From the article, "THE NUMBER of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.
Fallen to a 20-year low-that is a trend, is it not?
From the article, "THE NUMBER of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.
Fallen to a 20-year low-that is a trend, is it not?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
First, be aware that the law goes state-by-state. So it will likely differ from one jursidiction to another.
Here in NC if you initiate the violence/threat (which robbery would surely do as it automatically implies threat) you cannot successfully claim self-defense.
So person B cannot claim self-defense.
In NC I see no difference as to whether to robber's gun is holstered or brandished.
Other factors would however be important. E.g., after person A drew his gun in self-defense what did person B do? If he tried to run away but was shot anyway by person A; person A is in big trouble (at least here anyway). That would be an unlawful killing (murder charge).
Fern
Nope, I sure wouldn't. We've had crime victimization, though no one shot yet. Nearly everyone in my family carries a gun, and most of my friends as well. Have for generations (well, owned if not carried) without incident, just like so much of the country. We are also all extremely logical and don't fall victim to hysteria and sensationalization that grips so much of the country with these events. Give us reason, arguments, and support.
I don't think we glorify killing, at least not without reason. We glorify individual liberty however. I'm talking about the liberty to refuse to be victimized more than the liberty enumerated by the second amendment, but both apply. That liberty extends to the necessity of taking away the life and liberty of the unjust in support of the just, which is as it should be. I think the closest we get to 'glorification' is entertainment - movies/tv, music, video games. Those things DO affect the culture, and contribute to these types of horrific events. The question is, will we surrender individual liberty for collective safety.
We glorify guns to some degree, because of what they stand for as well as our history. Guns ARE liberty. It's that simple. A weapon (of equivalent strength to those he may face) empowers any individual to be his own keeper, and take responsibility for all that transpires in his view. A gun is an equalizer. It's a tool, and an oft needed one in an ever-crowding world.
I don't consider diplomacy weak. That's why I abhor neo-cons and all they stand for. Not only do I respect diplomacy, I adore compromise. To reach an accord through mutual surrender is surely the highest pinnacle of politics. I don't believe the republican party (in general) seeks to solve problems with violence...I think they're willing to use violence when necessary to protect what is innocent until an actual solution is reached. It's ugly, but it's also the way things will remain for the time. Regrettably, liberty and safety are often opposites.
I was personally never a fan of 24, for precisely that reason. Remember that I'm a big fan of liberalism (not liberals, but liberalism). I'm no more conservative or republican than I am the opposite, and most of those to the right would consider me a flaming liberal/dem - even though I'm neither at all. That will make it impossible to score points against me by pointing out the flaws of any political ideology...I've already pointed them out long before.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
21 deaths due to guns last year in England would seem to back up that claim.
However that's England, here in America there are so many guns that it probably wouldn't be to difficult for a nutjob to get one if they were made illegal tomorrow.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
This is the problem:
http://www.nmha.org/go//go/new...r-mental-health-issues
Fix that and they can reduce mass murder rates, drugs and crime.
http://www.nmha.org/go//go/new...r-mental-health-issues
Fix that and they can reduce mass murder rates, drugs and crime.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
?Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger?, The Times, August 24, 2007.
You're welcome to look up the article. But what would a British newspaper know about what's going on in the UK?
ZV
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
No.
If a number series runs thusly:
10-10-10-10-10-10-2-10-10-10
Then the "2" in the series is an anomalous outlier and not a trend, even though it represents a 7 year low.
It's not a trend until several years in a row show the same decline. Seriously, did you miss every math class your school ever offered?
ZV
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago.
Falling from a peak eight years ago? That's not a trend?
Maybe you need to go back and study english?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Suggests != shows
Also, you don't address my other point. The one that proves that more criminals are using guns even if they aren't killing people with them.
ZV
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Also, hasn't Britain's homicide rate been on the rise? Unsurprisingly, if people want to kill each other, they will find ways, whether guns are available or not. Knife crime has been a big issue over there.
Ok, I'll address your other point, it's simply not true. More criminals are not using guns.
Text
Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 17,343 recorded crimes
in 2007/08. This is six per cent down on 2006/07, andd the fourth consecutive annual fall.
Text
ENGLAND & WALES
From 2004/05 the Annual Statistics provide a more detailed breakdown of the principal weapons involved with more categories recorded.
For "A Guide to and Review of Home Office Gun Crime Statistics" see Hales (2006)
* The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced on 1.4.02. Figures for some categories may be inflated by this
Data from 1989 onwards are now included in the GCN Archive.
