MicroBalrog
member
Please prove the latter statement. How are guns not a deterrent to violent crime, in particular "street crime"?
An Article about homicides in Britain
- Thread starter MicroBalrog
- Start date
- Status
Please prove the latter statement. How are guns not a deterrent to violent crime, in particular "street crime"?
agricola
Member
microbalrog,
thats not what you asked. you said:
Agricola: Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?
As you've asked the question though, IMHO the value in having a firearm for self defence has to be balanced against the far increased likelyhood that the criminal is going to be armed as well. In the US context, as I have stated many times, possession of a firearm for self-defence is justified for the above reason. In the UK, implementing a CCW system and dismantling the Firearms Act would have the sole effect of arming each and every perp who wanted one, which would make CCW be a neccesity because each and every law-abiding person would have to go out and arm themselves for protection.
Its fairly clear from studies of seized weapons that the supply of firearms to the "underworld" is running at a very low level, with DIY guns being the firearms of choice. Of course, if someone wants a gun then, providing they know the right people, then they can get one, but that is a world apart from being able to pick one up from the corner shop.
The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves).
Of course, the absolutist 2A position would not bother about such pesky things as facts, because it would be wrong to deny the God-given right to have a gun.
In any case, the decision is moot. There is no public groundswell of opinion behind RKBA, and so the current system isnt likely to change any time soon.
thats not what you asked. you said:
Agricola: Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?
As you've asked the question though, IMHO the value in having a firearm for self defence has to be balanced against the far increased likelyhood that the criminal is going to be armed as well. In the US context, as I have stated many times, possession of a firearm for self-defence is justified for the above reason. In the UK, implementing a CCW system and dismantling the Firearms Act would have the sole effect of arming each and every perp who wanted one, which would make CCW be a neccesity because each and every law-abiding person would have to go out and arm themselves for protection.
Its fairly clear from studies of seized weapons that the supply of firearms to the "underworld" is running at a very low level, with DIY guns being the firearms of choice. Of course, if someone wants a gun then, providing they know the right people, then they can get one, but that is a world apart from being able to pick one up from the corner shop.
The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves).
Of course, the absolutist 2A position would not bother about such pesky things as facts, because it would be wrong to deny the God-given right to have a gun.
In any case, the decision is moot. There is no public groundswell of opinion behind RKBA, and so the current system isnt likely to change any time soon.
MicroBalrog
member
Well, given the fact that the number of murders actually FALLs when more guns are available (Moldavia, Estonia, Lithuania, USA CCW laws), I think you're wrong. Oh, and did you read my recent editorial?
MicroBalrog
member
According to the reliable Home Office, one out of three british criminals has a gun.
But the point is moot - USSR had lots of murders, and most of them where committed without guns (most often by thugs ganging up on victims).
agricola
Member
i'd be interested in seeing that study, given that armed crime forms 0.2% of overall crime, and 10% of robberies.
Tamara
Senior Member
agricola,
Just for the record, DC has gun laws that are as strict or stricter than the UK's. (Fat lot of good it seems to do them, however.
)
Just for the record, DC has gun laws that are as strict or stricter than the UK's. (Fat lot of good it seems to do them, however.
)MicroBalrog
member
Tamara - so did moscow. Up until 1997, only hunters and sportsmen could have guns in Russia, then they extended it (shotguns only) to everybody else who gets a license. First prize goes to anybody who guesses what that did to the burglary rate.
rrader
member
Agricola:
How many guns do you own?
You live in a society that denies the basic human right to self defense with firearms and one that bases it draconian firearms laws on nothing more than a profound hoplophobia.
Any knowledge of the proper role that firearms play in a free society would be historical at best for you, a citizen of the UK.
I live in a state, Virginia, with ready access to firearms and which respects a person's right to keep and bear arms for self defense. I own firearms, I doubt that you do, I can see the evidence all around me of their worth, you cant. I spent this morning at the range, I doubt that you did.
Take your own advice. Educate your own self.
How many guns do you own?
You live in a society that denies the basic human right to self defense with firearms and one that bases it draconian firearms laws on nothing more than a profound hoplophobia.
Any knowledge of the proper role that firearms play in a free society would be historical at best for you, a citizen of the UK.
I live in a state, Virginia, with ready access to firearms and which respects a person's right to keep and bear arms for self defense. I own firearms, I doubt that you do, I can see the evidence all around me of their worth, you cant. I spent this morning at the range, I doubt that you did.
Take your own advice. Educate your own self.
agricola
Member
What, no more duck noises?
