Britain's Gun Laws

[erpowers]

I realize that some here may not know anything about Britain's gun laws. I myself do not; however, I just saw the tail end of a segment of the show "10 Shocking of Violence". At the end of the segment it was mentioned that after a shooting at a school Britain changed its gun laws and now has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Does anyone know anything about Britain's gun laws? What do people of DU think about these gun laws?

[aikoaiko]

1. Good questions.

:popcorn:

[MicaelS]

2. UK Gun Laws are among the world's strictest in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

In 1987, 27 year old Michael Ryan, armed with a semi-automatic AK-47, a Beretta handgun and an M1 carbine, dressed up in combat fatigues and proceeded around the town of Hungerford killing 16 people, wounding fifteen and shooting himself, in what became known as the Hungerford massacre.

In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. This confined semi-automatic and pump-action centre fire rifles; military weapons firing explosive ammunition; short shotguns that had magazines; and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category. Registration and secure storage of weapons held on shotgun certificates became required, and shotguns with more than a 2+1 capacity came to need a Firearms certificate. The law also introduced new restrictions on shotguns, although rifles in .22 rimfire and semi-automatic pistols were unaffected.

Eight years after the Hungerford massacre, the Dunblane Massacre was the second time in less than a decade that unarmed civilians had been killed in the UK by a legally licensed gun owner. On March 13, 1996 Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a disgruntled former scout leader who had been ousted by The Scout Association five years previously, shot dead sixteen young children and their teacher, Gweneth Mayor, in Dunblane Primary School's gymnasium with his licensed weapons and ammunition. He then shot himself. There is a memorial to the seventeen victims in the local cemetery and a cenotaph in the cathedral. The funds raised in the aftermath of the tragedy have been used to build a new community centre for the town.

Following the incident, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership, although the official inquiry, known as the Cullen Inquiry, did not go so far as to recommend such action. Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) License. Even the UK's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, or abroad.

Despite some of the strictest guns laws in the world, criminals still get them and use them. The only people who been affected are the law-abiding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

.....it is the arrival of eastern European weapons that, alongside a homegrown industry in converting them, has contributed to the firearms glut. "There has been an influx from eastern Europe and particularly from Poland, and there are also a lot coming in from people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the source. "In Liverpool docks, you can put in an order for 10 guns and some grenades and they'll say OK and two weeks later, they will be there - and they are straight goers."

"The trends in firearms are driven by the suppliers," said Dyson. "About two years ago, a supplier brought back hundreds of German-made revolvers, blank-firing pistols which can be bought legally in Germany. They were then converted and new cylinders made. They could then be sold for £700 to £800 when the supplier would have bought them for €60 and spent about £30 on converting them."

"Guns are always available," said Dyson. "You can go to the former Soviet Union, or countries with less stringent regulations than ours, and although British Customs have their successes, many guns appear to be smuggled into the UK."

Gun prohibiting works about as well as the Drug "Prohibition" has, and Alcohol Prohibition did. Which means they don't work. All they do is to serve to create a new class of criminals that responds to ban by supplying people with what they want.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Compare the relative rates of gun-related deaths per capita in the UK and the US

Our gun control is doing its job.

[tburnsten]

11. Oddly enough your knives are out of control

And how is that ban on hooded sweatshirts going by the way?

[krispos42]

14. Yes, its as effective as banning red-painted cars...

...would reduce red-painted-car-related deaths and injuries.





Congratulations. You've bought the bullshit line. You're being distracted by "oh, look how low are gun deaths are" so that you're not looking at "our homicide rate is up 40% in 15 years".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I think your own graph rather effectively rebuts your case.

That green line is still hovering around 4...

[krispos42]

17. It used to be an 11.

We're down 40% in 15 years, you're up 40% in 15 years.

But you can always hide behind "Well, we're still lower than the US" if you want to.

[iverglas]

24. and do note

the notes.

With totals/rates as low as the UK's, the 2003 Shipman and 2005 July 7 homicides are significant, and including them skews the results measurably.

[Howzit]

66. Interesting how the US homicide rate is dropping while civilian gun ownership is going up

Just as interesting is the homicide rate in the UK before and after handguns were banned.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. The US rate appears to drop continuously during the Clinton years,

and then level out again when Bush comes to power.

The UK rate starts to rise in 1995, and then would level out again around 2000, except that Dr Harold Shipman came to light, and single-handedly distorted the statistics.

