Ten Paces then DRAW!
- Thread starter Canucklehead
- Start date
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml
"The new gun crime figures also show that handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on the weapons that followed. The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997, the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in Dunblane, Perthshire.
It was hoped that the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. According to internal Home Office statistics, however, handgun crime is now at its highest since 1993."
"The new gun crime figures also show that handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on the weapons that followed. The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997, the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in Dunblane, Perthshire.
It was hoped that the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. According to internal Home Office statistics, however, handgun crime is now at its highest since 1993."
And your point is, Jay? Gun crime in the UK is on the increase, the vast majority of it committed using imitation firearms that have been illegally modified, and the vast majority of that does not lead to injury or death. The fact is homicide rates are directly linked to the number of legally owned guns in a society. (You'll note, the psychopath who carried out the Dunblane massacre was an enthusiast using legally held weapons).
I remember Dunblane well, as does everyone in Britain - the reason being, it was such a shocking and freak event. Such things are a regular occurence in the US. The US has, what, 15-20,000 deaths a year due to firearms? In the UK its closer to 50. That's all the evidence I need to show that every sociopath's favourite Amendment is damaging for US society.
Since Dunblane is in scotland, here are some interesting stats:
"The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death."
I remember Dunblane well, as does everyone in Britain - the reason being, it was such a shocking and freak event. Such things are a regular occurence in the US. The US has, what, 15-20,000 deaths a year due to firearms? In the UK its closer to 50. That's all the evidence I need to show that every sociopath's favourite Amendment is damaging for US society.
Since Dunblane is in scotland, here are some interesting stats:
"The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death."
Hey Jo Canadian!
Your post above (the cartoon) completely ignores the facts.
1. Switzerland, a European country with a low murder rate, requires that every male of military age keep an assault rifle (that's a MACHINE GUN for the uninitiated) and 72 rounds of ammunition in his home. The Swiss make the Americans look positively unarmed.
2. In Great Britain, Australia, and Canada the imposition of tough gun control measures has led to an INCREASE in firearms murders. (12% up in Canada last year) The solution offered in each case by the government? More of the same. Idiocy.
3. In the United States, the government has liberalized (funny word) restrictions against the carrying of handguns for self-defense. THIRTY SEVEN states now must issue concealed carry permits to citizens that ask for them (after a criminal record check).The murder rate in the US has crashed since the first of these laws was instituted in 1988. It has gone down further, and faster, in those states which allow citizens to carry pistols. (google John R. Lott, Gary Kleck for research)
4. The American murder rate, although roughly three times our own, is not that high if considered on a world wide scale. For instance Jamaica has a murder rate FIVE TIMES that of the United States. Jamaica is an island, with easily controled borders. It has a ban on firearms. You get a mandatory life sentence for possession of a BULLET!!!
Need more arguments? I got a million of 'em!
Your post above (the cartoon) completely ignores the facts.
1. Switzerland, a European country with a low murder rate, requires that every male of military age keep an assault rifle (that's a MACHINE GUN for the uninitiated) and 72 rounds of ammunition in his home. The Swiss make the Americans look positively unarmed.
2. In Great Britain, Australia, and Canada the imposition of tough gun control measures has led to an INCREASE in firearms murders. (12% up in Canada last year) The solution offered in each case by the government? More of the same. Idiocy.
3. In the United States, the government has liberalized (funny word) restrictions against the carrying of handguns for self-defense. THIRTY SEVEN states now must issue concealed carry permits to citizens that ask for them (after a criminal record check).The murder rate in the US has crashed since the first of these laws was instituted in 1988. It has gone down further, and faster, in those states which allow citizens to carry pistols. (google John R. Lott, Gary Kleck for research)
4. The American murder rate, although roughly three times our own, is not that high if considered on a world wide scale. For instance Jamaica has a murder rate FIVE TIMES that of the United States. Jamaica is an island, with easily controled borders. It has a ban on firearms. You get a mandatory life sentence for possession of a BULLET!!!
Need more arguments? I got a million of 'em!
Hard Luck Henry claims "The fact is homicide rates are directly linked to the number of legally owned guns in a society. "
This is complete baloney, and is easily debunked by a couple of google searches on rates of firearms availability internationally, and murder rates. Then compare the two.
Read items 1. and 4. in my post above.
This is complete baloney, and is easily debunked by a couple of google searches on rates of firearms availability internationally, and murder rates. Then compare the two.
Read items 1. and 4. in my post above.
