Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled after
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

Post by The Enlightenment
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton..

..a law-abiding Brit gun-owner who went nuts following rumours that
he was a child molestor, took his legally owned handguns and..

.. walked into an elementary school in

Post by The Enlightenment
Dunblane,
Scotland, with three pistols and shot dead 16 young children and one
of their
teachers.

Quite. Since then we've had no repetition of the event, save one
mentally ill individual in Wolverhampton who worshipped Hamilton's
notoriety. Having failed to obtain a gun due to Britain's new laws
he had to make do with a machete and was wrestled to the ground
after injuring a teacher and 3 children. Just as well he didn't
have a gun or it would have been much worse.

So. All in all, the handgun bans worked pretty well. There's been
no repetition of Dunblane - or Hungerford, another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which is
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

[Lots of dull, meaningless numbers]

Anubis

2004-05-25 13:35:37 UTC

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:41:50 +0100, T N Nurse

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled after
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

I agree! You can't let law-abiding British citizens have guns or else
they will become criminals.

If Britain put as much effort into penis control as it puts into gun
control, most of its problems would be solved.

The Enlightenment

2004-05-25 13:44:32 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:41:50 +0100, T N Nurse

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled after
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

I agree! You can't let law-abiding British citizens have guns or else
they will become criminals.
If Britain put as much effort into penis control as it puts into gun
control, most of its problems would be solved.

If penises were detachable NuLabour would make them illegal to stop
rape.

IanAl

2004-05-25 15:57:48 UTC

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:44:32 GMT, "The Enlightenment"

Post by Anubis
If Britain put as much effort into penis control as it puts into gun
control, most of its problems would be solved.

If penises were detachable NuLabour would make them illegal to stop
rape.

They are detachable with the appropriate implements.

Anubis

2004-05-25 17:05:00 UTC

Post by IanAl

Post by Anubis
If Britain put as much effort into penis control as it puts into gun
control, most of its problems would be solved.

If penises were detachable NuLabour would make them illegal to stop
rape.

They are detachable with the appropriate implements.

I can just see it now: The Penis Control Police raiding citizens'
homes to see if everyone's penis is locked up in an approved Penis
Safe.

The only place where citizens can fornicate is a state-approved
"copulation range", membership to which requires a license and
background check.

Of course poofs would be exempt, since the govt wouldn't want to
inconvenience its special interest masters and MPs.

The Enlightenment

2004-05-25 13:56:39 UTC

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled after
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

LOL! Do you realise how rediculouse you sound.

So far we have an inverse relationship: more gun control producing a
massive increase in gun crime (doubling) presumably as criminals are
utterly convinced that they will not be confronted by an armed
victim.

Crime has increased 10 fold since the 1950s.

However it is interesting. Clearly with twice as many long barreled
guns and 4 gun related killings per year in 1954 to hundreds in 2003
and essentialy zero handguns we must being experiencing moral
degeneracy by your own arguments. You yourself are claiming that as
gun crime went from 13,000 to 24,000 when gun laws came in that they
would have been astronomically higher without them?

I most certainly would attribute this with the ascendancy of
ethno-socialism and other forms of marxism, culural relativism and
other left wing ideas which have roted the morality of the indivudual.

Post by The Enlightenment
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton..

..a law-abiding Brit gun-owner who went nuts following rumours that
he was a child molestor, took his legally owned handguns and..
.. walked into an elementary school in

Post by The Enlightenment
Dunblane,
Scotland, with three pistols and shot dead 16 young children and one
of their
teachers.

Quite. Since then we've had no repetition of the event, save one
mentally ill individual in Wolverhampton who worshipped Hamilton's
notoriety. Having failed to obtain a gun due to Britain's new laws

He would have failed to have obtained a weapon under the tightened up
gun laws that were recomended but in fact displaced by the new
draconian gun laws.

Post by T N Nurse
he had to make do with a machete and was wrestled to the ground
after injuring a teacher and 3 children. Just as well he didn't
have a gun or it would have been much worse.
So. All in all, the handgun bans worked pretty well.

How can you say that in the face of a dobling in gun crime? I'll
tell you. By igoring reality. Politicaly correctness and reality
denial go hand in hand.

Is their a massive increase in gun crime in heavily armed countries
such as Switzeraland and Austria?

There's been

Post by T N Nurse
no repetition of Dunblane - or Hungerford, another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which is
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

On aerage we get a dunblane or hungerford well, 2 every 200 years?

You can;t prove the rule with the exceptions. Gun crime is up and gun
deathes are up.

Whatever is causing the increase in gun crime is not the presence of
guns, there are less. There is some other cause.

Post by T N Nurse
[Lots of dull, meaningless numbers]

Chris S

2004-05-25 14:55:28 UTC

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled

after

Post by The Enlightenment
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

Your ridiculous.
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-25 15:08:59 UTC

Post by Chris S
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

Obviously criminals are arming themselves to defend themselves against other
criminals.

The point about gun control is that it is pretty irrelevant to the rate of
illegal firearms usage. Illegal firearms usage would have gone up whether
or not target pistol shooting had been banned.

Chris S

2004-05-25 15:16:23 UTC

Post by Chris S
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

Obviously criminals are arming themselves to defend themselves against other
criminals.
The point about gun control is that it is pretty irrelevant to the rate of
illegal firearms usage. Illegal firearms usage would have gone up whether
or not target pistol shooting had been banned.

That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been stopped
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save ourselves
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have a
base.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-25 15:36:20 UTC

Post by Chris S
That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been stopped
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save ourselves
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have a
base.

I was totally opposed to the 'handgun ban' and would fully support a
restoration of target pistol shooting. Unfortunately many of the people who
argue for a relaxation of the law, argue from the position that the handgun
ban caused the massive growth in gun crime. That growth in gun crime well
demonstates the futility of clamping down on lawful gun owners but the
evidence does not support the idea that it was caused by gun control.

Chris S

2004-05-25 18:56:15 UTC

Post by Chris S
That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been

stopped

Post by Chris S
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save

ourselves

Post by Chris S
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have a
base.

I am of the position that the fewer the guns there are the less likely your
going to events such as previous happening
I don't agree that the gun clampdown is futile, only way that this can be
said to be so is if you believe that gun control increases gun crime, and
you don't believe that.

Stephen Glynn

2004-05-25 23:29:56 UTC

Post by Chris S
That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been

stopped

Post by Chris S
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save

ourselves

Post by Chris S
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have a
base.

I was totally opposed to the 'handgun ban' and would fully support a
restoration of target pistol shooting. Unfortunately many of the people

who

Post by Chris S
argue for a relaxation of the law, argue from the position that the

handgun

Post by Chris S
ban caused the massive growth in gun crime. That growth in gun crime well
demonstates the futility of clamping down on lawful gun owners but the
evidence does not support the idea that it was caused by gun control.

No, what he's saying is that banning handguns is futile as a means of
reducing gun crime because it has no effect one way or the other. He's
also said that gun control can't possibly be said to decrease gun crime
because gun crime has gone up since the total ban on handguns was
introduced. He didn't say that the ban caused the rise in crime, just
that self-evidently it failed to prevent it.

Steve

Chris S

2004-05-26 14:53:48 UTC

Post by Chris S
That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been

stopped

Post by Chris S
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save

ourselves

Post by Chris S
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have a
base.

I was totally opposed to the 'handgun ban' and would fully support a
restoration of target pistol shooting. Unfortunately many of the people

who

Post by Chris S
argue for a relaxation of the law, argue from the position that the

handgun

No, what he's saying is that banning handguns is futile as a means of
reducing gun crime because it has no effect one way or the other.

You can't say if it hasn't had an effect for.
The argument that it hasn't is that gun crime has gone up, but here he
disagrees with it, so to conclude that it hasn't is going to be very hard
for you.

Post by Stephen Glynn
He's
also said that gun control can't possibly be said to decrease gun crime
because gun crime has gone up since the total ban on handguns was
introduced.

But yet he also says that the evidence does not support that the rise is
down to gun control

Post by Stephen Glynn
He didn't say that the ban caused the rise in crime, just
that self-evidently it failed to prevent it.

He plainly says the evidence does not support the rise is down to gun
control.

It is going to be obvious that you can't prove something that didn't happen,
if a ban prevented a massacre your not going be able to prove this.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 15:58:55 UTC

Post by Chris S
It is going to be obvious that you can't prove something that didn't happen,

Of course not. But that is precisely the argument that is used by pro
handgun ban people. Someone in this thread has said that the 'handgun ban'
has been successful because there hasn't been a massacre in the last seven
years. It is demonstratbly the case that the risk of a maniac going beserk
with a gun is just as high today as it was seven years ago. And that risk
was always pretty low. The number of people killed or injured by legal
handguns was always statistically insignificant when set against the death
toll associated with illegal guns. The only thing that the ban has achieved
is that the maniac won't in future have a licensed handgun. But that
doesn't affect the actual risk of being killed by the maniac. An illegal
handgun will kill you just as assuredly as a legal one.

Post by Chris S
if a ban prevented a massacre your not going be able to prove this.

Yet pro handgun ban people continue to assert that you can.

Chris S

2004-05-26 16:59:52 UTC

Post by Chris S
It is going to be obvious that you can't prove something that didn't

happen,
Of course not. But that is precisely the argument that is used by pro
handgun ban people.

If you go on the line that this thread was initiated on your likely to get
similar replies.

Post by Chris S
Someone in this thread has said that the 'handgun ban'
has been successful because there hasn't been a massacre in the last seven
years.