[iverglas]

9. Oddly enough, the only people MEANT to be affected by them

were the "law-abiding". Those being, after all, the ones responsible for the types of crimes the laws were intended to address.

Did you think you had some kind of point?

[krispos42]

10. And even more oddly...

Despite this well-known fact, readily available to the public, people in America say that UK-style laws will lower violent crime rates.

Go figure.

[iverglas]

19. actually

the UK-style laws that are commonly being referred to when "people in America say that UK-style laws will lower violent crime rates" are NOT the laws enacted to address incidents like Dunblane etc.

Legal handgun ownership, for instance, required licensing *before* those laws were enacted. Etc.

[krispos42]

65. True, but the bulk of discussion about reducing crime via gun control...

is about registering guns, repealing concealed-carry laws, and banning "assault weapons". Banning handguns also comes up, but somewhat less frequently.


Usually the only time the measures described above are said to prevent a mass shooting is in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting.

[iverglas]

71. true, but this particular discussion is about the UK

and you were addressing me.

Both the UK and I take restricting access to handguns very seriously.


Usually the only time the measures described above are said to prevent a mass shooting is in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting.

Been any mass handgun shootings in the UK lately?

[iverglas]

72. we've got into a funny circle here

My initial point was that the firearms control measures that may have contributed to low firearms-facilitated crime rates in the UK were in place long BEFORE the measures enacted in response to the mass firearms homicides by individuals in legal possession of handguns.

Further handgun restrictions were enacted. But registration, licensing, etc., were largely already in place.

[iverglas]

26. interesting timing

The Telegraph is among my least favourite sources, but this news was 11 minutes old when I collected it from google, and the Telegraph and Mail just seem to have beat the others to press.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2669138/Mansion-inquiry-Christopher-Foster-shot-wife-and-daughter-before-killing-himself.html

Mansion inquiry: Christopher Foster shot wife and daughter before killing himself
The millionaire businessman Christopher Foster murdered his wife and daughter before torching his mansion and killing himself, police have said.

... Officers said CCTV footage showed a man who they believed to be Mr Foster, 50, carrying a gun from the stables of the £1.2 million Osbaston House, which then shortly went up in flames.

He is also seen driving a horsebox up to barricade the front gates, before getting out and shooting out two tyres.

Mr Foster's body was found near to that of his wife Jillian, 49. She had been shot in the back of the head and his .22 rifle was found nearby.

... It is believed he killed his wife and daughter before walking out into the grounds of the house, killing the family's animals, including three horses and four dogs, and then starting fires in the stables and garage, which destroyed his luxury cars.

... Mr Groves refused to elaborate on a motive and whether Mr Foster had a breakdown after seeing his business collapse with debts of around £1.8 million.

The rifle was legally owned.

It can just be so hard to tell who the next misogynist narcissist to decide to annihilate his family is going to be, can't it?

[TPaine7]

35. If an American millionaire were determined to kill his family and himself,

the absence or illegal status of guns would not stop him.

Mr. Foster surely knew he was being recorded taking the gun from the stables at his own estate, and would be pegged with murder. Murder is still taken at least slightly more seriously than illegal gun possession, isn't it?!

I guess these murders would have been much better if they had been committed with some other weapon. "Sir, your daughter and grandchildren were just murdered." "Oh my God" says the bereaved grandfather before collapsing. "Look on the bright side, sir" says the detective, "at least no guns were involved." "Thanks," comes the grateful reply. "That really consoles me."

American millionaires are typically resourceful--at least the ones who didn't inherit it like Paris Hilton. British millionaires must be really dense. Otherwise this story's point is hard to find.

[iverglas]

38. oh, siiiiiiigh

Mr. Foster surely knew he was being recorded taking the gun from the stables at his own estate, and would be pegged with murder.

Mr. Foster is fucking dead. D.E.A.D.

Mr Foster is believed to have deliberately left the tape running to record the fire, giving police hours of potential clues and evidence.

This was a MURDER-SUICIDE, just as are many of the firearms suicides in the US that the gun militants blithely write off from the death-by-firearm figures, hoping nobody will catch that bit of sleight-of-hand.


If an American millionaire were determined to kill his family and himself, the absence or illegal status of guns would not stop him.

