Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
Someone must be trying to change the subject.
British gun control at work
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
- Status
Someone must be trying to change the subject.
agricola
Member
chl,
that would be someone called jimpeel:
that would be someone called jimpeel:
jimpeel
Member
juggler and Cool Hand Luke 22:36
I have tried to get back on subject when I posted:
I'm wrong, you're right; and the assemblage will make that determination for their own edification regardless of what either of us have posted.
Now, about this guy with the hammer; and whether the firearms laws in Britain have caused criminals to shift their choice of weapons to perpetrate their crimes because of them; and whether those laws have actually caused a decrease in crime, criminality, and the murder rate ...
I have tried to get back on subject when I posted:
But the response continues to be "Nuh uh! You're wrong and I'm right!"
So if it helps to get this thread back on topic I submit the following for the edification of agricola:
I'm wrong, you're right; and the assemblage will make that determination for their own edification regardless of what either of us have posted.
Now, about this guy with the hammer; and whether the firearms laws in Britain have caused criminals to shift their choice of weapons to perpetrate their crimes because of them; and whether those laws have actually caused a decrease in crime, criminality, and the murder rate ...
jimpeel
Member
I say that the laws have merely shifted the focus of the weapons used, and have had no effect on the crime rate. Firearms are still finding their way into Britain and those who lack firearms are merely shifting their use of weapons to whatever is on hand.
Hell, here in the e-e-e-e-e-e-vil country of America we had a guy beaten to death with a toilet seat! We could, of course, prevent that ever happening again by requiring the destruction of all toilet seats and making everyone sit on the porcelain instead. That would, however, cause more injuries when people's a--es become stuck to the toilet in freezing weather. Again, one evil is merely replaced by another.
AND, NO, I AM NOT TRYING TO SHIFT THE THREAD TO THE TOPIC OF TOILET SEATS!
Although Magnolia does have a lovely line of toilet seats in decorator colors and natural woods
Last edited:
agricola
Member
jimpeel,
Thanks for having the honesty to admit your mistakes.
Now, with regards to this case there is little likelyhood that CCW would have prevented this - from the material in the public domain, the victim in this instance had been drinking (apparently rather heavily), the killer was probably laying in wait and would have been able to determine victims at will, and (from the lack of witnesses at the time of the offence) there was no chance of a passerby with CCW intervening because there were no passers-by.
Given the previous attacks, which are being linked (but for which there is no proof that they are) it would seem that the attack was sudden and without warning, reducing the chances for defence. All that is in addition to the state of affairs that says if the victim had CCW there is nothing to then say the suspect would not have had access to firearms.
Secondly, when you say:
that is something I half agree with. As I have posted many times, Colin Greenwood stated that there has been no effect - positive or negative - from the various gun bans (Greenwood bemoaned the bans from the standpoint of effective use of Police time, and the way the media / what would be "liberal" groups in your vocabulary demonized guns in the wake of Hungerford and Dunblane). That stands in direct opposition to the message that has been prevalent on this board, and that which Lott, Nemorov and Malcolm (and ilk) have been spewing - that the gun bans have seen crime rise in the UK. Thats something thats palpably false, and indeed its doubtful that anyone at the time saw a ban as going to effect the general crime rate one way or another.
However, as always there is something that I feel is incorrect, in this case there is little evidence to show that criminals have switched weapons - you would actually need a fall in armed crime around the ban to make such a point stick, and/or admit that the ban had been a success in disarming criminals (which I would hazard a guess is not what you intended).
To extend your point about there being no effect, this case has nothing at all to do with gun bans, its about someone with a hammer attacking another human being.
Thanks for having the honesty to admit your mistakes.
Now, with regards to this case there is little likelyhood that CCW would have prevented this - from the material in the public domain, the victim in this instance had been drinking (apparently rather heavily), the killer was probably laying in wait and would have been able to determine victims at will, and (from the lack of witnesses at the time of the offence) there was no chance of a passerby with CCW intervening because there were no passers-by.
Given the previous attacks, which are being linked (but for which there is no proof that they are) it would seem that the attack was sudden and without warning, reducing the chances for defence. All that is in addition to the state of affairs that says if the victim had CCW there is nothing to then say the suspect would not have had access to firearms.
