This is horribly tragic and unfortunately, horribly stupid

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

You'd be surprised at the data. The following figures were taken from here (based on this 2006 data), and this report (2006/07 12-month period):

US Crimes: 11,401,313
England/Wales Crimes: ~5,428,300 (p. 13)

US Violent Crimes: 1,417,745
England/Wales Violent Crimes: ~1,046,400 (p. 13)

US Robbery: 447,403
England/Wales Robbery: ~101,400 (p. 13)

US Population: 299,398,484
UK Population (ALL of it - not just England and Wales): 60,776,238 (link) - England and Wales would have a lower population (increasing per capita rates).

So the US has five times as many people as the UK... but not five times the crime. Thus, per capita, crime is MUCH lower in the US - across the board.

So... HOW does gun control make you safer?

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

No, my argument is that just because you deem something illegal doesn't mean that the problem will automagically disappear... or even reduce. It didn't work with drugs, and it wouldn't work with guns.

By all means drugs (non-prescription) should be illegal because they have no positive effect. Guns DO have a positive effect, no matter how much you disdain them.

 

Unfortunately, this is something we're going to have to agree to disagree on here. I cannot and will not concede that any man has a 'right' to own a device intended solely for killing people. I'm willing to give ground on allowing people to own such implements, provided they have proven themselves to be responsible. No man (or woman - Mitz) has a right to possess something designed to kill. Owning such an implement is a priviledge, and one that I strongly feel should be earned.

When you joined the army, did they just let you in, hand you a gun, and start telling you how to shoot it? Or did they (as they do here) make you undergo various test to ascertain your mental and physical stability/suitability? If your psych analysis determined that you were a raving psycho, do you think they would have handed you a weapon? Even when you signed up, were you handed a gun on day one, or were you drilled to within an inch of your life on proper and responsible gun etiquette? I'm guessing it was the latter rather than the former. Why should civilians have any freer access to lethal weapons than those in the military?

You have been taught proper respect for guns from your military days. I respect that, and personally I dont think I'd have too much of an issue with you possessing a firearm - provided your mental stability remained. What I have a problem with, is people claiming a weapon because they have a right to do so. I'm repeating myself here, but tough: No-one should have a right to own a lethal weapon. It should be earned.

 

I appreciate that, Fergal. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

To be honest, I agree with much of what you have said, here. I don't think we disagree as much as you might think.

Mental? No, not really. To my recollection, we didn't go through a psych analysis. Should they have? Probably.

Did they train us on proper usage? Most definitely.

Did they hand us a weapon before we were taught? Yes. Was it loaded? No.

Civilians do not have freer access to lethal weapons than those who are in the military. You might assume they do... but they don't.

The jury's still out on that point. heh!

Perhaps "privilege" is a much better term to use, and with that wording, I'd agree with you.

 

Yes, the violent crime stats for the UK got rolled out last time this debate was had, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid. The debate and the question wasn't over which country has more violent crime. To use your own argument against you. No one I know or any member of my family has ever been a victim of violent crime, so I guess that must mean that gun control works ...

What I was talking about was 'armed' robbery. And that would make up a very small percentage of violent crimes in the UK.

How does gun control make me safer, I'll tell you how. There massively less chance I'm going to be shot and killed in this country than in the US. In 2004 a total of 29,569 Americans died in the USA from gunfire. In the same period in the UK ... 191. You may feel safe (and fair enough I'm not going to convince you otherwise) in your home because you have a gun. But I feel safe in my home and don't need a gun to feel that way.

It's a different culture completely and people like me who have grown up and never been exposed to guns and firearms are always going to see it differently to those who have grown up in that culture. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

When I was younger (so much younger than today...), a couple of ne'er do wells tried to break into my house, using a screwdriver to prise open a downstairs window.

I heard them, and went downstairs to get the *******. They heard me as they were climbing through the window, so they got back out, and ran off before I could lay my cricket bat on their heads.

I didn't know if they were carrying guns, knives, baseball bats, or whatever else... and to be brutally honest, I wouldn't have stopped to ask. I wouldn't have stopped doing what I was going to do until they couldn't harm either me or my family.

I am not saying this out of bravado. I was absolutely terrified at the time, but some masochistic wish to protect us must have swept over me. I would have gone as far as to incapacitate them but, if I had done worse through making sure they couldn't hurt us, then I would have done so, albeit inadvertantly.

I don't agree with guns per se; however, if I had hold of one that night, then I would have used it.

 

No, by all means, don't let facts and statistics get in the way.

What is the difference? Robbery is robbery whether there's a gun involved or not; the outcome is the same. Violent crime is violent crime whether there's a gun or not; the outcome is the same. Rape is rape, whether there's a gun involved or not; the outcome is the same.