Year Total # of offences
1998/99 13876
1999/00 16946
2000/01 17967
2001/02 22400
2002/03* 24070
2003/04 24094
2004/05 22798
2005/06 21521
2006/07 18489
2007/08 17343
The total number of gun offences has been declining for four straight years.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
So the number is down very slightly from double what it was before the restrictions and still well higher than before the restrictions. It still doesn't provide any support for the idea that the restrictions caused any difference in the crime rate.
Basically, you have nothing that will support the idea that the UK's firearms restrictions have had any significant affect on crime.
It's also worth noting that, in the 1919, when the UK had zero restrictions on firearms, the homicide rate in the UK was only 8% of the homicide rate in the US. The UK has had a much lower homicide rate throughout history; the firearms laws have nothing to do with their overall lower rate.
Link
Handgun use in crime is going far up. The numbers you show are the result of lower use of long guns. Interestingly, handguns are banned, and their use continues to rise. Long guns can still be legally purchased and their use in crime in dropping.
ZV
Oh dear lord actual data. We may have reached a turning point and are actually able to discuss this matter.
I need a little time, I want to see if total number of deaths and violent crimes have also fallen. If the total amount of crime has fallen, that could be a very good thing. If total murders have not fallen, trading gun deaths for other forms of murder won't be much progress.
EDIT:
Ugh, I hate reading this crap
Disgusting.
Ok, but on to the statistics. According to British Home Office "Homicides, Firearm Offences and
Intimate Violence 2007/08"
Guns account for 8% of male deaths, and 3% of female deaths. Sharp instruments account for 38% and 28% respectively.
Before the handgun ban the murder rate per million was 11.8, after the handgun ban it begins to rise, so their per-capita murder rate has increased to 14.1 in 10 years.
However, please note that since 1989 the murder rate per million had been at 11.9 and had fluctuated around that number. From the previous 10 years, 1987, to 1997, we had per million murder rates of 11.9 to 11.8, pretty much the same. The handgun ban was introduced, and the very next year that rate started to climb, over the next ten years, the rate climbed to 14.1 per million. This is correlation, it does not prove anything, but it gives a hint.
We are left with several conclusions that are possible: the handgun ban did nothing some unkown caused britian to suddenly break from their trend of a low murder rate and begin to climb. The handgun ban actually caused more murders than it stopped, leading to an increase in total murders. And finally, the handgun ban saved lives, however at the exact same time, some unkown caused the population of britain to suddenly break from their trend of low murder rates and begin to climb.
If you believe banning guns can have an effect on crime, are you absolutely certain that the effect is only capable of being good? Is gun control perfect that it could not possibly cause harm? If you believe that gun control could not have possibly caused more murders, but you are willing to believe that it prevented murders, do you realize that you believe gun control is perfect and that it cannot fail?
You are left to make the argument that your gun control that was supposed to save lives is actually useful, but to make that argument, you must explain why, ever since stricter gun control was introduced more people than ever are being murdered?
ZV - your feeble attempt at discrediting the statistics from the UK is positively pathetic - citing stats from 1919 now?
Prince of Wands - good reply.
I work with people based in the UK, and I travel there quite a bit. My conversation with them in the morning was actually the inspiration for making the initial post in this thread in the first place - all 3 people I spoke with this morning asked me about the 5th mass shooting in such a short time - and they simply assumed that it was the dominant topic of discussion on our news, around the office, etc, etc. The lead story on the local news here tonight was that they were going to announce the secret guest on American Idol this week.....what has to happen for American citizens to say 'enough is enough', or the government to try and do anything?
What might help? Legalizing drugs? Concealed carry laws expanded? I don't know the answer, I just know that our lack of concern about changing things is sad.
Prince of Wands - good reply.
I work with people based in the UK, and I travel there quite a bit. My conversation with them in the morning was actually the inspiration for making the initial post in this thread in the first place - all 3 people I spoke with this morning asked me about the 5th mass shooting in such a short time - and they simply assumed that it was the dominant topic of discussion on our news, around the office, etc, etc. The lead story on the local news here tonight was that they were going to announce the secret guest on American Idol this week.....what has to happen for American citizens to say 'enough is enough', or the government to try and do anything?
What might help? Legalizing drugs? Concealed carry laws expanded? I don't know the answer, I just know that our lack of concern about changing things is sad.
Let me try a suggestion, if you have children, imagine that your child is sick. Now imagine your doctor telling you, I have no clue what is wrong with your child, so I want to stick leeches on him/her.
Gun control has not helped, and it may have made things worse. We don't know of a solution, but repeating failed solutions will not make them miraculously work.
You are spouting the politicians fallacy so plainly it is amazing. There is a problem (murders in america), we need to do something, (gun control) is something, therefore we must have gun control.
