To show how effective Gun control is in England

[tjinaz]

What is next, fork control, how about pointy stick control? It goes to show that if people want to harm each other they will. It is not about the implement used to attack but the attack itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

This is completely ridiculous, but follows the line of logic used in gun control.

[Abstract]

What a ridiculous statement and comparison.

I agree that its stupid to try and ban knives being sold but how do you compare that to gun control? Do you need guns to prepare food? Knives are one of many things that are necessary to have but can be used to harm people. Dometic keeping of guns is not necessary in my opinion. And gun ownership is very tightly restricted here in the UK, do you think thats wrong?

Also the article refers to a very sepcific type of knife and not just any "pointy" knife. You might wanna actually read what you're posting a link to and consider your argument and comparisons next time.

[RougeUnderoos]

I agree. If the Brits would just allow unfettered access to all weapons, especially guns, their streets would be as safe as those found in America, and their violent crime and murder rate would drop down to nothing, just like America.

Clearly more guns = more safety. The numbers just prove it.

[RatherDashing]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jun 1 2005, 05:23 PM
I agree. If the Brits would just allow unfettered access to all weapons, especially guns, their streets would be as safe as those found in America, and their violent crime and murder rate would drop down to nothing, just like America.

Clearly more guns = more safety. The numbers just prove it.

Thats a good point, how do you protect yourself if you don't have a gun?

Back on topic though, this seems like a pretty reasonable idea, and they present a lot of reasons for banning these knives. What specifically is wrong with the idea?

[Agamemnon]

This does not show 'how effective Gun control is in England'.

[tjinaz]

The point is you can ban anything you want. It is not effective as it does not prevent the violence it simply provides a conduit. They banned guns now it is knife violence that is the issue. Once they ban "pointy" knives it will be screwdriver violence or cricket bat violence that is the problem. Where does it end?

They are not addressing the root of the problem. They are treating a symptom.

Be careful what you wish for when you ask for numbers. The crime statistics are at 30yr lows in the US with no gun control. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm


Here is a nice link from a Prof at Simon Fraser on the issue.
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 2 2005, 01:49 AM
The point is you can ban anything you want. It is not effective as it does not prevent the violence it simply provides a conduit.

Preventing the conduit reduces the ability to cause damage from violence though.

Someone is certainly going to have to go through a lot more trouble to kill someone without a gun than with.

[tjinaz]

I don't necessarily agree with all that. Granted it is easier to pull a trigger than stab someone. That will apply to the impulse crimes of passion and the whole murder suicide gig but... What about the home invasion, rape or robbery senario. Would knowing that your intended victim is not armed make you more or less likely to carry though with your crime?

That is the problem in the UK and Austrailia are having now. The criminals have no fear. They know they can take what they want because they are young and mean and their gang will simply roll over the victim with brute force. By the time the police get there they are long gone and if the people talk they or someone they know get the beat down.

More on the statistics between crime in Europe and the US.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 1 2005, 07:49 PM
The point is you can ban anything you want. It is not effective as it does not prevent the violence it simply provides a conduit. They banned guns now it is knife violence that is the issue. Once they ban "pointy" knives it will be screwdriver violence or cricket bat violence that is the problem. Where does it end?

They are not addressing the root of the problem. They are treating a symptom.

Be careful what you wish for when you ask for numbers. The crime statistics are at 30yr lows in the US with no gun control. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm


Here is a nice link from a Prof at Simon Fraser on the issue.
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf

They were also at a 30 year high with no gun control as well, weren't they?

The numbers are going down here too, though apparently not as dramatically in the States, according to your linked article.

I can't explain that. I can't explain anything really but I know they have free access to guns in the States and more crime.

There are a lot more people in Canada than there are in Georgia but about the same amount of people get murdered in that state as do in this country, IIRC. They have an awful lot of guns there though I'm sure.

Back to the point -- sure you can ban anything you want. I know I'd much rather be attacked by a guy with a screwdriver, kitchen knife or ball-peen hammer than a guy with a shotgun.

[tjinaz]

True True Rouge did not think about that...

Personally I would rather be shot than hammered to death, but that is just me.

I think there are many misconceptions about gun control. Not many of the rural towns where everyone hunts and has guns have high crime rates. But in the big cities where there are very restrictive gun control laws there is gun violence. Why is that?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 1 2005, 08:44 PM
True True Rouge did not think about that...

Personally I would rather be shot than hammered to death, but that is just me.

I think there are many misconceptions about gun control. Not many of the rural towns where everyone hunts and has guns have high crime rates. But in the big cities where there are very restrictive gun control laws there is gun violence. Why is that?

I'd rather be attacked with a hammer and have a chance to save myself, but if I was going to go, I agree, getting shot would be preferable. Neither would be better obviously. I don't feel I have to worry about either though.

I'm no criminologist but I know there are many reasons above and beyond "the criminals know you won't have a gun to defend yourself". That may be part of it but a very small part I'd say. They are criminals after all. They don't worry too much about getting caught or shot I'd think.

Are there more restrictive gun control laws in the big cities? For example in Florida would there be stiffer rules in Miami than in Ocala?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 1 2005, 07:27 PM
What about the home invasion, rape or robbery
That is the problem in the UK and Austrailia are having now. The criminals have no fear. They know they can take what they want because they are young and mean and their gang will simply roll over the victim with brute force. By the time the police get there they are long gone and if the people talk they or someone they know get the beat down.

