Before i start i'll say that you have introduced some very interesting points about problems and contradicitons in british society. (despite Yoda's unbased assertions, i'm totally prepared to change my mind on subjects when reasonable proofs are given. You've NOW given some reasonable proofs - at least, enough for a decent discussion
)
Originally Posted by Karl Childers
Golgot, I'm sure your heart is in the right place-- but your reasoning is not. You have made several references in your responses that indicate a level of inconsistency or confusion. For example,
""Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around.""
You admit that guns were outlawed yet gun violence was still allowed to flourish-- even moreso than before the restrictions were imposed. This statement is the summation of the pro-gun advocates and the antithesis of what the gun control crowd would hope to convey. Did you even read this statement before you posted it?
You've totally misunderstood this point. The legislation WAS a mistake - it was designed to prevent further examples of our own version of Columbine. The result was that loads of hand guns, that were previously for SPORTING use only, made their way onto the balck market - hence yes there was a huge increase in gun availability and gun crime. It was a ****-up, but it is in no way comparable to your situation. The woolyness of thought seems to be on your part in comparing the two.
New legislation is under way to deal with replicas being converted into workable weapons, which is the other trend which has sustained gun availability to criminals. Once these two issues are filtered out gun AVAILABILITY should lower again, and gun-crime with it.
Another problem is our lax immigration policies which brings in people like Albanian drug-runners and others who always use guns. Jamaicans have recently lost immediate rights of citizenship etc for similar reasons. Reducing the other two problems should make it far more feasible for the police to deal with these issues (the street crime stuff and break-ins i'll get to)
The fact still remains that gun crime in britain is almost entirely criminal-on-criminal. And i'm quite happy for them to wipe eachother out. We've lost at least two innocents due to these gunfights in recent years, which isn't cool, but i bet it's a lot healthier than america's DEATH-BY-
GUN stats. In fact, i'm sure over-all MURDERS in the US are far higher in number than in britain. Fairly important in the crime-region i should say
EDIT:
England & Wales had one of the
lowest homicide rates in
Western Europe for 1997 - 1999.
(from: International comparisons
of criminal justice statistics 1999
by
Gordon Barclay, Cynthia Tavares & Arsalaan Siddique - The British Home Office) Originally Posted by Karl Childers
Also, there was this: ""London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low.""
The point is that those guys who were using guns were crooks! If they wanted to mug or murder or burglar or rape they were already breaking the law. Using a gun only made it easier-- against law-abiding citizens who were likely unarmed! It's ridiculous.
The rise in gun crime you mention later is a rise from nothing-to-next-to-nothing. And as i stated above we're dealing with the problem of gun supply, which is recent and causal and addressable. (again, i'll get to general crime in a minute) The guns almost always get used crim-on-crim. My mate was in fact involved in a criminal activity when he had the gun pointed at him (i.e. buying marijuana - if it wasn't illegal that wouuldn't need to happen
). The guns make NO overall difference to these sort of crimes in britain. The muggings would happen anyway, but with knives. Such is life. I can guarantee you, knowing the british temprement, that introducing the right to be armed would makes things worse, at least for a decade or so
, tho i respect your point that the potential for your victim to be armed is a huge deterrant, and
could indeed reduce street crime and house breaking in the long term in Britain. Equally, total-gun embargoes, which we're working on, could well solve all but the break-in problem. Which again, we're working on: i.e. the stats you quoted are from a time when police numbers reached their lowest comparable levels ever. Since that moment a huge recruitment program has been bearing fruit. Add to that the return to a street-walking policy and we might well see some significant reductions in street and break-in crimes. We shall see. Efforts are at least under-way.
Originally Posted by Karl Childers
You say, ""Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison""
First thing: on the DEATHS point i think you'll find the stats back me up
NB Moore's stats:
UK: 68 guns death a year (admittadly on the rise - but we're working on it)
US: 11,127 guns deaths.
Spot the difference? I'll try and check out the over-all murder rate.
On the crime thing...you're making a very valid point. We do have a problem with break-ins and muggings at the moment. And there are huge inconsistancies in our laws that favour criminals etc. We DO have a problem. Part of it is of course caused by the ever increasing rich-poor divide. Drugs are another huge problem.
A few things tho:
(a)
"Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since"
Can you give me some context here?? What the hell are they talking about? What dramatic act happend in 54? And it's nonsense to suggest that Britain was decreasingly violent over that time. It was as full of cheeky scamps cutting throats as it's ever been i.e. violence IN SOCIETY, which is what we're talking about, certainly didn't alter significantly/smoothly as they suggest, if at all. Well, there are no stats either way in most cases - so it's a pointless piece of rhetoric. Institutionalised, direct violence may have lessened slightly at certain points, but as a rule violent domination of the public was still in frequent use. And still can be (tho your riot-police are a whole lot crazier when it comes to PEACEFUL protests. I've seen some horror footage of what they can do to peacful marchers etc. - that **** doesn't happen nearly as much here. Perhaps your cops are freaked out coz anyone could be armed?)
(b)
"• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."
Yes, these situations are ridiculous - but do you understand that the police's hands were tied by new legislations trying to remove these fake-guns which are getting turned into the real thing? - or being used in robberies, muggings etc. There is an ongoing commitment to removing guns completely from our societies. Altho this doesn't solve the break-in problem, it does limit the death-by-gun scenario. The break-in problem is a biggie. But it's partly social in nature. You can't just fix it by waving a gun at it (not when guns in scoiety have some possible, serious repurcussions, that i'll get to - altho over-all i'm undecided what to think. I'm just trying to see all sides. I can see how guns equal up the power-divide between pumped-crims and normal people, i'm just dubious about the other side-effects.)
(c)
As for the other examples: I don't give a **** about what the law is. I can and will do what is necessary to defend myself. I'd rather defend myself and get fined for using an offensive weapon than get done-over. Not that i actually carry - but it's amazing what you can acheive with bluff - so long as no-one's pointing a gun at you
. That's the way things stand currently. Crims know that, in dodgy areas, everyone carries -so it's fairly evened out.
The farmer you mentioned was freed recently and served a tiny part of his sentence. The junkie-break-in-artist won't win his case. But it is a big debate here (well, it would be if we weren't so busy learning how our leaders have deceived us on behalf of your country
)
(d)
Potential down-sides to wide-spread fire-arm ownership:
-accidental household death (children etc)
-guns being used in emotional disputes. i.e crimes of passion etc.
-easy and total availability of guns to criminals
-cops freaked out coz anyone could be armed: therefore they're more likely to shoot first (true Caitlyn?)
-easier for store-robbers if they find a store they know to be "unarmed".
-you must be prepared to kill: what in Britain results in a punch-up most of the time can end in death in the US.
So overall...
I'm afraid i must dissapoint you by saying: i'm still happier in a progressivley-gun-free society than a gun-flooded one. As i've said, crime is now a high priority in Britain, and the huge increase in police numbers on the streets SHOULD help. It still doesn't address the major CAUSES of crime - but neither does all-purpose arming. My over-all preference would be sensible government control/semi-legalisation of drugs (see the should-marijuana-be-legalised thread), coupled with some responsible goverment and grass-roots based action on social issues. I know addressing causes doesn't seem sensible to some, but it does to me.
Thanks for the (mainly) reasonable points tho. You've given me things to think about.