Gun battle in London Square

[SUBMAN1]

Developing story - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080506173240.cgu8biua&show_article=1

But wait, I thought there were no guns in London? :D Oh - I forgot! Only law abiding citizens have no guns in London and are at the mercy of the criminals with guns! :p Somehow, someone here will try and twist this into something resembling Americas influence and gun laws are affecting the UK, and that is the reason this is happening in the first place. I just know it! :lol:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Not again :zzz:Man! Can't you have any fun? :D Party pooper.

-S

[nikimcbee]

@ subman1
Years ago, when the olympics were We in Japan, I was able to call in the local sports show and ask them how they were going to do the biathlon, since guns are illegal in Japan. We all got a big laugh out of it. We joked about the potential bank robberies that could be committed by the skiers on their skies.:rotfl:

[jumpy]

http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_method=full%26objectID=20404487%26siteID=93463-name_page.html

http://www.channel4.com/sport/microsites/S/sportuncovered/pistolshooting.html

Good job we stopped those olympic medalists before they became ticking timebombs then eh?

more comments here: http://www.airgunbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277468

I like this one in particular: Now don't be naive Carl, everyone knows that allowing a few professional sportsmen access to a handful of pistols to train in secure facilities is going to turn Britain into the wild west.

Do you know, I feel for the victims, and families of the victims of gun crime, as I feel for any parent who has lost a child, no matter how, but when are these ficking udiot campaigners going to stop using a terrible tragedy that came about due to the failings of the people who issued a man with known psychological problems with a firearms certificate as the banner for their flawed reasoning, and wake up to the fact that the handgun ban hasn't reduced gun crime in this country by one iota.

People who will behave or use things in an unlawful manner don't care whether something is made illegal. That's why they are called criminals. Criminals will always have access to guns.

I really wish someone would produce an easy to understand pop up picture book so that these bleating empty headed anti-everything morons will absorb that fact into their tiny, dung filled, goldfish like brains.

[SUBMAN1]

You missed this part: :D

...The ban on hand guns came in 1997 in the wake of the crazed shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane but, despite an amendment being tabled, no exemption was made for sports shooters. Ironically, gun crime has almost doubled since the 1996 Dunblane massacre, from 2,636 cases to 4,019. Only this week a member of the garage band So Solid Crew pleaded guilty to having a loaded pistol in his car....
I do like your quote! It about sums up this nonsense perfectly! :up::up::up:

-S

[jumpy]

hopefully this will work:

http://www.mediafire.com/?yczjxd2zlbs

when it says 'click here to download' right click and save as.

It's a pdf critique of a 2006 study from the homeoffice into gun crime. An interesting read.

[mrbeast]

Developing story - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080506173240.cgu8biua&show_article=1

But wait, I thought there were no guns in London? :D Oh - I forgot! Only law abiding citizens have no guns in London and are at the mercy of the criminals with guns! :p Somehow, someone here will try and twist this into something resembling Americas influence and gun laws are affecting the UK, and that is the reason this is happening in the first place. I just know it! :lol:

-S

This is hardly an everyday event Subman, even you must concede that.

How many more events like this would we see if firearms were widespread throughout society?

[SUBMAN1]

This is hardly an everyday event Subman, even you must concede that.

How many more events like this would we see if firearms were widespread throughout society?With 4,019 of them a year over there, I beg to differ! That is more than 11 each day!

-S

PS. I forgot to add - the answer to your second question is about half of the 4,019. Since guns were taken away, it has doubled!

[Happy Times]

I consider people that are ok with these kind of laws as modern day serfs.
There always has to be balance with interests of the individual and that of the community/state. In this case the balance is that people should have the right to own guns if they register them, store them in a safe way and arent criminals.
It works here fine.

[Letum]

You can own a gun in the UK!


You just have to prove you have a legitimate use for it and don't just want it as a toy.

"Shooting people" is not a legitimate use. What ever they have done to you.

[SUBMAN1]

If they allow guns in UK, football supporters will soon be history just like dinosaurs :DActually, the UK'rs have always been remarkably careful with their weaponry. When everyone was armed over there, they never shot anyone, they had way less gun violence than they do now, and it was what should have been considered a model for the world. What happened?