Secondly, when you say:
that is something I half agree with. As I have posted many times, Colin Greenwood stated that there has been no effect - positive or negative - from the various gun bans (Greenwood bemoaned the bans from the standpoint of effective use of Police time, and the way the media / what would be "liberal" groups in your vocabulary demonized guns in the wake of Hungerford and Dunblane). That stands in direct opposition to the message that has been prevalent on this board, and that which Lott, Nemorov and Malcolm (and ilk) have been spewing - that the gun bans have seen crime rise in the UK. Thats something thats palpably false, and indeed its doubtful that anyone at the time saw a ban as going to effect the general crime rate one way or another.
However, as always there is something that I feel is incorrect, in this case there is little evidence to show that criminals have switched weapons - you would actually need a fall in armed crime around the ban to make such a point stick, and/or admit that the ban had been a success in disarming criminals (which I would hazard a guess is not what you intended).
To extend your point about there being no effect, this case has nothing at all to do with gun bans, its about someone with a hammer attacking another human being.
jimpeel
Member
agricola
You state "... you would actually need a fall in armed crime around the ban to make such a point stick" but if the number of firearms in circulation went down but armed crime stayed the same of increased, the only conclusion one could come to is that there had been a shift in the type os weapons used or that the only firearms in circulation that had been confiscated were from those with no predisposition to use them in an aberrant manner.
I never broached the subject of CCW nor whether the victim would have been able to mount a defense if so enabled. My contention from the outset has been that a shift in choice of weapons is the natural progression of gun control. By your argument, if all firearms of all types were magically wished from the Earth those who were disposed to their use would not substitute another weapon in their stead. The firearms laws have had no effect on crime; and, in fact, the crime rate has gone up even in the face of these measures in spite of whatever good intentions were envisioned by the authors.
Again, I have not broached the subject of CCW nor any mounted defense by the victim.
Which proves that I have been on topic and you have started to segue and meander.
Come on, now, agricola. "... its doubtful that anyone at the time saw a ban as going to effect the general crime rate one way or another."???? This was going to be the panacea. This was gooing to reduce crime and prevent Dunblane redux. There is no argument that the intention and the debate in the Parliament was the anti-crime benefit of the ban.
What you would need would be a statistical spread sheet on the number of crimes and the weapons used in those crimes. Without same, your contention is specious.
You state "... you would actually need a fall in armed crime around the ban to make such a point stick" but if the number of firearms in circulation went down but armed crime stayed the same of increased, the only conclusion one could come to is that there had been a shift in the type os weapons used or that the only firearms in circulation that had been confiscated were from those with no predisposition to use them in an aberrant manner.
Then why didn't he use a firearm? Do you believe he would use a firearm if he could get one?
agricola
Member
jimpeel,
the reason why I harped on about museums was not to distract the thread, but because you had made a comment that was demonstrably false, and it needed to be exposed, just like the following.
The CCW points was aimed more at coolhand and his ilk than you, although it is also relevant for you (unless your only point was "look how bad the UK is") and relevant to this debate. As for the claims of the gun ban to reduce crime, I'll ask you to find anyone responsible for the legislation who claimed that it would reduce crime generally.
Also, the person who needs to prove his claims is you, who at the end of the day is arguing that the gun bans caused criminals to switch from firearms to other weapons (ie: that the gun bans worked). Is that what you are arguing?
the reason why I harped on about museums was not to distract the thread, but because you had made a comment that was demonstrably false, and it needed to be exposed, just like the following.
The CCW points was aimed more at coolhand and his ilk than you, although it is also relevant for you (unless your only point was "look how bad the UK is") and relevant to this debate. As for the claims of the gun ban to reduce crime, I'll ask you to find anyone responsible for the legislation who claimed that it would reduce crime generally.
Also, the person who needs to prove his claims is you, who at the end of the day is arguing that the gun bans caused criminals to switch from firearms to other weapons (ie: that the gun bans worked). Is that what you are arguing?
jimpeel
Member
agricola
Crime in general is up in your country and I cannot believe that all of the violent crimes are being committed using only hands and feet.
