Gun crimes have doubled since Britain banned handguns

[Drew]

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece

It turns out that "When you ban guns, only the criminals will have them" isn't just an empty aphorism.



Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.


The solution, of course, is to deregulate and give the freedom back to the people; if you read the article, of course, none of the politicos will proffer the correct solution.

[Asha]

Oh God. Here it comes..

[Drew]

I actually don't want to argue, but I do like to post factual proof when I see it.

[Nieninque]

Strange, because they were saying on the radio yesterday that gun crime was actually down. The numbers of children involved in those crimes has risen apparently, as evidenced by the 11 year old boy shot in the head in a ride-by-shooting by some 16 year old in Liverpool the other day.

[Nieninque]

That was it


Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Chief Constable of Merseyside, said this year that although gun crime in the area had fallen there had been an increase in the number of teenagers involved in firearms crimes.

[Sean of the Thread]

This sums it up for me.

their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily.

[Drew]

That was it


If you double and then go down some you are still well above where you started.

[Nieninque]

There is a problem, however right wing rags are likely to mis-interpret the figures to allow them to push their tory scumbag party back towards number 10.

While the incident of firearm related offences has indeed doubled, many of those offences included imitation firearms, therefore are not necessarily indicative of more guns on the streets. Indeed if you listen to the Chief Constable of Merseyside, guns are used less, just the average age of the person using it has dropped...not that that is any less of a concern.

I found this from the Gun Control Network


THE LATEST ANNUAL FIGURES for gun crime in England and Wales (2005/06) present a mixed picture, and it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions from them. Though there was a worrying increase in some categories of crime, the immediate and selective conclusion of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis and some newspapers that the figures indicated a loss of control over gun crime is hardly supported by the overall data. The total number of offences was in fact down by 6 percent from the previous year, something that was hardly reflected in some of the headlines.

A major concern was the increase in the number of robberies involving firearms (up by 10 percent). Thirty five percent of these (1439 offences) were street robberies (an increase of 9 percent) and there was a large increase in robberies on residential properties (up 68 percent to 645 offences): however, the authors of the report point out that some of the increase may be the result of a transfer from firearm burglaries, which have seen substantial falls in the last two years (there is a fine distinction between robbery and burglary, and crimes are apparently only classified as burglaries if firearms are used in the getaway). Robberies on post offices, banks and building societies fell, following a recent downward trend (they now make up less than 5 percent of the total number of robberies involving firearms), although there was a slight increase in the number of offences on shops and garages (these make up 28 percent of the total). The weapons used in robberies were described as handguns in 70 percent of cases (but see below) and shotguns in five percent. Five percent were known to involve imitation guns.

Less than 3 percent of firearm crimes resulted in a serious or fatal injury. The number of homicides fell from 78 to 50 (the lowest recorded since 1998/99) and the number of injuries fell by 8 percent to 5409.

Crimes involving handguns increased to 4671 (up 7 percent) and those involving shotguns to 642 (up 7.5 percent). The majority of the handgun crimes (3628) are recorded as being committed with a weapon of “Type Unknown”, and so many of these offences could have involved imitation weapons. Handguns were less likely to be fired (fired in 14 percent of the offences) than shotguns (fired in 41 percent). Two percent of crimes involving shotguns and just under 0.5 percent of crimes involving handguns resulted in a fatal injury. Shotguns and handguns caused serious injury in 11 percent and 4 percent, respectively, of the crimes in which they were involved.

There was a welcome fall in the number of recorded offences involving imitation guns (down 3 percent to 3275 offences). However, there is certainly no room for complacency, especially given the uncertainties within the handgun data (see above). Imitation guns can cause injury and did so in 47 percent of the crimes (a total of 1535 injuries were recorded, 37 of these serious).