Whether you want to believe it or not, guns ARE deterrents to those things happening. Statistics for those crimes are MUCH higher in the UK than in the US. Either we are more civilized (doubt that), or we have more police protection (doubt that too), or... there's some other reason. I'm curious, what do you think the reason is?

Dead is dead... doesn't matter whether a gun was used or not, mate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you get shot or your throat slit.

Be nice if you had a link to your stats. I show only 16,848 murders total in the US for 2004.

Fine, that's your choice. I don't force you to carry a gun.

You haven't been exposed to them... and it shows; you don't understand them. Nor should you, not having been exposed to them. No harm, no foul.

 

Well i was going to say what were you thinking trip? Raising a thread about gun stupidity? There are so many arguments on gun law.

It's tragic what happen, the guy should of used a sledgehammer or as BM stated a drill. But there are so many stupid things that people do on this planet.

Like today i had to stop a user from pulling out a power lead (PSU) on a computer that was still logged into windows. (And she was an IT trainer!)

Basically at the end of the day people just don't think, they don't want to think and with most of our users stating they don't want to know how a computer works they just push the buttons.

It's no wonder there are so many stupid things going on out there!

 

..or at least think has the intension.
In Dutch law intension is not enough. They actually have to do it before they can be punished of murdering you.

 

Most thieves are so scared to get cought in the act that they not even use the bathroom to relieve themselfs. They rather do it in the kitchen or livingroom where they can easily escape. A police officer told me that when they were investigating a break in at my place.
Good change they run away if you make noise.

 

As for the discrepancy in the figures, you are quoting murders, I was quoting gun deaths. But since you mentioned murders ...

From the England & Wales section of the Murder page on Wiki.

Statistics show that there were 859 homicides in England and Wales in one year (April 2004- March 2005, [1]). This is low compared to the United States with 16,137 murders in 2004 [2], however these are numbers which do not take different population sizes into account: a better perspective can be gained by comparing murders per year to population (1.6 murders for every hundred thousand people in England and Wales, 5.5 in the USA, and 62 in Colombia - source).

I'd be rather more concerned about being killed than being mugged or robbed. You are right dead is dead and those figures don't factor in the method, just the result. Just don't go to Columbia.

That came across as very condescending mate. Just because I haven't grown up in a gun culture doesn't mean I can't understand or appreciate the issues surrounding them.

 

I would like to point out I've actually been on the facing end of a burglar myself. Was staying at the other halfs flat, sleeping at noon when someone knocked on the door. Since it wasnt my flat, I didnt really care and went back to sleep. About ten minutes later, I got woken up by something (although I had no idea what). Eventually, some guy walked into the bedroom and switched on the lights. he and I stared at each other for a second, and he bolted for the door, with me in hot pursuit. Shame I was starkers or i'd have gone out after him.

Turned out that he'd used the public hatchway outside our flat, and a convenient stool to climb into the loft space, crawl across to where our kitchen was, kick the ceiling in and jump down. Bastard pocketed the other halfs keys, and my watch before booting my laptop, and coming into the bedroom.

So its not like I take this stance without experience of the feeling of being robbed. Had I had my athame to hand, I have little doubt it would have been in my hand as I chased him.

Ironically, he could have cleaned us out, if only he'd had the intelligence to say 'oh sorry, and back out'. I'd have assumed he was someone sent by the landlord for repairs, woken the missus, and dressed myself to go see him. Giving him plenty of time to hoist a few items, and walk out. Instead the little shite bolted.

I was also impressed with the police. On calling them, and informing them that I'd literally chased him out, the police were on scene within about 5 mins. Might sound a lot, but considering he was no longer on scene, thats a pretty fast response time.

 

I agree that the murder rate IS higher. But is that because of guns? Very well could be... but I can't say for sure.

Although the murder rate is higher in the US, I don't fear being killed because the rate (in either country) is extremely low. The chance of getting robbed, injured, or otherwise victimized is MUCH higher; thus, I fear those more. And I can deter those AND murder (of me by others) by being able to defend myself with a weapon. The statistics seem to indicate (but do not prove) that that's true.

With 1.5 million violent crimes here, and 1 million violent crimes there, I'm 4 times as likely to be a victim of a violent crime there as I am here. Sure, I'm 3.5 times as likely to be killed here as I would be there... but the chances of that happening are MUCH lower... especially when you compare 16,000 murders to 1.5 million violent crimes (93 times as many!). THAT is why I'm more concerned with violent crime than I am with murder.

But you have no idea what it's like to live in a country where gun ownership is allowed. Not meaning to be condescending at all. Like I said, there's no way that you could understand how it *really* is until you've lived here and seen for yourself that it's honestly not as gunslingingly bad as you might envision... nor is it as bad as the media might portray it to be.

