It's far, far less in the UK.
Guns should definitely stay banned for obvious reasons.
Gun crime in UK doubled despite ban
- Thread starter Leonel
- Start date
Guns should definitely stay banned for obvious reasons.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,523
If your government decided to crack down on its citizens, how would you fight back? I believe they already have speakers and cameras.
SickCycle
Prince
Every area that puts in effect gun bans has an increase in crime, it's been shown all over the place.
Take washington D.C. for example only place in the United States I know of with a gun but "Which was recently ruled unconstitutional, thank you very much" yeah well.. It has double the murder rate of anywhere else in the United States, this isn't something they just did because the murder rate was twice that of any other area.. It has been in effect for "Thirty Years".
It isn't that by having guns legal everyone is gonna be carrying and thus the streets are more safe, even tho in theory that is exactly what would happen if you wanted to be realistic and leave your bleeding hearts behind.
It lowers crime because criminals are more hesitant to break into a house or rob someone at gun point when they aren't sure if you have a weapon or not. If there is a gun ban.. they "know" you don't have a firearm and so there is less risk for them, they don't hesitate as much and more people that don't have the stones to do it otherwise all off a sudden get courage and think they have power when they "know" they are the only one with a firearm.
But I'm just a genius, you don't have to listen to me.
Oh yeah, my facts could be old, if they are incorrect update them for me
last time I checked washington was the only place with a handgun ban and last time I checked it had double the murder rate of anywhere else in the United States
It's not the UK but since your talking about handgun bans the principal stays the same, criminals are already breaking the law.. they don't much care if it's legal to own a gun they will still get them just like people still buy drugs in every city in the world, the only thing it does is take away the "fear" that the law abiding citizen may or may not be armed.
Thus.. crime rises. I know lots of criminal.. I'm an American lol take my word on this one
It doesn't lower the criminals access to firearms one bit, it only takes them away from people using it as home defense etc.
Take washington D.C. for example only place in the United States I know of with a gun but "Which was recently ruled unconstitutional, thank you very much" yeah well.. It has double the murder rate of anywhere else in the United States, this isn't something they just did because the murder rate was twice that of any other area.. It has been in effect for "Thirty Years".
It isn't that by having guns legal everyone is gonna be carrying and thus the streets are more safe, even tho in theory that is exactly what would happen if you wanted to be realistic and leave your bleeding hearts behind.
It lowers crime because criminals are more hesitant to break into a house or rob someone at gun point when they aren't sure if you have a weapon or not. If there is a gun ban.. they "know" you don't have a firearm and so there is less risk for them, they don't hesitate as much and more people that don't have the stones to do it otherwise all off a sudden get courage and think they have power when they "know" they are the only one with a firearm.
But I'm just a genius, you don't have to listen to me.Oh yeah, my facts could be old, if they are incorrect update them for me
last time I checked washington was the only place with a handgun ban and last time I checked it had double the murder rate of anywhere else in the United States It's not the UK but since your talking about handgun bans the principal stays the same, criminals are already breaking the law.. they don't much care if it's legal to own a gun they will still get them just like people still buy drugs in every city in the world, the only thing it does is take away the "fear" that the law abiding citizen may or may not be armed.
Thus.. crime rises. I know lots of criminal.. I'm an American lol take my word on this one
It doesn't lower the criminals access to firearms one bit, it only takes them away from people using it as home defense etc.
*yawn*
No-one in government (I dearly hope) is not ignorant enough to think a ban will mean 0 guns. Guns are not totally banned - I think you require a licence. However it dramatically reduces the amount of guns in the country, and it has and is working - just compare it to the USA.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,523
Again, how would your fellow citizens in Airstrip One decide to stand up against the government?
Or what if the Germans decide to drop by again?
I don't fully understand the question. Do you mean that if I were to revolt against the government, how would I attack them without a gun?
Show me the proof then.
And does the UK have double the murder rate of the USA?
Please stop being so narrow-minded. The USA is not the UK. In the USA everyone has guns - ban guns and innocent people hand them in. In the UK very few people have guns - legalise guns and you just end up with more and more criminals having guns, and more gun crime.
But the UK is fundamentally different from the UK in that is has very low gun crime, comparably.
