Why Britain needs more guns

[demsrule4life]

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Gun control cuts crime the #1 lie of the antis.

[MrBenchley]

1. Joyce Malcolm?

Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght..

[alwynsw]

3. Care to list your grievances with Ms.Malcolm?

Aside from the fact that she's well-educated, teaches at Bentley(MA) College, and apparently looks at numbers objectively.

[MrBenchley]

4. No, I'll just point out

that this is more of that horseshit about the phony English bloodbath AGAIN, point out that every RKBA argument relies on distortion, denial or outright deception, and let it go at that.

[alwynsw]

10. So now the UN is horseshit?

<snip>

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

or this?

<snip>

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

[MrBenchley]

20. Gee....

the UN didn't say that...this right wing slattern did.

[alwynsw]

24. Does the fact that she referenced a UN study

make it less true?

on edit: You can dig a little and find the study here: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_research.html

[MrBenchley]

26. Ahem

"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_survey_eighth.html

[alwynsw]

28. And given her credentials, she apparently has the

ability to do so. I certainly don't. How about you?

[auburnblu]

2. But wait

Wouldn't a criminal that is about to rob someone with a gun say "I almost forgot I'm not allowed to have a gun, what was I thinking, I'll immediately go turn in my gun and then return and complete my robbery attempt without it."

I definitely believe since criminals are caring and wonderful that if guns are severly restricted that they will comply 100%.

[CO Liberal]

5. "More Guns = Less Crime"

The #1 lie of the RKBA crowd.

[alwynsw]

6. I would gainsay that, but it's too obvious.

[MrBenchley]

7. Yup...

It's the "big lie" in action. No wonder the nutcases who actually wear swastikas these days are drawn to the "gun rights" cause.

[alwynsw]

8. and here come the OT Nazi references

Hold on to your hats.

[MrBenchley]

9. Why not?

How often do we have to hear this far right wing horseshit about the phony English bloodbath?

[alwynsw]

11. I've not mentioned or addressed a bloodbath.

I have made references to crime. All crimes do not result in bloodshed.

[MrBenchley]

12. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre....

And Wayne LaPierre is queen of the may.

[alwynsw]

13. LaPierre? Another OT deflection topic?

Reminder; The topic is Brits and gun ownership/restrictions relating to crime stats.

[MrBenchley]

14. The topic is how often the RKBA crowd is going to LIE

about the phony English bloodbath....

This marks the second day in a row.

Here's Pert UK exposing what a fraud it is...

//www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7678

[Withergyld]

15. trying to change the topic again??

The topic is UK crime vs US crime, particularly the UN ICVS report that shows that The UK has a higher violent crime rate. If you want to call this a "bloodbath", that is your choice. I have yet to see the UN ICVS debunked. This came up several months ago.

edited for spelling

[MrBenchley]

17. No, I'm happy just to point out the lie

[MrBenchley]

19. By the way, if all you want is a thorough debunking....

New Zealand makes a comparison of actual crime...wherein you can find that New Zealand and the UK have relatively low levels of crime.....

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html

And that the US has roughly four times that rate of violent crime....

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-5.html

You may also recall that a member of the RKBA crowd recently cut and pasted the UK and US tables, with their differing methodology, together in an effort to show just the opposite.

Wonder why every RKBA argument relies on denial, distortion or outright deception? I don't.

[Withergyld]

21. Apples and Oranges

The NZ report covers reported crime statistics. The UN survey looks at all crime, reported or not. It is well known that not all crimes are reported.

"The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime. And since victims report most crimes the police know about, police figures can differ simply because of differences in reporting behaviour. It is also difficult to make comparisons of independently organised crime surveys, as these differ in design and coverage."
<snip>

"The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The countries fall into three bands.
- Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
- 20%-24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France, and USA
- Under 20%: Finland, Catalonia (Spain), Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland. "

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm

[MrBenchley]

27. In other words...

the English bloodbath is a steaming pantload....just as we knew.

[Withergyld]

29. You are the only one claiming a "bloodbath"

The UN ICVS ahows that the UK has a HIGHER TOTAL crime rate then the US.
More from the survey:

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm

"Contact crime

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%). In Japan the risk of contact crime was especially low (0.4%).

Robbery

Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%). On average, just over a third of victims of robbery said the offender(s) carried a weapon of some sort - in most cases a knife. There was a higher than average use of weapons in the USA, Catalonia, Scotland, and Portugal. Although not very statistically robust, the data indicate that guns were used relatively more often in Catalonia and the USA.