I suggest you argue back with them, but it is circumstantial evidence, and
something far more substantial than what any pro gun people have sourced.

Post by Chris S
if a ban prevented a massacre your not going be able to prove this.

Yet pro handgun ban people continue to assert that you can.

Prove, no.
Yet the fact is there has been non.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 17:12:47 UTC

Post by Chris S
It is going to be obvious that you can't prove something that didn't

happen,
Of course not. But that is precisely the argument that is used by pro
handgun ban people.

If you go on the line that this thread was initiated on your likely to get
similar replies.

I didn't start the thread and I don't support the position that the OP took.
As I have said.

Post by Chris S
Someone in this thread has said that the 'handgun ban'
has been successful because there hasn't been a massacre in the last seven
years.

I suggest you argue back with them,

I already have. I am talking to you now.

Post by Chris S
but it is circumstantial evidence, and
something far more substantial than what any pro gun people have sourced.

It is not 'evidence' at all, circumstantial or otherwise. It is simply
citing two facts and then asserting that a relationship exists between them.

Post by Chris S
if a ban prevented a massacre your not going be able to prove this.

Yet pro handgun ban people continue to assert that you can.

Prove, no.
Yet the fact is there has been non.

And it is a fact that I ate a slice of soda bread this morning. That fact
is no more relevant to the case of the effectiveness of handgun ban than the
fact you cite.

Chris S

2004-05-26 17:24:38 UTC

Post by Chris S
It is going to be obvious that you can't prove something that didn't

happen,
Of course not. But that is precisely the argument that is used by pro
handgun ban people.

If you go on the line that this thread was initiated on your likely to get
similar replies.

I didn't start the thread and I don't support the position that the OP took.
As I have said.

So we agree that the rise in gun crime says nothing about the gun ban?

Post by Chris S
Someone in this thread has said that the 'handgun ban'
has been successful because there hasn't been a massacre in the last

seven

Post by Chris S
years.

I suggest you argue back with them,

I already have. I am talking to you now.

If that is their argument I suggest you argue with them not myself.

Post by Chris S
but it is circumstantial evidence, and
something far more substantial than what any pro gun people have sourced.

It is not 'evidence' at all, circumstantial or otherwise. It is simply
citing two facts and then asserting that a relationship exists between them.

Okay, we will have an argument about what circumstantial means, but the
version I have read from the Cambridge suggests that it contains information
which makes you think something to be true yet doesn't prove it.
In that way it is correct.
I wait your spin on what it means along with your source.

Post by Chris S
if a ban prevented a massacre your not going be able to prove this.

Yet pro handgun ban people continue to assert that you can.

Prove, no.
Yet the fact is there has been non.

And it is a fact that I ate a slice of soda bread this morning. That fact
is no more relevant to the case of the effectiveness of handgun ban than the
fact you cite.

If you think it isn't relevant then say what is as opposed to criticising
from the keyboard.
On a side point, I wasn't aware that the gun ban was to prevent soda bread,
whatever that thing is, from being ate.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 17:42:06 UTC

Post by Chris S
If you think it isn't relevant then say what is as opposed to criticising
from the keyboard.

I already have but I'll repeat it. In the 67 years between 1920 and 1987
there were no mass killings perpertrated with lawfully owned firearms yet
handguns were availabled to authorised private citizens. Then in the space
of 8 years there were two mass killings. Atypical events as unlikely as the
case of a the guy falling asleep at the wheel of his landrover and causing
the crash of a train. It's just as plausible that there might be no further
such killings in the next 67 years if handguns hadn't been banned.

But you might say, there still the possiblity that it *might* happen in the
future and that is just not acceptable. The only answer to that opinion is
to say it might just happen anyway and the risk of its happening in the
future has not been lessened by the handgun ban.

Chris S

2004-05-26 18:04:53 UTC

Post by Chris S
If you think it isn't relevant then say what is as opposed to criticising
from the keyboard.

I already have but I'll repeat it. In the 67 years between 1920 and 1987
there were no mass killings perpertrated with lawfully owned firearms yet
handguns were availabled to authorised private citizens. Then in the space
of 8 years there were two mass killings. Atypical events as unlikely as the
case of a the guy falling asleep at the wheel of his landrover and causing
the crash of a train. It's just as plausible that there might be no further
such killings in the next 67 years if handguns hadn't been banned.
But you might say, there still the possiblity that it *might* happen in the
future and that is just not acceptable. The only answer to that opinion is
to say it might just happen anyway and the risk of its happening in the
future has not been lessened by the handgun ban.

I would like to know the figures between the dates you list, the numbers of
guns in use, the availability It could that suggest that the issue of
availability is a problem and culture of use.

Stephen Glynn

2004-05-26 17:07:59 UTC

Post by Chris S
That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been

stopped

Post by Chris S
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save

ourselves

Post by Chris S
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have

Post by Chris S
base.

I was totally opposed to the 'handgun ban' and would fully support a
restoration of target pistol shooting. Unfortunately many of the people

who

Post by Chris S
argue for a relaxation of the law, argue from the position that the

handgun

Post by Chris S
ban caused the massive growth in gun crime. That growth in gun crime

well

Post by Chris S
demonstates the futility of clamping down on lawful gun owners but the
evidence does not support the idea that it was caused by gun control.

I am of the position that the fewer the guns there are the less likely

your

Post by The Enlightenment
going to events such as previous happening
I don't agree that the gun clampdown is futile, only way that this can

Post by The Enlightenment
said to be so is if you believe that gun control increases gun crime,

and

Post by The Enlightenment
you don't believe that.

No, what he's saying is that banning handguns is futile as a means of
reducing gun crime because it has no effect one way or the other.

You can't say if it hasn't had an effect for.
The argument that it hasn't is that gun crime has gone up, but here he
disagrees with it, so to conclude that it hasn't is going to be very hard
for you.

I don't quite follow what you're trying to say here. What I'm saying,
as I think is Harry, is that gun control and rates of gun crime are
coincidental. I, as I think would Harry, say that both that the
argument "gun crime has gone up since the outlawing of handguns (which
it has) so the rise must be caused by the outlawing of handguns" is
fatuous since the handguns that were outlawed were the ones held
perfectly legally in pistol clubs and were not, therefore, readily
available to fend off muggers, burglars and so forth.

I would also say that outlawing handguns is a pretty futile way of
preventing crime involving guns since if someone has a mind to commit a
crime using a gun he either buys an illegal one for a couple of hundred
pounds, which is what people did before the ban, or possibly buys a
shotgun and saws it off, which was illegal anyway.

Steve

Post by Stephen Glynn
He's
also said that gun control can't possibly be said to decrease gun crime
because gun crime has gone up since the total ban on handguns was
introduced.

But yet he also says that the evidence does not support that the rise is
down to gun control

Post by Stephen Glynn
He didn't say that the ban caused the rise in crime, just
that self-evidently it failed to prevent it.

He plainly says the evidence does not support the rise is down to gun
control.
It is going to be obvious that you can't prove something that didn't happen,
if a ban prevented a massacre your not going be able to prove this.

Chris S

2004-05-26 17:16:29 UTC

Post by Chris S
That's correct, most of the gun crime is between other criminals.
To say that gun crime has gone up "because" legal ownership has been

stopped

Post by Chris S
is frankly making a huge assumptions using raw figures.
Like I posted, we don't have a culture of using hand guns to save

ourselves

Post by Chris S
from criminals which would have to be true if his argument was to have

Post by Chris S
base.

I was totally opposed to the 'handgun ban' and would fully support a
restoration of target pistol shooting. Unfortunately many of the people

who

Post by Chris S
argue for a relaxation of the law, argue from the position that the

handgun

Post by Chris S
ban caused the massive growth in gun crime. That growth in gun crime

well

Post by Chris S
demonstates the futility of clamping down on lawful gun owners but the
evidence does not support the idea that it was caused by gun control.

I am of the position that the fewer the guns there are the less likely

your

Post by The Enlightenment
going to events such as previous happening
I don't agree that the gun clampdown is futile, only way that this can

Post by The Enlightenment
said to be so is if you believe that gun control increases gun crime,

and

Post by The Enlightenment
you don't believe that.

No, what he's saying is that banning handguns is futile as a means of
reducing gun crime because it has no effect one way or the other.

You can't say if it hasn't had an effect for.
The argument that it hasn't is that gun crime has gone up, but here he
disagrees with it, so to conclude that it hasn't is going to be very hard
for you.

I don't quite follow what you're trying to say here.

It isn't what I said but the comments by the other poster which your
discussing.

Post by Stephen Glynn
What I'm saying,
as I think is Harry, is that gun control and rates of gun crime are
coincidental. I, as I think would Harry, say that both that the
argument "gun crime has gone up since the outlawing of handguns (which
it has) so the rise must be caused by the outlawing of handguns" is
fatuous since the handguns that were outlawed were the ones held
perfectly legally in pistol clubs and were not, therefore, readily
available to fend off muggers, burglars and so forth.

More also that we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns which seems to
be ignored.
But, just because hand guns have been banned, and you can't show what would
have happened without the hand gun ban, it isn't correct to assume that the
result has been flawed.

Post by Stephen Glynn
I would also say that outlawing handguns is a pretty futile way of
preventing crime involving guns since if someone has a mind to commit a
crime using a gun he either buys an illegal one for a couple of hundred
pounds, which is what people did before the ban, or possibly buys a
shotgun and saws it off, which was illegal anyway.

You could follow that view and say law abiding people don't need laws.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 17:44:49 UTC

You could follow that view and say law abiding people don't need laws.