My original contention in the thread header as threadparent was this:
I actually proved my point. I conceded for no other reason but to get the thread back on topic and you still won't let it go. GET BACK ON TOPIC AND STAY THERE, PLEASE. Geesh!!
Where can I access the transcripts of the debates? I know where to get ours here in the United States but haven't the foggiest on where to get yours. What was the number of the legislation?
Yep, that is exactly what I am arguing. Why don't you point me to a source that belies what I have said. I am stating that it is logical that criminals would take up other weapons in the absence of firearms. You state that they would not do so; and that would mean that the streets are safer as the thugs are no longer arming themselves.
Crime in general is up in your country and I cannot believe that all of the violent crimes are being committed using only hands and feet.
My original contention in the thread header as threadparent was this:
Prove me wrong!
Last edited:
jimpeel
Member
jimpeel
Member
jimpeel
Member
Oh, and that part about knife control I brought up ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/nknife15.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/nknife15.xml
jimpeel
Member
And if you don't think the law will be taken to its stupidest extreme ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/10/03/ngun03.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/10/03/ngun03.html
agricola
Member
jimpeel,
Firstly, since you admit thats what you are arguing, then that probably puts you in a minority of one on this board. Secondly, that is logical but the way you phrased it (thus):
would suggest that armed criminals pre-bans were changing tactics and weapons post-ban. that isnt the case - as your links show (though, of course, the reasons for the rise are more complex than described), there is nolong-term decline or corresponding rise in crimes committed with other weapons. Simply, pre 1988 (or especially 1997) the armed criminal community in the UK was small and clustered towards the higher end of the scale in terms of seriousness, where in general it has remained.
Now if what you are saying is that criminals might arm themselves with what is to hand, then thats something I agree with - but that is clearly NOT what you said, as shown above; there is a clear link between the gun bans and the nature of armed criminality, evidence for which does not exist because there is no link.
transcripts of debates in the Houses of Parliament can be found here
finally, two of your links are at least two years out of date, and the third does not mean what you say it means in your quip about "knife control" - read the second paragraph (emphasis mine):
agricola
ps: not distracting the thread, but as is clear to anyone who has been to any of those museums, you were wrong and demonstrably so
Firstly, since you admit thats what you are arguing, then that probably puts you in a minority of one on this board. Secondly, that is logical but the way you phrased it (thus):
would suggest that armed criminals pre-bans were changing tactics and weapons post-ban. that isnt the case - as your links show (though, of course, the reasons for the rise are more complex than described), there is nolong-term decline or corresponding rise in crimes committed with other weapons. Simply, pre 1988 (or especially 1997) the armed criminal community in the UK was small and clustered towards the higher end of the scale in terms of seriousness, where in general it has remained.
Now if what you are saying is that criminals might arm themselves with what is to hand, then thats something I agree with - but that is clearly NOT what you said, as shown above; there is a clear link between the gun bans and the nature of armed criminality, evidence for which does not exist because there is no link.
transcripts of debates in the Houses of Parliament can be found here
finally, two of your links are at least two years out of date, and the third does not mean what you say it means in your quip about "knife control" - read the second paragraph (emphasis mine):
agricola
ps: not distracting the thread, but as is clear to anyone who has been to any of those museums, you were wrong and demonstrably so
jimpeel
Member
Now I know what turns other members off about debating you. You deny the undeniable and equivocate the unequivocal. Nothing is sufficient to your needs.
I state that there are whole museums dedicated to crime and you want an example.
I show you the Black Museum and the best you can say is it is not open to the public. It is still a museum whether it is open to the public or not.
I then show you four more museums that are dedicated to crime and punishment and the best you can counter with is that they are prison reproductions. They are still museums. You then take that position as meaning that all that came before was fallacious regardless of the fact that the Black Museum IS a museum and it IS "dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology" as I stated it was.
You then attempt to equate these museums with an American national park which is not a museum and does not contain a museum.
You then put words in my posts which were never typed by me attempting to say that I was speaking about CCW and how the victim could have mounted a defense if so empowered. That was, as you would say, "demonstrably false". I never held that stance.