Sexual incidents

Two types of sexual incidents were measured: offensive sexual behaviour and sexual assault (i.e. incidents described as rape, attempted rape or indecent assaults). For all countries combined, just over one per cent of women reported offensive sexual behaviour. The level was half that for sexual assaults. Women in Sweden, Finland, Australia and England and Wales were most at risk of sexual assault. Women in Japan, Northern Ireland, Poland and Portugal were least at risk. Many of the differences in sexual assault risks across country were small. Generally, the relative level of sexual assault in different countries accorded with relative levels of offensive sexual behaviour - though there were a few differences.
Women know the offender(s) in about half of the all sexual incidents: in a third they were known by name, and in about a sixth by sight. (More assaults involved offenders known by name than did incidents of offensive sexual behaviour.) Most sexual incidents involved only one offender. Weapons were very rarely involved.

Assaults and threats

Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults or threats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%). Risks were lowest in Japan, Portugal, (under 1%) and Catalonia (1.5%). Offenders were known in about half the incidents overall. Men were less likely to know offenders than women. Weapons (especially knifes) were said to have been used (if only as a threat) in just under a quarter of incidents."

I don't see any "pantloads" here.
:hi:

[MrBenchley]

30. Says it ALL

The text you're putting here doesn't appear AT ALL on the page at your link.

[Columbia]

32. Try clicking on the survey links on the left

Sheesh.

[Withergyld]

33. sorry, bad link

The URL is the same for all their pages. Try this one: http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm

[Withergyld]

35. I posted the correct link

in the previous post.

The response is deafening
:spank:

[Withergyld]

41. Another day goes by and still no comment on the UN ICVS

I guess we know who is peddling the horse shit
:hi:

[TyroneStryker]

36. Where is the steam?

Normally, when my pantload steams, it only does so in certain conditions, such as outdoors in the cold, but only when directly exposed to the cold. For example, if I were to make a pantload IN my pants, it would not steam, due to the warmth inside my pants. If I were to drop my pantload outside the pants, it would steam if the proper atmospheric conditions were present. Under what conditions have you seen a pantload steam?

[demsrule4life]

22. But the thing that really counts

is that every day the RKBA crowd is winning more and more. :)

[MrBenchley]

31. Yup....everyday people are getting wounded and killed

thanks to the corrupt gun industry, the Republican party and the sort of people who try to make excuses for them....

<sarcasm>It's a great victory. Look at the good job they did in Virginia arming domestic abusers and putting guns in schools....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=34879

[MrSandman]

63. Keep spinning...

Federal law already covers that.

Rigggghhht...

Some don't think enforcing Federal gun laws is a good idea.

[MrBenchley]

64. The only spin around here is yours...

"Some don't think enforcing Federal gun laws is a good idea."
Yeah? You mean like the assault weapons ban haters?

[MrSandman]

65. More spin

Gun owners do not want a renewal of the AWB. I have not seen or heard of a post ban 10+ rd magazine. Or an AR with too many evil features.

[iverglas]

67. the funny thing about "everyday people"

Yes, I know, "everyday" was a typo for "every day", but ...

When the high rates of homicide in the US are commented on, the comment is often met with a torrent of "but it's criminals killing other criminals!!" "It's gang violence!!" ... and pronouncements that this makes the US different from other places, because of all the criminals and gangs that those other places don't have.

Well oddly enough, that's kinda what's been happening in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,363761,00.html

Between 1997 and 1999 there were 429 murders in the capital, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years. At least 100 of them were drug-related; nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms.

And yes, firearms are being used more commonly by criminals in the commission of crimes in the UK.

Just like firearms are used by criminals to commit crimes (and at far higher rates) in the US -- where, unlike the UK, just about everybody is authorized to acquire firearms, and yet people still get robbed at gunpoint quite often, and usually in circumstances where even having a gun tucked in their pants wouldn't have helped. Not to mention all the people who are hit by bullets fired by people they didn't even see, let alone in time to shoot first.

But a whole lot fewer "everyday people" get killed by other "everyday people" in the UK than in the US. And that's what the UK firearms control measures were designed to make sure kept happening.

.

[alwynsw]

34. Exactly

:toast:

[alwynsw]

16. Enough.

You refuse to debate the issue as presented. I'll not waste any more time on this thread.

[MrBenchley]

18. Imagine that...

A Democrat not swallowing right wing horseshit.

[TyroneStryker]

37. I've never actually seen anybody consume

this "horseshit" you refer to.