Offences involving airguns still make up the largest proportion of gun crime. There was a further fall to 10,347 crimes (a decrease of 12 percent), but this still represents nearly half of the total number and is unacceptably high. In the vast majority of incidents (92 percent) the weapons were fired, and although the proportion of these which resulted in injury is significantly lower than with other guns, airguns were responsible for a total of 1 fatality, 117 serious injuries (23 percent of the total number caused by all guns) and 1029 slight injuries (30 percent of the total).

Guns (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 percent of all recorded crimes. Britain does not suffer from the high levels of gun crime experienced by other countries with weaker gun laws, but more should be done, and we would urge the Government to continue to take every possible measure to ensure that guns of all types are never easy to obtain. Whilst tough penalties for those who commit gun crime are important, it would be far better for society and for the individual victims if the crimes were prevented by maintaining tough restrictions on the availability of guns.

[Nieninque]

If you double and then go down some you are still well above where you started.

You been taking lessons from Stanley?

[Drew]

I do have to say, I love the Brits, imitation firearm crimes. It's so quaint. I just spent 5 exciting minutes thinking about what would happen in the USA if someone robbed someplace with an "imitation firearm".

[Parkbandit]

Statistics can be used to defend any position on any debate.

[Latrinsorm]

The number of homicides fell from 78 to 50 (the lowest recorded since 1998/99)It's the lowest since the year AFTER the ban was introduced? Isn't the whole point that Drew was trying to make that post-ban numbers aren't better than pre-ban?
Statistics can be used to defend any position on any debate.What makes this even funnier (or more depressing) than it would normally be is your stance on reading books.

[Nieninque]

It's the lowest since the year AFTER the ban was introduced? Isn't the whole point that Drew was trying to make that post-ban numbers aren't better than pre-ban?

I'm, sure you are smart enough to realise that the numbers of people killed with guns make up a very small part of the amount of crimes committed under gun control laws.

[Latrinsorm]

It certainly is a small percentage, but isn't one of the crucial points of banning guns ensuring that people don't get shot to death (as much)? I do believe that violent crime rates are a better indication of success or failure than gun-related homocide rates or even gun crime rates, but this is still 50 people we're talking about. It wouldn't matter if there were 20 million gun crimes, 50 sons and daughters still died. Can we really tolerate legislation that puts people at greater risk like that? Like I've said to Ash in the past, it really seems like it would work a priori, but the numbers speak for themselves.

[Stanley Burrell]

It's all those goddam chavs trying to "get well Larry and pop caps in geezers."

[Nieninque]

It certainly is a small percentage, but isn't one of the crucial points of banning guns ensuring that people don't get shot to death (as much)? I do believe that violent crime rates are a better indication of success or failure than gun-related homocide rates or even gun crime rates, but this is still 50 people we're talking about. It wouldn't matter if there were 20 million gun crimes, 50 sons and daughters still died. Can we really tolerate legislation that puts people at greater risk like that? Like I've said to Ash in the past, it really seems like it would work a priori, but the numbers speak for themselves.

They certainly do. The number of guns involved in crimes have dropped.
50 people out of a country of 60 million dies last year due to guns. Yes that's terrible and it is 50 people too many, but around 30 people each year die from falling out of bed. 50 isnt a particularly huge number.

It would be a damn sight more than 50 if guns were readily available.

[Latrinsorm]

You can see the amount of gun homicides in England and Wales in the following document:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf
on page 81.

The average for 92-96 is 62, the average for 98-06 (including 50 for last year) is 70. (I left out 97 and 97/98 because I'm not sure exactly when the ban went into effect. Neither would change the values all that much anyway.) How can you say that guns not being available contributed in any way?

[Nieninque]

So, do you honestly think that if we reversed the ban on handguns, it would have no negative effect on the number of killings with guns?

I dont know how much it bears out, but it seems as though there is a rise in violent crime in the UK, particularly with knives - although that may just be the media jumping up and down about specific issues. If the number of crimes involving guns has dropped while the amount of firearms offences has risen, I would say that the ban on firearms is having a positive effect, although there is still a lot to be done.