Colpy said:
That's pure supposition, Colpy, and clearly biased by your own attitude to firearms - how can you possibly claim that gun control has LED to any increase?
(The following post is part of a reply to Jay, but some of it is relevant to your statement).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obvious to you, maybe. :wink:
If, and I believe it is, your point is that the increase in gun crime proves gun control doesn't work, I'd refute that. Easier access to guns clearly leads to more gun crime, and the majority of serious incidents - such as the massacre above, and others like it - are almost always carried out with legally held firearms.
As for the increase in gun crime in the UK, you have to bear in mind the broad definition of firearms used in those figures, as well as the nature of the incidents. Thus, Gun crime in England and Wales rose by 5% in the year to June 2005 to a total of 11,160 offences (this excludes airgun crime) according to provisional figures released in the Quarterly Update on Crime in England and Wales. However, the increase can be attributed entirely to the continuing availability of imitation guns. While there was a fall in the number of incidents involving handguns (down 8%), and in the number of fatal injuries (down from 70 to 60), there was a large increase in crime involving imitation guns (including BB guns (up 28% from 2620 to 3340 incidents, nearly 30% of the total number of incidents) and other firearms such as paintball guns and stun guns. The increased use of this kind of weapon is once again reflected in a large rise in the number of slight injuries from gun crime (a 65% increase from 2190 to 3620).
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!
Baloney? Isn't that some kind of sausage? I'm not sure what you're implying, Colpy, but i suspect it's not complimentary.
"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
- Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa
-----------------------------------------
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
- International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
--------------------------------------------
Most Mass Gun Killers are also Legal Gun Owners - Fact.
The following data were prepared in the wake of the shooting in Erfurt, Germany, 26 April 2002:
In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during the past 35 years:
79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 victims)
86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun owners
Many killers, like the 19-year-old who shot 16 people dead at his school in Germany, were previously law-abiding sporting shooters or pistol club members - men whose legal ownership of guns was not questioned by authorities until after the tragedy.
Colpy said:
Baloney? Isn't that some kind of sausage? I'm not sure what you're implying, Colpy, but i suspect it's not complimentary.
"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
- Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa
-----------------------------------------
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
- International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
--------------------------------------------
Most Mass Gun Killers are also Legal Gun Owners - Fact.
The following data were prepared in the wake of the shooting in Erfurt, Germany, 26 April 2002:
In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during the past 35 years:
79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 victims)
86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun owners
Many killers, like the 19-year-old who shot 16 people dead at his school in Germany, were previously law-abiding sporting shooters or pistol club members - men whose legal ownership of guns was not questioned by authorities until after the tragedy.
The argument that the easy availabilty of guns and the ease of restriction on their ownership and use will lead to less gun crime is ridiculous. Those who believe they have the right to own guns refude to understand or acknowledge that and try to spin the statistics to defend their indefensible stance.
If having more weapons reduces their use in killing people, then the Bush administration would be insisting that Iran and North Korea build huge nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration does not do that. If having more weapons reduced crime, we would insist that air travellers all have handguns. We do not do that. If weapons made things safer, people on tour at the White House would be encouraged to carry concealed weapons. Instead there is a prohibition on the public carrying such weapons into the White House. If you want to be covered by the Second Amendment, I suggest you move to the US.
When I can walk into the White House carrying a loaded assault weapon, I'll give some credence to the nonsensical argument that a proliferation of guns reduces crime. Until then, the NRA and the gun nuts better come up with a new argument. They can drop the second amendment crap too...the US Constitution does not apply in Canada.
If having more weapons reduces their use in killing people, then the Bush administration would be insisting that Iran and North Korea build huge nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration does not do that. If having more weapons reduced crime, we would insist that air travellers all have handguns. We do not do that. If weapons made things safer, people on tour at the White House would be encouraged to carry concealed weapons. Instead there is a prohibition on the public carrying such weapons into the White House. If you want to be covered by the Second Amendment, I suggest you move to the US.
When I can walk into the White House carrying a loaded assault weapon, I'll give some credence to the nonsensical argument that a proliferation of guns reduces crime. Until then, the NRA and the gun nuts better come up with a new argument. They can drop the second amendment crap too...the US Constitution does not apply in Canada.
Here is an essay that I'm sure only Colply and I are interested in.
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Guns.htm
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Guns.htm
Nothing personal Henry.... it is just that your claim is, as I said, easily debunked.
For internal US stats Google Gary Kleck. Read him. He is a liberal Democrat. He is NOT a gun owner. His research is pristine.
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
- International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993."