You guys at soccer (the correct name for it :p) games however are a bit rowdy, but that usually ends with a couple of punches, followed by a trip to the tavern and a fist full of beer.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

You can own a gun in the UK!


You just have to prove you have a legitimate use for it and don't just want it as a toy.

"Shooting people" is not a legitimate use. What ever they have done to you.Now that is hallarious! Did you not read the article? :rotfl:

-S

[CCIP]

But of course, criminals are not people. Silly me.
Let's give people both guns AND license to convict people on the spot.

[SUBMAN1]

But of course, criminals are not people. Silly me.
Let's give people both guns AND license to convict people on the spot.http://www.virginmedia.com/images/1stallone-gal-judgedredd.jpg

Of course, it doesn't work that way in the states, but you do have the right to defend yourself from harm, as all people on this planet should have the right.

-S

[mrbeast]

If they allow guns in UK, football supporters will soon be history just like dinosaurs :DActually, the UK'rs have always been remarkably careful with their weaponry. When everyone was armed over there, they never shot anyone, they had way less gun violence than they do now, and it was what should have been considered a model for the world. What happened?

You guys at soccer (the correct name for it :p) games however are a bit rowdy, but that usually ends with a couple of punches, followed by a trip to the tavern and a fist full of beer.

-S

Subman I'm not sure I'm familiar with this mythical period in British History when everyone was toting guns.

[jumpy]

^^
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.
If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.
As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

[bookworm_020]

Gun Crime has decilined for the last decade here in Australia. It had been in decline before 1997 and the shooting at Port Arthur in Tasmania, but the ban on semi-automatic weapons and the gun buy back helped speed up the deciline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29

[joegrundman]

Is your point, Subman, that if we are all armed in the UK, as you are in the US, then British gun crime will drop to US levels?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

Well, somehow I cant picture a driveby with a car full of wig wearing men toting these:

http://doubledeckerbuses.org/blog/media/BritishLightDragoonPistol.JPG

[jumpy]

Dick Turpin anyone? :lol: "I say, you Sir! Stand and deliver!"

somehow I think it would probably be one of these instead:
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/images/uploads/2005files/Webley_MkII_455.jpg

[Oberon]

http://images.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_images/tv2/movies/wk22_plunkett_c.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Gun Crime has decilined for the last decade here in Australia. It had been in decline before 1997 and the shooting at Port Arthur in Tasmania, but the ban on semi-automatic weapons and the gun buy back helped speed up the deciline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29

Why ? :hmm:

Have you ran out of aboriginal targets already ? :o

[STEED]

There is always gun battles in London. :shifty: That's why I wear a bullet proof vest when I visit the toilet sorry London.

[SUBMAN1]

Is your point, Subman, that if we are all armed in the UK, as you are in the US, then British gun crime will drop to US levels?I don't need to argue with you, nor do I need to tell you anything since your history already precedes you and that will tell you more than anything I can. In the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's when anyone that wanted to be armed could be over there, your gun crime was still historically low - half of what it is before they took your guns and things doubled (This should also tell you something since your gun crime is rising). You don't follow the US models in this area which makes me alternately think that most of you out there are very courteous and respectful.

-S

[Tchocky]

In the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's when anyone that wanted to be armed could be over there
There has been firearm legislation in the UK since just after WW1, iirc.

[SUBMAN1]

the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.
Well, somehow I cant picture a driveby with a car full of wig wearing men toting these:

You're 250 years off man! The time period of the article would be this instead: :D

-S

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/ThompsonM1A1VWM.jpg/800px-ThompsonM1A1VWM.jpg

PS. I think I'm gonna buy one of these. Might be fun to shoot a classic!

[mrbeast]

Is your point, Subman, that if we are all armed in the UK, as you are in the US, then British gun crime will drop to US levels?I don't need to argue with you, nor do I need to tell you anything since your history already precedes you and that will tell you more than anything I can. In the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's when anyone that wanted to be armed could be over there, your gun crime was still historically low - half of what it is before they took your guns and things doubled (This should also tell you something since your gun crime is rising). You don't follow the US models in this area which makes me alternately think that most of you out there are very courteous and respectful.

