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.
then maybe we can get back to explaining are points without the extra comments. for the record guys Ive been on this thread from the start. I believe FFH agrees with you that you have a "right" to possess arms. her main driving point is to register them. that causes shivers upon those that believe registration leads to confiscation. as I do. for those of us that donot want are right to be infringed, we need to curb are passion with logic and convincing actions. Mcviegh used common chemicals for his WMD, not anything like a gun. also many, many armed citizens have aided people in trouble, and even helped out lawenforcement. unlike england where the fact is violent crime went up almost 10% after gun confiscation. and the bobbys had to arm themselves. marsmellows and whip cream anyone?
I do agree you have a right to have a gun.
But Mark, what to make of your facts here? Where you get the 10% increase in violent crime?
or this link:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics50.htm (broken link)
Perhaps you pulled some year-on-year statistic to get your number? Either way, the trend is very clearly downward. A 43% reduction since 1995.
And in spite of trends, let's keep the proportions in mind. There were 785 homicides, 100 gun-related in the UK (source: BCS). 16500 homicides in the US, 10800 gun-related. (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics).
Violent crime has gone up in the States, and you still haven't made that jive with your gun-as-deterrent argument.
There are armed response units similar to SWAT teams. The police here primarily do not carry sidearms.
In the end, I disagree with the gun laws in both countries. I think this country should allow law-abiding citizens to own registered firearms. I think the US should follow suit.
Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 01-30-2007 at 01:22 AM..
FFH I stand corrected. it was 9% as reported by the london times,26 jan 07. seems recent? armed robbery 1439, home robbery up 46% to 645 and 2.4 million victoms of violent crimes. 746 killed. please dont bother with ratios of the us vs uk stuff. if confiscation is the final answer why havent after 10YRS the crime should be down to 0 thats zero. ten years and they cant get all the illegal guns out of the hands of what?, 60mil people. thats 6 times smaller than are population. guns not a deterent? first lets agree we will never get rid of all illegal guns. for all the lives saved by an armed citizen realize that that could have been dead victums of gun crimes. an armed populace works, cops cant get there on time. courts have thrown out law suits saying the police do not have an obligation to protect you! finally the words " shall not infringe" NO restrictions for the law abiding people to possess.
just checked the FBI web site. the FBI as we all know is a major law enforcement in the US. they put out annual reports on ? crime. they start there report with the statement, "firearm related crimes plummeted since 1993" wow that seems strange. so I read further.in 1993 there was 1.2 million violent crimes, with 11% of that by firearms or about 130,000, thats not dead though. by 2004 its down to 331,630 victims with only 6% by firearms. thats less than 20,000 victims. I will look up how many new guns were purchased and new ccw permits issued. could it be that as gun ownership went up that crime went down? whoo hoo! the good guys are winning. nhaw that cant be right, more guns=less crime. I think Im gonna go buy another gun.
You know, I don't mean to be cruel, but it's very hard to read what you are writing Mark6052.
It seems that you don't want to write in English and you write phonetically which would be okay but it leaves it up to people like me to puzzle over what points you are trying to make. You don't capitalize words at the start of a sentence and you don't put a period at the end of a sentence. Plus, instead of "our" you write "are." "They're" "there" and "their" all have different meanings.
Could you please write some of your bigger points in English so we can all appreciate them?
Mark6052, I have no problem with your posts Keep up the good work!
As to registration, why? I asked FFH to give us a rundown on how the registration program is going to reduce crime or keep criminals from using guns in the commission of a crime, no reply.
If "they" stop at ONLY registration we have some issues that need to be addressed.
First, is there a fee involved with this "registration", are you taxing a Right? If so, is it still a right, if I have to pay for the....privilege to exercise my right? I understood that the reason we establish a government is to secure our rights, then on top of the general support of the government, through all the taxes I pay, I would need to pay extra to exercise my Right to keep and bear arms? Which other Rights would we have to pay to use?
Second, "registration" can do nothing to prevent crimes. "John Q. Gunny" wishes to exercise his Right to "Keep and bear" arms. He goes to a store, picks out his favorite, and gives the young lady behind the counter his $$ and walks out....Wait! First he has to subject himself to an examination of his life by the govenment, to see if he is fit to exercise his right (is this still a right?). Then he has to "register" the firearm, I would presume that this would entail at the very least of his address (to be up dated with the government with any moves), identifing features (such as those on a drivers license), type of firearm to include serial number.