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee the RKBA crowd makes it their steady diet

and then acts outraged when anybody points out that it is right wing horseshit.

[TyroneStryker]

39. Are you saying that only the "right wing" rides horses?

If so, please cite. Who makes the steaming pantloads?

[alwynsw]

40. Even as I said it, I knew I couldn't stay away. Why do I try?

[rusk2003]

23. They also ban non fatal self defence products

like stunguns,mace and other stuff. best option for british people is to buy a shot gun since those are allowed and get a few paintball guns and sowrds and some bats for their protection. Oh and A high powered Air gun may be of some use.

[OpelGT]

25. Air Rifle...

The UK treats high powered air rifles in the same manner as firearms. They base their definition of high power on the amount of muzzle energy produced. I can't remember if it is 12 or 22 foot-pounds of energy that they use as the line to differentiate between a BB gun and evil fire breathing death-stick.

[milliner]

42. Do the people matter?

found this story several times. It seems that the people of the UK would like to have a better opportunity to defend themselves. Seeing that extremely tight gun control laws are already in place and crime is on the rise the people of the UK would like the opportunity to defend themselves

http://www.techcentralstation.com/012304A.html

It seems to me that if the people want the ability to defend themselves than the people should get a vote. It appears that the ruling class fears this and what the people want has no relevance

[MrBenchley]

43. Not to the gun rights crowd...

Wonder how many of the "Brits" voting for "more guns" also pretended to be Wisconsin citizens?

And what's the source for this piece of shit? "Scott Norvell is the London Bureau Chief for Fox News."

Amazing, isn't it....for people who pretend to be gun totin' liberals, the RKBA crowd never seem to give credence to anything but the ugliest right wing gibberish, which they swallow and regurgitate here.

[alwynsw]

44. Try this thread on the Brits and gun laws

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35062

What? Only 37% of the poll picked defense of their homes by any means? There were other choices available. Home defense isn't at the top of everyone's list. The numbers do indicate that the UK should revisit the ban issue.

It seems that attitudes are changing for the better - in favor of firearms ownership.

[iverglas]

48. what? indeed

Only 37% of the poll picked defense of their homes by any means? There were other choices available.

Indeed there were. Mandatory voting was one of them. Complete ban on smoking in workplaces was another. Negative-option organ donation on death was another.

And ... as I've noted elsewhere ... 37% of what, exactly? Of the 25,000 people who responded ... well, of the 25,000 phone calls and emails received ... to a question asked on the radio?

Home defense isn't at the top of everyone's list.

Indeed. It wasn't top of the list for 63% of the people who responded, in fact. Not even when the other choices included banning xmas advertising before December 1, eh?

.

[milliner]

49. nice spin

the station took the top 5 and guess what came out on top.

And the elected representative that agreed to write a law and present it Is back peddling. Gee.

[milliner]

46. Here's another link

The source is the Sunday Times Review (UK) I belive, you have to register to read the article but it is free. I find it hard to believe the racist, slope head, knuckle draggers, are spending much time trying to skew polls taken in the UK, but hey, I'm sure things are great on your planet.

The facts are that the people of the UK want a better way to provide for their own safety.


http://www.cronaca.com/archives/001982.html

[iverglas]

47. it seems?

It seems that the people of the UK would like to have a better opportunity to defend themselves. Seeing that extremely tight gun control laws are already in place and crime is on the rise the people of the UK would like the opportunity to defend themselves

What it does seem is that somebody needs to read up on the stuff he's talking about.

It seems to me that if the people want the ability to defend themselves than the people should get a vote.

Prepare to be really astonished ... they do, and they did, and they have. It is apparently news to you, but general elections are held in the UK approximately as often as they are held in the US, and sometimes more often.

It appears that the ruling class fears this and what the people want has no relevance

I guess I'm the one who is most astonished though ... that anyone would say such damn fool things in public.

Yeah. The "ruling class" installed a Labour Party government, over the objections of "the people" ...

.

[milliner]

50. So why

is an elected reprsentative not taking the first step and presentia bill to allow people to deffend themselves?

[iverglas]

54. what exactly is it you're not getting here?

Governments in the UK are elected by the electorate, on a universal franchise basis, after election campaigns in which they present and defend their policy proposals.

The party that is elected may then be regarded as having a sorta moral obligation to do what it said it was going to do. Surely you're not suggesting that this is not what has happened in this respect.

Now here we have an evidently rather dim MP who played a silly game with the listeners of a radio show, who were offered a number of choices for what law they would like to see passed. They selected your hobbyhorse homeowner-"defence" law ... in preference to a law to prohibit xmas advertising before Dec 1.

