The UK is safer with those strict gun laws...

[Critical]

I see. What your saying is you aren't interested in alternative viewpoint. What you want on here is a big circle jerk with your friends about how gun control doesn't work. Obviously I know nothing about my country, culture or history. You know better.

Fine.

 

[Stand_Watie]

Oooo nice dodge. We have someone claiming without evidence this mob were armed, so you get into the semantics of what arms" means.

You apparently are claiming that

carried knives, metal pipes and an imitation handgun

are not "arms"?

What alternate universe are you living in?

 

[Rebar]

Ask the guy who had his face smashed in if a pipe is an "arm" or not.

 

[Critical]

There is no evidence in the link provided that this gang carried out robberies with the imitation firearm. Fact.

Being found in possesion of a metal pipe is not being armed. I couldn't arrest someone for that. A knife is an offensive weapon. We classify armed criminals as having guns.


And you are ignoring the context of the discussion which was about guns.

This pathetic attempt to sidetrack the issue is really laughable.

 

[Dave R]

After handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime in the UK is up. Violent crime in the UK is up.

So what is the benefit of banning the guns? I thought the intent of the Government was to create a safer society?

 

[Critical]

After handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime in the UK is up. Violent crime in the UK is up.

You are presupposing a connection between the two. And gun crime in "The UK" is not up. In Scotland it has almost halved since the handgun ban. Exactly the same gun laws give a different result.

Why?

Because the rise in gun crime and violent crime is nothing to do with the gun laws. Which, if you people would be prepared to set aside your myopic "gun and violent crime is caused by the gun ban" fixation we might get around to discussing sometime......

 

[Stand_Watie]

Being found in possesion of a metal pipe is not being armed. I couldn't arrest someone for that. A knife is an offensive weapon. We classify armed criminals as having guns

It is indeed being armed. You classify "armed criminals" as having guns. WE classify people as criminals (if their carriage of weapons is illegal) as carrying any sort of weapon. There is a reason the word *FIRE* is in firearm. If "arms" didn't include weapons other than firearms the word "firearm" wouldn't exist.

 

[Critical]

Again, you are ignoring the context of the discussion:

This little sidetrack began like this:

It would have taken a single armed law-abiding American citizen to stop those criminals cold

Posted by standing wolf

Are you saying that SW is saying a single American armed with a metal pipe would have stopped a gang of 15-20 yobs, also armed with metal pipes?

Or is he referring to guns?

As I say, sidetracking.........

 

[Stand_Watie]

And gun crime in "The UK" is not up

Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

****
Gun crime soars by 35%

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.

Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%
Home Office officials insisted, however, that the new system of including all crimes, whether there was supporting evidence or not, was responsible for some of the increases.

When that new recording system was taken into account, overall crime rose by 2%, they said, with burglary up 5%.

Home Office Minister John Denham also pointed to new data from the British Crime Survey - which includes crimes not reported to the police - which he called the most reliable indication of trends

The survey put all crime down 7% in the year to September.

"The British Crime Survey shows crime has been falling since 1997 and the risk of being a victim is very low - around the same as 1981," he said.

The statistics come after the government this week announced a crackdown on gun crime with a series of plans to tighten firearms law.

And they are released ahead of high level talks with police, customs and community leaders on Friday about how to tackle gun crime, hosted by Home Secretary David Blunkett
The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power.

The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power.


The community remembers the victims of the shooting
The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

Robbery was up 13% on the adjusted figures.

But it did fall by 10% between July and September when the government's new efforts against street crime kicked in, said officials.

Earlier this week the government unveiled plans to introduce a five-year minimum jail sentence for anyone illegally possessing a firearm...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

 

[Critical]

Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

England and Wales is NOT the UK. The UK is England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.

Nice to see you ignored the point about different effects in different places of the gun law.

What I expected really.......

 

[Stand_Watie]

Nice to see you ignored the point about different effects in different places of the gun law

I didn't ignore anything. I simply pointed out that your further restriction of gun rights didn't prevent "gun crime" (a fallacious argument anyway) from rising in 55/60th's of the UK.