Now here is a favourite trick of the gun banners. They include suicide in the statistics for gun violence. Of course most suicides using guns are done by legal owners. Tightly restrict guns, lower the number of legal owners, and suicide with GUNS goes way down. Then you have lovely lower gun violence rates to quote.
Unfortunately, this is an unethical trick. Suicide rates in Canada have remained the same since Bill C-68, although gun suicides have crashed. Murder rates, however, have gone up.
Obviously, this proves the lie in the contention that gun control prevents either suicide or murder. So why bother?
Even if you have some doubt, it is obvious the positive effects of gun legislation in Canada are very difficult to prove.
In a free society, government should always err on the side of freedom, and Bill c-68 is a serious intrusion on civil rights.
Oh yeah.
The worst mass murder in Canadian history did not involve guns. 329 dead in a bombing carried out by Sikh extremists.
Neither did the second worst. 32 killed in an arson attack on a Montreal bar in 1972.
Obviously people do not need guns to kill.
For internal US stats Google Gary Kleck. Read him. He is a liberal Democrat. He is NOT a gun owner. His research is pristine.
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
- International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993."
Now here is a favourite trick of the gun banners. They include suicide in the statistics for gun violence. Of course most suicides using guns are done by legal owners. Tightly restrict guns, lower the number of legal owners, and suicide with GUNS goes way down. Then you have lovely lower gun violence rates to quote.
Unfortunately, this is an unethical trick. Suicide rates in Canada have remained the same since Bill C-68, although gun suicides have crashed. Murder rates, however, have gone up.
Obviously, this proves the lie in the contention that gun control prevents either suicide or murder. So why bother?
Even if you have some doubt, it is obvious the positive effects of gun legislation in Canada are very difficult to prove.
In a free society, government should always err on the side of freedom, and Bill c-68 is a serious intrusion on civil rights.
Oh yeah.
The worst mass murder in Canadian history did not involve guns. 329 dead in a bombing carried out by Sikh extremists.
Neither did the second worst. 32 killed in an arson attack on a Montreal bar in 1972.
Obviously people do not need guns to kill.
Jay
Thanks for the link.
Of course there is a natural, and ancient, and LEGAL right to bear arms.
This is instinctively understood by gun owners, who refuse to follow anti-gun laws in every jurisdiction where they are tried.
I confess I kind of gave up making this argument with anti-gunners though. They are typically caught in such an ideological rut that any reference to the RIGHT to bear arms gets you dismissed as a nut. Instantly.
So I just argue the stats.
Thanks for the link.
Of course there is a natural, and ancient, and LEGAL right to bear arms.
This is instinctively understood by gun owners, who refuse to follow anti-gun laws in every jurisdiction where they are tried.
I confess I kind of gave up making this argument with anti-gunners though. They are typically caught in such an ideological rut that any reference to the RIGHT to bear arms gets you dismissed as a nut. Instantly.
So I just argue the stats.
Hard luck Henry said:
"That's pure supposition, Colpy, and clearly biased by your own attitude to firearms - how can you possibly claim that gun control has LED to any increase? "
Fair enough.
But tough gun laws have certainly not led to a DECREASE in murder or suicide.
So why spend 2 billion bucks and assault civil rights over Bill C-68?
Free societies should err on the side of freedom, not restriction.
"That's pure supposition, Colpy, and clearly biased by your own attitude to firearms - how can you possibly claim that gun control has LED to any increase? "
Fair enough.
But tough gun laws have certainly not led to a DECREASE in murder or suicide.
So why spend 2 billion bucks and assault civil rights over Bill C-68?
Free societies should err on the side of freedom, not restriction.
Rev
Carefully read the link posted just above by Jay.
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in English Common Law.
Carefully read the link posted just above by Jay.
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in English Common Law.
The right to bear arms is an essential liberty. Essential liberties are under heavy fire at the moment.
Certain people would rather leave us at the mercy of the criminal element, rather than allow us to educate and defend ourselves.
Let’s just say (for the moment) "forgive them for they know not what they do".
Certain people would rather leave us at the mercy of the criminal element, rather than allow us to educate and defend ourselves.
Let’s just say (for the moment) "forgive them for they know not what they do".
That's another ridiculous argument, Colpy. I feel the need to defend myself against all those nukes on my southern border. Does that mean I can own a couple of ICBMs?
The teenage boy down the street is a bad driver and I'm afraid that on day he'll drive over me. Do I have the right to disable his car? Failing that, do I have the right to install a huge, mini-van destrying speed bump in front of my house?