And yet, and yet ... so many people actually DO NOT do these things with the paving stones conveniently found in their expensive circular drives ...

You seem to have the notion that someone has suggested that the legal status of the firearm involved was of some relevance.

The only relevance it has is that the individual who committed the homicides had a firearm BECAUSE he acquired it legally. He very certainly didn't acquire it to commit crimes or homicides with. He ACQUIRED it for a purpose permitted by law (yes, in the UK, purpose is an issue), and he USED it for a purpose not permitted by law. Amazing, that, ain't it?

As to whether non-possession of a firearm would have stopped him ... well, if you can find a case of a narcissistic control freak wiping out a herd of horses *and* his entire family *and* himself by some other means, please pass it on.

You COULD cook dinner on your radiator, but I'll bet you're a million times more likely to use that large appliance sitting in your kitchen. And if you don't have such an appliance, you might just order in or go out. You will not *cook dinner* at all. You will solve your problem another way. Seeing that? It's an analogy. Good luck with it.


I guess these murders would have been much better if they had been committed with some other weapon.

I guess anybody who actually thought that, or hell, even just pretended to think it, would be a fool of the first water.

I guess anybody who insinuated that someone else thought it would be an asshole of the first water.

I guess there could be some reason for someone saying it that hasn't occurred to me, so I'm making no judgment here, of course.


American millionaires are typically resourceful--at least the ones who didn't inherit it like Paris Hilton. British millionaires must be really dense. Otherwise this story's point is hard to find.

You do just hit the nail on the head sometimes, even if sideways.

Your point is impossible to find.

[TPaine7]

41. His family was going to be killed. The method is not the point.

[iverglas]

42. snork

His family was going to be killed. The method is not the point.

Hiroshima was going to be blasted in oblivion. The method is not the point.

Why, the US and their allies could have just surrounded the city with brazillions of archers, and rained pointy sticks down on the populace ...

[SteveM]

46. Actually, the U.S. sent in Curtis LeMay. As effective as the A-Bombs (nt)

[TPaine7]

112. For those with "special needs"

To blast a city into oblivion using "brazillions of archers" would have certain problems not involved with a nuclear bomb.

1) Not enough people: America most likely didn't (and doesn't) have "brazillions of archers", given its population. I say most likely because "brazillions" is not defined.
2) It would almost certainly take too long: It would take a long time, probably dozens of years at least, to vaporize a city using even "brazillions" of arrows.
3) It would involve extreme risk: "Brazillions of archers" would be exposed to return fire, a large fraction of "brazillions" would die from return fire.

The example given for comparison--"brazillions of archers"--is impossible for one reason and practically impossible for two other reasons. We are supposed to conclude that similar difficulties exist in killing one's family without a gun, even when one intends to kill oneself. This is ludicrous.

Let's look at a simple example. Get the family in the car and drive off of a cliff, or into a bridge support. Who could possibly stop you?

Let's step through the factors:

1) Do you have enough people to pull it off? Easily--only one person is required.
2) Would it take too long? No it would take minutes, not decades or centuries.
3) Would it involve extreme risk? Not really, given the intent to commit suicide.

So there is no comparison between the things iverglas compared. That's natural, as she was trying to express a sophistry: "it is as hard and/or unlikely to kill one's family and commit suicide without a gun as it is to vaporize a city with 'brazillons of archers.'" This is an extreme expression of a standard anti-gun sophistry.

Of course no one should expect iverglas to frankly acknowledge the falseness of the comparison or the falseness of the message behind it. That would signal the end of the world. The imminent end of the world.

[gorfle]

105. cooking dinner.

And yet, and yet ... so many people actually DO NOT do these things with the paving stones conveniently found in their expensive circular drives ...

Firstly, I doubt very much that any laws will hinder millionaires from obtaining firearms. Even the UK laws posted about earlier had exceptions for rare and artistic (like jeweled) firearms - just the sort of thing millionaires might own.

Secondly, if you didn't have a gun, and paving stones were all that were available to you, I hazard you'd find more murders committed using them.

You COULD cook dinner on your radiator, but I'll bet you're a million times more likely to use that large appliance sitting in your kitchen. And if you don't have such an appliance, you might just order in or go out. You will not *cook dinner* at all. You will solve your problem another way. Seeing that? It's an analogy. Good luck with it.