[Sean of the Thread]

My guess is there would be more killings.... with the criminals being the ones often killed. Like it is here in the states.

The criminals can play gansta whilst holding their guns upside down like they see in the movies but most law abiding citizens that carry guns actually practice and know how to handle them properly.

[Latrinsorm]

So, do you honestly think that if we reversed the ban on handguns, it would have no negative effect on the number of killings with guns?I'm not convinced it had any effect whatsoever on gun homicides, but if anything it seems to have had a contributory effect on overall violent crime (which obviously was not the intent).

[Nieninque]

More killings is a bad thing in my eyes.

[Nieninque]

I'm not convinced it had any effect whatsoever on gun homicides, but if anything it seems to have had a contributory effect on overall violent crime (which obviously was not the intent).

And your evidence that the handgun ban caused an increase in overall violent crime (if there even is more overall violent crime) is...?

p.s. How about the fact that the amount of guns that people used in crimes has DROPPED?

Edited twice to correct the semantic point that a certain somebody pulled up.

[Bobmuhthol]

The amount of guns has dropped? How do you prove something like this when you can't keep a count on illegal firearms, since they're, you know, illegal?

[Nieninque]

Semantics Bob...you know what I meant.

OMG Hi!!!!1111

[Tsa`ah]

My guess is there would be more killings.... with the criminals being the ones often killed. Like it is here in the states.

The criminals can play gansta whilst holding their guns upside down like they see in the movies but most law abiding citizens that carry guns actually practice and know how to handle them properly.

Hahaha .... the criminals getting killed more? What's your reference?

I'm all for enforcing the laws and against any sort of gun ban, but please ... don't pull a moronic statement from your ass and expect everyone to buy it.

I'll have to dig it up, but there was a study performed on states that allowed for concealed firearm permits. The most interesting thing noted was that there was negligible impact on gun crime. Meaning, very few people with permits to carry concealed were involved (on either end) in a gun crime of any sort. Meaning they neither committed nor defended against.

Nearly every study I've read or listened to in some fashion has indicated that legal gun owners are so unlikely to commit a crime with their fire arm, or defend against it ... that either side tends to twist statistics or showcase the rare story in order to give their argument merit.

Law abiding gun owners are not the problem, nor have they ever been.

[Latrinsorm]

More killings is a bad thing in my eyes.From the same document as cited above, (and using the same time periods) the averages for pre-ban and post-ban homicide rates (per million) are 12 to 15, respectively. In terms of raw numbers it's 702 to 851. The post-ban period does not have less killings by any measure; it could still be the case that the ban has had some preventative effect, but without describing the cloaking factor involved it's hard to take such claims seriously.
And your evidence that the handgun ban caused an increase in overall violent crime (if there even is more overall violent crime) is...?That should have said "violent death". Sorry!
How about the fact that the amount of guns available for people to use in crimes has DROPPED?I don't have any information on that. Perhaps you could give us a reference?

[Nieninque]

Read this thread.

[Latrinsorm]

In response to the clarification, the graph on page 73 is pretty clear. Further, the graph at the bottom of page 77 shows how violent gun crime was pretty stable from 92-97 and has been going up ever since (which is awfully alarming).

[Tsa`ah]

Maybe you should take her advice and read the thread.

Crime involving fake guns, I believe, are clasified as violent gun crime.

[Sean of the Thread]

Hahaha .... the criminals getting killed more? What's your reference?

I'm all for enforcing the laws and against any sort of gun ban, but please ... don't pull a moronic statement from your ass and expect everyone to buy it.

I'll have to dig it up, but there was a study performed on states that allowed for concealed firearm permits. The most interesting thing noted was that there was negligible impact on gun crime. Meaning, very few people with permits to carry concealed were involved (on either end) in a gun crime of any sort. Meaning they neither committed nor defended against.

