to resolve this difficulty by ensuring that the vast majority of able, honest citizens are armed, and thus will be ready to evaporate future Hamiltons in a hail of lead whenever required.

Because most Europeans think this is a horrendous vision of society, some Americans think we're cowed by tyrannical regimes.

Which is quite funny, really.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by Tony


Not really. Why not just make it illegal to fire off rounds in the town?

By your logic that is an infringement of my right to make a complete dick of myself. Be consistent - you either agree with sanctions under law or you do not.

My job over here is hard enough without the tossers I have to deal with being able to get guns freely. You argument that "those criminals who really want them can get them" is flawed. Yes they can, but it is not that easy and there is an inherent penalty for being caught with one. Take that away and you have every junkie and little scroat tooled up just because they can. And don't give me any guff about "defending against a gun with a gun". This is not the OK Corall and if I want to shoot you you won't even know it. I'm hardly going to draw pistols at ten paces am I?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" - yes they do. With guns. Very easily.

[Shaun from Scotland]

What is your job Hannibal?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland



Ha ha. Nice dodge. They dont rule us, they represent us. We are subjects of the MONARCHY, which is proscribed and limited by Parliament, elected by the people to represent us.

You really have no idea how Government works over here do you?



It's not a dodge, it was an error on my behalf.


FYI, Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 schoolchildren with legally held firearms and ammunition. There are plenty of loonies in the country, but loonies with guns do a shed load more damage than ones who dont. Do get as much ammunition as TH took into that school that morning is prety much impossible. If that means taking away rights (that we have never had) of a few gun owners, then the British people have decided that is a price worth paying.

The British people must be fans of the Patriot Act.

Why didnt Americans react the same way you guys did when Columbine happened?

The curent laws in Britain make events likie Hungerford and Dunblane much less likely and we are happy with that.

Not really, that's just an illusion. All it takes is another mad man with a gun (which would be easy to get) to do the same thing.

And frankly, we aren't really interested in what people from a country with a far higher incidence of gun crime think.

What a coincidence, we aren't interested in what people from a country where fear and hysteria were allowed to rule think. :)

Our democracy is secure, stable and ingrained in the fabric of our society.

Ours too. :)

Incidentally, after Hungerford, (another big massacare with legally held weapons) the (small) gunlobby in this country used their political influence to block proposals that would have enabled sporting gun users to continue their sport under much more tightly regulated rules. They cited the same crap they came out with after Dunblane.

Silly them, don't they know people are afraid and children are dying? Being filthy gun owners, its not like THEY deserve to be treated like innocent people. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm

I think we both agree that there are lines that must be drawn regarding guns - You draw the line at the point where you effectively say "Some people will use guns in an unwise way, and must be punished if they do". I draw the line where I say "Some people will use guns in an unwise way, and we must limit their opportunities to do so by limiting access to guns".



But you don't limit their access to guns. Anyone who wants them can still get them.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony



But you don't limit their access to guns. Anyone who wants them can still get them.

.. but then finds that their freedom to use them is greatly restricted?

I mean, as I say - if I bought a gun legally and carried it legally, who are you to tell me that I can't use it when and where I want?

You agree that I can't use it when and where I want - because the gun could be used in a dangerous way. There are laws on the books in your country that restrict this freedom, and you're cool with them, I think?

My country takes the view that the only people who are likely to use guns in dangerous ways are people who have guns, so consequently gun ownership is tightly regulated. There are very few people who genuinely need guns, so there are very few guns in the country. And nobody is allowed to carry them in towns - just in case they decide to start shooting indiscriminately.

Yes, it's an infringement of my right to do whatever I want - but that's what laws are all about, after all.


I do take your point that it's just an object, and why shouldn't you be able to have one if you want. But in this country it has been decided by more-or-less common consent that guns are likely as not to be used on other people, as supported by the survey results that started this thread. And we are happy that the number of them in the country is controlled - at least, as much as it is ever possible to control these things.

