U.K gun crime

[Spentastic]

Interesting BBC info here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

"Gun crime has increased in recent years, including a near doubling of handgun offences since 1996, the year of the Dunblane massacre.

In 2001-02, there were some 22,300 firearms offences, a rise of almost a third on the previous year. The number of people killed by firearms was 23. "

Population of the U.K is approx 60 million.

[DoNotRefill]

1. Well....

at least there are no LEGAL guns being used in crime.... :crazy:

[MrBenchley]

2. B-b-b-b-b-but....

the RKBA ccrrowd is always telling us that Britain is suffering a bloodbath in its street that can only be alleviated by letting every Briton tote guns.

For the record, Fort Worth, TX, which has about 540,000 people, had 40,000 violent crimes in 2001 (most with firearms), and had 67 murders (most with firearms).

[Ergotron]

3. This is not true...all lies

There is no gun crime in the UK..guns are illegal. All of this is a pantload of hooey propagated by the evil gun zealots in order to justify their arming of children, corpses, and fetuses! Cry me a river and preach it to someone who will buy that pantload. Guns are illegal and there is no gun crime because the criminals all surrendered there guns when requested by authorities.

[MrBenchley]

4. Or as sane people might say...

Tiny Fort Worth all by itself has more violent crime than the entire UK in a year.....which shows that gun control not only works but works spectacularly well.

Shows just how blatantly the RKBA crowd lies, doesn't it?

[Ergotron]

5. Is it gun control or attitudes towards guns

It is not in dispute that the U.S. has a terribly disproportinate number of gun crimes compared to the UK. The fact that gun crime occurs in the UK at all proves that gun control is not a 100% solution. The biggest difference in the two countries is the attitude of the population towards guns.

British subjects have grown used to being unarmed and do not see a need to have firearms. America was founded, in part, because some British subects found it unsettling to be powerless in the face of the government, giving rise to the second amendment.

Bottom line is we, as a culture, must address the attitudes towards guns before we attempt to address the guns themselves. There are simply too many guns in the hands of too many people for a total ban, similar to that of the UK, to ever work here.

[CO Liberal]

6. Maybe It's The Number of Guns

Gun control may not be a 100-persent solution. But it would be a hell of a lot better than it is today.

[slackmaster]

8. Or not

n/t

[MrBenchley]

9. You got that right

and voters agree!

[Procopius]

28. But they don't vote on it

I have a hard time making gun control a serious issue.

[MrBenchley]

29. It's a sideshow

compared to the sinking economy and the shambles that is foreign affairs, sure....

But it is still an important issue...

[Ergotron]

11. Ok, what is your propsed solution to the problem of too many guns?

I'd be interested in your proposal.

[demsrule4life]

40. On your reply you say "gun control may not be a 100 precent solution"

you are replying to a post where gun control means a total ban. It would make us "paranoids" think you really are for banning

[MrBenchley]

7. Who are you trying to kid?

"America was founded, in part, because some British subects found it unsettling to be powerless in the face of the government, giving rise to the second amendment."
Here's the Federalist Ppaer on the milita and the Second Amendment...note that it discusses how our government will regulate our militia...

http://federalistpapers.com/federalist29.html

"we, as a culture, must address the attitudes towards guns before we attempt to address the guns themselves."
You mean like ignoring multi-million dollar lobbies that use pseudoscience and lies to pretend there's an individual right to guns that makes gun control unconstitutional?

"There are simply too many guns in the hands of too many people"
And Koresh forbid we ever do anything to keep there from being MORE....even if voters overwhelmingly want it.

[Ergotron]

10. Mr. Benchley, you point out many of the problems...

I challenge you to come up with a solution and work to get it implemented. If you are certain the voters want to ban guns, then work through the system, get a referendum on the ballot, and put the matter to rest.

You are NOT qualified to speak on behalf of "the voters", only to give your opinion on a matter. If YOU believe something, or hold and opinion, you are free to state it. Do NOT pretend to speak for me (a voter) or anyone else for that matter. Neither you nor I have that right.