Nearly every study I've read or listened to in some fashion has indicated that legal gun owners are so unlikely to commit a crime with their fire arm, or defend against it ... that either side tends to twist statistics or showcase the rare story in order to give their argument merit.

Law abiding gun owners are not the problem, nor have they ever been.

Idiotic post overall but that goes without saying. Nobody gives a royal fuck what you've read or listened to.. you might have just finished mary fucking poppings and it has no relevance on anything nor would we give a shit.



In fact there are communities that REQUIRE firearms and the rate of crime is nearly zero. Go figure.

[Nieninque]

Maybe you should take her advice and read the thread.

Crime involving fake guns, I believe, are clasified as violent gun crime.

Absolutely.
Pretending you have a gun whilst committing a robbery constitutes a gun crime.
Thus, the rise in gun crime is not necessarily (so says the Chief Constable of Merseyside) reflective of an increase in the number of guns on the streets...in fact, Police sources are saying the number of guns recorded in crime is lower.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, Nieninque. Gun crime is up (compared to the pre-ban period), violent gun crime is up, gun homicides are up. The only other numbers cited in this thread (besides the Home Office's) are from a newspaper and the Gun Control Network. The GCN doesn't mention the pre-ban period at all and the Times only does so rhetorically.

[Nieninque]

All the numbers in this thread are coming from the same report.

Gun crime is up. That much I agree with. There are less guns involved in crimes. There are more crimes recorded as gun crimes.

That sums it up really. I dont really think anyone but you is making an issue of anything, but then that's often how it works out, right?

[Latrinsorm]

I need to start posting faster.
Absolutely.
Pretending you have a gun whilst committing a robbery constitutes a gun crime.
Thus, the rise in gun crime is not necessarily (so says the Chief Constable of Merseyside) reflective of an increase in the number of guns on the streets...in fact, Police sources are saying the number of guns recorded in crime is lower.This is what I'm talking about. Saying "lower" doesn't mean anything. I'm glad the rates are lower than last year, don't get me wrong, but the ban didn't go into place last year. The only sensible way to evaluate the ban is to compare the periods before and after the ban.

Also, there's no need to suppose how many fake guns are being used: this information is available in the .pdf. At most, the number is 43%, and violent gun crime has increased by more than 1/.43.

[Latrinsorm]

That sums it up really. I dont really think anyone but you is making an issue of anything, but then that's often how it works out, right?Refresh my memory, who posted this: "More killings is a bad thing in my eyes."
"It would be a damn sight more than 50 if guns were readily available."

That's rhetorical, of course, obviously you posted it. Your first statement makes no sense in support of a gun ban, and the second is speculation challenged by the data.

You also keep saying "The number of guns involved in crimes have dropped.". What do you have to support this claim?

[Nieninque]

Refresh my memory, who posted this: "More killings is a bad thing in my eyes."

Me. Obviously, your ego-centric view of the world will inform you that it was as a result of your post, however, just for once, I chose to ignore your spiritual enlightenedness and reply to someone else.

Sean2 posted: "My guess is there would be more killings" to which I replied that more killing is a bad thing.


"It would be a damn sight more than 50 if guns were readily available."

And I stand by that. If more people are able to get their hands on guns, there will be more opportunities for those guns to be misused. Common sense really.


That's rhetorical, of course, obviously you posted it. Your first statement makes no sense in support of a gun ban, and the second is speculation challenged by the data.

What data? How do you test that out? You cant use numbers from ten years ago and now and say "Look, there is only one thing that has changed in that last ten years, so that must be the reason/failing/whatthefuckever!"

But sure, it's speculation in as much as your statements that the gun ban did nothing to prevent gun crime has done.


You also keep saying "The number of guns involved in crimes have dropped.". What do you have to support this claim?

Read the fucking report. Read the article by the GCN. Read the part where it says that the majority of handguns are recorded as "type unknown" which indicates that they are highly likely to be replica weapons. As has been said ad nauseum in this thread, if you rob a bank with a stick in your pocket and tell the cashier that it is a sawn-off shotgun, you will end up having your collar felt for armed robbery. It gets recorded as a gun crime even though there was no gun in sight.

[Tsa`ah]

Idiotic post overall but that goes without saying. Nobody gives a royal fuck what you've read or listened too.. you could have just finished mary fucking poppings and it has no relevance on anything.



In fact there are communities that REQUIRE firearms and the rate of crime is nearly zero. Go figure.

And we have a classic demonstration of the synaptically impaired pulling bullshit from his ass.

Perhaps you should read what I posted ... perhaps you would have understood the point of legal ownership has very little impact on gun crime on either end of the spectrum.

Your "communities" that require gun ownership had almost no crime to begin with. If you have 5 crimes a year and then an ordinance is passed requiring each home to have a gun ... and crime drops to 3 a year ... that's a hell of a percentage drop, but it is a statistic that could be attributed to anything. Anything like say ... neighborhood watch, the police doing their jobs ... anything. It would be a big deal if all 5 crimes were breaking and entering, home invasion, robbery ... but this is rarely the case in such communities before or after an ordinance is passed.

Perhaps what we have here is a case of "Fucktard" not caring because I use too many big words and they hurt your head. Go fondle a wobbly wobbly double chin or something.

[Parkbandit]

What makes this even funnier (or more depressing) than it would normally be is your stance on reading books.

Really? I find you almost border line retarded, yet you read books. You are unable to communicate effectively on a simple forum, yet you read books.

Weird.

[Sean of the Thread]

And we have a classic demonstration of the synaptically impaired pulling bullshit from his ass.

Perhaps you should read what I posted ... perhaps you would have understood the point of legal ownership has very little impact on gun crime on either end of the spectrum.

Your "communities" that require gun ownership had almost no crime to begin with. If you have 5 crimes a year and then an ordinance is passed requiring each home to have a gun ... and crime drops to 3 a year ... that's a hell of a percentage drop, but it is a statistic that could be attributed to anything. Anything like say ... neighborhood watch, the police doing their jobs ... anything. It would be a big deal if all 5 crimes were breaking and entering, home invasion, robbery ... but this is rarely the case in such communities before or after an ordinance is passed.

Perhaps what we have here is a case of "Fucktard" not caring because I use too many big words and they hurt your head. Go fondle a wobbly wobbly double chin or something.

Nothing left to say except..

Idiot

Get a grip man you don't know it all. You're not impressive. You're intelligence is questionable. You resort to lame attacks that lack wit at the very least because you have nothing else to put up in your defense. At least make an effort to be witty.. otherwise you're very very boring. Sadly with each attempt you just come as a little more stupid. I like the people I pwn to be at least to be of a respectable capacity... nobody likes to beat up a retard.

Go tend to your continental breakfast and make a real difference in this world.

[Tsa`ah]

Nothing left to say except..

Idiot

Get a grip man you don't know it all. You're not impressive. You're intelligence is questionable. You resort to lame attacks that lack wit at the very least because you have nothing else to put up in your defense. At least make an effort to be witty.. otherwise you're very very boring.

Coming from you, this isn't saying much. You have two damaged brain cells fighting for superiority over a shit hole.

Geuda Springs is a community of 50 homes and a paved road. They passed an ordinance requiring the head of each household to own a gun (I'm willing to bet almost all of them did anyway). Their violent crime rating is 1 on a scale of 10. Guess what ... Geuda Springs has had almost no violent crime in it's entire history. It's property crime rating is 2 out of 10. Someone is more likely to violate your mailbox than anything. In fact, you're more likely to die in a tornado than be the victim of a violent crime at any point in the town's history.

If your example is Kennesaw GA, well this is a classic example of skewed numbers. Their ordinance was passed in 1982 when the town's population was around 5,000. The town has grown since ... and the people moving in are not those that commit crimes. You can say "guns reduce crime" in this case, but it's simply not true.