My contention has never been anything other that that which I posted in the thread header which is:
When I brought this fact to your attention, the best you could counter with was that I should prove myself correct rather than your proving me wrong.
You then contend that my statement that the firearms law, post Dunblane, was passed in the interest of crime reduction and public safety was false. You state that noone at the time made that link; but you can't state what their intentions were if not for those purposes. If not for crime reduction and public safety, what was the law passed for -- traffic violations?
You stated:
You have taken my contentions far afield of what I clearly stated. You have twisted them and nit-picked them to your own advantage while offering nothing in refutation. You have offered no proof that my contentions are false nor that the law, as passed, was for any other reason than crime reduction and public safety.
When I post articles from your own local newspaper, The Telegraph, you state that those articles have no validity because they are two years old; even though they clearly show that the law had no effect in its immediate aftermath.
You state that you agree that a move to other weapons meets a test of logic but my phraseology is flawed -- even though the quoted passage echoes my original contention in the thread header.
I will try one more time in the next few posts and then, failing a reasonable dialogue, I shall put you behind me as so many others on this board have.
I state that there are whole museums dedicated to crime and you want an example.
I show you the Black Museum and the best you can say is it is not open to the public. It is still a museum whether it is open to the public or not.
I then show you four more museums that are dedicated to crime and punishment and the best you can counter with is that they are prison reproductions. They are still museums. You then take that position as meaning that all that came before was fallacious regardless of the fact that the Black Museum IS a museum and it IS "dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology" as I stated it was.
You then attempt to equate these museums with an American national park which is not a museum and does not contain a museum.
You then put words in my posts which were never typed by me attempting to say that I was speaking about CCW and how the victim could have mounted a defense if so empowered. That was, as you would say, "demonstrably false". I never held that stance.
My contention has never been anything other that that which I posted in the thread header which is:
When I brought this fact to your attention, the best you could counter with was that I should prove myself correct rather than your proving me wrong.
You then contend that my statement that the firearms law, post Dunblane, was passed in the interest of crime reduction and public safety was false. You state that noone at the time made that link; but you can't state what their intentions were if not for those purposes. If not for crime reduction and public safety, what was the law passed for -- traffic violations?
You stated:
and I had stated exactly that when I posted:
You have taken my contentions far afield of what I clearly stated. You have twisted them and nit-picked them to your own advantage while offering nothing in refutation. You have offered no proof that my contentions are false nor that the law, as passed, was for any other reason than crime reduction and public safety.
When I post articles from your own local newspaper, The Telegraph, you state that those articles have no validity because they are two years old; even though they clearly show that the law had no effect in its immediate aftermath.
You state that you agree that a move to other weapons meets a test of logic but my phraseology is flawed -- even though the quoted passage echoes my original contention in the thread header.
I will try one more time in the next few posts and then, failing a reasonable dialogue, I shall put you behind me as so many others on this board have.
Last edited:
jimpeel
Member
I know this is five weeks "out of date"; but ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/20/ncrim220.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/20/ncrim220.xml
jimpeel
Member
And as far as your comments on Tony Martin ...
What about this guy?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/09/nosb09.xml
What about this guy?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/09/nosb09.xml
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
On much of this Jim - it seems you are .....
jimpeel
Member
Eight months "out of date"; but ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/23/ncrime23.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/23/ncrime23.xml
jimpeel
Member
P95Carry
Stop hitting agricola that way, you mean man, you!
Stop hitting agricola that way, you mean man, you!
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
jimpeel:
Just to clear up this point, you're not the one I was referring to. IMO, You have done an outstanding job of supporting your viewpoint.
Just to clear up this point, you're not the one I was referring to. IMO, You have done an outstanding job of supporting your viewpoint.
jimpeel
Member
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
Thank you; and apologies for any offense.
Thank you; and apologies for any offense.
agricola
Member
jimpeel,
this is becoming increasingly pathetic.