So your "expertise" on the UK stems from living in a state more than a thousand miles from there, in a different country, under different laws, enjoying different freedoms. It seems that you have no idea what the UK is like, even on a basic level.
I concede I have no idea about range matters or what-pistol is best, which is why I steer clear of those debates. Since your ignorance has been shown up here, maybe you should stick to the range and leave the debates about the UK to those who actually know something?
So your "expertise" on the UK stems from living in a state more than a thousand miles from there, in a different country, under different laws, enjoying different freedoms. It seems that you have no idea what the UK is like, even on a basic level.
I concede I have no idea about range matters or what-pistol is best, which is why I steer clear of those debates. Since your ignorance has been shown up here, maybe you should stick to the range and leave the debates about the UK to those who actually know something?
Giant
Member
Quote:
"I concede I have no idea about range matters or what-pistol is best, which is why I steer clear of those debates. Since your ignorance has been shown up here, maybe you should stick to the range and leave the debates about the UK to those who actually know something?"
I submit that the above quote was not written by "our" agricola, he would never utter the words that a fellow board member was ignorant, with ignorance defined as the state of being ignorant. However, had the "true" agricola made that statement an apology would be in order.
Not to worry though, the "true" agricola will arrive momentarily and explain that what was written meant ignorance of things UK, although that was not the way it was written or meant.
As one who has looked in on these debates and on occasion participated I have concluded one must be very precise when debating with agricola, for he has in my opinion a creative way of parsing statements or questions. A response by agricola to a question asked by MicroBalrog in this thread demonstrates what I have observed.
MicroBalrog asked of agricola: "Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?" The reply from agricola was: "microbalrog, yes (obviously) and no."
agricola was able to say no to the second part of the question because of the time span of 80 years or so and the word steadily that had been included in the question. The fact is the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined in the past 80 years but, perhaps not steadily - Certainly though the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined during the past ten years.
You might say that was a very tiny hook to hang ones argument upon. With agricola though, any tiny hook will do, for in my opinion he will insist on a debate of a historical event, or current event that you include the exact date, year, month, day, day of the week, time of day, hour, minute, and second! Haven't got that, sorry, you are wrong, end of debate.
In a debate with agricola on gun control and statistics in the UK, he has convinced himself that his opinion is right and correct. Nothing will convince him otherwise, ever! That is the reason I will not debate the man, it is a waste of time and effort.
Giant
"I concede I have no idea about range matters or what-pistol is best, which is why I steer clear of those debates. Since your ignorance has been shown up here, maybe you should stick to the range and leave the debates about the UK to those who actually know something?"
I submit that the above quote was not written by "our" agricola, he would never utter the words that a fellow board member was ignorant, with ignorance defined as the state of being ignorant. However, had the "true" agricola made that statement an apology would be in order.
Not to worry though, the "true" agricola will arrive momentarily and explain that what was written meant ignorance of things UK, although that was not the way it was written or meant.
As one who has looked in on these debates and on occasion participated I have concluded one must be very precise when debating with agricola, for he has in my opinion a creative way of parsing statements or questions. A response by agricola to a question asked by MicroBalrog in this thread demonstrates what I have observed.
MicroBalrog asked of agricola: "Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?" The reply from agricola was: "microbalrog, yes (obviously) and no."
agricola was able to say no to the second part of the question because of the time span of 80 years or so and the word steadily that had been included in the question. The fact is the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined in the past 80 years but, perhaps not steadily - Certainly though the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined during the past ten years.
You might say that was a very tiny hook to hang ones argument upon. With agricola though, any tiny hook will do, for in my opinion he will insist on a debate of a historical event, or current event that you include the exact date, year, month, day, day of the week, time of day, hour, minute, and second! Haven't got that, sorry, you are wrong, end of debate.
In a debate with agricola on gun control and statistics in the UK, he has convinced himself that his opinion is right and correct. Nothing will convince him otherwise, ever! That is the reason I will not debate the man, it is a waste of time and effort.
Giant
agricola
Member
giant,
for a start, rrader is clearly ignorant of what is happening in the UK; he has been pointed in the correct direction, not only by me, but also by MkVII and Tamara, as well as Colin Greenwood (indirectly, of course). you also make the same mistake when you write "Certainly though the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined during the past ten years".
It is ignorance when, after two pages and probably a year's worth of debates along similar lines, people like you and rrader come out with the same tired (and wrong) argument over and over again. This isnt a "tiny hook" - its the fact that disproves the theory, prevalent amongst the less-well educated on this issue, that the 1997 ban on handguns disarmed the UK populace. It didnt -those people, using your rationale, were already disarmed. The reason why one is unbending on this issue is because it is correct. Its not a theory, it is a fact.