I should say that personally, I think guns are great fun - I even own two myself, legally held. But I'm waaay short of saying that I should take a shotgun to the shops with me, even if I do think I might be attacked. (Which I don't, BTW)

Obviously the situation in America is different. I don't think it would be possible to remove all or even many guns from society, and if you did you'd probably have meltdown. But we're not in that position, and I think most of us are happy that while gun crime may increase, it's still small. And we don't think that it will help to arm the general population, we think it will make it worse.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


.. but then finds that their freedom to use them is greatly restricted?


How?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


It's not a dodge, it was an error on my behalf.

The you concede there is no freedom under UK law which was taken away?

[i]The British people must be fans of the Patriot Act..[/B]

We have The prevention of Terrorism Act. We are still a free country. What the USA does is it's business.

[i]Why didnt Americans react the same way you guys did when Columbine happened.[/B]

Because America has a Constitutional right to bear arms. We do not. Plus it's your business, not ours



[i]Not really, that's just an illusion. All it takes is another mad man with a gun (which would be easy to get) to do the same thing.[/B]
it is not easy to get a gun and it is harder still to get ammunition. TH had over 800 rounds of legally acquired ammunition with him and fired 80+ in at most 4 minutes. This would be virtually impossible to get nowadays. This is far from wishful thinking.


[i]What a coincidence, we aren't interested in what people from a country where fear and hysteria were allowed to rule think. :)[/B]

The rule of law is not fear and hysteria. Gun owners have always been subject to the rule of law.


[i]Silly them, don't they know people are afraid and children are dying? Being filthy gun owners, its not like THEY deserve to be treated like innocent people. :rolleyes: [/B]

How are they being treated like criminals? No one was jailed for owning a legally held weapon. Did the Police round up everyone with a firearms certificate and put them in jail?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony



How?

You can't go out into the street and start shooting? So that is a restriction straightaway. In fact, if you go into the wide open spaces of the countryside, you can start shooting, so it's a descriminatory restriction too.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


The you concede there is no freedom under UK law which was taken away?


I'll conced i was wrong on the "subject" bit. But I need to see more evidence about the UK law.

We have The prevention of Terrorism Act. We are still a free country. What the USA does is it's business.

Is that the same as the Patriot Act?

Because America has a Constitutional right to bear arms. We do not. Plus it's your business, not ours.

But how come Americans werent calling for a gun ban?


The rule of law is not fear and hysteria. Gun owners have always been subject to the rule of law.

But that law was passed because of fear and hysteria.

How are they being treated like criminals?

Not like criminals necessarily. But they aren’t being treated like innocent people, an innocent person doesn't have his rights taken away for no reason. Just because one gun owner is guilty of an atrocity doesn’t mean all are.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


The you concede there is no freedom under UK law which was taken away?


[Psychic Hat]

You have a fundamental right to own anything you want. Anyone who says you can't own something you want is taking away your freedom.

[/Psychic Hat]

That will be two Quality Street toffees, please :D

I remember going through all of this and more with Shanek a couple of years ago. I don't think we really got anywhere in terms of convincing the other and both eventually gave up (About the time he told me I was acting like a True Believer, IIRC. You swine, Shane :D). I told myself after that I'd never get involved in gun threads again; for both sides it's like wrestling a tar baby. And now look what's happened!

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


I'll conced i was wrong on the "subject" bit. But I need to see more evidence about the UK law.?[/i]
[B]

What more evidence is required other than one of the central Acts in the UK system of Government?



[QUOTE]Is that the same as the Patriot Act?
[B]

Sort of, but it pre-dates 9/11, being more concerned with dealing with the IRA. It was made law sometime in the 1970's. It allows for longer detention of prisoners, restrictions on travel for suspected, but not proven terorists and things of that ilk. Very controversial and has been abused.



[QUOTE]But how come Americans werent calling for a gun ban?[B]

Well some people were, but then there is the matter of the constitution. This is not aplicable to the UK. I fail to see what you are getting at here.......