Well that's a complete lie. You're naive to think that all criminals already have guns. Legalise guns and you'll get thousands and thousands of dangerous teenagers with their newly bought guns, with the freedom to carry and use them whereever they like. They'll use the weapons to earn money by theft, and their crimes will just get worse and worse.
Legalising guns would wreak havoc on the UK, and I would probably leave the country.
That's what the army is for, not civilians.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,523
No, if the government decided to do away with your rights, take your property by force, and do whatever the hell they wanted, how would you fight back?
Knives? Pray?
I bet the Polish and French in the late 30's thought the same!If our country turned so extremist (which it is extremely unlikely to do as we live in a democracy) then it would have the likes of Europe and the USA on its backs.
What would you do if your government decided to drop atomic bombs on you? Run? Shoot your gun at it?
I can't see a person with a handgun in an American household standing up to a team of 5 with machine guns. That wouldn't make any significant difference to a war. The world is a far safer place than it was earlier this century.
Your points are utterly ridiculous. Organisations have been set up like the EU and the UN to strengthen our countries, and you're suggesting that they're going to suddenly declare war on the UK or the UK government will suddenly turn fascist and murder everyone. Get a grip.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,523
If our country turned so extremist (which it is extremely unlikely to do as we live in a democracy) then it would have the likes of Europe and the USA on its backs.
What would you do if your government decided to drop atomic bombs on you? Run? Shoot your gun at it?
Pre-Hitler Germany was also a Democracy.
The United States has invaded a number of nations since 1945 and we have no dropped a nuclear bomb on one.
However you sarcastic rolleyes is amusing, because I think you know exactly what I am talking about, but choose to put up useless strawman arguments to try and defend your position. That's okay, a lot of CFC is like this now.
Try and be pragmatic for once.
Ever seen Red Dawn?
Your points are utterly ridiculous. You liberals seem to hate the government and scream that they are taking away your rights, but now you seem to support them when they are taking away the very things you need to defend yourself from them.
skad said:
And because we are in the real world, no it shouldn't.
The point of a gun ban was to limit gun gun crime. Which it has.
Why ban murder?
Hahahaha, are you serious?
More generally: Given that Iraq has incredibly high gun ownership rates, why didn't Iraqis overthrow Saddam Hussein?
SickCycle
Prince
UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite a massive increase in the number of police personnel. In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument.
Pulled your facts off a website, smart guy. Maybe you should do some actual research and run your mouth less?
Pulled your facts off a website, smart guy. Maybe you should do some actual research and run your mouth less?
SickCycle
Prince
The year after the ban.. they doubled.. go figure
That seems reeeeaaaal effective
The number in comparison to the United States doesn't matter at all, it is a different country with a different culture. What does matter is the ban went into effective in 1997 and in 1998 the crimes involving these handguns that you somehow believe are kept off the street doubled.. in one year.. it doubled.. right after.. the what? The Gun ban..
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the cause was, but I can tell your also the type that needs to feel secure even when your not, so keep thinking what your thinking and when you need some help my country will come bail you out..
... with our guns..
wait, one more thing... since the crime rate involving these weapons doubled, does that mean there were twice as many guns on the street also?
I guess that english education is really paying off.
That seems reeeeaaaal effective
The number in comparison to the United States doesn't matter at all, it is a different country with a different culture. What does matter is the ban went into effective in 1997 and in 1998 the crimes involving these handguns that you somehow believe are kept off the street doubled.. in one year.. it doubled.. right after.. the what? The Gun ban..
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the cause was, but I can tell your also the type that needs to feel secure even when your not, so keep thinking what your thinking and when you need some help my country will come bail you out..
... with our guns..
wait, one more thing... since the crime rate involving these weapons doubled, does that mean there were twice as many guns on the street also?
I guess that english education is really paying off.
Can you see some Afghans on horseback kicking the . .. .. .. . out the Soviet Union? Give me a gun and some ammo and drop me off somewhere in the Ozarks. Send in a squad of troops to get me. I'm confident I could give a good accounting of myself before/if they got me.
Oh Lordy, don't ya just love a good ol' American movie full of nationalistic propaganda??
WOLVERINES!!!
And? That has little to do with the UK. Countries are moving further left wing.
And the UK hasn't been invaded since 1945, and neither have we had a fascist government. So what's your point?