The legal gun ownership in either town has neither incited nor deterred crime.

[Sean of the Thread]

A fact is a fact when we're talking about statistics. Unless you have a new definition for fact that us non know it alls don't.

[Tsa`ah]

You are truely a moron.

If in a community of 5,000 there is a "violent gum crime" resulting in a death, that has impact on the crime rate in that specific category. Since it's boring to say in 1987 we had a shooting, but we had nothing before or since ... statistically you'll use cross sections in increments of 5-10 years.

Yes, a fact is a fact, but when you use a fact as an example in a straw argument ... that fact really doesn't mean anything and it's only use is to obscure reality.

Making gun ownership mandatory has caused the crime rate to plummet. Well no, you didn't have a crime rate comparable to a town 5x your size to begin with. In fact, crime was already non-existent. No real burglaries, no real vandalism ... in fact what you had was Bubba Joe getting in to the wrong car one night after one too many, you left the keys in, he drove home ... you called Sheriff Bob and he filed the report. Bubba Joe knocked on your door that morning apologizing for taking your car. The vandalism ... well every year at Halloween the local kids kind of go nuts and steal every jack-o-lantern in town (not hard since "town" consists of 20 blocks), and they completely cover the downtown area with smashed pumpkins (also not hard because downtown is one road of one block with a few shops on either side of the street).

You can use statistics to point to anything, but when you look at the reality ... as I've said ... legal gun ownership has almost no impact on violent gun crime or any other crime. It doesn't deter and it doesn't incite. There aren't any real statistics that back up your claim or anyone one else's to the contrary. We have the occasional story one way or the other, but these are rarities and don't really reflect anything.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yes, a fact is a fact.

I'll quote the important part of your post.



Making gun ownership mandatory has caused the crime rate to plummet. Well no,
Oddly I never said any such thing. Your comprehension levels are lacking.


Only a complete idiot would say legal gun ownership doesn't deter crime? That's the point of a gun.. good or bad.. is to deter or cease threat from another. Good thing our nation's law enforcement doesn't carry firearms.

Rofl.


Seriously.. head back to the breakfast bar where you can actually contribute to something. (refilling the syrup perhaps.)

[Tsa`ah]

Show me, outside of the rare story you hear second - tenth hand, actual statistics where legal gun ownership has had a real impact on deterring crime.

And the military or police do not count.

[Parkbandit]

A fact is a fact when we're talking about statistics. Unless you have a new definition for fact that us non know it alls don't.

Drawing one conclusion via one statistic is at best, a guess. Many times, that statistic has zero to do with the actual conclusion it was based upon.

Take healthcare. I've heard "OMG! CANADA HAS SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE AND THEY LIVE LONGER!!!" Actually, if you take out murders and vehicle accidents out of the equation.. something that socialized healthcare has nothing to do with.. the US is in the top 3. Yet, we still draw the conclusion that socialized healthcare automatically equals better heathcare which means longer life.

If that were the case, we would all simply move to Hawaii, which has the highest life expectancy in the country. Weird, they don't have socialized healthcare... they have the same healthcare as Mississippi, who ranks the lowest.

[Parkbandit]

Show me, outside of the rare story you hear second - tenth hand, actual statistics where legal gun ownership has had a real impact on deterring crime.

And the military or police do not count.


Show me where banning guns stops crime. See above example before you spout something stupid though.

[Sean of the Thread]

Drawing one conclusion via one statistic is at best, a guess. Many times, that statistic has zero to do with the actual conclusion it was based upon.

Take healthcare. I've heard "OMG! CANADA HAS SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE AND THEY LIVE LONGER!!!" Actually, if you take out murders and vehicle accidents out of the equation.. something that socialized healthcare has nothing to do with.. the US is in the top 3. Yet, we still draw the conclusion that socialized healthcare automatically equals better heathcare which means longer life.