Now "John" has his firearm and you have his registration, now what? How has this prevented any crimes? Well, if "John" is typical of 99.9% of all gun owners, he is never going to use his gun in the commission of a crime, so there was no prevention, just intrusion.
Let us prevent some crime with this scenario: "B.A. Dude" went in to the same gun store, at the same time as "John". He bought the same gun, went through the same checks and same "registration" process. Since "B.A." has never been convicted of any crimes (or anything else that would restrict his Rights) he too walked out of the gunshop with a gun. But unlike "John", "B.A." is one of the less than .1% (that's less than one tenth of one percent) of gun owners and he is looking to commit a crime, with his new gun. How has "registration" foiled his desires? He walks out of the gunshop, next door to a tanning salon, shoots everyone, gets a free tan and leaves. But you are happy because he "registered" his gun? I don't think so. Even you realize that "registration" can not prevent crimes.
Indulge me on one more, please. "Mr. Gang E. Buster" is a real bad person, in and out of jail, on various violent charges, he even wears a "wife beater" tank top. Mr. Buster knows that if he goes to the gunshop, that the nice young lady behind the counter will not let him have a gun. So he goes to the local crack house and gets one from his "friend" who knows how to get guns. Since Mr. Buster has criminal intent and desires to use a gun, he forgoes the process to "register" his new gun. This is just one more crime that will be stacked on to all the others that he is going to commit. Mr. Buster, ends up "wacking" several of his competitors, a couple of innocent bystanders and a police officer. How did mere "registration" help prevent this crime?
Ahh! But registration will allow the police to better solve crimes, right? Not so fast spanky.
"John" above, and over 99.9% of all gun owners (and over 99.9% of all guns for that matter) will NEVER EVER use a gun to commit a crime. No investigation needed.
"B.A." did all the "right" things, and the police can now "prove" it was his gun, thanks to registration! They would have never had this information if it were not for "registration". But wait!! How did the police ever link people to guns prior to "registration"? First, all guns have a serial number, and the manufacture of them is stickly regulated. The sale of a gun from a maker, to a gun store is recorded at the factory. The gun store, when they sell the gun, has the information on the buyer. The police would then track down the buyer, via the gun store records. That is how it works for the incrediblly small fraction of guns used in crimes, that were not ill-gotten. If the gun was stole from someone, or home made, there is no record, even with a grand registration plan.
Second amendment, aside, the US appears to have more people carrying, owning and using guns than anywhere else.
While I myself like guns, have used guns, and believe in individual's rights, I am opposed to gun-toting.
Having guns makes it easier to not exercise good judgment or any judgment at all in domestic violence incidents; gun availability to registered and unregistered owners, alike, has made it too easy for youngsters to borrow and use guns inappropriately--like school massacres.
If everyone had self control, good judgment and knew when to use a gun, and when to have it locked up, I'd been a keen supporter of firearm use, but most people lose their tempers, if they had them in the first place, and too many others have criminal intent.
With or without registration, guns should be outlawed except for those that want to go hunting with a nice rifle in the open air.
We are no longer living in the wild west, even if we are living in the West, and the excuse that we need to protect ourselves is out of date, imo.
Having guns makes it easier to not exercise good judgment or any judgment at all in domestic violence incidents; gun availability to registered and unregistered owners, alike, has made it too easy for youngsters to borrow and use guns inappropriately--like school massacres.
If everyone had self control, good judgment and knew when to use a gun, and when to have it locked up, I'd been a keen supporter of firearm use, but most people lose their tempers, if they had them in the first place, and too many others have criminal intent.
.
Ontheroad, the facts do not bearout your unfounded fear of people with guns losing their tempers and going on a shooting rampage. This is not what has happened at the school shootings, they are a preplanned, premeditated event, and the lack of ability of the people at the scene to have ready access to "equal force", ie guns, to defend themselves is why the result of the premeditated murder is so devastating. Nearly ALL of the "mass shootings" have been ended by the use of "equal force", ie. guns. And on several occasions, it was a private citizen, exercising their Right to keep and bear a firearm, at the scene that stopped the slaughter of innocent, unarmed people.