Strawman. You are arguing from the particular to the general. There is
clearly no point in enacting laws that will have no effect. This is a
principle that applies to all areas of law making and not just to firearms
law.

Chris S

2004-05-26 18:05:03 UTC

You could follow that view and say law abiding people don't need laws.

It was to highlight to stupid point he made.
If an individual is determined to get a gun he probably will, but we should
not make it easy for them

Anubis

2004-05-26 21:31:39 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:05:03 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Chris S
If an individual is determined to get a gun he probably will, but we should
not make it easy for them

What if that person is a law-abiding citizen?

Why do you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is good for
society?

Chris S

2004-05-26 22:26:36 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:05:03 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Chris S
If an individual is determined to get a gun he probably will, but we should
not make it easy for them

What if that person is a law-abiding citizen?

His right to choice has to be balanced against society.

Post by Anubis
Why do you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is good for
society?

Why is arming them good?

Anubis

2004-05-26 23:24:16 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:26:36 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Anubis
What if that person is a law-abiding citizen?

His right to choice has to be balanced against society.

Please elaborate that balance.

Post by Anubis
Why do you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is good for
society?

Why is arming them good?

Because then they can defend themselves from violent crime.

Don't you consider that good?

Chris S

2004-05-26 23:39:33 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:26:36 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Anubis
What if that person is a law-abiding citizen?

His right to choice has to be balanced against society.

Please elaborate that balance.

The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater safety on the
society.
If your not sure what that means it isn't my problem isn't it?

Post by Anubis
Why do you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is good for
society?

Why is arming them good?

Because then they can defend themselves from violent crime.
Don't you consider that good?

Your not from the UK.
In the UK we do not have a culture of carrying guns in the way you believe,
we are not that bothered about guns, we don't like them, hence the
popularity of the ban.

Carl Nisarel

2004-05-27 02:54:06 UTC

Post by Chris S
The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater
safety on the society.

Not all rights are utilitarian.

Chris S

2004-05-27 10:49:02 UTC

Post by Chris S
The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater
safety on the society.

Not all rights are utilitarian.

We aren't discussing all rights

Carl Nisarel

2004-05-27 12:39:42 UTC

Post by Chris S
The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater
safety on the society.

Not all rights are utilitarian.

We aren't discussing all rights

The right to own a gun (RKBA) is not always considered a
utilitarian right. The predominant argument for RKBA is
deontological. Arguing utility when your opponent is taking a
deontological position is rather foolish.

Chris S

2004-05-27 10:50:56 UTC

Post by Chris S
The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater
safety on the society.

Not all rights are utilitarian.

We aren't discussing all rights

Anubis

2004-05-27 13:37:15 UTC

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:50:56 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Chris S
The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater
safety on the society.

Not all rights are utilitarian.

We aren't discussing all rights

The right of law-abiding citizens to employ the reasonable effective
means of self protection, which includes guns when appropriate, is an
essential right of man.

--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

Anubis

2004-05-27 13:35:02 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 23:39:33 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Chris S
His right to choice has to be balanced against society.

Please elaborate that balance.

The right to own a gun has to be put against the greater safety on the
society.

You are ducking the issue. Explain how confiscating guns from
law-abiding citizens increases safety for society.

Post by Chris S
If your not sure what that means it isn't my problem isn't it?

It is if you fail to express yourself clearly.

Post by Anubis
Why do you believe that disarming law-abiding citizens is good for
society?

Why is arming them good?

Because then they can defend themselves from violent crime.
Don't you consider that good?

Your not from the UK.

Thank God.

Post by Chris S
In the UK we do not have a culture of carrying guns in the way you believe,
we are not that bothered about guns, we don't like them, hence the
popularity of the ban.

Once again you are deliberately ducking the issue. You can go on all
day about how an insignificant island filled with leftist queers can't
be bothered by such mundane things as personal self defense.

Why not let the individual citizen decise what is best for him.
Law-abiding citizens don't need leftist queers telling them how to
live.

--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

Harry The Horse

2004-05-27 12:05:34 UTC

Post by Chris S
It was to highlight to stupid point he made.
If an individual is determined to get a gun he probably will, but we should
not make it easy for them

Neither Stephen Glynn nor I are arguing for a repeal of all firearms
licensing. I am arguing for a sensible assessment of the risks involved.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 13:25:08 UTC

Post by Chris S
I am of the position that the fewer the guns there are the less likely your
going to events such as previous happening

Fewer guns in criminal hands might make a difference. Fewer guns in
licensed gun owners hands will make little difference.

Post by Chris S
I don't agree that the gun clampdown is futile, only way that this can be
said to be so is if you believe that gun control increases gun crime, and
you don't believe that.

Of course it is futile. It is futile because it is targetting the WRONG
people.

Anubis

2004-05-26 14:04:52 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:25:08 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Harry The Horse
Fewer guns in criminal hands might make a difference. Fewer guns in
licensed gun owners hands will make little difference.

According to John Lott, more guns in the hands of licenced gun owners
reduces violent crime. Unfortunately that causes an increase in
non-violent crime, like burglary.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 14:50:53 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:25:08 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Harry The Horse
Fewer guns in criminal hands might make a difference. Fewer guns in
licensed gun owners hands will make little difference.

According to John Lott, more guns in the hands of licenced gun owners
reduces violent crime.

That might or might not be true in the US. I haven't the time or
inclination to go through Lott's arguments. It certainly isn't true in the
UK where there appears to be no correlation at all between legal firearms
ownership and violent crime.

Anubis

2004-05-26 16:47:59 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:50:53 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:25:08 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Harry The Horse
Fewer guns in criminal hands might make a difference. Fewer guns in
licensed gun owners hands will make little difference.

According to John Lott, more guns in the hands of licenced gun owners
reduces violent crime.

That might or might not be true in the US.

Lott's arguments are correct.

Post by Harry The Horse
It certainly isn't true in the
UK where there appears to be no correlation at all between legal firearms
ownership and violent crime.

I accept that because there was so little gun ownership in the first
place and the few people who did own a gun had to keep it locked up.

Are you aware of the Kennesaw Phenomenon?

Carl Nisarel

2004-05-26 22:05:06 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:50:53 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Harry The Horse
Fewer guns in criminal hands might make a difference.
Fewer guns in licensed gun owners hands will make little
difference.

According to John Lott, more guns in the hands of
licenced gun owners reduces violent crime.

That might or might not be true in the US.

Lott's arguments are correct.

Lott's arguments are garbage.

See:

http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk

Anubis

2004-05-26 23:28:48 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:05:06 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Post by Carl Nisarel
Lott's arguments are garbage.
http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk

LOL

Carl Nisarel

2004-05-27 02:53:25 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:05:06 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Post by Carl Nisarel
Lott's arguments are garbage.
http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk

LOL

It's good you can laugh at Lott's (and your) idiocy.

Graham Innocent

2004-05-25 20:47:20 UTC

Post by Chris S
Your ridiculous.
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

We don't have a culture of carrying guns anymore, but they used to be
readily available for home defence.

Granted the rise in violent crime in the UK has many causes, most of
them to do with horribly failed attempts at left-wing social
engineering. Restricting Gun ownership clearly _didn't_ reduce gun
crime.

Chris S

2004-05-25 21:16:03 UTC

Post by Chris S
Your ridiculous.
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

We don't have a culture of carrying guns anymore, but they used to be
readily available for home defence.
Granted the rise in violent crime in the UK has many causes, most of
them to do with horribly failed attempts at left-wing social
engineering. Restricting Gun ownership clearly _didn't_ reduce gun
crime.

They may have been readily available, I didn't argue that, what I said is
that we don't have a culture of carrying guns for defence, which is correct.
So if you accept that position, it is impossible to claim that not carrying
them now is somehow a reason for an increase in gun crime.

Graham Innocent

2004-05-26 09:31:10 UTC

Post by Chris S
Your ridiculous.
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

We don't have a culture of carrying guns anymore, but they used to be
readily available for home defence.
Granted the rise in violent crime in the UK has many causes, most of
them to do with horribly failed attempts at left-wing social
engineering. Restricting Gun ownership clearly _didn't_ reduce gun
crime.

It is a reason for the increase in burglary though, as they're no
longer available for home defence. Given that restricting gun
ownership also clearly hasn't reduced gun-crime, you'd have to admit
it was, on balance, a bad idea, wouldn't you ?

Chris S

2004-05-26 14:53:59 UTC

Post by Chris S
Your ridiculous.
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

We don't have a culture of carrying guns anymore, but they used to be
readily available for home defence.
Granted the rise in violent crime in the UK has many causes, most of
them to do with horribly failed attempts at left-wing social
engineering. Restricting Gun ownership clearly _didn't_ reduce gun
crime.

It is a reason for the increase in burglary though, as they're no
longer available for home defence.

There isn't a rise in burglary and we don't have a culture of using hand
guns to protect property.
Where do you get your claims from.

Anubis

2004-05-26 16:49:57 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:53:59 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Chris S
There isn't a rise in burglary

HUH?

Chris S

2004-05-26 17:00:00 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:53:59 GMT, "Chris S"

Post by Chris S
There isn't a rise in burglary

HUH?

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page55.asp

Nick Cooper 625

2004-05-27 12:59:16 UTC

Post by Chris S
Your ridiculous.
Here we don't have a culture of carrying hand guns, so who do these
criminals now feel safe from.

We don't have a culture of carrying guns anymore, but they used to be
readily available for home defence.

Being "available" does not equate with them actually being there.
There is nothing to suggest that firearms ownership was significantly
higher before licensing was introduced, compared to afterwards.