I don't know what you're talking about. I can't honestly understand why you think an invasion and the government suddenly turning fascist and trying to murder everyone are legitimate future outcomes. It's simply not realistic and you're just trying to come up with ludicrous suggestions.
Legalising guns is just about the worst suggestion possible to reduce gun crime. In the USA everyone has guns - take away the guns, and just the criminals have them. The situation in the UK is completely different. Legalise guns and criminals will buy them, and murder people. Our streets are already unsafe in places, and you want to allow people like that to have guns as well? Rape will go up, theft will go up, murder will go up.
No
Guns don't defend my rights at all, they are a threat to them. Legalising guns is a recipe for disaster, as I have already spelled out. But you seem to like the idea of increasing crime.
Notice how those countries which have not banned guns have higher gun crime.
SickCycle
Prince
Comparing the US and the UK murder rates
For years, anti-gun activists have pointed to the UK as an example of what gun control laws can do. They are being proven right every day; the gun laws do seem to be producing a notable change in the rate of crime, but not in the way the anti-gunners intended.
For years, Britain has had a very low rate of murder. For just as many years, the US has had a much higher rate of murder. Indeed, even now, if you look at the murder rate for the US as a whole (5.5 per 100,000) and the rate for the UK as a whole (1.4 per 100,000), you can see that the UK's rate is much lower as a whole. However, the total murder rate is far from being the final word.
In the US and in the UK, crime rates (and murder rates) vary wildly from place to place. In the US, the murder rate in Washington, DC is about 80 per 100,000 population; in Arlington, Virginia, just across the half-mile wide Potomac river, it's 1.6 per 100,000. Does the overall US murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000 tell you anything about whether you would be safe in Arlington, VA or Washington, DC?
The same disparity can be seen in the UK. While the country as a whole has a low rate of murder, there are areas where the murder rate is high. In Glasgow, Scotland, the murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000 (cite). In London, by contrast, it's 2.1 per 100,000 (cite). In the Manchester metro area, it's 10 per 100,000. And in the Manchester neighborhoods of Moss Side and Longsight, and in the Manchester suburb of Hulme, the murder rate is a monstrous 140 per 100,000 (cite)-- which is considerably worse than Washington, DC, America's most murderous city.
If you're thinking that the claims that America's murder rate is a function of its liberal gun laws are beginning to look fishy, you're right.
Washington, DC has a UK-like ban on handguns, and it has the highest murder rate in the US, by far. Right across the river, Arlington, Virginia, has a murder rate lower than that in London. Virginia has no handgun ban, and allows any lawful citizen that passes a training course to carry a concealed handgun in public. Now, you tell me-- does gun control really reduce crime?
Some people say that the effectiveness of the DC gun ban is thwarted by the easy access to guns in other states (such as Virginia), which can then be imported into DC by criminals. This, of course, begs the question: If this easy access to guns causes gun crime, why doesn't it affect Arlington and other Virginia cities where such loose laws are in effect?
The idea that gun control can be thwarted by criminals importing guns from another part of the country is obviously bunk. Look at the UK, which passed a comprehensive ban on handguns in 1997. There are no areas of the UK where handguns are available; it is a national ban, the same type that the architects of DC's high crime rate (the gun banners) want to bring to the whole US. And even with that in mind, the UK's murder rate is soaring, with some UK cities being considerably more dangerous than many US cities where handguns are legal.
If gun control was going to work anywhere, it would be in the UK. It's a small island country, with relatively little coastline to protect, and the only international border is a short one between Northern Ireland and Ireland. But even under these ideal circumstances, the UK is suffering a terrible rise in gun crimes (including gun murders), while ours in the US falls (not coincidentally, following the legalization of carrying concealed guns in the majority of US states).
Like in the US, the majority of the murders in the UK are being committed by gang members, mostly against other gang members. This is true whether one speaks of murders with or without guns. The murders are not distributed evenly across either country; they are localized in rather compact "hot spots" which bring up the murder rate for the whole country. And even though the UK has a total handgun ban, its hot spots of murder are just as bad as those in the US, and they are getting worse.