[QUOTE]But that law was passed because of fear and hysteria.[B]

That law was passed by our elected representatives, with the support with the overwhelming support of the people in this country. This is not fear and hysteria.

[QUOTE][i]Not like criminals necessarily. But they aren’t being treated like innocent people, an innocent person doesn't have his rights taken away for no reason. Just because one gun owner is guilty of an atrocity doesn’t mean all are.

We are going in circles here. There are no rights to take away. See point 1 about the Bill of Rights........

[Shaun from Scotland]

mmmmmmmmmmmmm toffees......

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by The Fool


You need a special permit in Australia because of the damage the skid steer tracks to to the road. For that reason I only drive my tank round and round my own yard.

This guy had a Scorpion, which is pretty wimpy in tank terms - only weighed eight tons or so. I don't know if you'd get away with driving around in a 60+ ton challenger.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony

...snip...

But how come Americans werent calling for a gun ban?

...snip...

Lots of Americans did call for tighter gun restrictions, just like they did in the UK.

(Should just point here that after Dunblane the law was changed, which effected approximatley (according to gun owners) 65,000 people in the UK. )

I'll also take the liberty of repeating something I posted before as it has several very relevant pieces of information in it.



Please note the 1997 amendment act was not the first gun control law in the UK. If you want to make a case for a link between gun control laws and gun crime you need to provide data that supports your argument across the various gun restriction laws since the 1930s.

I will also point out again that before 1997 it was just as illegal to carry a gun on your person in a public place or to own a handgun that was not kept under lock and key, unloaded and the ammunition kept in a separate locked storage place as it is since the 1997 act. No one in England and Wales pre-1997 legally had a loaded handgun in their bedside cabinet drawer or legally carried a firearm in the street.

Once again the assumption seems to be that prior to 1997 people in England & Wales could carry firearms in public (i.e. streets) - they couldn't. The 1997 act was about the ownership of a particular type of firearm.

In 1996 there were over 3,162,000 legally held firearms in the England & Wales; that is enough for approximately 1 in 20 people in England & Wales to own a legal firearm.

In 2000 there were over 3,000,000 legally held firearms in the England & Wales; that is enough for approximately 1 in 20 people in England & Wales to own a legal firearm.

[epepke]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If gun crime keeps rising at this huge rate, it might reach American levels in twenty years or so.

That's about right. Maybe it will take 30. The US started doing the social and civic changes to make the environment ripe for low-level gun violence immediately following World War II. The UK didn't really get going on this until the mid-1970s. So, the UK is about 30 years behind, but there may also be a slowness factor there, so it might take longer.

Of course, they could speed the process up a bit by having a War on Some Drugs. Not possible? Well, England, just a few years ago, achieved the distinction of having the most prolific serial killer in the world. All the UK needs is one Charles Manson clone to spark widespread drug paranoia.

The UK is always going to be more progressive than the Continent in this area, due to not having major genocides 60 years ago and not having the relative calm that follows a genocide.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
What is your job Hannibal?

Police Officer

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Hannibal


Police Officer

No way....he's an unemployed Lucianarchy baiter......

Its good to see you around again.... did you get paroled?:D

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Hannibal


Police Officer

I thought so. It really is amazing how little weight is given to what the Police think about these matters.

What is your opinion on what would happen if you were compulsorily required to carry a gun on duty?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Hannibal


By your logic that is an infringement of my right to make a complete dick of myself. Be consistent - you either agree with sanctions under law or you do not.

My job over here is hard enough without the tossers I have to deal with being able to get guns freely. You argument that "those criminals who really want them can get them" is flawed. Yes they can, but it is not that easy and there is an inherent penalty for being caught with one. Take that away and you have every junkie and little scroat tooled up just because they can. And don't give me any guff about "defending against a gun with a gun". This is not the OK Corall and if I want to shoot you you won't even know it. I'm hardly going to draw pistols at ten paces am I?

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" - yes they do. With guns. Very easily.