If you're claiming that your recent gun laws caused crime to drop in the Scotland and NI, you have to accept that they caused crime to rise in England/Wales which are the vast majority of the UK. I for one am willing to accept much more complex reasoning for the changes on both sides.

Either way, it's no victory for the argument of more gun control.

 

[Critical]

If you're claiming that your recent gun laws caused crime to drop in the Scotland and NI, you have to accept that they caused crime to rise in England/Wales which are the vast majority of the UK. I for one am willing to accept much more complex reasoning for the changes on both sides

No that is precisely what I am not saying. What I am saying is that guncrime is being fuelled by something else. And it is not the gun laws. Banning handguns hasn't caused criminals to pick up guns because we are defenceless. And banning handguns wont stop criminals using them if they want to. It is being fuelled by other factors, social and cultural.

Thats why I bring up scotland. Because Scotland by and large doesn't share a particular set of circumstances which is fuelling gun crime in England. That is borne out by the readiness or lack of it, of criminals to use guns in Scotland as opposed to England.

GUNLAWS ARE THE SAME BUT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT

 

[P95Carry]

On balance - what deters a criminal the most?

Being arrested and then incarcerated? Not a lot ... sentences are so lame and for some anyways, prison is an all expenses paid vacation.

Getting hurt?? ... Much more likely. That includes getting shot . What most prisoners confess to fearing most of all (in US) .. is being shot by an armed citizen .. more so even than a cop. Most of that reason is because they expect a cop to be armed .. but have little way of knowing who in the crowd or in a dwelling, just might be armed.

So what do we have here?? ''DETERRANCE'' ...... excellent deterrance. Shown best by crime figures in US concealed carry states ..... which are way below those few states that have no such provision.

Remember .... bad guys do not follow laws ... and will be armed regardless .. and may I add ... ''armed'' does not mean by default firearm .. we are talking weapon.... Armed = firearm only, in UK?? Very odd definition. I though iron bars were excellent weapons ... with which to be armed! Knives too ... effective with which to be armed.

The poor sheep in UK ..... who must be rendered impotent by laws forbidding the carrying of ''offensive'' weapons ..... must lie down and take it .. when bands of punks attack and plunder and beat them. Is this really a wonderful situation? - the ''safer'' society? ... we are again on the ground covered in the thread now closed .. debating self defence etc.

And - eventually 250 cops track down this gang .. after - how many? .... countless defenseless people have been robbed and beaten. Better to nip the crime yourself surely than wait for police ''solving'' after the event - they can't be everywhere.

Not meaning to be flaming here .. but seems like Critical and Agricola are in the same police department .. they present ''facts'' but when challenged on the logistics of same and the validity of some laws .... seem to go round the houses and not really answer people. Answers are obtuse and abstruse ..... sometimes pedantic. As I have said before, it is not just the pond that creates a divide! (And, remember, I am ex Brit .. and was progressively saddened and sickened by the way things were going ... thru the 90's in particular, with 'dear Tony's' crew in control.)

Cops cannot I think always see things like Joe Public ...... they are in a special case situation .. they seem (feel) like they have all the answers but ... this is from a specialized (even insulated) perspective. I challenge any cop to say that he/she can prevent people getting attacked and hurt. Just ain't possible. Cops do best at mopping up (measuring up) and then chasing and catching villians.... except maybe for a pre-emptive case solving, before the trouble can start.

This is why in the few vital seconds that a person is being attacked and maybe killed ... that is when they need a means of self defence .... the brief window of opportunity that only they can exploit ... but with a means, beyond just fists and intellect.

I doubt the divide will shrink .. I am sorry to say. ''N'er the twain shall meet''!

''Round in circles'' is this game!

 

[Stand_Watie]

And banning handguns wont stop criminals using them if they want to. It is being fuelled by other factors, social and cultural.

Thats why I bring up scotland. Because Scotland by and large doesn't share a particular set of circumstances which is fuelling gun crime in England. That is borne out by the readiness or lack of it, of criminals to use guns in Scotland as opposed to England.