I also know the best to prevent robbery is to put an electrified copper grate in front of my doors and windows. Should I be allowed to hook 240 volts up to electrocute anyone who attempt to gain entry?
Booby traps a pretty successful way of defending property. Should I be able to place landmines in my front lawn? Should I have trip wires that trigger spiked maces falling from my trees?
All of these things have been used by survivalists in the United States. I learned most of them from the old Freebird website. They also feel they have a right to shoot people in "self defence" and blow up government buildings because the government presents a threat to them. They are a powerful part of the pro-gun lobby in the US and not without influence in Canada. They are clearly insane, yet they make the same arguments for guns that you do. What am I to think?
The teenage boy down the street is a bad driver and I'm afraid that on day he'll drive over me. Do I have the right to disable his car? Failing that, do I have the right to install a huge, mini-van destrying speed bump in front of my house?
I also know the best to prevent robbery is to put an electrified copper grate in front of my doors and windows. Should I be allowed to hook 240 volts up to electrocute anyone who attempt to gain entry?
Booby traps a pretty successful way of defending property. Should I be able to place landmines in my front lawn? Should I have trip wires that trigger spiked maces falling from my trees?
All of these things have been used by survivalists in the United States. I learned most of them from the old Freebird website. They also feel they have a right to shoot people in "self defence" and blow up government buildings because the government presents a threat to them. They are a powerful part of the pro-gun lobby in the US and not without influence in Canada. They are clearly insane, yet they make the same arguments for guns that you do. What am I to think?
Hey Colpy!!
:roll: The toon Presented wasn't to acknowledge any growth of percentages in gun related fatalities.
:lol: It was presented as a comparison. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comparison
Gun control doesn't mean taking guns away from people. It means regulating the type of guns that certain people can access. If you really wanted to by a GlockMaster Deershredder 3000TM then go ahead and jump through the hoops you need to get it. What the regulation is all about is to control the fact that any joe who wants one regardless of responsibility has a right to do so. You should at least prove how and WHY you should have the right. Otherwise you'll be getting every Bucktooth yokel with an arsenal comparable to many small countries. You can argue that there are decent people that would then be able to defend themselves against people like that but what does that get you? Yokels VS Decent. Gimme a break allowing that to happen is essentially allowing your civilian population to engage in their own little arms race. My signature should explain the rest of that one.
:roll: The toon Presented wasn't to acknowledge any growth of percentages in gun related fatalities.
:lol: It was presented as a comparison. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=comparison
Gun control doesn't mean taking guns away from people. It means regulating the type of guns that certain people can access. If you really wanted to by a GlockMaster Deershredder 3000TM then go ahead and jump through the hoops you need to get it. What the regulation is all about is to control the fact that any joe who wants one regardless of responsibility has a right to do so. You should at least prove how and WHY you should have the right. Otherwise you'll be getting every Bucktooth yokel with an arsenal comparable to many small countries. You can argue that there are decent people that would then be able to defend themselves against people like that but what does that get you? Yokels VS Decent. Gimme a break allowing that to happen is essentially allowing your civilian population to engage in their own little arms race. My signature should explain the rest of that one.
I think Joe and I almost agree here....
Handguns, being the # 1 choice for self defense, are one of the biggest anti gun types favorite to want to restrict/bann.
So hand guns laws in Canada are draconian. All we need to do is loosen the laws on storage and handling of small arms, and tighten the methods used to obtain them. Currently you need a restricted license to HAVE one. Increase the education needed to obtain the license and the training, and allow people to use them for what they are designed for...self defense. Otherwise the small arms are for target practice. :roll:
Cops seem to make good use of small arms to defend themselves...
Handguns, being the # 1 choice for self defense, are one of the biggest anti gun types favorite to want to restrict/bann.
So hand guns laws in Canada are draconian. All we need to do is loosen the laws on storage and handling of small arms, and tighten the methods used to obtain them. Currently you need a restricted license to HAVE one. Increase the education needed to obtain the license and the training, and allow people to use them for what they are designed for...self defense. Otherwise the small arms are for target practice. :roll:
Cops seem to make good use of small arms to defend themselves...
We nedd to tighten the laws on handling weapons. If you are caught with one outside of your home you'd better be going to the shooting range or you'll be going to jail. I think 2 years less a day if the weapon was legally obtained and registered, 5 years if it wasn't, and 10 years (additional) if it was used in the commission of a crime or pointed at anything besides a paper target would be a good start. No plea bargains and I don't care if you just wanted to show it to a friend.