If that were the case, we would all simply move to Hawaii, which has the highest life expectancy in the country. Weird, they don't have socialized healthcare... they have the same healthcare as Mississippi, who ranks the lowest.

Of course. I only stated that it was a FACT that were instances where the statistics supported it.

[Latrinsorm]

Obviously, your ego-centric view of the world will inform you that it was as a result of your post, however, just for once, I chose to ignore your spiritual enlightenedness and reply to someone else.
Oh no, far from it. My point in reposting that was that there was much more going on in this thread than # of guns on the streets and pretense.
And I stand by that. If more people are able to get their hands on guns, there will be more opportunities for those guns to be misused. Common sense really.Common sense doesn't (or shouldn't) have any standing in the face of empirical data.
But sure, it's speculation in as much as your statements that the gun ban did nothing to prevent gun crime has done.Again, I didn't say it did nothing. I said I wasn't convinced and even that it still could have had a preventative effect. To quote from that second point at greater length: "it could still be the case that the ban has had some preventative effect, but without describing the cloaking factor involved it's hard to take such claims seriously." To make rhetorical reference to other things changing is meaningless. The facts are that gun homicides have not gone down, murder rates have not gone down, and violent gun crime rates have not gone down. What are the other factors involved that overwhelm the gun ban's influence? You've made a proposition about violent crime that I'll address in a bit, what about the other two?
Read the part where it says that the majority of handguns are recorded as "type unknown" which indicates that they are highly likely to be replica weapons.Saying that the type unknowns are "highly likely" to be replica weapons is specluation uncorroborated by the report.

[Tsa`ah]

Show me where banning guns stops crime. See above example before you spout something stupid though.

I think you should re-read my posts on the subject ... even those outside of this thread.

Banning guns isn't the answer, nor have I ever advocated such a thing. My point was that legal gun ownership has almost no impact on crime. The few small towns that have passed ordinances requiring citizens, or at least the head of each household, to own a gun ... well they had virtually no crime to begin with. They can point out that statistically crime has fallen as they have grown, but tell me what happens to a statistic where one figure is virtually unchanged while the other grows. This has nothing to do with required gun ownership, rather the influx of people not being prone to committing crime.

How often do you hear about someone preventing a crime with a gun they legally own? How often do you hear about someone committing a crime with a gun they legally own? Statistically it's a wash and either figure is pretty damn low. I'm willing to bet that more people prevent crimes without a gun than there are crimes prevented by the common Joe with a gun.

People in this nation have the right to own fire arms and no one should be left without that right unless they have proved themselves unworthy of it. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there is all this violent crime being prevented by gun owners ... because there isn't. Just like there isn't much gun related crime perpetrated by legal gun owners.

However, the thought that everyone should be required to own (and have readily accessible) fire arms is pretty fucking scary ... I don't trust half the people on the road and someone expects me to trust a twitchy small store owner who thinks everyone is out to rob him?

[Mosquito]

What about gun crimes per capita? Surely England has less than America.

What about weapon sales? Surely England has less than America.

[Latrinsorm]

What about gun crimes per capita? Surely England has less than America.Yes; about one third as much (21521/53390300 for England and Wales to 368178/296410404 for America). As Nieninque would say, however, "You cant use numbers from ten years ago and now and say "Look, there is only one thing that has changed in that last ten years, so that must be the reason/failing/whatthefuckever!"" In this case, there are quite a few more differences between England and America than a gun ban. It's entirely possible that a gun ban in America would actually reduce all the crimes that it failed to in England.
What about weapon sales? Surely England has less than America.One would hope that the country where guns are illegal wouldn't have very many (legal) weapon sales. :)

[Fallen]

People in this nation have the right to own fire arms and no one should be left without that right unless they have proved themselves unworthy of it.

This just about sums up my thoughts on the whole debate. I couldn't imagine living in a country where this isn't true.