Read MkVII's post again:
American contributors to these often bad-tempered discussions are anxious to prove that 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore it should be abandoned'. The response of most politicians and police here would normally be 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore what we need is more of it'. The strategy of British gun owners is, therefore, to point out that legal guns (and their owners) were and are quite irrelevant to the recent increases in gun crime. Gun control advocates, when taxed with the view that the pistol ban has not reduced crime, reply, 'Well, we never thought it would. That wasn't the point of it.' This wasn't what they said at the time of course. ACPO's submission to the Cullen Enquiry said [I am paraphrasing from memory somewhat] 'we cannot identify any changes to the current system of firearms control that would achieve any significant increase in public safety. Practically everything in the way of tweaking the system that could be done has already been tried. Since doing nothing is not an option politically then a complete ban it will have to be.'
As probably the only one around here who did actually own several pistols and was on the club scene at the time I can state with confidence that pistol ownership never was any significant deterrent to crime as virtually no criminals ever reckoned they might be confronted by an armed victim in the first place. Self-defence was not a subject which was much, if ever, discussed around the table. If you were meeting your legal obligations you would have gun and ammo locked up and inaccessible in separate locations so you would have no chance of getting to it in any useful timescale anyway. On journeys to and from the club I never carried the gun loaded -partly because most of them were unsuited to concealed carry and I would have had to buy multiple holsters, but mostly because I never rated the risk sufficiently high to be worth worrying about. I might occasionally have a speedloader in the pocket, if I could be bothered.
it seems that rrader hasnt even been to the UK. what is your experience of firearms ownership or legislation in the UK? thats why i dont pontificate on things about which i'm ignorant (aside from one post on TFL, and that was more a learning-experience).
for a start, rrader is clearly ignorant of what is happening in the UK; he has been pointed in the correct direction, not only by me, but also by MkVII and Tamara, as well as Colin Greenwood (indirectly, of course). you also make the same mistake when you write "Certainly though the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined during the past ten years".
It is ignorance when, after two pages and probably a year's worth of debates along similar lines, people like you and rrader come out with the same tired (and wrong) argument over and over again. This isnt a "tiny hook" - its the fact that disproves the theory, prevalent amongst the less-well educated on this issue, that the 1997 ban on handguns disarmed the UK populace. It didnt -those people, using your rationale, were already disarmed. The reason why one is unbending on this issue is because it is correct. Its not a theory, it is a fact.
Read MkVII's post again:
American contributors to these often bad-tempered discussions are anxious to prove that 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore it should be abandoned'. The response of most politicians and police here would normally be 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore what we need is more of it'. The strategy of British gun owners is, therefore, to point out that legal guns (and their owners) were and are quite irrelevant to the recent increases in gun crime. Gun control advocates, when taxed with the view that the pistol ban has not reduced crime, reply, 'Well, we never thought it would. That wasn't the point of it.' This wasn't what they said at the time of course. ACPO's submission to the Cullen Enquiry said [I am paraphrasing from memory somewhat] 'we cannot identify any changes to the current system of firearms control that would achieve any significant increase in public safety. Practically everything in the way of tweaking the system that could be done has already been tried. Since doing nothing is not an option politically then a complete ban it will have to be.'
As probably the only one around here who did actually own several pistols and was on the club scene at the time I can state with confidence that pistol ownership never was any significant deterrent to crime as virtually no criminals ever reckoned they might be confronted by an armed victim in the first place. Self-defence was not a subject which was much, if ever, discussed around the table. If you were meeting your legal obligations you would have gun and ammo locked up and inaccessible in separate locations so you would have no chance of getting to it in any useful timescale anyway. On journeys to and from the club I never carried the gun loaded -partly because most of them were unsuited to concealed carry and I would have had to buy multiple holsters, but mostly because I never rated the risk sufficiently high to be worth worrying about. I might occasionally have a speedloader in the pocket, if I could be bothered.
it seems that rrader hasnt even been to the UK. what is your experience of firearms ownership or legislation in the UK? thats why i dont pontificate on things about which i'm ignorant (aside from one post on TFL, and that was more a learning-experience).