Post by Graham Innocent
Granted the rise in violent crime in the UK has many causes, most of
them to do with horribly failed attempts at left-wing social
engineering.

Prove it. You could just as easily say it's down to Thatcher saying,
"there is no such things as society," and people therefore thinking
that if it doesn't exist, there's no need to respect it.

T N Nurse

2004-05-25 15:37:02 UTC

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled

after

Post by The Enlightenment
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

LOL! Do you realise how rediculouse you sound.

You're the ridiculous one, as you don't seem to recognise irony.

Post by The Enlightenment
So far we have an inverse relationship: more gun control producing a
massive increase in gun crime (doubling) presumably as criminals are
utterly convinced that they will not be confronted by an armed
victim.

You do know that correlation is not causation?
Perhaps not..

Post by The Enlightenment
Crime has increased 10 fold since the 1950s.

Crime has increased 10 fold *everywhere* since the
1950s. That era was a 'golden age' of low crime
in just about every country, including the US.

Post by T N Nurse
So. All in all, the handgun bans worked pretty well.

How can you say that in the face of a dobling in gun crime?

In exactly the same way as you can claim that the doubling of crime
and gun laws are linked. Has the penny dropped yet?

[uninteresting numbers]

Post by The Enlightenment
Is their a massive increase in gun crime in heavily armed countries
such as Switzeraland and Austria?

Actually, there has been in Switzerland. The murder rate has doubled
in the last 20 years. In that same time, gun laws regarding the
possession of personal firearms had been relaxed and, in Sept 2001,
some gun nut went on the rampage in a town near Zurich killing 14.
Shall we conclude that these are linked?

Post by The Enlightenment
Whatever is causing the increase in gun crime is not the presence of
guns, there are less. There is some other cause.

Riiiight. Must be a magic death ray, then.

Anyway, gun debates are done to death in these groups. You
haven't posted anything folks haven't seen a dozen times
before.

Nick Cooper 625

2004-05-27 12:01:09 UTC

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled

after

Post by The Enlightenment
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

It is misleading to claim that gun crime has "doubled":

Of which...
All Non-Air Air
weapons weapons weapons
1992 13,341 7,243 6,098
1993 14,067 7,730 6,337
1994 13,167 6,002 7,165
1995 13,434 5,866 7,568
1996 13,876 6,063 5,813
1997 12,410 4,904 7,506
1997/98* 12,805 4,903 7,902
1998/99 13,874 5,209 8,665
1999/00 16,946 6,843 10,103
2000/01 17,697 7,470 10,227
2001/02* 22,400 10,023 12,377
2002/03* 24,070 10,248 13,822

As can be seen, while gun crime as a whole has increased by 80% (i.e.
not "doubled," although there were, of course, reporting changes in
the asterixed years, leading to the inclusion of more offences) since
1992, air weapons account for 72% of the increase. Use of air weapons
_has_ doubled (+127%, in fact), but non-air weapon use has only
increased by 41%. The latter also includes imitation weapons to the
tune of:

1998/99 566
1999/00 823
2000/01 787
2001/02* 1,245
2002/03* 1,815

In addition, in 1992 handguns were used in 4,023 crimes; in 2002/03 it
was 5,549 - an increase of 38%. But, on the other hand, shotguns were
used in 1,494 crimes in 1992, but only 671 in 2002/03.

Post by The Enlightenment
Crime has increased 10 fold since the 1950s.

Meaningless in this context. Homicides, for example, has almost
trebled - not, "increased 10 fold." The average today is <900 per
year, compared to just over 300 in your idyllic 1950s.

Post by The Enlightenment
However it is interesting. Clearly with twice as many long barreled
guns and 4 gun related killings per year in 1954 to hundreds in 2003
and essentialy zero handguns we must being experiencing moral
degeneracy by your own arguments.

That would be "hundreds" as in "less than a hundred," would it?
Homicides involving the use of firearms for the last five years of
available figures:

Non-Air Air
Weapons Weapons
1998/99 49 0
1999/00 62 0
2000/01 72 1
2001/02 95 2
2002/03 80 1

These, of course, account for less than 10% of homicides as a whole.
Gun crime is less than half of one percent of all crime.

2002/03 in fact saw a 17% drop in the use of firearms in homicides;
their use in robberies dropped by 13%; and handgun crime dropped by
6%:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419941.stm

Post by The Enlightenment
You yourself are claiming that as gun crime went from 13,000 to 24,000 when
gun laws came in that they would have been astronomically higher without
them?

There is, however, no evidence to suggest that things would have been
any different without the handgun ban.

Post by The Enlightenment
I most certainly would attribute this with the ascendancy of
ethno-socialism and other forms of marxism, culural relativism and
other left wing ideas which have roted the morality of the indivudual.

Yeah, whatever....

Post by The Enlightenment
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton..

..a law-abiding Brit gun-owner who went nuts following rumours that
he was a child molestor, took his legally owned handguns and..
.. walked into an elementary school in

Post by The Enlightenment
Dunblane,
Scotland, with three pistols and shot dead 16 young children and

one

Post by The Enlightenment
of their
teachers.

Quite. Since then we've had no repetition of the event, save one
mentally ill individual in Wolverhampton who worshipped Hamilton's
notoriety. Having failed to obtain a gun due to Britain's new laws

He would have failed to have obtained a weapon under the tightened up
gun laws that were recomended but in fact displaced by the new
draconian gun laws.

How can you say that in the face of a dobling in gun crime? I'll
tell you. By igoring reality. Politicaly correctness and reality
denial go hand in hand.

While ignoring the true implications of the real data is evidently
your forte.

Post by The Enlightenment
Is their a massive increase in gun crime in heavily armed countries
such as Switzeraland and Austria?

People do claim there is for the latter, but the former is - as you
should know full well - is a misleading comparison. Every Swiss adult
male does National Service and then becomes part of the militia,
keeping their main weapon at home (usually an assault rifle).

Post by The Enlightenment
There's been

Post by T N Nurse
no repetition of Dunblane - or Hungerford, another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which

Post by T N Nurse
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

On aerage we get a dunblane or hungerford well, 2 every 200 years?
You can;t prove the rule with the exceptions. Gun crime is up

Misleading.

Post by The Enlightenment
and gun deathes are up.

No, last year they fell.

Nick Cooper 625

2004-05-27 12:02:30 UTC

Post by The Enlightenment
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled

after

Post by The Enlightenment
law-abiding
Brits surrendered their handguns

Yes. Think how bad it could have been hadn't they done so.

Post by The Enlightenment
Crime has increased 10 fold since the 1950s.

Meaningless in this context. Homicides, for example, has almost
trebled - not, "increased 10 fold." The average today is <900 per
year, compared to just over 300 in your idyllic 1950s.

Post by The Enlightenment
You yourself are claiming that as gun crime went from 13,000 to 24,000 when
gun laws came in that they would have been astronomically higher without
them?

There is, however, no evidence to suggest that things would have been
any different without the handgun ban.

Yeah, whatever....

Post by The Enlightenment
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton..

..a law-abiding Brit gun-owner who went nuts following rumours that
he was a child molestor, took his legally owned handguns and..
.. walked into an elementary school in

Post by The Enlightenment
Dunblane,
Scotland, with three pistols and shot dead 16 young children and

one

Post by The Enlightenment
of their
teachers.

Quite. Since then we've had no repetition of the event, save one
mentally ill individual in Wolverhampton who worshipped Hamilton's
notoriety. Having failed to obtain a gun due to Britain's new laws

He would have failed to have obtained a weapon under the tightened up
gun laws that were recomended but in fact displaced by the new
draconian gun laws.

How can you say that in the face of a dobling in gun crime? I'll
tell you. By igoring reality. Politicaly correctness and reality
denial go hand in hand.

While ignoring the true implications of the real data is evidently
your forte.

Post by The Enlightenment
Is their a massive increase in gun crime in heavily armed countries
such as Switzeraland and Austria?

Post by The Enlightenment
There's been

Post by T N Nurse
no repetition of Dunblane - or Hungerford, another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which

Post by T N Nurse
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

On aerage we get a dunblane or hungerford well, 2 every 200 years?
You can;t prove the rule with the exceptions. Gun crime is up

Misleading.

Post by The Enlightenment
and gun deathes are up.

No, last year they fell.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-25 15:02:10 UTC

Post by T N Nurse
So. All in all, the handgun bans worked pretty well. There's been
no repetition of Dunblane - or Hungerford,

From 1920 to 1987 there was no such incidents so attributing their absence
to 'handgun ban' is disingenuous at best. Perhaps we ought to be precise
about our terms. As the crime statistics eloquently attest, handguns were
not banned; the sport of target pistol shooting was what was banned.

Post by T N Nurse
another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which is
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

Not true. Alun Michael speaking in the Commons after the implementation of
the 'pistol ban' said that they 'had taken handguns of the streets'. The
guns that were banned were not 'on the streets' but in Home Office approved
ranges, but the gullible public swallowed it all the same.

T N Nurse

2004-05-25 15:50:13 UTC

Post by T N Nurse
So. All in all, the handgun bans worked pretty well. There's been
no repetition of Dunblane - or Hungerford,

From 1920 to 1987 there was no such incidents so attributing their
absence to 'handgun ban' is disingenuous at best.

As is linking an increase in crime to the absence of guns..

Post by T N Nurse
another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which is
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

Not true. Alun Michael

..a rather minor MP who's only claim to fame was to have succeeded
Ron Davies at the Welsh Office when the latter went for a walk on
Clapham Common one night..