As in Australia. The fact that handguns are illegal means that the most desperate and stupid cannot afford them, even those obtained illegally.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As in Australia. The fact that handguns are illegal means that the most desperate and stupid cannot afford them, even those obtained illegally.

And just exactly how much is a gun on an Australian black market?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Darat

In 1996 there were over 3,162,000 legally held firearms in the England & Wales; that is enough for approximately 1 in 20 people in England & Wales to own a legal firearm.

In 2000 there were over 3,000,000 legally held firearms in the England & Wales; that is enough for approximately 1 in 20 people in England & Wales to own a legal firearm.
[/i] See that proves Tony's point.

A minute reduction in guns directly leads to a massive increase in gun crime.

If you take away every single gun, the firearm murder rate will soar and everyone will all be out there shooting each other all the time.

It clearly follows that if a 5% decrease in guns lead to a 30% increease in crime we only need a 17% increase in guns to eliminate it altogether.

That still is only less that 6% of the population armed.

This public duty to make sure the county is safe needs to be shared given the huge public oposition to guns. We all however need to perform our public duty.

I suggest that we therefore arm all 18 & 19 year olds (must be around 6% of the population) . It will give them a sense of responsibility as they transfer from youth to adulthood.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lothian
…snip…

I suggest that we therefore arm all 18 & 19 year olds (must be around 6% of the population) . It will give them a sense of responsibility as they transfer from youth to adulthood.

Very sound conclusion reached by clear reasoning, all based on the statistics so it must be true. Going into politics are you? :D

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Darat


Very sound conclusion reached by clear reasoning, all based on the statistics so it must be true. Going into politics are you? :D I was thinking more tabloid leader writer.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


And just exactly how much is a gun on an Australian black market?
Around $A1500-2000 for a handgun you could probably buy second hand in the USA for less than a hundred bucks....

[richardm]

I see that the figures for 2003 are now in.

Gun crime still increased, but only by 2%. So there must be a lot more guns out there, by Lothian's account ;)

Incidentally, this is from another BBC account (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm) , yet on the main BBC news I'm sure they said that the increase was 7%. Must have misheard.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by richardm
I see that the figures for 2003 are now in.

Gun crime still increased, but only by 2%. So there must be a lot more guns out there, by Lothian's account ;)

Incidentally, this is from another BBC account (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm) , yet on the main BBC news I'm sure they said that the increase was 7%. Must have misheard. So despite the rise in crime general the use of handguns to commit a crime dropped by 6%
Can someone please remind me. Which guns were banned ?

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by The Fool


No way....he's an unemployed Lucianarchy baiter......

Its good to see you around again.... did you get paroled?:D

It's good to be back my old comrade in arms!;) :D


What is your opinion on what would happen if you were compulsorily required to carry a gun on duty?

I am against it for several reasons. Firstly, I do not see the need for me to carry one. Like I said before, we are not at teh OK Corrall. There are firearms units that can be in place within minutes to deploy lethal force shoud it be necessary. That is to say after negotiation and all else have failed. A gun is a bit like having a hammer as your tool. Eventually every problem looks like a nail.

Secondly, if I make a mistake at the minute about the worse that can happen is a broken arm or (with CS spray) the snots and sniffles for about an hour. If I shoot in error you are dead - and no amount a training can take away the possibility of that error.

Thirdly, if Police are armed routinely so will criminals. At the minute they do not care of they punch, spiy or kick at me. They are not rational people and will not care who or what I have. If they think I have a gun they will look to equalise.

Fourthly, and linked to three actually, is the fact that it puts guns in easy reach. Want a gun? Tumble a copper and nick his. It's that simple. Why buy one or go to all the trouble of importing one when you can just make a false report of a burglary, wait with a bat and SMACK! Free gun.

No, I do not want a gun. I do not want anyone else to have one either. As long as they are a minority weapon, keep it that way. Let the firearms unit deploy when they have to. I'l stick with verbal commands - and a good right hander!

[Shaun from Scotland]

If you wee required to be armed would you consider leaving the force?