MicroBalrog
member
Agricola: IIRC my claim about every third criminal being armed is either from the BBC or the Telegraph. Trouble looking it up. Sorry. Terribly sorry.:banghead:
T.Stahl
Member
Hmm, after reading another thread related to Great Britain I have several questions:
a) I understand and accept that - in the near past - there was no way ordinary citizens in GB were allowed to carry handguns for personal protection outside their homes. But how about other tools for self defense? Were CS/CN/OC sprays, knives, ASPs, ... ever legal to own or even carry?
d) What am I actually allowed to carry in GB that could help me to defend myself?
c) Why does the rate of gun-related crime rise steadily in GB, while in Germany (which is just across the Channel and MUCH closer than the USA) gun-related crime is steadily decreasing, despite ever stricter gun-laws in GB?
d) Why do I feel so much safer here in Germany, where I'm not only allowed to own guns and keep them ready for self-defense in my home, but even to carry any of the items mentioned under a)?
a) I understand and accept that - in the near past - there was no way ordinary citizens in GB were allowed to carry handguns for personal protection outside their homes. But how about other tools for self defense? Were CS/CN/OC sprays, knives, ASPs, ... ever legal to own or even carry?
d) What am I actually allowed to carry in GB that could help me to defend myself?
c) Why does the rate of gun-related crime rise steadily in GB, while in Germany (which is just across the Channel and MUCH closer than the USA) gun-related crime is steadily decreasing, despite ever stricter gun-laws in GB?
d) Why do I feel so much safer here in Germany, where I'm not only allowed to own guns and keep them ready for self-defense in my home, but even to carry any of the items mentioned under a)?
agricola
Member
t.stahl,
a) CS and similar is a no-no. The rest (excepted items like balisong and some others) are legal to own and carry on private property (with the consent of the owner) but illegal to carry in public "without good reason" - this has been held to include self defence in some cases, but not in others.
b) see above. In general, where there is no actual definable "reason" for self-defence (the absence of an expected threat), nothing.
c) partially, because more laws = more offences. The rise in killings and shootings is probably down to disputes over crack cocaine and the control of that trade, as well as smaller disputes over heroin and ecstacy trade control.
d) probably because its your home. I feel safe in the UK for the same reason.
a) CS and similar is a no-no. The rest (excepted items like balisong and some others) are legal to own and carry on private property (with the consent of the owner) but illegal to carry in public "without good reason" - this has been held to include self defence in some cases, but not in others.
b) see above. In general, where there is no actual definable "reason" for self-defence (the absence of an expected threat), nothing.
c) partially, because more laws = more offences. The rise in killings and shootings is probably down to disputes over crack cocaine and the control of that trade, as well as smaller disputes over heroin and ecstacy trade control.
d) probably because its your home. I feel safe in the UK for the same reason.
agricola
Member
microbalrog,
i'd doubt that figure because, if the US shows anything, its that when criminals have access to firearms they usually use them.
i'd doubt that figure because, if the US shows anything, its that when criminals have access to firearms they usually use them.
MicroBalrog
member
In the US, 68% of all violent cirme is commited without firearms - even though the legal system there defines "used a gun during commission of crime" as "had a gun within one mile of himself during commission of crime".
T.Stahl
Member
Hello agricola,
ad a) CS/CN/OC spray is illegal to own, knives and ASPs are illegal to carry in public. Strange, in Germany there is absolutely no problem with ordinary citizens carrying such self-defense tools.
ad b) That means, should I ever visit GB again, I'd have to leave my hotel room completely defenceless, because no criminal sent me any proof that he'll rob me on the way to/from the pub? What if I'd wear my heavy hiking boots instead of light shoes, because they'll allow me to kick harder? Would I be allowed to carry a hiking stick without having a bad knee or a Surefire though the streets are lit?
Or would carrying a mobile phone be reason enough to make carrying my Glock legal? I mean, aren't most of the street robberies about mobile phones?
ad c) It is just as illegal for a criminal in GB to possess a gun as it is for a criminal in Germany. Is there more crime in GB or are there just more laws to break?
ad d) No, it's because I'm allowed to be armed and prepared to defend myself. In Great Britain, what can I do to protect myself against burglars? Which of the items on my bedside table would a burglar fear most? The mobile phone, the OC spray, or my 9mm Glock?
ad a) CS/CN/OC spray is illegal to own, knives and ASPs are illegal to carry in public. Strange, in Germany there is absolutely no problem with ordinary citizens carrying such self-defense tools.
ad b) That means, should I ever visit GB again, I'd have to leave my hotel room completely defenceless, because no criminal sent me any proof that he'll rob me on the way to/from the pub? What if I'd wear my heavy hiking boots instead of light shoes, because they'll allow me to kick harder? Would I be allowed to carry a hiking stick without having a bad knee or a Surefire though the streets are lit?