[MrBenchley]

12. Hahahahahahahahaha.....

[Ergotron]

13. I take it this means you have no ideas to solve the problem?

[MrBenchley]

14. No, you can take it as me thinking

what a steaming pantload your post was....

[Rick Newland]

15. I thought if was a fair question

[MrBenchley]

16. Then you answer it

[Rick Newland]

17. Question was directed towards you

This may work.
http://www.gunfreezones.com/crime_zone.pdf

[MrBenchley]

18. Yeah, but I know what a pantload

was involved....

[Spoonman]

19. YOU POSTED IT,

NOW LIVE WITH IT.

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at
all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready
to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing
army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

As well as this: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

It also outlines what the Militia is.

You always seem to forget about the above document, why would that be?

[MrBenchley]

20. Gee spoon...

Go peddle your hysteria to someone dumb enough to buy it.

[Pert_UK]

21. Talking some crap, some sense.......

As previously mentioned in a lengthy post, the UK's ban on guns was never intended to address the use of guns by criminals. It was to ensure that legally held guns were never again misused by their owners to inflict a massacre. To this end, it has been 100% successful. Criminals used guns before the ban and will continue to use them forever, but that doesn't in any way entail that the ban on guns hasn't worked, or prevented further deaths.

"British subjects have grown used to being unarmed and do not see a need to have firearms." Try saying "people" rather than "subjects" - it rather weakens your argument to imply that the UK populace is in any practical, measurable way, subservient to the monarch. NEWSFLASH - British people don't have a need for firearms. It's not just that we don't see it, we don't need handguns to defend ourselves. We can still use shotguns for hunting and pest control, and rifles for deer hunting + target shooting (I believe) in the small number of places in the UK where hunting is a viable option.

"America was founded, in part, because some British subects found it unsettling to be powerless in the face of the government, giving rise to the second amendment. " - I'm almost certain that this is untrue, but don't have the time to research it....My feeling is that people in the US got tired of paying a UK government for nothing and wanted independence. The 2nd amendment was something to do with allowing the people to arm as a collective in order to defend the newly established USA in the face of an attack by the Brits (although I might be making this up). I can hardly see that the government would write a law saying "Hey everyone - if you think that the government is being a bit rough at any point, we've included this line about having guns so you can come and shoot us".

"Bottom line is we, as a culture, must address the attitudes towards guns before we attempt to address the guns themselves. There are simply too many guns in the hands of too many people for a total ban, similar to that of the UK, to ever work here." - BINGO! 100% correct. I never said that the UK law would work in the US. Part of the UK law's success is that the UK effectively wanted to state that our society does not regard guns as an acceptable / suitable object to be in public hands. The US clearly does not have that philosophy. Guns are there to stay. I only suggest that there needs to be better control over who has guns and how they use them.

[Romulus]

27. any of you UK guys

ever figure out if people are allowed to hunt on public lands in the UK?

[Pert_UK]

30. I REALLY, really doubt it......

Try looking here:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/about_legislation.htm

or looking for UK shooting/countryside orgs...I don't have time at the moment.

I believe that hunting is only legal on private land unless there is a specific need to control pests......As far as I am aware, the only hunting done in the UK is using air-rifles to hunt pigeons, rabbits etc. in private woodland/farms, rifle shooting in Scotland for deer (VERY expensive on private estates) and shotgun hunting for rabbit, pheasant, quail etc., again on private land.

Generally speaking, there aren't big enough sections of public land to allow hunting without some risk to other members of the public. I'm 99% sure you couldn't just wander out onto the Yorkshire Dales with a rifle without facing jail time......there may be some local by-laws that allow some air-rifle hunting, but I'm not sure.

P.

[Pert_UK]

22. Huge pile of crap.....

For the many reasons I've given on this forum, this post displays ignorance and deliberate misuse of the facts.

"Guns are illegal and there is no gun crime because the criminals all surrendered there (sic) guns when requested by authorities."