More on the statistics between crime in Europe and the US.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

The whole idea that I have to carry a gun to protect myself from other human beings, makes me ill. Having said that I have no problem with hunters or rural residents having game rifles such as 30-30's, 303's or shotguns.

[Tower]

I agree with the no knife thing. we should all have lasers...

[Buff]

Originally posted by Tower@Jun 2 2005, 01:53 AM
I agree with the no knife thing. we should all have lasers...

Lasers? They are so... primitive. We need lightsabers! And to make sure they are used properly we need a Jedi Council, ya know, to keep the peace.

Ok back to topic. I completely agree with Rouge, it is easier to defend yourself against a hammer attack than a gun attack.

We also don't know what makes a criminal tick, but I'd bet that they don't think that you may or may not have a gun. If I try to put myself in the shoes of a criminal, I'd probably be thinking that if I get the jump on them it own't matter if they have a gun or other weapon because the chances of them using the weapon decrease if they are surprised.

[tjinaz]

Well looked it up and Miami-Dade has more restrictive gun laws than Ocala. http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/s...state.php?st=fl

The States can add more restrictions within certain limits, but have to enforce the Federal laws as a minimum. For example California has banned certain types of high capacity rifles and high cap magazines for pistols. Arizona has not. In Arizona a private citizen can walk around with a gun in a holster on his hip in public. So long as the gun is not concealed. It is more of a red state blue state thing. Blue states are very restrictive and Reds are not.

[tjinaz]

I think it goes the other way. The criminal has to ask if what they might take from you is worth their life. If they are going to rob you and they think you might have a gun they will wait until they know you will not be home. Which is fine for me. Take my stuff, im insured, but you threaten my family.... that is another story.

More stats on the effect of allowing concealed weapon permits and violent crime.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/florccw.html

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 2 2005, 03:42 PM
I think it goes the other way. The criminal has to ask if what they might take from you is worth their life. If they are going to rob you and they think you might have a gun they will wait until they know you will not be home. Which is fine for me. Take my stuff, im insured, but you threaten my family.... that is another story.

Or perhaps if they thought most people didn't have guns, they wouldn't bother bringing a dangerous weapon with them anyways. They would just rely on stealth and if confronted, would escape.

It's pretty easy to argue it anyway you want. But what is pretty obvious to me is that if a large percentage of the population has guns, that increases the chances of them getting into the wrong hands (kids), or a mistake being made (someone shooting a kid who sneaks into their parents room).

I really don't buy the self defense theory.

[dustygoon]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jun 2 2005, 12:23 AM
I agree. If the Brits would just allow unfettered access to all weapons, especially guns, their streets would be as safe as those found in America, and their violent crime and murder rate would drop down to nothing, just like America.

Clearly more guns = more safety. The numbers just prove it.

Doesn't Canada have 10 times the guns per capita as the US but 1/10 the number of gun related crime per capita (or is that murders?). I am not exactly sure of the stat but it is something like that. So more guns does not neccessarily mean more crime. It is the kind of guns and the dim wits holding them that makes the difference.

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jun 2 2005, 02:32 AM
They were also at a 30 year high with no gun control as well, weren't they?

The numbers are going down here too, though apparently not as dramatically in the States, according to your linked article.

I can't explain that. I can't explain anything really but I know they have free access to guns in the States and more crime.

Here are what are described as violent crimes, from the article:

rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide.

Now combine that with the demographics in Canada and the US. Baby Boomers (huge swell in the population) all hit about 40 in the early 90s.

Guess what, 40+ year olds are less likely to commit violent crimes. Therefore, most juristictions in North America have seen a big decrease in violent crimes over the past decade. They're not doing anything better / smarter, just the majority of the population is now past their violent-crime-committing age.

In a related note, white-collar crimes and passive crimes are on the increase. Bad people in their 40s and 50s tend to embezzle money and cook books and defraud old people.

Not saying this is 100% the answer, but it does shed some light on the statistics.

Overall, I agree that needing a gun to protect yourself from guns is CRAZY! I think Canada had great gun laws PRE the $1-2B registry fiasco.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by dustygoon+Jun 2 2005, 10:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dustygoon @ Jun 2 2005, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Jun 2 2005, 12:23 AM
I agree.# If the Brits would just allow unfettered access to all weapons, especially guns, their streets would be as safe as those found in America, and their violent crime and murder rate would drop down to nothing, just like America.

Clearly more guns = more safety.# The numbers just prove it.

Doesn't Canada have 10 times the guns per capita as the US but 1/10 the number of gun related crime per capita (or is that murders?). I am not exactly sure of the stat but it is something like that. So more guns does not neccessarily mean more crime. It is the kind of guns and the dim wits holding them that makes the difference. [/b][/quote]
No, that's wrong. The states have more guns per capita than Canada does.
As of 1998 (latest numbers I could find without putting much effort in)
Canada had .25 guns per capita and a deaths from firearms rate (per 100 000) of 4.3 (this includes suicides and accidents).
The US had .82 guns per capita (3.3 times higher) and 11.4 deatsh per 100 000 (2.7 times higher than Canada).

How this relates to crime I don't know, but There are definately mome guns in the US.

EDIT: Another quick thing to point out. The US had more than 60 times the number of handguns (So about 6x per capita) than Canada.