Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, take it for what she's worth. Your sources are the musings of biased ignorant people. The internet is a big place. Just because you find someone's blog, doesn't mean he's right.
Listen carefully (as you are fond of saying). The FACT that facts appear within a personal blog does not invalidate the facts themselves. Understand?
And you STILL haven't made your case! But ok...and this is funny, yeah I DO want your sources to show how gun control laws in England have resulted in a lower violent crime rate.
I don't give a fiddler's damn about anything otherwise, whether it be tallying with crime rates, or with one's private parts (pardon, ladies..).
THIS was all I ever asked. Hells bells and save the matches, what do you think this was all about to begin with?
So present it...what in the world is so hard about that? I might agree with them, might sorta, or might not...but at least you provided something.
Uhhh, BTW? You earlier said the crime rate in the UK was lower than any time in history. Just to be clear, are you NOW qualifying -- because I specifically asked -- a time-frame? Which you otherwise did not provide? This is an important consideration, you know.
ALSO? If we are going to have an honest debate/discussion? Then I notice, easily, you have attempted to subtly shift the point of reference from "England" to the "UK". Which is it going to be? They are not exactly the same.
Quote:
I'll be happy to give them to you. Unbiased statistics from government sources. Not the ramblings of some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Sure, given them to me. Hell, do you think I have been waiting on your laundry list? Put them up. That is, the figures that show how violent crime rates have declined since gun control laws were passed in England.
Sure, given them to me. Hell, do you think I have been waiting on your laundry list? Put them up. That is, the figures that show how violent crime rates have declined since gun control laws were passed in England.
Here is source to claim 1, that homicide is lower than anytime in the 80s:
Plenty of graphs for you to chew on, all say the same thing.
Gun control came in 2 waves to the UK. Once in 1988 and the other 1997.
Well, thank you at least for providing something to look over. I apprciate that . But you are wrong about the "waves" of gun-control in England. As it is, they began MUCH earlier...in the 30's, then 60's...then later.
Also, let's get clear. There is England, and there is the UK. Which are we talking about...
LATER EDIT: I read this. It was an interesting article, and full of stats, but didn't refute anything. In fact:
British crime statistics are complicated partly because of double recording. Firstly, there are the official police figures (which historically under-record the true level of crime). Then there is the old British Crime Survey - now the Crime Survey for England and Wales - where over 40,000 people are asked for their direct experiences of crime. This is regarded as the most authoritative of either.
I didn't read all of the thread so this may have been covered. The lad used an AR15. The news media is calling it an assault weapon. NO semi automatic weapon is an assault weapon. It only fires one round at a time. An assault weapon will be a full auto like an M16 or an AK. Yeah, there are other military weapons that are not full autos but they are not called assault rifles. This is media BS at its best. The lad suffered from terminal mental illness and from reports that I'm hearing from the "media" is that his mom wasn't much better with her survival BS and the world coming to an end. She's probably the reason the kid went nutz. But instead of addressing mental health, our elected morons are wanting gun control. That will surely make the U.N. happy. But here in Texas we are guaranteed our rights to own weapons and firearms via our State Constitution. A lot of the civil unrest Mexico had with the Texians in 1836 was that Mexico had guaranteed the Texians that Texians were covered under the Mexican Constitution which then allowed them firearms. They needed the firearms to protect themselves from Indian attacks. Mexico took that right away along with freedom of religion and required all Texians to be catholic. It didn't work for the Texians and so our revolution....which is about to repeat itself. I don't think there will be much, if any, gun controls put in place except they may come back with the assault weapons ban of the Clinton days. And that was a near nothing ban except it got the liberal fruitcakes off of their back in DC. Like the typical Democrats, never let a tragedy go to waste. But ya have to wonder just how many sheeple he would have killed if teachers were allowed to carry guns. More than likely it would never have happened.
And for those of you that still think guns should be outlawed. On the same day in Chenpeng, China, a man walked into an elementary school there and killed 22 children with a butcher knife. So do we also ban knives? Doctors will kill over 50,000 people a year with mis-diagnoses. Do we ban doctors? Cars kill far more children every year than guns. Do we ban cars? Are you aware that no gun left totally alone has ever killed a soul?
British crime statistics are complicated partly because of double recording. Firstly, there are the official police figures (which historically under-record the true level of crime). Then there is the old British Crime Survey - now the Crime Survey for England and Wales - where over 40,000 people are asked for their direct experiences of crime. This is regarded as the most authoritative of either.
I have been repeating myself throughout this thread pointing out that very above methodology. Just about no western country (UK, Austria, and some others as exceptions) actually do surveys to try to include unreported crime in their official statistics. The British government switched to this because in the late 90s crime was so low, that the media began talking about winning the war on crime altogether.