 

Can i just add the story of Tony Martin, the UK farmer who got a life sentance for shooting a burglar who was in his house. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/20/nmar20.html


There is a valid point made here that a gun is a deterrant to most people, would you hold up a publican on the way to do there weekly banking if you knew they had a gun.

but on the other hand i partly agree that if a bugular is traspassing on your land or actually in the process of robbing the place you should never shoot to kill. ask them to leave and give them chance to leave, and if they dont then shoot a fleshy part of there leg.

This goes along with the advice that I was given when i was living in pubs as we would have to be the first person down to assess if it was a false alarm or an actual intruder.

but when you go down and if you do find someone down there stay calm dont sound scared ask them to leave if they are cornered slowley back off tell them you are going to open the door to let them out walk slowley to the door and unlock it for them let them out and lock up.

 

I don't know if I go along with all of that. If someone is in my house trying to rob me and perhaps harm me, what they'll get out of me would be something like "I've got a gun...get out now, or I'll shoot". If I don't see that person moving away from me and certainly, if I see them moving *towards* me, they're going to get shot. I'm not going to wait around and say "pretty please, don't make me shoot you". This quote from the story just blew me away:

That's nuts. If Barras hadn't broken into the farm house, he'd be alive today. What's wrong with holding the intruder accountable for the consequences of their actions. It wasn't as if the farmer put a sign outside saying "Please break in and steal from me".

Everyone would feel bad if the farmer had been killed by the intruder but no one upholds his right to defend his property and his life.

 

Unfortunately James
Europe is a place where criminals are not really required to be held accountable for their crimes, well not if it infringes on 'their human rights' in fact we have to feed them and take care of there every needs and were not allowed to send em down the rail road to do a hard days graft either

It's not totally different over there, I'm pretty sure I remember a sad statistic of criminals having like 60 more statutory rights than citizens, but I don't know how accurate that is

As I have said many times, the whole concept of human rights is flawed without the concept of human responsibility, you cant give everyone universal rights when a small subset of the population wilfully disregard and infringe on the rights of others, only to claim the use of their rights afterwards

anyone willing to infringe on a fundamental human right deserves nothing but bread, water and the privilege of being left alive to have a second chance


As an aside
the Tony Martin case as far as I recall, was won on the basis that Tony reloaded and fired additional shots,
now not having read the entire case I cant comment for sure, but if they had not been scared off by the first two shots (or injured) and he finished them off, then he was should not of gone down, however if the first two shots got them on the run, or keeled over in the hall bleeding, well hell even in Texas you can't shoot someone in the back running away from your property, the whole concept of 'self defence' goes out the window if they are a) incapacitated or b) fleeing the scene, thus the very reason for using deadly force is removed

 

You may not think it, but I don't really have a problem with people like you are obviously responsible and wouldn't go around 'packing' just for the sake of it.

I have visited America many times and haven't felt unsafe or threatened in any way all of the times I have been there. I actually felt far more vulnerable walking around Manchester city center at night than I did in New York.

That isn't to say that I feel I need a gun still. I have never been in a situation in this country were I have felt that a lethal weapon would help a situation.

 

This has been a very interesting debate, been following it for the past few days now.

I've noticed quite a few people mentioning the idea of - if confronted in a situation like a burglary if you were armed with a firearm - of incapacitating the individual with something like a leg shot. The thing is, that seems to be a very romantic notion gathered from the movies. I've never handled guns in a professional capacity nor am I a member of the police/armed forces, but I know a lot of people who are. I'm sure there will be someone here who can correct me, but aren't groups such as they trained to aim for the biggest part of the human form i.e. the torso, which normally results in a kill shot, rather than incapacity shots?

Consider, the human body is hard enough to hit with a gun at the best of times, you ever read accounts of battles and hundreds of rounds get expelled before even one person is hit. Also as well, they will be moving, they won't be standing there waiting for you to carefully aim for an arm of a leg, or a hand, which of course only makes up a small percentage of the overall body mass. So lets say you hit the leg, chances are you've ruptured the femoral artery, they'll bleed to death in 3 minutes. Also consider (if you're anything like me), you'll be ****-scared, adrenaline will be going bonkers, and chances are you'll fire blindly (if at all) and end up whacking your wife who was just making a late-night snack (and no, I didn't do that!!!)

Why am I mentioning this? For the vast majority of people, exposure to firearms comes from films and TV, where notions like this are entertained, and therefore can form the individuals opinion, whereas the reality is a far different beast.

However, if you are to believe Goldie Lookin' Chain, guns don't kill people, rappers do!

BTW In the case of Tony Martin, I believe ho shot Fred Barras as he was running away, hence why he got sent down. I shed no tears for the thieving git, but gunning someone down whilst they are retreating and therefore no longer a threat is a bit off

Peace

 

to lighten the mood a little! and you never know it may happen!