Post by Harry The Horse
speaking in the Commons after the
implementation of the 'pistol ban' said that they 'had taken handguns
of the streets'. The guns that were banned were not 'on the streets'

They were when Hamilton and Ryan went walkies.

Post by Harry The Horse
but in Home Office approved ranges, but the gullible public swallowed
it all the same.

The 'gullible public' had little interest in firearms until those
two events. Whether the were allowed or banned was no skin off the
nose of the vast majority of people. At best, all it would do is
inconvenience a few hobbyists, whilst its major action would be
to prevent the nutters like Ryan and Hamilton getting access to
firearms. Most of the gun crime that's currently going on are
drug gang turf wars with guns that have either been illegally
imported, or activated blank firing replicas that can easily
and quite legally be bought in shops around the country. As
long as they are not shooting the 'gullible public', no one
cares.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-25 16:42:59 UTC

Post by Harry The Horse
From 1920 to 1987 there was no such incidents so attributing their
absence to 'handgun ban' is disingenuous at best.

As is linking an increase in crime to the absence of guns..

An argument which I have refuted elsewhere on this thread. Please try to
keep up.

Post by T N Nurse
another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which is
precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

Not true. Alun Michael

..a rather minor MP

Irrelevant. He represented the government view.

Had the laws in existence prior to 1997 been enforced they could have been
used to deny Hamilton and Ryan their guns. As it happens both Ryan and
Hamilton used illegal as well as legal guns to commit their crimes. To ban
the entire sport when the laws already were tough enough to stop the likes
of Hamilton and Ryan was irrational. The state 'doing something' to appease
the public.

As to whether the ban has the effect you claim, we'll see. If we are to
believe the prosecution case, Barry George - as nutty as either of those
two - managed to obtain an illegal handgun in 1999 to shoot down Jill Dando.
It seems unlikely that he will be the last.

Post by T N Nurse
Most of the gun crime that's currently going on are
drug gang turf wars with guns that have either been illegally
imported, or activated blank firing replicas that can easily
and quite legally be bought in shops around the country.

The part about the replicas is false. The replicas sold nowadays in UK
shops cannot be readily converted to fire live ammunition. I have that
from a FEO (police firearms enquiry officer) I know. And if there were any
evidence to support it then the Home Office could promptly ban them under
the terms of the 1982 Firearms Act. No additional legislation would be
required. I guess you are as gullible as the rest of the public.

Post by T N Nurse
As long as they are not shooting the 'gullible public', no one
cares.

Quite. Few people care about the things that do not affect them directly.
That's what pressure groups are for.

Dirk Bruere at Neopax

2004-05-25 16:55:17 UTC

Post by Harry The Horse
The part about the replicas is false. The replicas sold nowadays in UK
shops cannot be readily converted to fire live ammunition. I have that
from a FEO (police firearms enquiry officer) I know. And if there were any
evidence to support it then the Home Office could promptly ban them under
the terms of the 1982 Firearms Act. No additional legislation would be
required. I guess you are as gullible as the rest of the public.

What is done to de-activate them?

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Harry The Horse

2004-05-25 17:27:20 UTC

What is done to de-activate them?

If replicas were as easy to convert as is alleged then the could be banned
under existing legislation. De-activation doesn't come into it as they are
not firearms in the first place.

The Enlightenment

2004-05-25 22:16:24 UTC

Post by Harry The Horse
The part about the replicas is false. The replicas sold

nowadays in UK

Post by Harry The Horse
shops cannot be readily converted to fire live ammunition. I have that
from a FEO (police firearms enquiry officer) I know. And if

there were

Post by Harry The Horse
any

Post by Harry The Horse
evidence to support it then the Home Office could promptly ban

them

Post by Harry The Horse
under

Post by Harry The Horse
the terms of the 1982 Firearms Act. No additional legislation would be
required. I guess you are as gullible as the rest of the

public.

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
What is done to de-activate them?

If replicas were as easy to convert as is alleged then the could be banned
under existing legislation. De-activation doesn't come into it as they are
not firearms in the first place.

From the ones I've seen: they are merely big cap guns with a barrel
that is merely decorative.

Personally I believe a properly cultivated Gun Culture reduces gun
crime. All the martial arts have a strong ethic and honor code.
Gun training if within this context and structure is more likely to
protect the public than any other action taken. A firearm licensee
that required an 8 evening course might be such a method.

Guns can be truly the 'great equalizer. A 25kg woman can defend
herself against a 110kg assailant. A sleeping home owner can recover
the upper hand and if the burglar knows this he mostly doesn't bother
from that nagging fear.

I think the real reason the left wing of politics dislike guns is for
what they represent. This is the independent attitude associated
with gun ownership. It's a statement that I am independent, I don't
need the state. The ideal is rooted in economic and social
independence, a rejection of the state as the primary source of self
defense and also rooted in agrarianism and hunting. It is a spirit
decidedly UN Socialist since it rejects Government as at best a
necessary evil.

unknown

2004-05-26 09:18:02 UTC

On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:16:24 GMT, "The Enlightenment"

Post by The Enlightenment
Guns can be truly the 'great equalizer. A 25kg woman can defend
herself against a 110kg assailant. A sleeping home owner can recover
the upper hand and if the burglar knows this he mostly doesn't bother
from that nagging fear.

Or the burglars can just shoot first.

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned

Anubis

2004-05-25 17:01:00 UTC

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:42:59 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by T N Nurse
As is linking an increase in crime to the absence of guns..

An argument which I have refuted elsewhere on this thread. Please try to
keep up.

Have you refuted the absurd proposition that an absence of guns has
led to a decrease in crime.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-25 17:24:04 UTC

Post by Anubis
Have you refuted the absurd proposition that an absence of guns has
led to a decrease in crime.

Gun control has little effect on the rate of unlawful use of firearms. It
is absurd to claim that the 'handgun ban' caused the increase in gun crime
just as it is absurd to claim that the ban has prevented future killing
sprees by maniacs.

Anubis

2004-05-26 03:10:42 UTC

On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:24:04 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Anubis
Have you refuted the absurd proposition that an absence of guns has
led to a decrease in crime.

Then why do people support gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens?

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 13:50:20 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:24:04 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Anubis
Have you refuted the absurd proposition that an absence of guns has
led to a decrease in crime.

Gun control has little effect on the rate of unlawful use of firearms.

Post by Harry The Horse
is absurd to claim that the 'handgun ban' caused the increase in gun crime
just as it is absurd to claim that the ban has prevented future killing
sprees by maniacs.

Then why do people support gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens?

Why do people support lots of other idiotic things, from the proscription of
drugs to ID cards? Because they are frightened and that makes them easy
prey for unscrupulous politicians who will claim that further restrictions
on liberty will make them 'safer'. When it doesn't make them safer they
then paradoxically demand even further curbs on freedom.

T N Nurse

2004-05-27 11:19:04 UTC

Post by Harry The Horse
From 1920 to 1987 there was no such incidents so attributing their
absence to 'handgun ban' is disingenuous at best.

As is linking an increase in crime to the absence of guns..

An argument which I have refuted elsewhere on this thread. Please try
to keep up.

Post by T N Nurse
another occassion when a
'law abiding legal gun owner' went nuts and went walkabout - which
is precisely what the handgun ban was targetting.

Not true. Alun Michael

..a rather minor MP

Irrelevant. He represented the government view.

So what was Hamilton's illegal gun? My undestanding is that all
his weapons were quite legally owned.

Post by Harry The Horse
To ban the entire sport when the laws already were tough
enough to stop the likes of Hamilton and Ryan was irrational.

The laws, as they stood were not being enforced strictly enough. This
sort of 'policing' of the laws suited the gun types as it meant less
hassle for them. They were quite happy that annual checks went by on
a nod and a wink. Any attempts by police to rigourously enforce the
letter of the law usually resulted in load whinging from the gun
types. Even on Usenet we had gun types raging that their chief
constable was being far too strict in his interpretation of
the law as it stood some 8 years back.

Banning people participating in their sport because one or two
cause trouble is nothing new. England supporters were banned
from European matches for 10 years because of the action of
a few hooligans. At worst it's an inconvenience. They can always
find another hobby.

Post by Harry The Horse
As to whether the ban has the effect you claim, we'll see. If we are
to believe the prosecution case, Barry George - as nutty as either of
those two - managed to obtain an illegal handgun in 1999 to shoot down
Jill Dando. It seems unlikely that he will be the last.

People will always do illegal things despite the laws banning
the tools of the activity. So what?

The part about the replicas is false. The replicas sold nowadays in
UK shops cannot be readily converted to fire live ammunition. I have
that from a FEO (police firearms enquiry officer) I know. And if
there were any evidence to support it then the Home Office could
promptly ban them under the terms of the 1982 Firearms Act. No
additional legislation would be required.

Incorrect.

Converted firearms

7.5 The possession of blank firing or air weapons is not controlled by
a system of certification and these firearms can be purchased from
trade fairs, specialist retailers, and over the internet without
proof of identity. Many can be converted into working firearms
using simple engineering techniques. There have been substantial
police recoveries of converted firearms. The most frequently recovered
have been the blank firing Remington Derringer, altered to fire live
rounds, and Brocock air cartridge revolver which, when converted, becomes
a revolver with a five or six shot powder cartridge. The apparent ease
with which such firearms are acquired and converted has led to them being
described as an entry-level firearm for criminals who are insufficiently
networked to acquire a genuine firearm. However, the relative cost of a
converted weapon may encourage some criminals to choose one in preference
to a genuine weapon.
National Crime Intelligence Service Report
http://www.ncis.co.uk/ukta/2002/threat7.asp

Post by Harry The Horse
I guess you are as gullible
as the rest of the public.