-S

Subman, this is pretty wonky thinking you have here. Where is the evidence that a rise in gun crime is triggered by the implimentation of more robust gun control measures?

Do you not think that social and econmic presures might have something more to do with criminals resorting to the use of firearms in the first place, and gun control measures being implimented as a result?

I think you are approaching gun violence in the UK with quite a number of false and incorrect assumptions, which may hold true in the US but not in the UK.

BTW, firearms related crimes actually fell in 2007, look at the stats.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, this is pretty wonky thinking you have here. Where is the evidence that a rise in gun crime is triggered by the implimentation of more robust gun control measures? Again, I beg to differ! You are the one with the wonky thinking (again). You only need look at the rise since they took them, versus the history prior to that, and you will find your answer.

Do you not think that social and econmic presures might have something more to do with criminals resorting to the use of firearms in the first place, and gun control measures being implimented as a result?What a cop out idea - maybe you can prove this theory in favor of the obvious? And besides, you keep telling me that social and economic pressures are getting better in the UK. Why are you reversing your story now? Your a funny guy! :D

I think you are approaching gun violence in the UK with quite a number of false and incorrect assumptions, which may hold true in the US but not in the UK.

BTW, firearms related crimes actually fell in 2007, look at the stats.Yes - it fell to 4,019 incidents - over 11 per day! Nice! :up: I like your woinky thinking though. Makes for fun poking it back at ya!

-S

[bradclark1]

Do you not think that social and econmic presures might have something more to do with criminals resorting to the use of firearms in the first place, and gun control measures being implimented as a result?

Yep. Thats the major factor for most crime and with society sinking into the mud it will continue to climb.

[mrbeast]

Again, I beg to differ! You are the one with the wonky thinking (again). You only need look at the rise since they took them, versus the history prior to that, and you will find your answer.

Subman, what you present demonstrates nothing. What I'm looking for is a causational link, not just an excercise in comparing two sets of numbers and then making a half baked conclusion, something I'm afraid to say you do a lot of on this forum.

What a cop out idea - maybe you can prove this theory in favor of the obvious?

Crime is just caused by 'bad people' then I guess. :roll:

And besides, you keep telling me that social and economic pressures are getting better in the UK. Why are you reversing your story now?

quotes please?

Your a funny guy! :D

I'm glad I could lighten up your day ;)

Yes - it fell to 4,019 incidents - over 11 per day! Nice! :up: I like your woinky thinking though. Makes for fun poking it back at ya!

Compared to what in the US? Subman, theres around 10,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year not even counting the suicides and accidents.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Subman, where are you from?

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, what you present demonstrates nothing. How so?

What I'm looking for is a causational link, not just an excercise in comparing two sets of numbers and then making a half baked conclusion, something I'm afraid to say you do a lot of on this forum. And yours is not, how exactly? At least mine has hard numbers and it can be applied anywhere in the world and you can draw the same statisitics on crime and guns anywhere guns have been removed. Maybe the UK is special! I know you're special at least, special case more like. :D

Crime is just caused by 'bad people' then I guess. :roll: It's definetly not caused by inanimate objects - DUH! What an idiot response. :shifty:

quotes please? Can you be serious for once? Pick any thread about the UK where you replied to me. I don't have to hold your hand like a child every time.

Compared to what in the US? Subman, theres around 10,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year not even counting the suicides and accidents.I thought this was about the UK? We have a lot more peopel than you of course, so we do everything bigger than you. Please keep to topic though. Thanks!

-S

PS. Guns don't hold a candle to auto accidents. I bet your auto accidents way outnumber even the US gun statistics. I know your violent crime is at least double ours from up to 2005 or so - last year for numbers I found or there abouts.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, where are you from?The US.

By the way, black powder rifles and pistols are pretty fun. You should try one sometime. I know a person or two that like 50 cals in rifles, and 45 cals in pistols. The rifles don't have a quick shock like a modern day rifle does, but more of a solid shock to the shoulder. Everything is slightly delayed as well when you pull the trigger, especially the older models. The newer cap type versions fire relatively quickly.