Unless your objective is to actually cook dinner. If your objective is to actually cook dinner, and you don't have an appliance sitting in your kitchen to do it with, you might very well use your radiator, or whatever else you can use to achieve your goal.

You're trying to make the assertion that if I don't have access to a gun to commit murder with that I'll just "solve my problem another way" and not commit murder. Unlikely.

[tburnsten]

39. The UK has CCTV coverage of private homes?

Damn I'm glad I don't live there.

[iverglas]

40. for the love of fuck

Rich people EVERYWHERE have CCTV coverage of their OWN property.

It beggars belief, it really does.

I gave you the bleeding link to the bloody article to read.

Crucial to the investigation, he said, was a substantial amount of CCTV footage taken from cameras placed around the house which are believed to have escaped the inferno.

Mr Foster is believed to have deliberately left the tape running to record the fire, giving police hours of potential clues and evidence.

Damn I'm glad I don't live there.

Maybe I could start a pool on the likelihood that the feeling is mutual.

[gorfle]

104. Yes it can.

It can just be so hard to tell who the next misogynist narcissist to decide to annihilate his family is going to be, can't it?

Yes it can. Basically you have two options: 1) restrict everyone's rights on behalf of rare misogynist narcissists or 2) tolerate the actions of the rare misogynist narcissists while the rest of us continue to enjoy our rights.

I continue to advocate the former. It is unacceptable to attempt to pursue safety from the misogynist narcissists while abdicating our ability to resist tyranny.

[iverglas]

108. well I just have to say it

It is unacceptable to attempt to pursue safety from the misogynist narcissists while abdicating our ability to resist tyranny.

Who "we", paleface?

Goddamn it I wish you'd get around to resisting some tyranny some time soon.


tolerate the actions of the rare misogynist narcissists while the rest of us continue to enjoy our rights

All except for those of US who are dead, of course.

Us, in that case, being disproportionately (in terms of family/partner homicides) women, of course.

[gorfle]

111. Well I just have to answer it.

Who "we", paleface?

Ideally everyone, but at a minimum United States citizens who enjoy the Constitutional right.

Goddamn it I wish you'd get around to resisting some tyranny some time soon.

You've already said you don't believe the time for armed resistance will ever be upon us. Are you now advocating it?

All except for those of US who are dead, of course.

Yes, it is a given that those who die as a result of the freedoms we enjoy will not themselves be able to enjoy them.

Us, in that case, being disproportionately (in terms of family/partner homicides) women, of course.

Sad, but no reason to penalize the majority of firearm owners.

[texasleo]

3. Nanny state

[Hugabear]

7. God forbid that government should look out for the well being of its citizens

Nice NRA response there pal.

[tburnsten]

12. Banning everything under the sun that can cause harm

is a key piece to the definition of a nanny-state. Nothing "NRA" about shooting. Next time Britain gets invaded I bet they'll come begging us for firearms again. Apparently World War One and their emergency need for American steel products did not teach them, because they melted them down or chucked 'em in the Atlantic. So we gave them even more weapons during World War Two, fantastic, all those Model 1917 revolvers sitting on the ocean floor would have been really helpful wouldn't they? But even that has not taught them anything, and they will come asking for MORE weapons the NEXT time they are in trouble. Maybe making your government for the people would have been a good plan instead of banning anything that could potentially cause harm? People are getting in legal trouble for having sticks. Youth are rampant. Excellent job they've been doing, now anyone old, small, weak, or outnumbered is a totally helpless victim.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Guns in the hands of civilians don't help fight a war.

If anything, they make it harder to maintain domestic order in times of crisis.

It's a matter of cost and benefit. Cars kill a lot of people and do a lot of good, so we restrict who can drive them a little. Guns (would) kill a lot of people and - despite the nonsense spewed by their defenders - do very little good to anyone, so we heavily restrict them.

[tburnsten]

27. Tell that to the Warsaw Ghetto resistance

They certainly made excellent use of their "civilian" weapons. You may not like it but neither your society nor ours is going to last forever and no one can predict what the future will look like. Our societies could change by foreign invasion, home grown super-authoritarianism, or just a total collapse of the economy. In two of those situations, guns would absolutely be a good thing to fight back with. Nothing like a forty to eighty million strong resistance to dampen the ambitions of a conqueror. Which Japanese admiral said an invasion of America was out of the question because there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass?