Seems not. I guess you just want to hear what you like to believe
to be true.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-27 12:19:32 UTC

Post by T N Nurse
The laws, as they stood were not being enforced strictly enough.

So enforce them. Don't invent new laws

Post by T N Nurse
Banning people participating in their sport because one or two
cause trouble is nothing new. England supporters were banned
from European matches for 10 years because of the action of
a few hooligans. At worst it's an inconvenience.

What a surprise that you support collective punishments

People will always do illegal things despite the laws banning
the tools of the activity. So what?

Pre 97 laws made acquiring a handgun without a licence an offence so there
was no need to frane additional laws.

Post by T N Nurse
Converted firearms
Many can be converted into working firearms using simple engineering

techniques.
And if this were true then they could be banned under the terms of the 1982
Firearms Act which makes readily convertible replicas subject to control.

Post by T N Nurse
There have been substantial police recoveries of converted firearms.

Prove it. No doubt you believed government assertions about the weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq.

Post by Harry The Horse
I guess you are as gullible
as the rest of the public.

Seems not. I guess you just want to hear what you like to believe
to be true.

I have read the report you cite. No evidence is presented to supports its
dubious contentions with respect to replica or air cartridge revolvers.

Anubis

2004-05-25 16:59:16 UTC

Post by T N Nurse
Whether the were allowed or banned was no skin off the
nose of the vast majority of people. At best, all it would do is
inconvenience a few hobbyists, whilst its major action would be
to prevent the nutters like Ryan and Hamilton getting access to
firearms.

Since you are a proponent of cause and effect, perhaps you can explain
in a rational way how confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens
prevents nutters like Ryan and Hamilton getting access to firearms.

I am told on good authority that people in Britain can obtain a
handgun for around £100 at pubs in places like Birmingham and
Manchester - to name but a few.

Nick Cooper 625

2004-05-27 13:11:24 UTC

Since you are a proponent of cause and effect, perhaps you can explain
in a rational way how confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens
prevents nutters like Ryan and Hamilton getting access to firearms.
I am told on good authority that people in Britain can obtain a
handgun for around £100 at pubs in places like Birmingham and
Manchester - to name but a few.

So? The same was true before the handgun ban, as well.

2004-05-25 18:42:26 UTC

Post by T N Nurse
The 'gullible public' had little interest in firearms until those
two events. Whether the were allowed or banned was no skin off the
nose of the vast majority of people. At best, all it would do is
inconvenience a few hobbyists, whilst its major action would be
to prevent the nutters like Ryan and Hamilton getting access to
firearms. Most of the gun crime that's currently going on are
drug gang turf wars with guns that have either been illegally
imported, or activated blank firing replicas that can easily
and quite legally be bought in shops around the country. As
long as they are not shooting the 'gullible public', no one
cares.

Hungerford and Dunblane were entirely preventable with the legislation
that was in existence at the time, it just depended on few individuals
been doing their jobs properly. A senior police officer has the right to
revoke a gun license without giving a reason. In the case of Hamilton a
junior police officer twice recommended that he have his license revoked,
he was ignored with tragic consequences.

K

Anubis

2004-05-26 03:13:04 UTC

Post by K
Hungerford and Dunblane were entirely preventable

if the people responsible for the children had been armed.

Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children? If not, then why were they not armed?

unknown

2004-05-26 08:58:29 UTC

Post by K
Hungerford and Dunblane were entirely preventable

if the people responsible for the children had been armed.
Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children?

Yes. They've committed other acts of abuse, and assaulted children on
many occasions. What makes you think teachers are immune to
frustration and other evils?

And then there's the risk of the gun being stolen/nicked by kids.

And accidents, the major cause of gun deaths in the US, IIUC

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned

Anubis

2004-05-26 14:01:56 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:58:29 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Anubis
Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children?

Yes. They've committed other acts of abuse, and assaulted children on
many occasions. What makes you think teachers are immune to
frustration and other evils?

Then why let them drive a car around kids.

Post by unknown
And then there's the risk of the gun being stolen/nicked by kids.

Not if the person is wearing it securely.

Post by unknown
And accidents, the major cause of gun deaths in the US, IIUC

Actually not. Gun accidents are very small relative to the population,
somewhere in the range of 1500 per year.

How about the 100,000 cases of medical misadventure reported by the
Harvard Medical school (IIRC)?

Did you know that there are 6-10 times more children deaths from
drowning in household buckets than gun accidents.

Ban Buckets! (for da' chil'run)

unknown

2004-05-26 15:51:15 UTC

Post by Anubis
Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children?

Yes. They've committed other acts of abuse, and assaulted children on
many occasions. What makes you think teachers are immune to
frustration and other evils?

Then why let them drive a car around kids.

Cost benefit trade-off.

Post by unknown
And then there's the risk of the gun being stolen/nicked by kids.

Not if the person is wearing it securely.

Sure. And if, as in the real world, that doesn't always happen?

Post by unknown
And accidents, the major cause of gun deaths in the US, IIUC

Actually not. Gun accidents are very small relative to the population,
somewhere in the range of 1500 per year.

What is the largest cause of gun deaths?

Post by Anubis
How about the 100,000 cases of medical misadventure reported by the
Harvard Medical school (IIRC)?
Did you know that there are 6-10 times more children deaths from
drowning in household buckets than gun accidents.
Ban Buckets! (for da' chil'run)

You are being foolish.

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned

Anubis

2004-05-26 16:45:00 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:51:15 +0000 (UTC),

Post by unknown
Yes. They've committed other acts of abuse, and assaulted children on
many occasions. What makes you think teachers are immune to
frustration and other evils?

Then why let them drive a car around kids.

Cost benefit trade-off.

Not if they are the homicidal maniacs you protray them to be.

And what about the cost benefit tradeoff of law-abiding citizens being
able to protect themselves from violent crime?

Post by unknown
And then there's the risk of the gun being stolen/nicked by kids.

Not if the person is wearing it securely.

Sure. And if, as in the real world, that doesn't always happen?

How many documented incidents of criminals taking guns away from armed
citizens can you provide us?

Again we come back to your cost benefit tradeoff.

Post by unknown
What is the largest cause of gun deaths?

Criminals killing other criminals. In the US it is estimated to be 80%
of all gun deaths.

You are being foolish.

Yes, and so are gun grabbers - and for the same reasons.

unknown

2004-05-26 17:48:34 UTC

Post by unknown
Yes. They've committed other acts of abuse, and assaulted children on
many occasions. What makes you think teachers are immune to
frustration and other evils?

Then why let them drive a car around kids.

Cost benefit trade-off.

Not if they are the homicidal maniacs you protray them to be.

If you're not able to have a sensible discussion, don't bother having
one at all

Post by Anubis
And what about the cost benefit tradeoff of law-abiding citizens being
able to protect themselves from violent crime?

Separate argument. You asked if teachers would shoot kids. The answer
is that there's no reason to believe any different from other members
of society

As for the cost benefit of removing guns from most citizens, I support
it in general *for the UK*. Gun deaths are far more common in the US
than in the UK, and I see the prevalence of guns in the US as being a
big part of that.

In the US, guns are already far more prevalent, and so having everyone
armed may be better than just the majority of crims. In the UK,
relatively few ordinary citizens or crims have guns, and keeping it
that way helps

I don't think gun ownership in general affects robbery stats.

The issue of removing licensed guns from target shooters in licensed
ranges is a secondary one. I don't know enough about the empirical
evidence for the move, but the political climate in which the measure
was introduced suggests that it was a knee-kerk reaction

Post by unknown
And then there's the risk of the gun being stolen/nicked by kids.

Not if the person is wearing it securely.

Sure. And if, as in the real world, that doesn't always happen?

How many documented incidents of criminals taking guns away from armed
citizens can you provide us?

In the UK, there are very few. But that means nothing, there are very
few people allowed to carry guns

Post by unknown
What is the largest cause of gun deaths?

Criminals killing other criminals. In the US it is estimated to be 80%
of all gun deaths.

Even including suicides?

From http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

<quote>
Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the
figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the
definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that
are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds
as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons,
depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups
used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't
figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19
year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun
deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and
3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find
that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19
age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest
crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school
and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun
control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are
the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow
criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news
stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every
one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so
often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.

Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides
typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of
Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than
2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.
</quote>

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned

Anubis

2004-05-26 21:28:19 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:48:34 +0000 (UTC),

Post by unknown
Cost benefit trade-off.

Not if they are the homicidal maniacs you protray them to be.

If you're not able to have a sensible discussion, don't bother having
one at all

Who are you to make that demand?

Post by Anubis
And what about the cost benefit tradeoff of law-abiding citizens being
able to protect themselves from violent crime?

Separate argument.

But a critical one. It argue to the cost benefit tradeoff of defensive
gun use.

Post by unknown
You asked if teachers would shoot kids.

I never raised that idiot question.

How many Israeli teachers, who bring Uzi machine guns to school, shoot
students?

Post by unknown
The answer
is that there's no reason to believe any different from other members
of society

You are characterizing teachers to be the same as other members of
society. How about you having a sensible discussion.

Post by unknown
As for the cost benefit of removing guns from most citizens, I support
it in general *for the UK*.

Then you support turning law-abiding citizens into unarmed wimp
peasants.