Nobody has ever said, to the best of my knowledge, that there is no gun crime in the UK. The UK gun laws were inacted to prevent legally held guns being misused by their owners and as such has been 100% successful.

You will never stop criminals from acquiring and using the best tools for the job. That is an entirely different subject to the UK's ban on private gun ownership.

Criminals used guns illegally before the ban and they have continued to use them illegally after the ban. Guess what? Nobody has used their legally held handgun illegally since the ban.......

[Ergotron]

23. It's called sarcasm...check into it.

Next time I'll be sure to include a /sarcasm tag for clarity.

[iverglas]

24. how about "relevance"

Is it somehow relevant to be sarcastic about something that has nothing to do with the topic of conversation?

Sorry; that didn't even qualify as "sarcasm", since you were simply attempting to speak "bitterly" about ... a whole lot of nothing.

Yeah, Ally MacBeal sure is fat. Yeah, she's really fat.
Hmm, did someone say she was fat? No? So what's the sarcasm about?
Yeah, rain sure is dry. It's really dry.
Did someone say it was? Sarcasm? Where?

Try it. Tell us what you were being sarcastic about.

Next time, feel free to be sarcastic and don't bother with the tags, just try actually being sarcastic.

That wasn't sarcasm. It was just yet another attempt to pretend that something is what it ain't -- that UK firearms legislation was intended to do something it wasn't intended to do, in this case. Pretending to agree with something that is non-existent and that no one ever said isn't sarcasm, it's just silly.


.

(html edited)

[Pert_UK]

25. You'll pardon me, I'm sure, if I don't take sarcasm lessons...

Yes.....OBVIOUSLY you were being sarcastic....If you'd read my post you'd have noted that I didn't attack you for what you actually wrote, rather I attacked the POINT you were implying through your use of sarcasm.

I interpreted your post as being as being a sarcastic/satirical representation of how you see the "pro gun control" point of view, and specifically (judging by the language) the views of Mr Benchley.

I was pointing out that you're suggestion that the "pro gun control/anti-RKBA" people claim that in the UK "Guns are illegal and there is no gun crime because the criminals all surrendered there guns when requested by authorities", then you're wrong.

You see, when you use sarcasm to make your point, I'm still allowed to criticise the point you're making, especially if it happens to be very stupid indeed.

[hansberrym]

31. the federal farmer - If vegetables were outlawed

then vegetables would never again be eaten by anyone legally owning them.

And laws against eating vegetables by of persons legally owning vegetables would be 100% effective, thus proving thier efficacy!

[Pert_UK]

32. Errrr.......what?

I'm not sure what this has to do with the comment that you replied to......and I'm also not sure what you mean.

Care to explain?

Welcome to DU, incidentally!

:hi:

P.

[hansberrym]

33. Use your bean

I was paraphrasing your argument in support of the UK gun ban.

{quote}
"The UK gun laws were inacted to prevent legally held guns being misused by their owners and as such has been 100% successful...
Guess what? Nobody has used their legally held handgun illegally since the ban..."
{unquote}


Your statement is of course true, but no more so than the following: A ban on vegetables ownership would prevent the eating of vegetables by persons legally able to own them. Since anyone continuing to own vegetables after the ban, would then be illegally keeping vegetables, any vegetables they might consume (post enactment) would not count as having been eaten by a person legally owning vegetables, and one could claim that the ban was 100% effective. But alas, vegetables would still be eaten.

I am arguing that it is not so much cause and effect, but rather autocorrelation, that is at work. In light of the fact that the total number of firearms deaths has risen (however slightly) in the UK, and the difficulty of knowing for certain how many crimes, if any, were actually prevented by the ban, your argument is not persuasive.


There will always be nutcases amongst us. And yes we should do what we can to prevent them from obtaining any dangerous weapons, including handguns, or other firearms. But I don't believe that tight restrictions or outright bans are the answer for the US. And there has been no actual evidence presented in this thread to show that it is working in the UK.


Thanks for welcoming me. And please do not take the manner in which I have responded the wrong way. I thought a little humor might be in order and I was not trying to mock your argument, just trying to illustrate the deficience that I perceive it to have in a different context (vegetables do push anyone's buttons).