Guns may do you little good personally, but that doesn't mean they do no good at all. The UK will beg the US for guns again in the future, hopefully your defense will be succesful. I hope your fall from fantasy land doesn't hurt too much if it happens during your lifetime.

[iverglas]

29. could you reply to post 20 please?

If you're having vision problems, perhaps someone else will put the question to you.


The UK will beg the US for guns again in the future, hopefully your defense will be succesful.

What is the UK using to do the US's dirty work in Iraq these days? Stone arrowheads?

[tburnsten]

33. A small number of government weapons

Last I checked we were talking about privately owned weapons. I suppose with England's history of militias it owuld make sense that if more bodies are needed for fighting that they would all have to sign out government weapons, no matter how urgent they were needed.

[iverglas]

34. noooooooo

Last I checked we were talking about privately owned weapons.

Last you checked, you were pretending that firearms in the hands of members of the public would constitute some sort of decisive factor in some sort of international conflict.

If you want to say that firearms under collective public control will not do that job, well, you need to do a better job of substantiating that assertion. This kind of mumbling just won't do it.


I suppose with England's history of militias it owuld make sense that if more bodies are needed for fighting that they would all have to sign out government weapons, no matter how urgent they were needed.

Lordy, lordy, lordy.

Yes, the Chinese are going to come rowing ashore by moonlight and scale the white cliffs of Dover ...

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

44. I dunno ...

Now, who is it wot's gonna be scaling those white cliffs, knives clenched in their teeth and gleaming in the moonlight, bundles of guns strapped to their backs, bent on occuping England's green and pleasant land?

The UK got something the US wants these days?


How exactly would your lawyerly self describe those Iraqis and Afghans shooting at UK and US troops then, if not as civilians? What would their arms be classified as, government weapons?

Uh ... yes? Government weapons? Yes. Government weapons. Weapons formerly owned and possessed by the government, in very large part, at least to start with.

Next up, I wouldn't actually classify arms trafficked into a country in a state of conflict for use by one or both sides in the conflict (depending on the conflict) as the civilian arms we're actually talking about. Not unless I were really, really equivocating.

[SteveM]

49. I. Yamamoto! Where's my free pitcher? (nt)

[jeepnstein]

45. We're Citizens, not civilians...

Cost and benefit doesn't have a thing to do with it. Being armed is a constitutionally protected right. Obama has already said it's an individual right, I'm just waiting on some clarification.

I'm all for cracking down on straw purchasers, felons in possession of arms, and the use of firearms in the commission of a crime. If a lawful citizen chooses to be armed, then that's off-limits as far as I'm concerned. It matters not what kind of arm the lawful citizen chooses as long as they do so responsibly.

[SteveM]

48. Some problems here...

The Brits certainly wanted civilians to have them in WWII. Do you have any evidence to suggest that millions of civilians with guns (albeit temporarily) made it "harder to maintain domestic order in a time..." of the Blitz?

As to your cost/benefit "analysis," "guns (would) kill a lot people..." Actually, it is the person WITH the gun who may kill, so you would have to look at the murders by PEOPLE for any kind of "analysis."

You say guns "do very little good to anyone, so we heavily restrict them." There is considerable recent data on the number of acts of self-defense by Americans, esp. since the institutionalization of concealed-carry laws in most of the states over the last 20 years. These data indicate that many hundreds of thousands (perhaps a few million) of self-defense acts are carried out by citizens every year. The vast majority do not involve firing a gun; yet crimes were thwarted. This needs to be figured into your "analysis."

[iverglas]

20. curious

I wonder what the Brits are using over in Iraq where they are currently doing the Yanks' dirty work?

[tburnsten]

28. Curiously

Maybe Britain's small military will not be successful in beating back their opponent the next time they are attacked. I don't want to hear any nonsense about how civilized the british are and they will never be attacked because every civilization in history has come up short against an opponent, and ours are no different.

[iverglas]

31. see no nonsense, hear no nonsense ...

But you sure do spout that nonsense.

I'm not actually seeing a reply to the question, so my post that crossed in the post with yours up above still stands.


every civilization in history has come up short against an opponent, and ours are no different.

Yeah. Those Vietnamese sure did outgun youse guys, eh? And the Cubans, armed to the teeth they are, and obviously that's how come none of yer little adventures in that direction have succeeded ...