I wanted examples, and that is not what you said. What you said (in addition to screaming, when challenged, that I was disrupting the thread) was
You, in fact, have whole museums dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology. We don't have those here.
the black museum is a collection of exhibits taken from the history of the Met, in addition to other items - uniforms, cars and other curios. the fact that it isnt open to the public is important, because for all but 40,000 of the UK population it doesnt exist (which does not make it "dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology btw" but it does make it equal to the NYPD museum)
In addition, the way your wording has changed from the first example to the most recent two shows that you (as you did before all of this kicked off again) recognize that your original statement was in error.
All of that is further proved by the fact that you are still wrong, Madame Tussauds IS NOT A MUSEUM DEDICATED TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, as ANYONE who has been to it will know, indeed anyone who read the link you posted would have realised (in addition to those commentators here).
no, but it contains a former gaol which is open to the public. Guess what your other three examples are?
which is to ignore what I said above, which would have been apparent if you hadnt gone through this thread trying desperately to prove your points by omitting a great deal of what I have said:
a point of view which is more than justified when one considers your sig:
but the absolute peach is:
firstly, what you posted even in that quote from your last non-spam post was NOT what you now intend it to be. Before 1988 and 1997 there must have been criminals armed with firearms in order for:
to be an accurate statement; it isnt, as is clearly shown by the statistics on this issue -
people did not disarm from firearms to other weapons because of the gun ban, as I have said, as Colin Greenwood has said, as almost every pro-RKBA commentator has said and as the statistics say. of course, to admit that you are wrong is clearly something you cannot live with, so i'll expect a whole sheaf of fresh (or not so fresh) cut and paste odysseys in response.
If you had said just "public safety" as opposed to saying just "crime reduction", then you would have been correct; however you didnt:
only a very tenous link to public safety (prevent another Dunblane) and a rather clearer identification of "the anti-crime benefit of the ban". If you want, I can produce reams and reams of cut and pastes showing that the ban was intended to stop another Dunblane and to enhance public safety, but (seeing as you asked for and were given the Hansard location) you have clearly been unable to find any evidence to back you up (in your original contention, not the current one - which, as demonstrated, change with the facts). As your starter for ten (though this is probably wasted upon you):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970611/debtext/70611-30.htm
will return to this after work.
this is becoming increasingly pathetic.
I wanted examples, and that is not what you said. What you said (in addition to screaming, when challenged, that I was disrupting the thread) was
You, in fact, have whole museums dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology. We don't have those here.
the black museum is a collection of exhibits taken from the history of the Met, in addition to other items - uniforms, cars and other curios. the fact that it isnt open to the public is important, because for all but 40,000 of the UK population it doesnt exist (which does not make it "dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology btw" but it does make it equal to the NYPD museum)
In addition, the way your wording has changed from the first example to the most recent two shows that you (as you did before all of this kicked off again) recognize that your original statement was in error.
All of that is further proved by the fact that you are still wrong, Madame Tussauds IS NOT A MUSEUM DEDICATED TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, as ANYONE who has been to it will know, indeed anyone who read the link you posted would have realised (in addition to those commentators here).
no, but it contains a former gaol which is open to the public. Guess what your other three examples are?
which is to ignore what I said above, which would have been apparent if you hadnt gone through this thread trying desperately to prove your points by omitting a great deal of what I have said:
a point of view which is more than justified when one considers your sig:
but the absolute peach is:
firstly, what you posted even in that quote from your last non-spam post was NOT what you now intend it to be. Before 1988 and 1997 there must have been criminals armed with firearms in order for:
to be an accurate statement; it isnt, as is clearly shown by the statistics on this issue -
people did not disarm from firearms to other weapons because of the gun ban, as I have said, as Colin Greenwood has said, as almost every pro-RKBA commentator has said and as the statistics say. of course, to admit that you are wrong is clearly something you cannot live with, so i'll expect a whole sheaf of fresh (or not so fresh) cut and paste odysseys in response.
If you had said just "public safety" as opposed to saying just "crime reduction", then you would have been correct; however you didnt:
only a very tenous link to public safety (prevent another Dunblane) and a rather clearer identification of "the anti-crime benefit of the ban". If you want, I can produce reams and reams of cut and pastes showing that the ban was intended to stop another Dunblane and to enhance public safety, but (seeing as you asked for and were given the Hansard location) you have clearly been unable to find any evidence to back you up (in your original contention, not the current one - which, as demonstrated, change with the facts). As your starter for ten (though this is probably wasted upon you):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970611/debtext/70611-30.htm
will return to this after work.
agricola
Member
jimpeel,
this is becoming increasingly pathetic.