To hold up a place in the past usually required about 3 or 4 pistols in the belt, and probably a backup of some form of blade. Tommy gun works much better, but of course, two different era's.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Allowing guns or not is one thing, but allowing people to bear guns just because of the crime rate, that would really mean your government is a failure, time to kick it out.Hmm... So I guess since this is the first generation to grow up without every young boy learning to shoot or use a sword, every past government since the beginning of time must have been a 'time to kick out' type mentality.

On another note, this is also the rudest and crass young generation the world has every known. Strange coincidence? I better not say that though because Mr. Beast will ask for hard proof of this fact again! :rotfl:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

How do you know that previously guns were allowed only because of crime rate ?They weren't. Guns are allowed only for the basic human right of self defense, and to eat.

But if human rights aren't important, I guess this discussion is over.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Allowing guns or not is one thing, but allowing people to bear guns just because of the crime rate, that would really mean your government is a failure, time to kick it out.Hmm... So I guess since this is the first generation to grow up without every young boy learning to shoot or use a sword, every past government since the beginning of time must have been a 'time to kick out' type mentality.

On another note, this is also the rudest and crass young generation the world has every known. Strange coincidence? I better not say that though because Mr. Beast will ask for hard proof of this fact again! :rotfl:

-S

You know, you're pretty rude yourself :-?

[SUBMAN1]

You know, you're pretty rude yourself :-?Usually only when someone has been rude to me first.

Sorry if I offended you since I don't remember trying to do that. It was unintentional.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I guess most people in the UK don't need guns to feed their families, do they ? So if guns are allowed only for self defense, it means your government is too weak to provide that protection, and to provide education in the first place.I'm sorry, by the time you can dial 911, in the UK or in the US, it is already too late in most situations. 6 minutes is typical best response time, and if I'll be dead in 5..... The answer is, my government cannot protect me. It is impossible for them to do so. In UK, it is no different.

Education has nothing to do with it. There are just plain bad people in the world and nothing you can do to change that fact. Guns are a neccesary evil.

-S

PS. SCOTUS has ruled many times that the gov't has no obligation to protect individuals.

[mrbeast]

How so

Because you offer no explanations in your thesis as to why the removal of guns from the public has the effect of increasing gun related crime? All you do is look at the fact that there is more gun related crime now than there was say 20 years ago and then conclude simplistically that banning guns is to blame, while excluding every other variable.

How is this so? Do you not have any desire to look deeper into why things happen or do you just jump at the easiest explanation that you can grasp?

I'm sorry Subman, but its intellectualy lazy.

And yours is not, how exactly? At least mine has hard numbers and it can be applied anywhere in the world and you can draw the same statisitics on crime and guns anywhere guns have been removed. Maybe the UK is special! I know you're special at least, special case more like. :D

Your obviously not familiar with the gun laws in Japan then and their very low rate of firearms related crime.

It's definetly not caused by inanimate objects - DUH! What an idiot response. :shifty:

Ok, so the world is just divided into 'goodies and badies', black and white
Maybe you should read Crime and Punishment.

Can you be serious for once? Pick any thread about the UK where you replied to me. I don't have to hold your hand like a child every time.

No quotes or examples then?

Ill take it that you're just resorting to your usual strawmen and personal attacks.

I thought this was about the UK? We have a lot more peopel than you of course, so we do everything bigger than you. Please keep to topic though. Thanks!

Look up the stats for gun homicides in the UK per 100,000 population as compared to the US.

BTW you brought up the US first

Of course, it doesn't work that way in the states, but you do have the right to defend yourself from harm, as all people on this planet should have the right.

So is it not broadly your argument that the gun control laws are beter in the US?

[SUBMAN1]

Because you offer no explanations in your thesis as to why the removal of guns from the public has the effect of increasing gun related crime? All you do is look at the fact that there is more gun related crime now than there was say 20 years ago and then conclude simplistically that banning guns is to blame, while excluding every other variable.

How is this so? Do you not have any desire to look deeper into why things happen or do you just jump at the easiest explanation that you can grasp?

I'm sorry Subman, but its intellectualy lazy. Point proven - mine that is! This is exactly how each one of your posts are. You bring up one thing, yet fail to back it up with proof, yet you say mine is wrong because I have no proof, yet you provide none and say yours is right? Pot calling the kettle black? I think so!


Your obviously not familiar with the gun laws in Japan then and their very low rate of firearms related crime. No, they just chop your ear off with a sword, their prefered weapon - check on the Yakuza. Ugly stuff. Shoot me please.

Ok, so the world is just divided into 'goodies and badies', black and white
Maybe you should read Crime and Punishment.
A more appropriate read would be on the likes of Jefferey Dahmer.

No quotes or examples then?

Ill take it that you're just resorting to your usual strawmen and personal attacks. not even close. You started the personal attacks. I just sent them back your way. Lets see, it started with calling my ideas wonky I beleive. Nice how you twist it around. You're good at that! :up:

Look up the stats for gun homicides in the UK per 100,000 population as compared to the US.

BTW you brought up the US first

Of course, it doesn't work that way in the states, but you do have the right to defend yourself from harm, as all people on this planet should have the right.
So is it not broadly your argument that the gun control laws are beter in the US?For certain areas yes. Why don't you further this research into areas that use gun control in the US and those that don't. I think you will find that you have been wrong all along! :D Let give you a clue - places without gun control have less gun violence per 100K people than the ** (Guess what country is here). THis should be interesting on what you come back with! :up:

-S

PS. Here is a good place to start:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/853/dccx9.gif

[jumpy]

I'm generally pro gun use for the UK, based upon properly licensed and controlled means, where people are responsible owners - this is already the case with 99.9% of those individuals who hold firearms certificates or shotgun licences in the UK.
It is very sad that a couple of high profile cases (hungerford/dunblaine) put the kibosh on many sane owners of handguns and other types of firearm.

However, as I understand it licensing laws in US states (these vary quite a bit don't they?) are for the most part less restrictive in terms of the type and use of firearms permitted, add to that the fact that many Americans seem more comfortable with the idea of people owning guns in general, it certainly seems to make a more familiar relationship with guns; as opposed to the UK where a cable tv engineer reported a guy to the police for having deactivated/replica guns and air rifles in his home http://www.airgunbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277262 you can see the type of hysteria we brits have been spoon-fed by the media and government. Now it's nice that the police bothered to make a house call to check everything was above board, but the officers were not specialist firearms officers, nor did they apparently follow correct procedure for seizing the suspect items. If you'll forgive the pun, the reaction is an understandable 'shoot first, ask questions later' - remove a potential illegal item until it is discerned as otherwise then return it, rather than let a possible offence be ignored.

I find it both irksome that we have such restrictive licensing regarding gun ownership and at the same time I'm quite relieved that some people will never have legal access to firearms - all of the yardie, chav scum that make up a large proportion of the new generation of brits who have no moral compass or sense of decency about them. Giving them freer access to guns is a mistake, which is why we have licensing and vetting (except for the case of michael ryan, the authorities responsible seemed to have fumbled the ball there) so we come back to the beginning again with certification and control.

I don't really believe that more legal firearm ownership in the UK will lead to more gun crime; indeed greater familiarity, at least by british standards and the people I know who own guns, seems to breed more responsibility and care - they are not toys, or status symbols to be waved about in the street. I think this is an element we have lost along with the erosion of ownership in the UK.
There seem to be any number of common sense ways to deal with violence and crime involving guns, but as ever, it always comes down to 'being tough on the causes of crime' and 'being seen to be tough on the causes of crime' which are not the same things at all.