[iverglas]

32. posted twice out of five attempts; deleted

[krispos42]

15. Do you believe that line when BushCo spouts it?

When some Republican family member of yours spouts it, do you think a) "wow, he's right!" or b) "he's been brainwashed"?

[iverglas]

21. er, which line?

This one? --

God forbid that government should look out for the well being of its citizens

That's certainly the line one would expect to hear from Republicans and their fellow travellers.

One wouldn't actually expect it to be spoken sarcastically though, would one?

[SteveM]

47. Did the brits ever find what they were "looking out for"? What was it? (nt)

[moondust]

4. A good starting point

might be to find the statistics for gun-related violence in the UK and compare it to other countries that have different levels of gun control. The UN keeps some statistics. The NIH used to keep some but may not anymore (I think gun nuts objected because statistics showed that widespread gun ownership constitutes a public health menace). Google is your friend.

The UK, like the other western democracies, certainly has nothing remotely resembling the everyday bloodbath found in the US.

[tburnsten]

13. Why focus on gun-related violence?

There are plenty of other types of violence, and the motivation is all pretty much the same. Lets compare apples to apples and compare overall violent crime rates, and put it into statistical context as well, as percent increases and such. If Britain has a violent crime rate one third of ours, but ours has gone down fifty percent over the last two decades while britain's has gone up seventy percent over the same time period, than maybe their "lower" crime rate isn't so meaningful after all.


Besides they have a far more homogenous society than ours, which always reduces violence.

[iverglas]

22. "if"

You been reading that fine imperial poet, Mr. Kipling?


If Britain has a violent crime rate one third of ours, but ours has gone down fifty percent over the last two decades while britain's has gone up seventy percent over the same time period, than maybe their "lower" crime rate isn't so meaningful after all.

If wishes were horses, eh?

[SteveM]

50. Problems with your "public health" model...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

In this summary of several studies purporting to reduce crime, reduce firearms-related accidents among children, reduce numbers of murders, reduce suicides and other specific purposes of gun interventionist legislation, the expression "insufficient evidence" comes to fore time and time again.

Perhaps the reason NIH "...used to keep some but may not anymore..." could be more prosaic than your "gun nuts" rationale: the data was/is flawed.

Without accounting for differences in our society, as compared to others (western or no), any study trying to compare statistical trends or legislative acts to some kind of outcome is subject to post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[iverglas]

54. yeah; funny, that, isn't it?

the expression "insufficient evidence" comes to fore time and time again.

Funny how the gun militants and their bought-and-paid-for politicians have prevented the CDC from collecting the evidence they need with which to actually do such studies.

Funny. Ha. Ha.

I have insufficient evidence for the proposition that you are not a two-headed purple polka-dotted alien from Alpha Centauri. I guess that means you are ...

[SteveM]

58. Funny, how you get upset when your tinker-toy logic collapses (nt)

[iverglas]

60. how's about

you actually quote -- as in copy and paste -- the statement(s) you are purporting to refer to.

Then you can tell us in your own words what they mean.

Then I'll refer you to the umpty-seven threads on this board where what the statement(s) actually mean can be read.

[SteveM]

113. How's about you quit noodling with "logic"...

you fiddle 'round like the opening act in a sleazy rock 'n' roll club. Use your time more constructively.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. What evidence can't the CDC collect?

[iverglas]

76. you really do have a responsibility

If you want someone to discuss something with you, it is your responsibility to know what you are talking about. Really.

Did you even click on the link in post 50? let alone read it? Pay particular attention to the section "Research Needs".

Then do a little research into the history of the CDC's efforts to collect the kind of data that could actually be used to do studies in this area.

Then get back to me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. They didn't mention gun militants or bought and paid for politicians being a problem.

From "Research Needs" in the 2003 story you sent me to: Individual record data systems currently being implemented --- the National Incident-Based Reporting System of the FBI and the National Violent Death Reporting System of CDC and partners --- might resolve some of these difficulties and greatly facilitate the evaluation of firearms laws.

So it's sounds like the exact opposite of what you stated was happening was actually occurring. In all, it really just sounds like you are full of crap, extremely bitter and hostile.

David

[iverglas]

80. Oh me oh my, I wonder ...

who might be responsible for the CDC's inability to collect the data it needs ...

Please. Do the work. For yourself. It will help forestall Alzheimer disease.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. In regards to Alzheimer's you seem to be speaking from experience.