Or would carrying a mobile phone be reason enough to make carrying my Glock legal? I mean, aren't most of the street robberies about mobile phones?
ad c) It is just as illegal for a criminal in GB to possess a gun as it is for a criminal in Germany. Is there more crime in GB or are there just more laws to break?
ad d) No, it's because I'm allowed to be armed and prepared to defend myself. In Great Britain, what can I do to protect myself against burglars? Which of the items on my bedside table would a burglar fear most? The mobile phone, the OC spray, or my 9mm Glock?
Agricola --
Absolutist 2nd Amendment person here -- no, it is not a God-given right to have a gun, it is a God given right to defend my own life against those who would take it. As a practical person, since a concealed handgun is usually the most effective TOOL to preserve my right to life, that is what I chose to carry.
Absolutist 2nd Amendment person here -- no, it is not a God-given right to have a gun, it is a God given right to defend my own life against those who would take it. As a practical person, since a concealed handgun is usually the most effective TOOL to preserve my right to life, that is what I chose to carry.
Giant
Member
Quote from agricola to Giant:
"it seems that rrader hasnt even been to the UK. what is your experience of firearms ownership or legislation in the UK? thats why i dont pontificate on things about which i'm ignorant (aside from one post on TFL, and that was more a learning-experience)."
Another quote from agricola, in this thread.
"The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves)."
agricola, I have little knowledge of life in London, or the UK. BTW, by UK, do you mean all of it? Down under and Canada, too! (g) Just as I know not as much as I would like to about England, I dare say you are in a similar state, regarding DC. Pontification aside, what is in question here are the statistics published by our respective governments, not whether my undies are boxers or briefs, or their degree of twisting and bunching.
The crime stats show England has a problem, where criminals have firearms and they are using them to kill people, those being killed are not all drug peddlers or junkies. English gun control is not working, it is not common disarmed citizens who are going about killing with guns. Those doing the killings are criminals armed with guns. Trust me on this, the high crime rate is because criminals have the guns! Criminals don't obey laws, that is why they are called criminals. Criminals will never ever turn in their guns, the po po in England will never ever be able to prevent criminals from procuring guns, the criminals will smuggle guns or manufacture guns.
Just a thought.
This thread gets old with me though, I would much rather participate in another thread, where I could learn or understand more about why folk like yourself are so antigun. I do respect your tenacity, we just don't agree!
I suppose my first query would be; if you were being attacked by a hand gun wielding criminal who was pointing said hand gun at you and shouting "yer time has come!" how would you avoid being killed?
This has been really fun, but the thread seems to have digressed from the original, or first post.
Giant
"it seems that rrader hasnt even been to the UK. what is your experience of firearms ownership or legislation in the UK? thats why i dont pontificate on things about which i'm ignorant (aside from one post on TFL, and that was more a learning-experience)."
Another quote from agricola, in this thread.
"The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves)."
agricola, I have little knowledge of life in London, or the UK. BTW, by UK, do you mean all of it? Down under and Canada, too! (g) Just as I know not as much as I would like to about England, I dare say you are in a similar state, regarding DC. Pontification aside, what is in question here are the statistics published by our respective governments, not whether my undies are boxers or briefs, or their degree of twisting and bunching.
The crime stats show England has a problem, where criminals have firearms and they are using them to kill people, those being killed are not all drug peddlers or junkies. English gun control is not working, it is not common disarmed citizens who are going about killing with guns. Those doing the killings are criminals armed with guns. Trust me on this, the high crime rate is because criminals have the guns! Criminals don't obey laws, that is why they are called criminals. Criminals will never ever turn in their guns, the po po in England will never ever be able to prevent criminals from procuring guns, the criminals will smuggle guns or manufacture guns.
Just a thought.
This thread gets old with me though, I would much rather participate in another thread, where I could learn or understand more about why folk like yourself are so antigun. I do respect your tenacity, we just don't agree!
I suppose my first query would be; if you were being attacked by a hand gun wielding criminal who was pointing said hand gun at you and shouting "yer time has come!" how would you avoid being killed?
This has been really fun, but the thread seems to have digressed from the original, or first post.
Giant
Leatherneck
Member
PSSST: Giant:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
TC
TFL Survivor
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
TC
TFL Survivor
Giant
Member
Quote from Leatherneck:
"PSSST: Giant:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Leatherneck, thanks I needed that!
Looks like this thread has died a natural death, time to be off in search of logic and reason
Giant
"PSSST: Giant:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Leatherneck, thanks I needed that!
Looks like this thread has died a natural death, time to be off in search of logic and reason
Giant
- Status