If you want to move on to topics like, mental health funding, that sounds like a wonderful idea. Or maybe legalizing drugs could help. CCW does seem to have helped, but it is not a cure, it just seems to have helped a bit. We need other solutions, I personally think we need to "un-stigmatize" the social net for people who lose their job. Or maybe programs to help with social integration. I don't know, I would welcome new ideas that are not knee jerk reactions.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I think we need to change the way employees are viewed. When someone has worked for a company for a long time and then is told they no longer have a job, that has a huge effect on the employee. Besides just the money lost, there is the effect that they were not appreciated enough for what they feel was their hard work.
Employers don't see it that way. They see the employee as a thing, a resource, something you can hire and fire at will . That would be fine if we were all emotionless machines, but we aren't and shootings are the result. I think it should be a requirement that any time a company lays off someone that they also get referred to a job counselor. Not just told to not come in and good luck . That is like walking up to someones dog they have had for years, shooting it , and telling them just go get another, its just a dog.
Jobs for a lot of people give them a sense of value.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
We already have that... they're called "Unemployment Offices." Each and every one of them employs job counselors and offers services to assist those seeking new employment. AFAIK, these are available in all 50 states and Washington DC -- and companies themselves are already the ones who provide the most of the funding for Unemployment Benefits.
I spent some time in Virginia's unemployment lines, and they were very willing to counsel me in finding new employment. They even had internet terminals with bookmarks for every major company in the area, every major job website, and counselors who assisted with resume writing.
Luckily, I didn't need their help... but, it was certainly there for the taking.
Just sayin...
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
So the fact that the homicide rate in the UK was 8% of the US rate even when firearms were broadly available in the UK (and is 9% of the US homicide rate currently, now that handguns are banned) isn't relevant?
The point is that the UK has always had vastly lower homicide rates than the US. For the past 100 years, the homicide rate in the UK has been a fraction of the US homicide rate. There isn't any evidence to support the idea that the UK's lower homicide rate has anything to do with restrictions on firearms.
I'm not "attempting to discredit" the statistics from the UK. I'm pointing out that there are other, conflicting statistics, also from the UK which means that there is no evidence that the ban on handguns has had any net effect on crime. Handgun use in crime is up almost 100%, overall firearm use in crime is down slightly. That can only happen if long guns (which are legal) are being used in less crime while handguns (which are banned) are used in more crime. Clearly, the ban on handguns did not stop criminals from using them.
ZV
Don't worry...
We can just think....
That the gun-toting rednecks at Saratoga and Yorktown caused the Revolution, and the British forces were intent on providing peace to North America.
That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.
That a high percentage of immigrants own guns as an overreaction to the living conditions in their nations of origin, but the US should try to emulate those nations' gun control and social policies.
That it's safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.
That a "safe gun" will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like "safe sex" works so well to stop rape.
or why not think that arming police just "escalates the violence," so to be really effective, we should ban the use of nightsticks by the police. In fact, we should ban the police. If they didn't exist, the criminals wouldn't need to be armed. In fact, we shouldn't have locks on doors, because that just encourages forcible entry.
We can just think....
That the gun-toting rednecks at Saratoga and Yorktown caused the Revolution, and the British forces were intent on providing peace to North America.
That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.
That a high percentage of immigrants own guns as an overreaction to the living conditions in their nations of origin, but the US should try to emulate those nations' gun control and social policies.
That it's safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.
That a "safe gun" will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like "safe sex" works so well to stop rape.
or why not think that arming police just "escalates the violence," so to be really effective, we should ban the use of nightsticks by the police. In fact, we should ban the police. If they didn't exist, the criminals wouldn't need to be armed. In fact, we shouldn't have locks on doors, because that just encourages forcible entry.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Another 4 dead found in an Alabama home. The police are looking for Kevin Lee Garner in connection with the deaths.
Frankly I think they should outlaw the name Lee as it seems that half the time there's heinous murder it's always done by some guy with Lee as a first or middle name.
Frankly I think they should outlaw the name Lee as it seems that half the time there's heinous murder it's always done by some guy with Lee as a first or middle name.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Well, the "old folk" in the following story might argue with you:
Two shots, one to the head and one center-mass... HOO-RAH!!!
So much for age being a factor, eh?
We let them drive - Whats the difference? Plus there's that pesky thing called the Constitution that gives us the right to carry one. I know you would probably prefer if we were run by Sharia Law, but until that happens that darn Constitution is there. Doesn't seem to be a lot of our WWII veterans blowing people away in nursing homes.. I hear of a lot more than that running people over here in Florida though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter