SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Gun battle in London Square

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Gun battle in London Square (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136388)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by from the pdf I linked earlier

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Point proven - mine that is!

If you say so Subman. :roll:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.;)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/fullpag...57C0A965958260

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.

Quote:

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...2004Aug26.html

Poverty in DC runs at nearly twice that in Virginia.

Quote:

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?

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

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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

I certainly agree with that bit http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/9...humbsuprw5.gif

Now back to the debate :lol:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2...corncowwy6.gif

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