The MP in question does indeed have a responsibility -- to the people of his riding, the people whom he was elected to represent. Maybe a couple of hundred thousand of them.

And you think that he has some obligation to do what ... what was it ... 37% of 25,000 ... 9,250 anonymous respondents (assuming no duplication, which I'm just not willing to assume in the circumstances) to a radio station's request for opinions said they want him to do (in preference to prohibiting xmas advertising before Dec. 1, remember) -- to introduce legislation -- because they won the contest??

Scusi, but have you reviewed the concept of liberal democracy lately?

So why
is an elected reprsentative not taking the first step and presentia bill to allow people to deffend themselves?

To summarize and just for starters: perhaps because the people who told him to do that were not the people who elected him and whose representative he is?

And perhaps because UK law already allows people to "deffend" themselves, but the actual people of the UK overwhelmingly do NOT want to be able, or to permit other people, to have unrestricted access to dangerous weapons that can, and have, been used by their lawful owners to kill a room full of schoolchildren and the like?

Yeah, perhaps that's it.

.

.

[MrBenchley]

53. You might recall

that when the people of Missouri said they did not want concealed weapons permits handed out, the Republican party and the corrupt gun industry rammed the measure through anyway...and that the RKBA crowd here did nothing but jeer at what "the people" wanted.

[MrSandman]

66. Hahahahahahahaha

When a minority in NM sued to stop CCW, the Court handed their hat to them.

[iverglas]

45. gosh, it's just amazing ...

Gun control cuts crime the #1 lie of the antis.

... how irrelevant that allegation (even if true) is to the situation in the UK.

As people who actually know -- like, people who live there -- have REPEATEDLY told anyone here who cared to listen, the "gun control" measures in issue in the UK were NEVER promoted as a way to "cut crime".

I just dunno how something that no one said could be a "lie" -- or could be true, for that matter.


The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant.

And amazingly enough, prohibiting children from driving cars hasn't stopped fatal car crashes from occurring.

Anyone who's truly amazed by that fact would have to be just astounded that restricting access to firearms by non-criminals (that being the intent and effect of the firearms control measures in question) hasn't stopped criminals from committing crimes using firearms. And, apparently, would think it wise to express that astonishment in public ... where a truly wise person might feel really silly doing it.

Guess we'd better just start issuing driver's licences to 12-year-olds.

.

[MrBenchley]

51. RKBA "logic" or whatever it is

Even better...how about driving licenses for the blind so that they can motor out to the woods to start banging away at whatever rustles in the brush?

[milliner]

52. not my argument

I know that more gun laws will not curtail crime.

I know that crime in USA is declining.

I know that persons wanting more gun control laws can show no proof that whatever outcome they predict, they can not be proved

I know that the example of the UK crime rate rising in spite of a virtual ban on guns is driving the gun contol crowd nuts.

[iverglas]

55. delirious?

I know that the example of the UK crime rate rising in spite of a virtual ban on guns is driving the gun contol crowd nuts.

Well, you might have a point there.

The piddling numbers of crimes committed in the UK with firearms could indeed be expected to drop further if the measures that it has implemented were followed by, oh, say, the US ... since most of the firearms in question have been illegally imported into the UK, obviously from somewhere that didn't bother keeping too close an eye on them, or just didn't give a shit.

Kinda like how it is in Canada. And in any jurisdiction that restricts legal access to firearms but isn't able to put up a wall at all the entrances.


I know that persons wanting more gun control laws can show no proof that whatever outcome they predict, they can not be proved

Funny how they can show some pretty good correlations, though. It ain't firearms control advocates who attempt to prove cause and effect in the main, though, I'm sure you know.

How many rooms full of schoolchildren have been murdered since the restrictions came into force in the UK? Damn, surely there should have been several, if firearms control doesn't work and in fact makes everything worse ...


Can you cite an authoritative source to support the notion that the UK's firearms control measures were intended to reduce the numbers of crimes committed by people using firearms to facilitate the commission of the offence?

Please do try.


I know that more gun laws will not curtail crime.

Oh ... and do you rent out that crystal ball? I'm wondering what the weather's going to be like next week.

.

[milliner]

56. No reasons then?

Can you cite an authoritative source to support the notion that the UK's firearms control measures were intended to reduce the numbers of crimes committed by people using firearms to facilitate the commission of the offense?

Please do try.