[Pert_UK]

34. DING! Wrong, but thanks for playing.......

That's what I thought you were getting at, but it wasn't clear so I thought I'd ask for clarification.

I totally take your point about auto-correlation rather than cause and effect, but that is only relevant if the ban on handguns was intended to reduce the use of firearms by criminals.

It's effectively like pointing out that vandalism has increased since the ban on handguns, and then saying that the ban on handguns hasn't worked. The two things are totally unrelated.

For a record One Millionth time, the UK ban on handguns was never intended to prevent the illegal use of illegal firearms by criminals. There are other existing laws and policies in place to try and combat the increasing presence of armed drug gangs and the increasing "casual" ownership and use of guns by criminals. However, this has nothing to do with the UK ban on handguns, given that the criminals never held weapons legally in the first place.

The UK ban on handguns was, effectively, a statement by the government and people of the UK saying that guns are not the type of thing that we want in private hands in our society. This was largely due to the massacre in Dunblane, where Thomas Hamilton used a legally held weapon to kill many children and one of their teachers.

I accept that it is impossible to say whether any deaths have been prevented by the ban.....that's the problem with preventative measures, you just can't tell what would have happened if you hadn't done them. Maybe we'd have been lucky and nobody would have misused their legally held weapon in the period since the ban. However, we don't have to rely on luck any more - there are no guns legally in private hands. Moreover, given the previous record of misuse of legal guns and the cases from all over the world (including the US) where legal guns are misused practically every day, I believe that we probably have prevented some gun deaths by removing guns from private hands. My argument cannot ever be conclusive, but it ought to be persuasive - removing an easy, portable way of killing someone has at the very least made it more difficult to commit mass murder in the UK (unless you're Harold Shipman).

"I don't believe that tight restrictions or outright bans are the answer for the US." - I agree that a total ban would be unworkable, but something needs to be done in the US. Maybe it's better enforcement of laws, maybe they need tightening some more......maybe some perceived personal liberties/rights need to be restricted in order to safeguard the rights and well being of the greater population.....who knows (I don't).

For my overview of the UK gun law and a discussion, see this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=7663&mesg_id=7663

You seem like someone who knows how to argue logically and you have a good way with words - I look forward to further debates with you!

P.

[hansberrym]

35. I respectfully disagree

{quote}
"I totally take your point about auto-correlation rather than cause and effect, but that is only relevant if the ban on handguns was intended to reduce the use of firearms by criminals."
{unquote}

The autocorrelation problem is with these two statistics; the number of persons legally owning guns" and "the number of crimes committed by persons legally owning guns". These statistics are not independent of one another.

The ban by definition eliminates, or reduces to near zero, BOTH statistics at the same time.

The claim that the ban has been "100% effective" is merely a truism.
But it does not reflect reality. A particular person who would have qualified for legal handgun ownership under the old laws, might still commit a crime with a handgun, only now, this same person would be placed in the category of "persons who illegally owned handguns and have committed a crime".






I

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pert_UK]

38. Good as far as it goes.........

I'll reply to this comment, rather than the other two....

:-)

"A particular person who would have qualified for legal handgun ownership under the old laws, might still commit a crime with a handgun, only now, this same person would be placed in the category of "persons who illegally owned handguns and have committed a crime". "

This overlooks the fact that gun ownership in the UK was a very serious business (unlike the more "casual" attitude in the US). The Police knew who all the legal gun owners were. Those owners were given a deadline to hand in their weapons and compensated when they did. Anybody who didn't hand in the weapon would have been traced as a matter of urgency and their weapon recovered.

You really had to jump through hoops to get a gun legally in the UK - it meant presenting yourself to the Police, investing in authorised gun safes, being subject to check-ups etc. The sort of person willing to go through this is generally highly unlikely to go out and obtain illegal firearms following the ban.