The rate of violent crime in Britain is every bit as high, if not
higher, than in the US. That means there are about 1/2m British
citizens who should be using a gun for self defense. You want to take
the responsibility for their suffering? For what reason? So you can
indulge your hoplophobia?

Post by unknown
Gun deaths are far more common in the US
than in the UK, and I see the prevalence of guns in the US as being a
big part of that.

Would you rather people in the US club each other to death?

Post by unknown
I don't think gun ownership in general affects robbery stats.

You obviously are not aware of the Kennesaw Phenomenon.

Post by Anubis
Criminals killing other criminals. In the US it is estimated to be 80%
of all gun deaths.

At least 2/3 of "criminal victims" already have a record.

"A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States
about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not
completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records."
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago
Police Department

Post by unknown
Even including suicides?

Suicides are misclassified as gun murders to bloat the statistics.

As Archie Bunker once asked his bleeding-heart leftist daughter,
"Would you rather they jumped out a window instead?"

unknown

2004-05-27 06:34:04 UTC

Post by unknown
Cost benefit trade-off.

Not if they are the homicidal maniacs you protray them to be.

If you're not able to have a sensible discussion, don't bother having
one at all

Who are you to make that demand?

Why do you interpret it as a demand?

Post by Anubis
And what about the cost benefit tradeoff of law-abiding citizens being
able to protect themselves from violent crime?

Separate argument.

But a critical one. It argue to the cost benefit tradeoff of defensive
gun use.

Post by unknown
You asked if teachers would shoot kids.

I never raised that idiot question.

Then this post of your must be faked

*****

Post by Anubis
Hungerford and Dunblane were entirely preventable

if the people responsible for the children had been armed.

Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children? If not, then why were they not armed?"

*****

Post by unknown
As for the cost benefit of removing guns from most citizens, I support
it in general *for the UK*.

Then you support turning law-abiding citizens into unarmed wimp
peasants.

They already are. And, as a result, we have less gun crime

Post by Anubis
The rate of violent crime in Britain is every bit as high, if not
higher, than in the US.

Not sure this is true. Check
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html
comparing sections 5 and 7, esp definitions

Post by Anubis
That means there are about 1/2m British
citizens who should be using a gun for self defense.

That doesn't follow from the above, even if the above was true

Post by Anubis
You want to take
the responsibility for their suffering? For what reason? So you can
indulge your hoplophobia?

You want to take responsibility for putting together a half decent
argument?

Post by unknown
Gun deaths are far more common in the US
than in the UK, and I see the prevalence of guns in the US as being a
big part of that.

Would you rather people in the US club each other to death?

If that's the best you can do...

Post by unknown
I don't think gun ownership in general affects robbery stats.

You obviously are not aware of the Kennesaw Phenomenon.

In the US, a different dynamic operates because of the widespread use
of guns

Post by unknown
Even including suicides?

Suicides are misclassified as gun murders to bloat the statistics.
As Archie Bunker once asked his bleeding-heart leftist daughter,
"Would you rather they jumped out a window instead?"

Many suicides would simply fail in their attempt without guns.

It is a separate issue, but as you will see above I referred to gun
deaths, not murders. Keeping guns out of the hands of people inclined
to self harm, as well as harm others, seems wise enough

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned

Nick Cooper 625

2004-05-27 13:27:36 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:48:34 +0000 (UTC),

Post by unknown
Cost benefit trade-off.

Not if they are the homicidal maniacs you protray them to be.

If you're not able to have a sensible discussion, don't bother having
one at all

Who are you to make that demand?

Post by Anubis
And what about the cost benefit tradeoff of law-abiding citizens being
able to protect themselves from violent crime?

Separate argument.

But a critical one. It argue to the cost benefit tradeoff of defensive
gun use.

Post by unknown
You asked if teachers would shoot kids.

I never raised that idiot question.
How many Israeli teachers, who bring Uzi machine guns to school, shoot
students?

Britain is not Israel. To draw such a comparison is facile.

Post by unknown
The answer
is that there's no reason to believe any different from other members
of society

You are characterizing teachers to be the same as other members of
society. How about you having a sensible discussion.

Why aren't they, "the same as other members of society," then?

Post by unknown
As for the cost benefit of removing guns from most citizens, I support
it in general *for the UK*.

Then you support turning law-abiding citizens into unarmed wimp
peasants.

That's an amusing assertion given that the real "peasents" in rural
areas are far more likely to have shotguns in the house, and yet they
suffer as high - if not higher - a rate of burglary.

Post by Anubis
The rate of violent crime in Britain is every bit as high, if not
higher, than in the US. That means there are about 1/2m British
citizens who should be using a gun for self defense. You want to take
the responsibility for their suffering? For what reason? So you can
indulge your hoplophobia?

A high percentage of "violent crime" in Britain is basically young men
getting pissed up at the weekend and then beating each other up.
That's not the sort of equation that introducing free access to
firearms is going to affect. The problem is that when we say "violent
crime," we see the aforementioned as a big part of it, but when
Americans hear, "violent crime," they think of mugging and robbery,
usually at the point of a gun.

Post by unknown
Gun deaths are far more common in the US
than in the UK, and I see the prevalence of guns in the US as being a
big part of that.

Would you rather people in the US club each other to death?

Do what you like; most of us couldn't give a shit.

Post by unknown
I don't think gun ownership in general affects robbery stats.

You obviously are not aware of the Kennesaw Phenomenon.

A red herring, if ever there was one....

Post by Anubis
Criminals killing other criminals. In the US it is estimated to be 80%
of all gun deaths.

At least 2/3 of "criminal victims" already have a record.
"A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States
about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not
completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records."
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago
Police Department

So if someone has a "criminal record," that makes their life
worthless, does it?

Post by unknown
Even including suicides?

Suicides are misclassified as gun murders to bloat the statistics.
As Archie Bunker once asked his bleeding-heart leftist daughter,
"Would you rather they jumped out a window instead?"

Access to a gun provides an immediate and far more effective method of
suicide than jumping out of a window or in front of a car/truck/train,
taking an over-dose, opening arteries or veins, etc. I know people
who have attempted suicide by some of these latter methods, but
survived and thank God every day that they weren't successful. Had
they put a bullet in the brain, they almost certainly wouldn't have.

IanAl

2004-05-26 09:30:03 UTC

Post by K
Hungerford and Dunblane were entirely preventable

if the people responsible for the children had been armed.
Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children? If not, then why were they not armed?

Why not arm the children, for that matter.

Anubis

2004-05-26 14:02:21 UTC

Post by IanAl

Post by Anubis
Is anyone going to claim that an armed teacher would kill school
children? If not, then why were they not armed?

Why not arm the children, for that matter.

They are not responsible enough.

The Rifleman

2004-05-25 17:05:19 UTC

Ah yes gun control, the theory in the UK being the more vulnerable you are,
the safer you are from crime, wonderful logic the gun control nutters have.

British gun control

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and
this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the
case in the British government. -- This may be considered as the true
palladium of liberty... The right of self-defence is the first law of
nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine
this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies
are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under
any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. - St. George Tucker,
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)

Gun Control:

The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

The Enlightenment

2004-05-25 22:25:33 UTC

Post by The Rifleman
Ah yes gun control, the theory in the UK being the more vulnerable you are,
the safer you are from crime, wonderful logic the gun control

nutters have.

Post by The Rifleman
British gun control

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed, and

Post by The Rifleman

this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the
case in the British government. -- This may be considered as the true
palladium of liberty... The right of self-defence is the first law of
nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine
this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies
are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under
any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. - St. George Tucker,
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)

The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

I think most 'left wing' types have at one time or another had
delusions or pretenses of 'pacifism'. It's sort of the pretense that
superior morality can protect you from crime, disarm the Soviet Union
of Nuclear Wepaons. It's a crock of course: they get other people,
working class squadies to do the work they coinsider dirty so that
they can remain moraly pure. They get the state to criminalise and
then enforce all sorts of once non crimes. There may be the
occasionally true Quacker pacifist but for the average leftist its an
artificial social construct that allows them to climb a notch or two
on the social ladder.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 14:00:06 UTC

Post by The Enlightenment
I think most 'left wing' types have at one time or another had
delusions or pretenses of 'pacifism'.

Gun control is not necessarily left-right issue. George Orwell supported
the right of the working class to own firearms and the SWP opposed the
handgun ban. It tends to be wet liberals - 'liberal bigots' is Robert
Henderson's phrase - who oppose private ownership of firearms but support
their use by the state against its own or the Iraqi people.

Anubis

2004-05-26 16:41:03 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:00:06 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by The Enlightenment
I think most 'left wing' types have at one time or another had
delusions or pretenses of 'pacifism'.

Gun control is not necessarily left-right issue.

You are correct. Just look at what Thatcher and Major did to further
gun confiscation. Thatcher took away your rifles and Major took away
your handguns. Poodle, left only with .22 caliber firearms used
primarily by the British Olympic Marksmanship Team, took them away.

In the US in the mid 1960s, it was a right wing issue because the
marxist demonstrators like Abbie Hoffman advocated the use of arms to
overthrow the govt. Then later it became a leftist issue.

In reality it is a statist issue. Strong centralized fascist/socialist
govts want to subjugate citizens so they disarm them. According to the
organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms (jpfo.org), all
major genocides in the 20th century were preceeded by gun
confiscation.

Post by Harry The Horse
George Orwell supported
the right of the working class to own firearms

The first act of gun control was the 1920 registration act put in by
Tories to reduce the ownership by unionists.