If firearm control measures are not to reduce the number crimes, why are they there

And why do people on this board daily post stories about criminals with guns committing crimes, if not trying to show that more gun control measures will reduce crime?

[iverglas]

57. not a clue then?

If firearm control measures are not to reduce the number crimes, why are they there

If you actually don't know, then you have no business discussing the issue of firearms control in the UK.

If you do know and are simply being disingenuous, I'm not playing.


And why do people on this board daily post stories about criminals with guns committing crimes, if not trying to show that more gun control measures will reduce crime?

And what does that have to do with the question put to you? --

Can you cite an authoritative source to support the notion that the UK's firearms control measures were intended to reduce the numbers of crimes committed by people using firearms to facilitate the commission of the offense?

.

[milliner]

58. Me too stoopid

Can you cite an authoritative source to support the notion that the UK's firearms control measures were intended to reduce the numbers of crimes committed by people using firearms to facilitate the commission of the offense?


No I can not.

If public safety is not the reason maybe you would be so kind as to enlighten me

[iverglas]

59. bait 'n switch, anyone?

If public safety is not the reason maybe you would be so kind as to enlighten me

Nah -- let's stick to your original words, not your revisionist version of them:

If firearm control measures are not to reduce the number <of> crimes, why are they there<?>

Try here

and specifically post 21, by an actual citizen of the UK:

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 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. ...

and his post 22:

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.......

and 34:

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 ... . ...

You will of course want to read all relevant portions of the thread for yourself.

And then there's this one, started by the same poster:

2. Pro-RKBA people on this board keep repeating the following mantra, or similar: "Gun crime is on the increase on the UK. They've banned guns entirely. Therefore their gun ban hasn't worked." This is either ignorance, dishonesty or bafflingly bad logic. The ban on guns was brought in solely to prevent perfectly law-abiding citizens from having access to guns. I appreciate that this might sound odd, but after 2 significant massacres by gun-owners with legally held weapons, the government (with massive public and media backing) decided that the risks of just one gun owner going berserk with a gun outweighed the rights of the UK public to participate in shooting as a sport or the collection of working firearms as a hobby. The law was in no way intended to address the use of firearms by criminals, who would, in any case, be obtaining illegal weapons illegally on the black market. It was only aimed at preventing tragedies like Hungerford and Dunblane, which between them claimed 33 lives, many of them children.

... Some quotes and stats to back me up a bit (although you won't like the source):

"Although we have always had some of the tightest gun laws in the world, it is worth noting that pistol shooting was the fastest-growing sport in the country at the time of Dunblane and that there was evidence of a particular growth in gun clubs offering ‘practical shooting’ or ‘combat shooting’ activities. We could legitimately point to the spectre of the American style gun culture in which over 30,000 people are killed by gunfire every year and say to the public that we must make sure we do not go down the American road.

The reform of our domestic gun laws is significant not only because it has meant that around 200,000 handguns were handed in and destroyed but because it sends a clear message about what kind of civil society we want to live in. A statement has been made, a position taken, that guns, particularly handguns, are dangerous and unnecessary and we will all be safer if there are fewer of them.

This statement seems to most people self-evidently true, but the war of statistics rages around this simple proposition. Shooters in America will draw on figures which purport to prove that you are safer if you have a gun than if you don’t...

The following (UK) facts should help to put the record straight.

1. The overall rise in crimes of violence in 2000 was 16% and the rise in robbery 26% so it is true that we seem to be becoming a more violent society generally...

2. Guns were used relatively rarely in violent crime ie in only 4.7% of robberies in 1999 and 8% of homicides, so the problem is to a very large extent one of non-firearms crime.

3. Handgun homicide figures are very low and since 1980 have fluctuated from 7 in 1988, through to 35 in 1993 and a previous high of 39 in1997. So 42 gun murders in 1999 does not represent a statistically significant increase."

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GRIP.htm

Then you could always try doing your own research.

Or keep talking out of your bum. Nothing I can do about it.

.

[MrBenchley]

60. I think he summed himself up perfectly well

"You will never stop criminals from acquiring and using the best tools for the job. "
Hell, in the US the gun lobby and "enthusiasts" are doing all they can to get our criminals new and ever more lethal tools without impediments like background checks, despite the desire of honest citizens. And of course, soomer or later those toys will make their way to the UK and Canada, and we'll be told gun laws there don't work by people unable (or too dishonest) to grasp the facts you've posted here.

[TyroneStryker]

61. What a steaming pantload

hahahahahahaha

[alwynsw]

62. Go peddle that rubbish to someone who cares