I'm not saying that it NEVER happened, and I'm not saying that previous legal owners haven't committed any violent crimes since, but what I am saying is that in order to get the gun permit orginally they'd have to be law-abiding, responsible, citizens with (I believe) a note from their doctor certifying that their state of mind was OK for gun ownership. It seems bizarre to assume that these people would then break multiple laws and risk imprisonment to obtain guns illegally and then use them in a violent crime.

Generally speaking, in the UK handguns are used in crimes by people who have chosen to lead a criminal lifestyle - they are not available as a weapon of choice to the general public, even when members of the general public lose the plot and become violent.

[iverglas]

39. good ... and the other half

From the post you replied to:

A particular person who would have qualified for legal handgun ownership under the old laws, might still commit a crime with a handgun, only now, this same person would be placed in the category of "persons who illegally owned handguns and have committed a crime".

We're getting apples and oranges again.

"Committed a crime with a handgun" -- that is NOT what we're talking about, and NOT what the UK firearms ban was intended to address.

Again, from that post:

The autocorrelation problem is with these two statistics; the number of persons legally owning guns" and "the number of crimes committed by persons legally owning guns".

And again: mixed fruit.

"Crimes committed by persons legally owning guns" -- that is NOT what we are talking about. Never has been. As has really been made abundantly clear. This is a lot of subject-changing, is all. Once one decides to change the facts one is looking at, it's usually pretty easy to find some to add up to what one wants, no? But all one has done is knock over a straw person, in the end.

The UK firearms ban was not intended to address the problem of people who take their legally-held firearms out and rob banks. You've said that repeatedly, I think.

It was intended to address the problem of people who kill people with their legally-held firearms.

These are, as you do get into, totally different classes of people -- bank robbers and murderers. The things they do are totally different phenomena. Both happen to use firearms, but they "use" them in totally different senses. One uses them as the instrument to do something: kill people. The other uses them as the instrument that makes it possible to do something independent of it: commit a crime.

Let's mix your interlocutor's metaphor into it. If the ban on growing vegetables were intended to prevent people from dying of a virulent disease that was carried by vegetables, and after the ban no one died of that disease, but some people did still grow vegetables and use them to hit bank tellers over the head with and steal money, would the ban have been successful in its purpose? Me, I'd say "yes".

It may look nice on paper to say that the situation is an auto-correlation, but it isn't unless we are willing to look at an apple and see an orange.

Really, it's just a clever multi-syllabic reformulation of the meaningless "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"; and I'm sure it's a cousin of calling a Canadian who refuses to register his/her firearms a "law-abiding gun owner".

The UK ban was intended to prevent people being killed by other people who are *not* engaged in another, primary, criminal activity, or attempting to further another, primary, criminal purpose. It was designed to prevent straight-out killings committed for no other reason or purpose but to kill, unconnected with any other purpose.

And the result of the ban is not just the auto-correlative "no person in legal possession of a firearm has killed anyone with the firearm", it is "no person who was not engaged in, or furthering, another criminal activity or purpose has killed anyone with a firearm". It simply was not designed to prevent crimes, or deaths incidental to crime; it was designed to prevent autonomously intended killings.

And whether it has done that, as you say, we'll never know. But there sure is a nice correlation so far.

.

[hansberrym]

41. As you wish, I will replace "crime" with "murder"

Corrected:
The autocorrelation problem is with these two statistics; "the number of persons legally owning guns" and "the number of ("autonomously intended")MURDERS committed by persons legally owning guns".


Now its apples to apples as you have defined them. But it was always autocorrelation.


The argument applies the same to "crimes in general" or to "murders", but if all you are concerned about is "autonomously intended" murder, then to each his own.

[iverglas]

43. what fun

You appear to think you have not just said something relevant to what I said, you have actually responded to and rebutted it.

All I'm seeing, I'm afraid, is a bunch of words on paper.

An orange does not become an apple just because you paint it red and stick a worm in it.

.

[hansberrym]

45. Instead of replying to what you think people are thinking,

why not just respond to the actual arguments made.