Scientists, lobbying groups on both sides of the issue, understaffed LE agencies, gun grabbers, gun nuts, a data entry person having a really crappy day, really bad high school and college statistics teachers; those are a small fraction of the people that could be contributing to the problems in collecting data. But please continue to blame whoever your preconceived notions tell you to.

David

[iverglas]

84. well, you just don't want to do any work at all, do you?

Guessing is so much more fun.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.cdc.gov+cdc+firearms+data


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993-1998

Public Health Action: A state-based, national reporting system is needed to track the incidence, detailed circumstances, characteristics of the shooter and injured person, and long-term consequences of fatal and nonfatal firearm-related injuries. These data would be useful for the design, implementation, and evaluation of prevention programs aimed at reducing the burden of firearm-related injuries in the United States.

Now, here we have the right wing / gun militant brigade:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30225.html

Last year Congress tried to take away $2.6 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In budgetary terms, it was a pittance: 0.1 percent of the CDC's $2.2 billion allocation. Symbolically, however, it was important: $2.6 million was the amount the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control had spent in 1995 on studies of firearm injuries. Congressional critics, who charged that the center's research program was driven by an anti-gun prejudice, had previously sought to eliminate the NCIPC completely. "This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America," wrote 10 senators, including then Majority Leader Bob Dole and current Majority Leader Trent Lott. "Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense."

After the NCIPC survived the 1995 budget process, opponents narrowed their focus, seeking to pull the plug on the gun research specifically, or at least to punish the CDC for continuing to fund it. At a May 1996 hearing, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), co-sponsor of the amendment cutting the CDC's budget, chastised NCIPC Director Mark Rosenberg for treating guns as a "public health menace," suggesting that he was "working toward changing society's attitudes so that it becomes socially unacceptable to own handguns." In June the House Appropriations Committee adopted Dickey's amendment, which included a prohibition on the use of CDC funds "to advocate or promote gun control," and in July the full House rejected an attempt to restore the money.

Although the CDC ultimately got the $2.6 million back as part of a budget deal with the White House, the persistent assault on the agency's gun research created quite a stir. New England Journal of Medicine Editor Jerome Kassirer, who has published several of the CDC-funded gun studies, called it "an attack that strikes at the very heart of scientific research." Writing in The Washington Post, CDC Director David Satcher said criticism of the firearm research did not bode well for the country's future: "If we question the honesty of scientists who give every evidence of long deliberation on the issues before them, what are our expectations of anyone else? What hope is there for us as a society?" Frederick P. Rivara, a pediatrician who has received CDC money to do gun research, told The Chronicle of Higher Education that critics of the program were trying "to block scientific discovery because they don't like the results. This is a frightening trend for academic researchers. It's the equivalent of book burning."

Of course, it goes on to yammer about alleged defensive uses of guns, anti-gun agendas, blah blah, none of which has the first thing to do with the collection and publication of data about firearms death and injury.


I'm trying to offer you an example to support each step in the thought process here. If you'll try to follow along, there will be a better chance of success.


Another report:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/injuries.html

Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries. Meanwhile, the U.S. child rate of firearm related suicide was 11 times higher. The report was one of a number of recent CDC funded studies that have fueled a growing perception in the medical community that gun violence has reached epidemic proportions.

But not everyone buys it. "They are politicians and liars masquerading in lab coats," says Dr. Edgar Suter, a San Francisco Bay Area family practice physician who chairs a 500-member non-profit group called Doctors for Integrity and Policy Research. Dr. Suter argues that CDC researchers blatantly support anti-gun activities and ignore the benefits of gun ownership, resulting in "dishonest factoids that advance their preordained biases," he says. Along with the National Rifle Association, Dr. Suter's group has campaigned to get Congress to cut CDC's funding for gun violence research.

... Victoria Ozonoff is one of several state gun violence researchers who are losing their CDC funding. As a principal investigator with the Massachusetts' Weapon-Related Injury Surveillance System (WRISS), she helped build one of the nation's first state-wide firearm and weapon injury surveillance programs. With CDC funding, WRISS set up a surveillance program that collects data from hospital emergency rooms, police reports and ballistics records, piecing together the details of shooting deaths and injuries, as well as stabbings. Some of the statistics were surprising: 1994 data show that a majority of state firearm fatalities were suicides and that 87% of those were white males. In contrast, the risk of a black male teenager being shot or stabbed was one in 38 compared to one in 422 for a white male teenager. WRISS even found a hazard among those who use BB guns: more than a hundred Massachusetts children under 15 sought hospital care from pellet gun injuries in 1994 (the overall national pellet gun injury toll is an estimated 28,000 to 38,000 annually).