Of course the surveys instantly bumped the statistics. As they would anywhere instituted. Most assault goes unreported.
I have been repeating myself throughout this thread pointing out that very above methodology. Just about no western country (UK, Austria, and some others as exceptions) actually do surveys to try to include unreported crime in their official statistics. The British government switched to this because in the late 90s crime was so low, that the media began talking about winning the war on crime altogether.
Of course the surveys instantly bumped the statistics. As they would anywhere instituted. Most assault goes unreported.
Yes, I know you have been repeating yourself. And I have been repeating myself as well. I stand by what I said as I am sure you do as well. Perhaps we are just talking past one another.
I have a little different perspective... I am a gun owner, and long time afficianado of the shooting sports, who is among the majority of NRA members who supports more regulation of gun ownership. That's right. The majority of NRA members support such reasonable measures as closing the gun show loopholes on background registration and state registration of gun ownership... so that "at risk" situations such as domestic violence and mental illness can effectively block purchase of guns and ammo.
But you won't hear that from NRA leadership, who represent the most conservative and most paranoid wing of the organization. They do NOT represent the majority of NRA members at all, and have not for more than 20 years.
I'd really like to see the NRA swing back toward the centrist view I knew it for as I was growing up. Mainstream interests, like hunting and target shooting, not apocalyptic scenarios about defending yourself against the collapse of civilization... which cynically generates huge profits for the vendors of the very arms that are now under attack by mainstream America.
The pro-gun culture in Texas, I have to say, distorts people's perceptions about what is normal, and about what is right.
I mean, seriously, I know people here who keep fully automatic weapons(legal, licensed) in the house because they think it makes sense. That's an EXTREME minority view, and I say that's completely nuts!
There is plenty of evidence that people in the late eighteenth century U.S. understood gun ownership as a collective and, the key point, civic right. Individuals were obligated to own guns in order meet their civic militia duties, which were about protecting the collective or common good. But, with individual gun ownership in this culture came obligations, for example, to have your guns inspected by the government and registered with government. This is why Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29 refers to a "well-regulated" militia and why, even earlier, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 refers to a "right to bear arms" but for the common defense. The larger point is that throughout U.S. history an individual right to own guns has always come with obligations that include the responsibility of gun owners to abide by regulations, many of which staunch gun rights advocates today would find highly intrusive. See Saul Cornell, "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America" for a serious history of this topic.
As for recent SCOTUS rulings, it's hard to accept the majority's interpretation of nearly any right since this is a highly activist, right-wing court with no understanding of history.
throughout U.S. history an individual right to own guns has always come with obligations that include the responsibility of gun owners to abide by regulations, many of which staunch gun rights advocates today would find highly intrusive.
It goes back much further than that. Let's see if you know how far back.
As for "inspecting guns" that is what the British Crown tried to do and that is what the Mexican Dictator Santa Ana tried to do. And that is why we have a 2d Amendment. The Bill of Rights were meant as a CHECK on government power not an ENABLER.
The fact is, gun owners and the NRA have about as much blame for this as the LGBT community does for Penn State and Jerry Sandusky.
Just because someone molests young boys does not mean every gay man has to register himself as a potential sex offender.
I have a little different perspective... I am a gun owner, and long time afficianado of the shooting sports, who is among the majority of NRA members who supports more regulation of gun ownership.
What shooting sports do you support? 3 Gun, carbine, and handgun matches? Or do are you one of the folks who think the only skeet, trap, and static paper target shooting are sporting?
Quote:
That's right. The majority of NRA members support such reasonable measures as closing the gun show loopholes on background registration and state registration of gun ownership...
So you think there should be no private transfer of firearms in Texas without going through federally licensed dealer? Why should the federal government be involved in an in state transaction between two Texas citizens?
Quote:
I'd really like to see the NRA swing back toward the centrist view I knew it for as I was growing up. Mainstream interests, like hunting and target shooting, not apocalyptic scenarios about defending yourself against the collapse of civilization... which cynically generates huge profits for the vendors of the very arms that are now under attack by mainstream America.
So you want to do away with concealed carry, and the general acceptance of the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms? Lets not forget the fact that the 2nd amendment is a last line of defense of a corrupt and oppressive government, it is not about hunting.
Quote:
I mean, seriously, I know people here who keep fully automatic weapons(legal, licensed) in the house because they think it makes sense. That's an EXTREME minority view, and I say that's completely nuts!
Well it can make financial sense, thanks to the federal government there is an artificial limit on the number of licensed civilian legal full auto weapons. As time passes those remaining increase in value.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