Post by Harry The Horse
It tends to be wet liberals - 'liberal bigots' is Robert
Henderson's phrase - who oppose private ownership of firearms but support
their use by the state against its own or the Iraqi people.

I remind you that you have to be somewhat cautious with the use of the
term "liberal" in Britain because for the British it means what we
mean by the term "capitalist". The 19th century liberals were
free-market laissez faire types - the complete opposite of what is
meant by the term liberal in the US.

The key word in your statement is "state". Indeed it is the state
which maintains its monopoly on the use of deadly force by
confiscationg guns from citizens.

Harry The Horse

2004-05-26 17:48:23 UTC

I remind you that you have to be somewhat cautious with the use of the
term "liberal" in Britain because for the British it means what we
mean by the term "capitalist".

Yes, I am British and I am aware of the antique meaning of the world
'liberal'. That sort of liberal ceased to exist in the rout of the 1918
General Election so I think most British people know what is meant by 'wet
liberal' nowadays.

Anubis

2004-05-26 21:14:02 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:48:23 GMT, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Anubis
I remind you that you have to be somewhat cautious with the use of the
term "liberal" in Britain because for the British it means what we
mean by the term "capitalist".

Tell that to your fellow countryman, Solon.

Nick Cooper 625

2004-05-27 13:29:33 UTC

Post by The Rifleman
Ah yes gun control, the theory in the UK being the more vulnerable you are,
the safer you are from crime, wonderful logic the gun control nutters have.
British gun control

The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Anti-Gun Control:

The theory that it is better thata person should show themselves to be
incapable of owning firearms by letting them one and then blowing a
few people away, rather than preventing them getting hold of the
firearm in the first place....

The Rifleman

2004-05-25 21:23:28 UTC

Defensive Gun Use Information

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The
National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University
criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost
certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection --
a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In
another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would
have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either
threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a
gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound
or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called
"newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these
gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that
the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger
to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate
were rare --well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept
for defense will most likely be used against a family member or
someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing
two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter
of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial
arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent
chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable
handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the
defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal
of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law,
Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in
Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania,
considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country,
wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as
can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were
Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the
civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles
me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am
troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of
methodologically sound research in support of something I have
theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense
against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for
the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can
it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a
gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to
believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not
have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not
directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart
Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and
Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and
Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the
elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their
conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in
advance and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this
country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he
found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

By Comparison:
A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only
about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's fewer than
one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to
tell you about in every day's edition.
Source: National Safety Council

A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States
about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not
completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago
Police Department

Kids and guns?
Here's what a 1995 federal study investigating juvenile crime found
after looking at 20,000 randomly selected households:

Relationship between type of gun owned and percent committing street,
drug and gun crimes.
Activity Illegal Gun No Gun Legal Gun
Street Crimes 74% 24% 14%
Drug Use 41% 15% 13%
Gun Crimes 21% 1% 0%

"The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for
legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who
own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own
illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely
to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take
place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place
'on the street.'"

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and
drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of
guns."
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454,
"Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons
does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic
accidents. The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of
thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida
is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault,
rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States
where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms
in public.
Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms
License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry
Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics
at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate
student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January
1997.

Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes
the person seeking death to use another means. While gun-related
suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban of 1976, the overall
suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were
replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly
jumping off bridges.
Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal
of Psychiatry March, 1990

Surprised by These Facts?

Maybe it's because the TV networks are deliberately not telling you
about them!

Read "Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV: Networks Use First Amendment
Rights to Promote Opponents of Second Amendment Rights" from the July
1997 MediaWatch Study.

Copyright (c) 1996 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved. Email:
***@pulpless.com

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"A ruler who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to
be obeyed, his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act
lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be
dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of
nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the
opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the
common enemies of all mankind."
--John Locke

Chris S

2004-05-26 17:02:07 UTC

Post by The Rifleman
Defensive Gun Use Information

Snip irrelevant USA info

Robert Peffers

2004-05-26 21:50:40 UTC

Post by The Rifleman
Defensive Gun Use Information

Snip irrelevant USA info

There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence. A bullet proof vest
is defensive, a gun is not.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:- ***@weedugpeffers50.freeserve.co.uk
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 18/05/2004

Mike

2004-05-26 22:18:05 UTC

Post by Robert Peffers

Post by The Rifleman
Defensive Gun Use Information

Snip irrelevant USA info

There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence.

What would that "one use" be, then?

Post by Robert Peffers
A bullet proof vest
is defensive, a gun is not.

A bullet proof vest can only protect the wearer; a person with a gun can
protect a whole group of people. My wife and I use them to protect our
chickens from rats.

--
Mike

Anubis

2004-05-26 23:28:11 UTC

Post by Mike

Post by Robert Peffers
There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence.

What would that "one use" be, then?

Subjugation, what else.

Consult Chairman Mao on that matter.

Malcolm

2004-05-27 07:04:22 UTC

Post by Mike

Post by Robert Peffers

Post by The Rifleman
Defensive Gun Use Information

Snip irrelevant USA info

There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence.

What would that "one use" be, then?

Post by Robert Peffers
A bullet proof vest
is defensive, a gun is not.

A bullet proof vest can only protect the wearer; a person with a gun
can protect a whole group of people. My wife and I use them to protect
our chickens from rats.

Chickens in bullet proof vests. How sweet :-)

--
Malcolm

Mike

2004-05-27 09:00:47 UTC

Post by Malcolm

Post by Mike
A bullet proof vest can only protect the wearer; a person with a gun
can protect a whole group of people. My wife and I use them to
protect our chickens from rats.

Chickens in bullet proof vests. How sweet :-)

Yeah. They protect the chickens when we're shooting the rats. <g>

--
Mike

Anubis

2004-05-27 13:40:05 UTC

On Thu, 27 May 2004 08:04:22 +0100, Malcolm

Post by Malcolm

Post by Mike
A bullet proof vest can only protect the wearer; a person with a gun
can protect a whole group of people. My wife and I use them to protect
our chickens from rats.

Chickens in bullet proof vests. How sweet :-)

Rats using firearms. How sweet :-)

--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

T N Nurse

2004-05-27 09:33:39 UTC

Post by Mike

Post by Robert Peffers

Post by The Rifleman
Defensive Gun Use Information

Snip irrelevant USA info

There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence.

What would that "one use" be, then?

Shooting targets, of course - unless you're Tony Martin. Then
its for shooting at people you fall out with, upset you or
you have an obsessive thing about.

Anubis

2004-05-26 23:26:55 UTC

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:50:40 +0100, "Robert Peffers"

Post by Robert Peffers
There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence. A bullet proof vest
is defensive, a gun is not.

Wrong. Brandishment usually leads to the criminal standing down - with
the gun not being discharged.

The gun is the only reasonable effective means of self protection. The
proverbial 90 lb woman can prevent a 250 lb man from raping her.

If she is a reasonably decent shot, she can also prevent him from ever
raping any woman.

How many rapes have there been in Kennesaw since 1982?

T N Nurse

2004-05-27 09:30:35 UTC

Post by Anubis
On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:50:40 +0100, "Robert Peffers"

Post by Robert Peffers
There is only one use for a gun and that is not defence. A bullet proof vest
is defensive, a gun is not.

Wrong. Brandishment usually leads to the criminal standing down - with
the gun not being discharged.

.. in the hands of the police.

Post by Anubis
The gun is the only reasonable effective means of self protection. The
proverbial 90 lb woman can prevent a 250 lb man from raping her.

Guess that's why the US rape rate is 3-4 times ours then..

Post by Anubis
If she is a reasonably decent shot, she can also prevent him from ever
raping any woman.

Oh you mean, leave the rapists to roam the streets and send her out to
run the gauntlet protect only by an ineffective hand weapon that has to
be drawn and aimed? In the case of rape, the assailant usually attacks
from behind, making it impossible for the proverbial 90lb to get into her
handbag or whatever, draw her gun and aim it at the proverbial 250lb
man.

Post by Anubis
How many rapes have there been in Kennesaw since 1982?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Kennesaw??? What next? Morton Grove? My goodness, the
tired old cliches are being dragged out here. Tell us, how many rapes
were there in Kennesaw in the 20 years prior to their idiotic local law
that owed more to political posturing than any real action against crime?
Could it have been none? And how many murders? Could that also have been
none? And how many murders since the law was passed? Could it be their
first one? What does that tell us? Using the 'logic' put forward by the
gun nuts - guns cause murder!

Anubis

2004-05-27 13:38:51 UTC

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:30:35 +0100, T N Nurse

Post by Anubis
Wrong. Brandishment usually leads to the criminal standing down - with
the gun not being discharged.

.. in the hands of the police.

... in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Post by T N Nurse
Guess that's why the US rape rate is 3-4 times ours then..

Our women are better looking.

--
Anubis, Supreme Goa'uld War Lord

* Mental Strength Is Essential For Success
* Fatigue Makes Cowards Of Us All
* Control The Ball
* Work On Lombardi Time
* Make That Second Effort

T N Nurse

2004-05-27 09:15:43 UTC

Post by The Rifleman
Defensive Gun Use Information

[..]

Post by The Rifleman
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck

ROTFL!!! Nothing like citing a man with an agenda and preconceptions
as your 'scholarly source' - even if its 10 year old and been shown
to have used falacious methodology by his his peers subsequently. So
what happened to that other favourite of the gun nuts, John Lott? Is
he now out of favour after being caught faking glowing reviews for
his own book on Amazon after an initial spat of reviews highly critical
of his methodology?

Robert Peffers

2004-05-26 21:47:27 UTC