I wanted examples, and that is not what you said. What you said (in addition to screaming, when challenged, that I was disrupting the thread) was
the black museum is a collection of exhibits taken from the history of the Met, in addition to other items - uniforms, cars and other curios. the fact that it isnt open to the public is important, because for all but 40,000 of the UK population it doesnt exist (which does not make it "dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology btw" but it does make it equal to the NYPD museum)
In addition, the way your wording has changed from the first example to the most recent two shows that you (as you did before all of this kicked off again) recognize that your original statement was in error.
All of that is further proved by the fact that you are still wrong, Madame Tussauds IS NOT A MUSEUM DEDICATED TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, as ANYONE who has been to it will know, indeed anyone who read the link you posted would have realised (in addition to those commentators here).
no, but it contains a former gaol which is open to the public. Guess what your other three examples are?
which is to ignore what I said above, which would have been apparent if you hadnt gone through this thread trying desperately to prove your points by omitting a great deal of what I have said:
a point of view which is more than justified when one considers your sig:
but the absolute peach is:
firstly, what you posted even in that quote from your last non-spam post was NOT what you now intend it to be. Before 1988 and 1997 there must have been criminals armed with firearms in order for:
to be an accurate statement; it isnt, as is clearly shown by the statistics on this issue -
people did not disarm from firearms to other weapons because of the gun ban, as I have said, as Colin Greenwood has said, as almost every pro-RKBA commentator has said and as the statistics say. of course, to admit that you are wrong is clearly something you cannot live with, so i'll expect a whole sheaf of fresh (or not so fresh) cut and paste odysseys in response.
If you had said just "public safety" as opposed to saying just "crime reduction", then you would have been correct; however you didnt:
only a very tenous link to public safety (prevent another Dunblane) and a rather clearer identification of "the anti-crime benefit of the ban". If you want, I can produce reams and reams of cut and pastes showing that the ban was intended to stop another Dunblane and to enhance public safety, but (seeing as you asked for and were given the Hansard location) you have clearly been unable to find any evidence to back you up (in your original contention, not the current one - which, as demonstrated, change with the facts). As your starter for ten (though this is probably wasted upon you):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970611/debtext/70611-30.htm
will return to this after work.
this is becoming increasingly pathetic.
I wanted examples, and that is not what you said. What you said (in addition to screaming, when challenged, that I was disrupting the thread) was
the black museum is a collection of exhibits taken from the history of the Met, in addition to other items - uniforms, cars and other curios. the fact that it isnt open to the public is important, because for all but 40,000 of the UK population it doesnt exist (which does not make it "dedicated to the criminal mind and methodology btw" but it does make it equal to the NYPD museum)
In addition, the way your wording has changed from the first example to the most recent two shows that you (as you did before all of this kicked off again) recognize that your original statement was in error.
All of that is further proved by the fact that you are still wrong, Madame Tussauds IS NOT A MUSEUM DEDICATED TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, as ANYONE who has been to it will know, indeed anyone who read the link you posted would have realised (in addition to those commentators here).
no, but it contains a former gaol which is open to the public. Guess what your other three examples are?
which is to ignore what I said above, which would have been apparent if you hadnt gone through this thread trying desperately to prove your points by omitting a great deal of what I have said:
a point of view which is more than justified when one considers your sig:
but the absolute peach is:
firstly, what you posted even in that quote from your last non-spam post was NOT what you now intend it to be. Before 1988 and 1997 there must have been criminals armed with firearms in order for:
to be an accurate statement; it isnt, as is clearly shown by the statistics on this issue -
people did not disarm from firearms to other weapons because of the gun ban, as I have said, as Colin Greenwood has said, as almost every pro-RKBA commentator has said and as the statistics say. of course, to admit that you are wrong is clearly something you cannot live with, so i'll expect a whole sheaf of fresh (or not so fresh) cut and paste odysseys in response.