The facts, when you consider general gun ownership, and in particular, the carrying of concealed weapons, is that having a firearm readily available has no impact what so ever on one's ability to restrain their temper. If indeed this was the case, in every location that the free carry of concealed weapons is exercised (that would include over 35 states) we would see a spike in gun assaults when the restriction of such carry was lifted. In actuality, what we have seen is just the opposite, violent crimes (including those involving a firearm) go down.
The facts bear out that guns are much more likely to be used in the defense against violent crimes than used to commit them.
All this stated, under the umbrella of "the Second Amendment has nothing to do with crime prevention". So even to include it in a Second Amendment debate is an attempt to derail the specific question of the Second Amendment. However, in an attempt to highlight misconceptions, and mistaken information about firearms in general, this information needs to be addressed
I reckon I am proposing a review of the constitutional right to bear arms.
Many of the constitutional amendments had rational reasons for their inclusion at the time they were written. Now years later I am not certain they all resound in the same manner.
Exploring other constitutional issues are on the table or in back-rooms. I am concerned with many of our rights being eroded, this just doesn't happen to be an issue I endorse.
Here's an interesting group exploring many of the issues we face, several in favour of the second amendment (see civil rights).
FFH I stand corrected. it was 9% as reported by the london times,26 jan 07. seems recent? armed robbery 1439, home robbery up 46% to 645 and 2.4 million victoms of violent crimes. 746 killed. please dont bother with ratios of the us vs uk stuff.
It's as I thought. Year-on-year statistics have higher variability and are less indicative of trends. But I would be keen to see your link to the Times article. I couldn't find it, and it doesn't hang with the BCS study.
So how do you explain the 2nd year in a row of increased crime in the US? 4% rise in violent crime, 10% rise in robberies, You're fond of parsing stats, how do you explain these?
It's a bit embarrassing to compare the US & the UK, I know. What a shame to be a 1st world industrialized nation placed between Georgia & Azerbaijan in the gun murder rates.
But the ratios are relevant. Besides, you were the one who tried to make points by quoting the crime rate in the UK. It's bad when crime increases. But it also depends on where you start. 746 killed vs. 16,000. It says quite a lot about public safety in the United States. The crime rate could rocket downward for 10 years and still not be as safe as the UK. Yes, it's an embarrassment.
Look at Colombia. Their crime rate has decreased this year, but their murder rate stands at 15,000 for 43M people. So since the rate went down, would you say the state of violent crime there is hunky-dory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052
if confiscation is the final answer why havent after 10YRS the crime should be down to 0 thats zero.
That would be irrational to expect zero crime. There will always be a criminal element in society, and we both know that black market trade in guns exists. But 100 gun-related deaths stands as pretty solid evidence of the success of gun laws here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052
ten years and they cant get all the illegal guns out of the hands of what?, 60mil people.
No they haven't , but they got most of them. 60 million isn't a pittance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052
thats 6 times smaller than are population. guns not a deterent?
If you really want to know the drivers of crime in this country, I'll be happy to share since I'm actually better-placed to comment. There are two: heroin and light prison sentences. The Labour government has been all too eager to let parolees out early and provide nurturing for smackheads. That's why the crime rate here went up a tick. It had nothing to do with gun laws, hell, it didn't even coincide with the Dunblane-era restrictions on ownership.
If I were PM, I'd keep prisoners locked up & throw the junkies in with them. You wouldn't need to arm the population to drive the crime rate south, just ensure proper justice is served.
You know, I don't mean to be cruel, but it's very hard to read what you are writing Mark6052.
It seems that you don't want to write in English and you write phonetically which would be okay but it leaves it up to people like me to puzzle over what points you are trying to make. You don't capitalize words at the start of a sentence and you don't put a period at the end of a sentence. Plus, instead of "our" you write "are." "They're" "there" and "their" all have different meanings.
Could you please write some of your bigger points in English so we can all appreciate them?
Thanks!
Oh come on. Mark's a gun nut but he hasn't picked on anyone's writing style. He may be wrong, but I can discern his points just fine.
That ain't needed unless someone starts slinging insults. It's just pedantic.
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.
guns not a deterent? first lets agree we will never get rid of all illegal guns. for all the lives saved by an armed citizen realize that that could have been dead victums of gun crimes. an armed populace works, cops cant get there on time. courts have thrown out law suits saying the police do not have an obligation to protect you! 
finally the words " shall not infringe" NO restrictions for the law abiding people to possess.
Fbi
I think Im gonna go buy another gun.