Impact of Legislation
14. The authors consider the impact of firearms legislation at page 10.
They note that, “The level of gun crime recorded by the police in England and Wales
particularly involving handguns and imitation firearms, has increased significantly
since the late 1990s against a background of highly restrictive legislation. Although
some argue that this suggests the legislation particularly the two Firearms
HORS298-06 Page 5
(Amendment) Acts of 1997 has failed the counter factual argument – the picture today
if legislation had not been enacted – is unknown.” The authors further claim that the
fact that the actual status of the firearm used in crime has not been proven in many
cases further supports their view. In this they seem to adopt the standard Home
Office response to suggestions that legislation has been or will be ineffective.
15. At Page 114 the authors claim that their findings “suggest that the
UK’s highly restrictive controls do significantly constrain the ability of criminals to
obtain [firearms]. This raises an important hypothetical question, “What the position
would be if the legislation had not been enacted”. For example, apparent changes to
criminal cultures and the criminal economy . . . appear to have increased the demand
for illegal firearms. Had these changes occurred in an environment that was more
permissive of firearms ownership, it could be argued that the picture today might be
much more grave.”
16. It might be wondered why the late 1990s are used as a starting point
for the statistical argument since the increase has been ongoing since the 1960s and
marked since 1980 when the use of firearms in robbery topped the 1,000 mark. The
argument that the effect of legislation cannot be judged because we cannot know what
would have happened if there had been no legislation seems to be commonly heard
from the Home Office, but if it were true any evaluation of new legislation must be a
wasted effort.
17. Politicians spend a great deal of time claiming that one aspect or other
of their policies has had a significant beneficial effect on levels of crime and disorder
and criminologists spend much time seeking to evaluate the result of changes in
policy or law.
18. The 1997 legislation deprived 57,000 people of their property,
removed 160,000 handguns from circulation and cost many millions of pounds in
compensation. If the effects of that legislation can not be evaluated, then the whole
discipline of criminology is a waste of time. If the ban on handguns had any effect in
protecting the public, the date on which it came into effect must be reflected in figures
for homicide and robbery involving a pistol. The figures for England and Wales for
six years before and after 1997 are shown below.
19. The pattern of pistol use in homicide is progressively upwards whilst
the pattern in robbery shows that the numbers were falling but then rose sharply, only
HORS298-06 Page 6
to fall back again. The only conclusion is that the ban imposed by the 1997 Act was
simply an irrelevance.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6025/table1rj3.jpg


20. Conversely, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 imposed new and
substantial further requirements on the grant of both firearm and shotgun certificate,
though the latter were much more severely restricted. The effect on certificate
numbers was immediate, apparent and sustained.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6674/table2qc3.jpg

21. It might be possible to conclude that the law has an immediate effect
on the law abiding, but that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.

73. As a means of preventing gun crime, the totality of the suggestions
made offer no prospect of imposing any control on a serious situation.
74. In a series of so called conclusions, the authors continue to expound
their theory that current firearms legislation is effective and they challenge the
‘simplistic interpretation’ of recorded gun crime statistics. It seems that they seek
changes to crime recording systems so that, for instance, they would be better able to
distinguish between crimes involving real or imitation firearms.
75. As a means of establishing the precise level of any crime in any one
year, criminal statistics are quite crude. They are almost equally crude for comparison
from one year to the next. But the failings of the system cannot easily be remedied
and in some cases cannot be remedied at all. A gun seen by a victim but not recovered
may be real or imitation and those recording the crime simply do their best with the
information they have. In any one year a significant number of crimes are not
reported and reporting levels might change because of police activity.
76. Taken over a period of years, however, all these flaws tend to be
relatively constant factors and whilst the change from one year to the next is not
reliable, a consistent trend over ten years or more will provide a picture that is
accurate for all practical purposes. In recent years attempts to improve crime
statistics have resulted in changes that make it impossible to make comparisons over
the longer period and which confuse important trends. The recording of criminal
damage has changed to such an extent that the figures are quite useless; the recording
of firearm injuries has also changed but that change has impacted on minor injury to a
greater extent than it has impacted on major injuries and has very little impact on the
recording of fatalities. The most important purpose that the recording of crime can
serve is to provide broad evidence of trends over time. To continually change the
system in the hope of greater accuracy is counter productive.
HORS298-06 Page 19
77. The final conclusion reached in this paper is that there is need for
much more research in this field. Perhaps that is the case, but this present Report does
not support the case well.

[mrbeast]

Point proven - mine that is!

If you say so Subman. :roll:

This is exactly how each one of your posts are. You bring up one thing, yet fail to back it up with proof, yet you say mine is wrong because I have no proof, yet you provide none and say yours is right? Pot calling the kettle black? I think so!

This isn't school where we marks deducted for not referencing your work!

All I want Subman is for you to explain your logic and thinking on the issue. Is it too hard for you? We had this when you declaired that animal rights loonies were the logical conclusion of Darwinism, it took ages before you would expain your reasoning.

No, they just chop your ear off with a sword, their prefered weapon - check on the Yakuza. Ugly stuff. Shoot me please.