GUNLAWS ARE THE SAME BUT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT

Good. Then we're on pretty much the same page. Banning or further restricting guns won't prevent crime. Glad to have you on board with the rkba movement.

 

[Critical]

Not meaning to be flaming here .. but seems like Critical and Agricola are in the same police department .. they present ''facts'' but when challenged on the logistics of same and the validity of some laws .... seem to go round the houses and not really answer people. Answers are obtuse and abstruse ..... .

Care to give an example? Or is this simply what it appears, an ad hominem?

 

[Critical]

Good. Then we're on pretty much the same page. Banning or further restricting guns won't prevent crime. Glad to have you on board with the rkba movement.

No, restricting access to firearms will deter criminals. Not all, but some. Criminals who want guns will get them, but even they will find it hard. Thats why so many are commited with replicas. And most of the time the guns contain no more than 3 bullets.

The sea change is on the criminals who are prepared to get them. This has risen, but not because of the gun laws.

The conclusion you have reached is frankly pathetic............

 

[Stand_Watie]

No, restricting access to firearms will deter criminals. Not all, but some.

Funny that hasn't happened in Engand and Wales then.

Frankly, that conclusion in the face of a crime rise in 55/60'ths of the UK is pathetic.

 

[Critical]

The sea change is on the criminals who are prepared to get them. This has risen, but not because of the gun laws.

This is the point you are ignoring. Don't worry, I fully understand why.......

 

[Stand_Watie]

This is the point you are ignoring. Don't worry, I fully understand why.......

I haven't ignored anything. Your gun laws have become more restrictive. Your crime has risen. An absolute zero score for gun restriction.

 

[Critical]

I haven't ignored anything. Your gun laws have become more restrictive. Your crime has risen. An absolute zero score for gun restriction

Again, you assume, with no evidence, a causal connection between the two......

You are a true-believer. No point in continuing this I think........

 

[P95Carry]

Or is this simply what it appears, an ad hominem?

Sorry . was not meant to be as strong as an ad hominem ... try to avoid those! More an observation - purely a personal one. Similarity of approach I guess with the two of you!

I am intrigued to know - how even the most draconian gun laws will guarantee criminals not getting guns at all .. OK, so for many the ''easy option'' is conversion of replicas etc .... probably low level low-lifes going the easy route.

But the determined and dedicated villain will .. WILL .. always find access ... it is a market that cannot be closed - money buys anything. Think back to prohibition here .. and the farce that was!

So .... in order to purely try and decrease (not stop - can't be done) criminal access to firearms ... the huge and upstanding shooting public is screwed ... and the public as a whole is rendered impotent for self defence because all ''offensive'' weapons are off limits in public.

Let's forget guns for a minute .. knives instead! Crooks these days over there seem to love blades .. and yet Joe Public must not have anything ''offensive''. Joe Public however is not out to ''chiv''.. every person he sees .. he might just be safer having something with which to answer back .... if accosted. Maybe even manage to survive ER or the funeral director!

Time for a break! Too many typo's to edit!

Critical .. you gotta be on night duty .. either that or your sleep pattern is real wierd!

 

[Stand_Watie]

Again, you assume, with no evidence, a causal connection between the two......

No, I didn't assume any such thing. I assumed that your further restrictions upon firearms didn't prevent your crime from rising, as it clearly didn't.

You, my friend, are the "True believer". Feel free to break it off any time you wish.

 

[joab]

Anyone notice that the article didn't list the length of the sentences?

He is already out of prison after serving half of his two-year sentence. One of his neighbours whose son has been threatened by him said she fears for her boy's life and is trying to move out of the area.

The first trial - which convicted eight members of the gang who had pleaded guilty - served only two prison sentences

This could be part of UKs problem. A 2 year sentance?

 

[P95Carry]

To quote the ol' metaphor ..... ''lock em up - and throw away the key''. What use on earth - are vermin like this? The planet is way over crowded as it is.

Oh I forgot .... ''they had a deprived childhood'' .... yeah right .... right and wrong cease to matter!

 

[joab]

I did notice how the article seemed to attribute their desent into worthlessness on their poor upbringing and social status