If you had said just "public safety" as opposed to saying just "crime reduction", then you would have been correct; however you didnt:
only a very tenous link to public safety (prevent another Dunblane) and a rather clearer identification of "the anti-crime benefit of the ban". If you want, I can produce reams and reams of cut and pastes showing that the ban was intended to stop another Dunblane and to enhance public safety, but (seeing as you asked for and were given the Hansard location) you have clearly been unable to find any evidence to back you up (in your original contention, not the current one - which, as demonstrated, change with the facts). As your starter for ten (though this is probably wasted upon you):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970611/debtext/70611-30.htm
will return to this after work.
jimpeel
Member
agricola
So the ONLY reason for the handgun ban was to prevent another school shooting; and as long as there isn't another school shooting the legislation is a total success.
All of the stories in the British and world press on the failure of the handgun ban to staunch the rising British crime rate have been wrong because the law was never written with that intention in mind.
All of the writers in the European, American, Canadian, and Australian press have been under the mistaken impression that the law was written as a crime reduction and public safety measure when the law actually had the singular intent of preventing another school shooting and nothing more.
Crime prevention and public safety was not even a secondary aspect of the law and the law protects only school children and teachers.
Well, you can bet your boots that I'm sure glad we got that straightened out.
Um, what happens if there is another school shooting? I'm a little fuzzy on that and maybe you could clear that up for me.
So the ONLY reason for the handgun ban was to prevent another school shooting; and as long as there isn't another school shooting the legislation is a total success.
All of the stories in the British and world press on the failure of the handgun ban to staunch the rising British crime rate have been wrong because the law was never written with that intention in mind.
All of the writers in the European, American, Canadian, and Australian press have been under the mistaken impression that the law was written as a crime reduction and public safety measure when the law actually had the singular intent of preventing another school shooting and nothing more.
Crime prevention and public safety was not even a secondary aspect of the law and the law protects only school children and teachers.
Well, you can bet your boots that I'm sure glad we got that straightened out.
Um, what happens if there is another school shooting? I'm a little fuzzy on that and maybe you could clear that up for me.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1354.asp
"Asked if the Government was concerned about the enforcement of the new measures given the UK had some of the toughest laws on guns following the Dunblane tragedy and yet gun crime had still increased, the PMOS [Prime Minister's Official Spokesman] said that the measures post-Dunblane related to legally-held weapons which had been used in a tragic, murderous way in a Scottish primary school. In this case, however, we were talking about tackling illegal guns which were coming into and being used in this country, in addition to the issue of replica weapons. Put to him that the only practical way to tackle the problem of gun crime was through a return to 'sus', the PMOS said that that wasn't necessarily the case. The amendment was about tightening up gun laws to take guns off the street and send a strong signal to those who might use them.
Questioned about legislation relating to the use of handguns, the PMOS said that the purpose of the Firearms Amendment Act 1997 had been to ban the private ownership of small firearms. There was clearly a further issue relating to illegally-held guns being used for crime given the increasing gun culture in parts of this country. That was obviously something which we had to address. "
I can recal Alan Milburn, the Minister of State, proudly boasting that it had "got guns off the streets"
"Asked if the Government was concerned about the enforcement of the new measures given the UK had some of the toughest laws on guns following the Dunblane tragedy and yet gun crime had still increased, the PMOS [Prime Minister's Official Spokesman] said that the measures post-Dunblane related to legally-held weapons which had been used in a tragic, murderous way in a Scottish primary school. In this case, however, we were talking about tackling illegal guns which were coming into and being used in this country, in addition to the issue of replica weapons. Put to him that the only practical way to tackle the problem of gun crime was through a return to 'sus', the PMOS said that that wasn't necessarily the case. The amendment was about tightening up gun laws to take guns off the street and send a strong signal to those who might use them.
Questioned about legislation relating to the use of handguns, the PMOS said that the purpose of the Firearms Amendment Act 1997 had been to ban the private ownership of small firearms. There was clearly a further issue relating to illegally-held guns being used for crime given the increasing gun culture in parts of this country. That was obviously something which we had to address. "
I can recal Alan Milburn, the Minister of State, proudly boasting that it had "got guns off the streets"
- Status