[Nieninque]

Saying that the type unknowns are "highly likely" to be replica weapons is specluation uncorroborated by the report.

It isnt uncorroborated.
This is not the first time the Government has released such figures. They are not a great deal dissimilar to the year before or to the provisional figures they released earlier in the year. In those reports, they listed in excess of 3k replica guns being used in firearms offences.

I'm bored of this now. Go make some more personal ads please.

[Latrinsorm]

This is not the first time the Government has released such figures. They are not a great deal dissimilar to the year before or to the provisional figures they released earlier in the year. In those reports, they listed in excess of 3k replica guns being used in firearms offences.You're conflating two different claims here: the first was that the majority of type unknown handguns were in fact imitation handguns, the second (in the post I'm quoting now) that there were 3k+ firearm crimes involving imitation firearms. The second is stated explicitly in the report; the first is speculation on the part of the GCN (to quote, "could have"). There is nothing in the report that even suggests a percentage for imitation handguns in the type unknown field. I have no doubt that (the logician's) some were, but to claim "most" or "highly likely" without something more than your vaunted "common sense" is simply baseless.

[Drew]

What about gun crimes per capita? Surely England has less than America.



Gun crime in America has always been about 6 times higher than England. This number has been stretches back 250 years, the earliest we have data for New York/London. Even when both countries had essentially the exact same weapons laws they were 6 times higher in America. The rate stayed steady for 235 years but in the last 15 England has moved within 3-1. At the current rate they'll pass us in 2022. Go England, woo!

[Atlanteax]

Gun Laws should be as simple as this:

AK-47s (and the like) = Illegal
Handguns & Rifles = Legal

[Gan]

Gun Laws should be as simple as this:

AK-47s (and the like) = Illegal
Handguns & Rifles = Legal

However, you have some people who classify an AK-47 a rifle, which it rightfully is when you base gun categories on mechanics. It has a bore and a long barrel.

I would go a step more specific and say any automatic rifle or semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity over 7 rounds.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Disarming your populace is a step backwards, rather than it being the sign of an enlightened government/population.

I heard England is enacting a law that will outlaw swords unless you are a nobleman. :D

[Drew]

Gun Laws should be as simple as this:

AK-47s (and the like) = Illegal
Handguns & Rifles = Legal


Yeah I think you mean no fully auto weapons.

[Warriorbird]

Pff. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to have a Steyr AUG if I want one.

[Clove]

Gun crime in America has always been about 6 times higher than England. This number has been stretches back 250 years, the earliest we have data for New York/London. Even when both countries had essentially the exact same weapons laws they were 6 times higher in America. The rate stayed steady for 235 years but in the last 15 England has moved within 3-1. At the current rate they'll pass us in 2022. Go England, woo!

Holy crap, Drew IS taking lessons from Stanley.

[Drew]

Honestly, I can take most insults, but that's just cruel.

[Clove]

Honestly, I can take most insults, but that's just cruel.

I'm sorry... you're right.

[Sean of the Thread]

Pff. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to have a Steyr AUG if I want one.

You couldn't afford one.

That aside you can buy legal semi-auto versions if you so desire to waste the cash.

[Clove]

What about weapon sales? Surely England has less than America.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Asha]

Over a counter, no.
Otherwise, probably not too different in comparable ratio.

[Warriorbird]

You couldn't afford one.
-Sean2 referring to my desire to have a gun like my cousin's

Pff. It'd be significant but they're about a fifth of the cost of my car.

[Sean of the Thread]

So. Community college law school ain't cheeeep especially when you're not allowed by law to work. rofl.

[Warriorbird]

My admittedly low second-tier college is completely paid for. Has some benefits.

:)

Though...getting the urge to make stock trades in class is bad for my study habits.

None the less...if somebody wants an awesome weapon, they should be able to get one...no matter the country. Britain has some stupendous hunting and crazy ass criminals.