If you have an intelligent objection to my point about the categories decribed earlier being not independent of each other and therefor a problem of autocorrelation exists, which makes the Statement
"the ban has been 100% effective" more of a truism than a reflection of reality, then please make it.

[iverglas]

46. the point has been made

Repeatedly. By both myself and Pert_UK.

The fact that you choose to ignore it, or are unable to get it, doesn't mean that it hasn't been made or that anyone should continue to repeat it and be met with your continued barrage of mixed fruit in response.

If you want to address the points that were made, and not just rearrange words on the screen and pretend that you have addressed the points, go right ahead.

You might just start by finding yourself a homicide in the UK that qualifies as one of those auto-selected-out ones you're on about. Your position could do with an air of reality, and that might be just the ticket.

YOUR characterization of the "categories" DOES NOT MEAN that the items WITHIN the categories are apples where once they would have been oranges. Keep trying, though.


(edited to add omitted word)

.

[hansberrym]

47. I have not misrepresented , nor been disrespectful of,

nor misunderstood PertUK's post.

"As previously mentioned in a lengthy post, the UK's ban on guns was never intended to address the use of guns by criminals. It was to ensure that legally held guns were never again misused by their owners to inflict a massacre. To this end, it has been 100% successful. Criminals used guns before the ban and will continue to use them forever, but that doesn't in any way entail that the ban on guns hasn't worked, or prevented further deaths."


I do disagree with PertUK's conclusions regarding the efficacy of the ban.


"It was to ensure that legally held guns were never again misused by their owners to inflict a massacre. To this end, it has been 100% successful"

This statement is true by definition, since it is now illegal for citizens to own handguns. It is now impossible (as a matter of definition) to have a murder committed with a LEGALLY owned handgun. But it is not impossible that a person not prevously engaged in criminal activity could get hold of a handgun illegally in order to commit a murder, or murders. But even if this happens, it will not count as a failure of the ban, because of the way Pert defined the "success" of the ban. The "success" is thus guaranteed by DEFINITION.


How can one prove that the ban has been 100% sucessful?
(remmember that it is the person asserting a claim that has the responsibility of prooving the claim, it is not the responsibility of the person questioning the assertion to proove it wrong)

The ban may have accomplished a great deal, perhaps there were a number of persons on the brink of committing copy cat Dunblanes with thier legally owned handguns, and now that they no longer have legally held hanguns, they have been thwarted. (but such a crazed person might simply have used another weapon, perhaps a long gun, a bomb, etc.)

On the other hand, maybe there were no persons possessing legally held handguns (at the time of the ban) that would have committed mass murder in the elapsed time period. In this scenario the ban has had no effect whatever.

My point is that it is unprovable either way, so the statement
"100% effective" is also not provable. Nor is it particularly meaningful since the highly qualified way in which it was made reduces the statement to a truism.

[MrBenchley]

26. Gee, is that what we're going to call RKBA horseshit from nnow on?

sarcasm?

[LastDemInIdaho]

42. Look at the bright side

If a single, small young woman is attacked in her home by a bigger and stronger attacker she does not have to decide if she should shoot her would-be rapist or robber. She can just lay there and enjoy it while thanking those that decided her life was not worth trusting her with a means to defend herself.

A small price to pay the gun grabbers say.

[iverglas]

44. to what do we owe the honour

of this visitation?

You've managed to miss my recommendations that if you wish to argue against reasonable restrictions on access to firearms, you do it without exploiting my life and my experience.

I have been abducted, choked and sexually assaulted in a situation where I expected to be killed and managed to escape.

You, I presume, have not. I understand that you say your sister has. Perhaps if she wants to argue a position on firearms control, she could come here and do it.

Meanwhile, you are presuming to speak for me. You don't. Your presumptions and your alleged concern are both unwanted. Your words are offensive, in their lack of whole-truthfulness and their misrepresentation, both to sexual assault victims, and by extension women, and to advocates of firearms control.

I note your concern for "single, small young women" (age and marital status having zero to do with the point you were making) and wonder whether your fantasy life hasn't leaked out onto your keyboard.

.