Shot or ear removed by a razor sharp sword? :hmm:

Think I'd rather lose my ear than my life. On the other hand, if its another guy losing his ear theres not much danger of the sword travelling across the street and killing a passer bye.

A more appropriate read would be on the likes of Jefferey Dahmer.

Come on Subman a canabalistic serial killer like Dahmer is hardley representative of the vast majority of criminals.

not even close. You started the personal attacks. I just sent them back your way. Lets see, it started with calling my ideas wonky I beleive. Nice how you twist it around. You're good at that! :up:

Theres a difference between calling your thinking wonky and calling you wonky.;)

For certain areas yes. Why don't you further this research into areas that use gun control in the US and those that don't. I think you will find that you have been wrong all along! :D Let give you a clue - places without gun control have less gun violence per 100K people than the ** (Guess what country is here). THis should be interesting on what you come back with! :up:

-S

This is getting down the the crux of the thing now. As regards the article you posted.

Why are there higher rates of gun homicide in Washington when there is a handgun ban? Several reasons: The first is indeed that there is a supply of firearms into Washingon and other states with gun control laws from states with more lax laws.

The effort has focused on five states that have been the main sources of unlicensed guns in New York State: Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Georgia and Texas. Since late last year, a new unit of the New York state police has been working closely with its counterpart in Virginia to trace guns and investigate suspected suppliers

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6D9143CF935A15757C0A9659582 60

The article sights this notion but then attempts to refute it by comparing DC and Virginia gun homicide rates. It attempts to show that its the different approaches to gun control that cause either low or high rates of gun homicide.

There is, however a major flaw in this argument.

The problem with this article is that the only variable it examines is guns, while excluding all others to explain why some areas have more gun violence.

For instance where does crime normally occur? Is it in well off areas or poor areas? Generally its poorer areas that have more crime, that is certainly true in the UK and I would guess also in the US. Would you agree?

The economic aspect of crime, and by extension the use of guns in crime, is not examined at all. Ok it sights 'urban' areas in Virginia but are those comparable to DC?

Ok so lets look at the levels of poverty in Washington DC and Virginia.

Locally, poverty rates rose in Virginia to 10 percent from 8.9 percent, and in Maryland to 8 percent from 7.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau's two-year averaging. In the District, it declined 0.7 percent, but, at 16.9 percent, it remained higher than the national average.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html

Poverty in DC runs at nearly twice that in Virginia.

As of the 2000 census, Virginia had the highest number of counties and independent cities, fifteen, in the top one-hundred wealthiest jurisdictions in the United States based upon median income. In addition, Virginia tied with Colorado as having the most counties, ten, in the top one-hundred based on per capita income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia

Considering that there are higher rates of poverty in DC than Virginia (and certainly more in than in affluent Arlington just over the Potomac) It would seem reasonable to conclude that the likehood of more crime in DC was higher than in Virginia; and where guns are easily available criminals will most probably take advantage of then.

So in conclusion nice try but It would say that the gun laws are a red herring, Virginia has less gun homicide simply because its on the whole a wealthier state for more people than DC is therefore, will probably see less crime in general. If you repealed the gun control laws in DC I would predict that at best gun crime would stay the same but more probably increase, also a few gun dealers in Virginia might see their profits hit.

I wonder how his reflects upon other high gun crime areas in the US?

[mrbeast]

Jumpy, some interesting points there and I'd like to respond to some:up: but for now I have get some sleep! :zzz:

[Platapus]

Gun control should be mandatory and rigidly enforced by the government to ensure compliance with the following standards:

Solid Weaver stance
Clear sight picture of the target and the surrounding area
Smooth trigger pull
Recovery and target reacquisition

Thats the sort of gun control we need :up:


(Just trying to introduce a little levity to cool things down.)

[Jimbuna]

Gun control should be mandatory and rigidly enforced by the government to ensure compliance.

I certainly agree with that bit http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/9026/wolfthumbsuprw5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Now back to the debate :lol:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2352/popcorncowwy6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[SUBMAN1]

Wow - This thread length is turning into a Skybird style 10 mile long lecture. :o I'll get around to reading all this at some point probably, but not now.

-S