There are a lot of reasons why the US has long had a murder rate that exceeds that in the UK. The easy legal availability of handguns, though, is not among them. If liberal gun laws caused murder, we would expect to see more crime in the US following the passing of laws allowing lawful citizens to carry concealed handguns, but we're not. Our murder rate is the lowest in 20 years here in the US.
If handgun bans prevented murder, we would expect to see low murder rates in the cities where handguns are banned, like Washington, DC, Chicago, and New York City. We don't... those three cities have crime rates far above the national average. We'd expect to see high murder rates in states that allow concealed carry and otherwise have loose gun control laws, but we don't.
If gun bans prevented murder, we would expect the murder rate in the UK to have been trending downward since 1997, if not before then (in the decade preceding the 1997 total ban on handguns, the UK government passed a series of laws and regulations making it harder and harder to get guns). We don't... we see a country where the rate of murder is increasing, where there are some areas that are more dangerous than America's most dangerous city, and where criminals have all the guns they need. When we look at the UK, we see a country where the violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than that of the US.
British criminals prove that when criminals want guns, they will get guns. It is folly to think that a piece of paper called "a law" is going to stop criminals from getting anything they want. Our ban on alcohol failed; our ban on drugs failed. Britain's ban on guns failed, as have the bans on guns in every city in the US where they have been enacted.
How much more will it take for the gun-haters to recognize that crime is a function of people's choices to disregard laws and harm others, not of the availability of guns? Haven't the anti-gunners noticed that their laws have failed to reduce crime every single time they were tried, and that expanding self-defense rights has reduced crime? Will they ever?
posted by Porcupine Nine at 9:48 PM
For years, anti-gun activists have pointed to the UK as an example of what gun control laws can do. They are being proven right every day; the gun laws do seem to be producing a notable change in the rate of crime, but not in the way the anti-gunners intended.
For years, Britain has had a very low rate of murder. For just as many years, the US has had a much higher rate of murder. Indeed, even now, if you look at the murder rate for the US as a whole (5.5 per 100,000) and the rate for the UK as a whole (1.4 per 100,000), you can see that the UK's rate is much lower as a whole. However, the total murder rate is far from being the final word.
In the US and in the UK, crime rates (and murder rates) vary wildly from place to place. In the US, the murder rate in Washington, DC is about 80 per 100,000 population; in Arlington, Virginia, just across the half-mile wide Potomac river, it's 1.6 per 100,000. Does the overall US murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000 tell you anything about whether you would be safe in Arlington, VA or Washington, DC?
The same disparity can be seen in the UK. While the country as a whole has a low rate of murder, there are areas where the murder rate is high. In Glasgow, Scotland, the murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000 (cite). In London, by contrast, it's 2.1 per 100,000 (cite). In the Manchester metro area, it's 10 per 100,000. And in the Manchester neighborhoods of Moss Side and Longsight, and in the Manchester suburb of Hulme, the murder rate is a monstrous 140 per 100,000 (cite)-- which is considerably worse than Washington, DC, America's most murderous city.
If you're thinking that the claims that America's murder rate is a function of its liberal gun laws are beginning to look fishy, you're right.
Washington, DC has a UK-like ban on handguns, and it has the highest murder rate in the US, by far. Right across the river, Arlington, Virginia, has a murder rate lower than that in London. Virginia has no handgun ban, and allows any lawful citizen that passes a training course to carry a concealed handgun in public. Now, you tell me-- does gun control really reduce crime?
Some people say that the effectiveness of the DC gun ban is thwarted by the easy access to guns in other states (such as Virginia), which can then be imported into DC by criminals. This, of course, begs the question: If this easy access to guns causes gun crime, why doesn't it affect Arlington and other Virginia cities where such loose laws are in effect?
The idea that gun control can be thwarted by criminals importing guns from another part of the country is obviously bunk. Look at the UK, which passed a comprehensive ban on handguns in 1997. There are no areas of the UK where handguns are available; it is a national ban, the same type that the architects of DC's high crime rate (the gun banners) want to bring to the whole US. And even with that in mind, the UK's murder rate is soaring, with some UK cities being considerably more dangerous than many US cities where handguns are legal.
If gun control was going to work anywhere, it would be in the UK. It's a small island country, with relatively little coastline to protect, and the only international border is a short one between Northern Ireland and Ireland. But even under these ideal circumstances, the UK is suffering a terrible rise in gun crimes (including gun murders), while ours in the US falls (not coincidentally, following the legalization of carrying concealed guns in the majority of US states).
Like in the US, the majority of the murders in the UK are being committed by gang members, mostly against other gang members. This is true whether one speaks of murders with or without guns. The murders are not distributed evenly across either country; they are localized in rather compact "hot spots" which bring up the murder rate for the whole country. And even though the UK has a total handgun ban, its hot spots of murder are just as bad as those in the US, and they are getting worse.
There are a lot of reasons why the US has long had a murder rate that exceeds that in the UK. The easy legal availability of handguns, though, is not among them. If liberal gun laws caused murder, we would expect to see more crime in the US following the passing of laws allowing lawful citizens to carry concealed handguns, but we're not. Our murder rate is the lowest in 20 years here in the US.
If handgun bans prevented murder, we would expect to see low murder rates in the cities where handguns are banned, like Washington, DC, Chicago, and New York City. We don't... those three cities have crime rates far above the national average. We'd expect to see high murder rates in states that allow concealed carry and otherwise have loose gun control laws, but we don't.
If gun bans prevented murder, we would expect the murder rate in the UK to have been trending downward since 1997, if not before then (in the decade preceding the 1997 total ban on handguns, the UK government passed a series of laws and regulations making it harder and harder to get guns). We don't... we see a country where the rate of murder is increasing, where there are some areas that are more dangerous than America's most dangerous city, and where criminals have all the guns they need. When we look at the UK, we see a country where the violent crime rate is 2.5 times higher than that of the US.
British criminals prove that when criminals want guns, they will get guns. It is folly to think that a piece of paper called "a law" is going to stop criminals from getting anything they want. Our ban on alcohol failed; our ban on drugs failed. Britain's ban on guns failed, as have the bans on guns in every city in the US where they have been enacted.
How much more will it take for the gun-haters to recognize that crime is a function of people's choices to disregard laws and harm others, not of the availability of guns? Haven't the anti-gunners noticed that their laws have failed to reduce crime every single time they were tried, and that expanding self-defense rights has reduced crime? Will they ever?
posted by Porcupine Nine at 9:48 PM
God. The gun debate is mostly pretty ********.
Here's the dirty little secret: Guns have a very very weak relationship to crime rates, period. They don't cause or prevent crime, they don't increase or decrease "crime rates" in any demonstrable way.
Causation, correlation, yatta yatta yatta. WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET THAT?
Here's the dirty little secret: Guns have a very very weak relationship to crime rates, period. They don't cause or prevent crime, they don't increase or decrease "crime rates" in any demonstrable way.
Causation, correlation, yatta yatta yatta. WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET THAT?
SickCycle
Prince
"From your own BBC|News"
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place
David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.
Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.
And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.
The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.
Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place
David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.
Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.
And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.
SickCycle
Prince
You cant be this lazy, you cant even type in UK GUN CONTROL and see twenty pages including your own news agencies reporting that crime has increased since the ban, instead of lowered..
wow, and they say Americans are ignorant
wow, and they say Americans are ignorant
SickCycle
Prince
The United States isn't Britain, we like our guns and we love our violence. Were the ones you call when your in trouble, remember?
Were also the farmers that defeated your "Empire" when it was at it's height, maybe you guys should whine less and fight more?
Maybe that will help your rising murder rate.. ours is falling, we reduced our restrictions on firearms.. Yours is rising, you banned them..
Once again, the intellect it must take to actually do some research. I mean comparing to numbers wow, the U.S. has more murders then the UK, yeah we know, Yet the United States is making guns more available and what happened..
Gun violence declined...
The UK Banned all guns and what happened?
Gun Violence doubled..
No, theres no connection there..
Ignorance.
Were also the farmers that defeated your "Empire" when it was at it's height, maybe you guys should whine less and fight more?
Maybe that will help your rising murder rate.. ours is falling, we reduced our restrictions on firearms.. Yours is rising, you banned them..
Once again, the intellect it must take to actually do some research. I mean comparing to numbers wow, the U.S. has more murders then the UK, yeah we know, Yet the United States is making guns more available and what happened..
Gun violence declined...
The UK Banned all guns and what happened?
Gun Violence doubled..
No, theres no connection there..
Ignorance.