Access to this type of information is crucial for injury prevention programs and Ozonoff says requests for WRISS data come from all sectors of society, from the state attorney general's office worried about cheap handguns used in crimes to educators designing prevention strategies in schools. Even National Rifle Association supporters have used WRISS data to show that knife assaults are more common than gun assaults. WRISS is able to estimate risk levels for residents across the state. "We're using the data to track firearm injuries in a similar way to a range of other health problems, like cancer and food poisoning," Ozonoff says. She believes the program's $200,000 budget is a bargain for the state. "If we prevent just one spinal cord injury, the program will pay for itself," she says.

The WRISS program recently had some good news to report. The number of gunshot victims in the state dropped by 40% (stabbings dropped 18%) over the past two years, matching a general decline in the overall homicide and violence rates. Boston has recently experienced an extraordinary 22- month period without a firearm homicide of someone age 16 or younger. Improved policing, better education and violence prevention programs are credited with much of the decline. Many believe the key to effective prevention strategies is better information. "Surveillance is the key to tracking and understanding what we're doing," says Dr. Howard Spivak of the New England Medical Center.

Most of the things I'm offering you are long.

You need to read all of them.

And put on your thinking cap.


But please continue to blame whoever your preconceived notions tell you to.

Sweetheart, the preconceived notions are all on one side here, and it ain't mine. And no, guesses aren't better than preconceived notions.

My, er, notions are statements based on research done by me into the facts.

[tburnsten]

86. BB guns. The scourge of youth

" WRISS even found a hazard among those who use BB guns: more than a hundred Massachusetts children under 15 sought hospital care from pellet gun injuries in 1994 (the overall national pellet gun injury toll is an estimated 28,000 to 38,000 annually)."

How terrible. When will it end? The humanity.

[iverglas]

89. there are such sensitive souls here

that I hesitate to post things that could be upsetting, but I've been following this story a bit and saw the dénouement yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/02/ukguns.law

Toddler dies after being shot by sister, five, in airgun accident
· Father left loaded weapon to answer mobile phone
· Family calls for tighter controls on firearms

* The Guardian,
* Tuesday September 2 2008

A toddler who was accidentally shot in the head with an airgun by his five-year-old sister died in hospital yesterday.

Rashid Ullah had been in a critical condition since the accident on August 24, when the 18-month-old's sister is understood to have shot him with a gun belonging to their father, Bakht Zaman. Zaman, 29, a handyman, had been using the weapon for target practice in their garden <back yard> in Washwood Heath, Birmingham.

Moments before the fatal accident, he is believed to have reloaded the air gun and turned his back on his children to answer his mobile phone. The children's grandfather, Bakht Rammand, later said that Rashid's sister then took the weapon, pointed it at her brother and shot him.

In the aftermath of his shooting, the Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tighter controls on guns of all types, said: "The tragic shooting of the toddler highlights once again the terrible consequences of the 'boys' toys' culture surrounding airgun ownership. ..."

The group claimed that airguns were responsible for half of all firearms offences and caused more than a quarter of all serious firearms injuries.

[tburnsten]

93. What counts as a serious firearms injury anyway?

And where do they get off counting an *air*gun as a *fire*arm? No wonder their statistics always seem higher than everyone elses, they have been counting non-firearm events as firearm events.


Nice anecdote though, how heartless am I, that I didn't even know about this infant's demise. I should have known before I posted anything mocking BB guns. The family is calling for stricter gun control? Because they failed their children by failing to impress upon the young girl that no projectile firing object, firearm or not, should be used to shoot people with?

[iverglas]

96. duh, eh?

No wonder their statistics always seem higher than everyone elses, they have been counting non-firearm events as firearm events.

I look forward to you explaining this to the long parade of posters to come who will keep regaling us with tales of all the firearms crime in the UK ...


The family is calling for stricter gun control?

I think, from the article, it was grandparents saying this. The father would indeed look a bit of a fool if it were him.

Because they failed their children by failing to impress upon the young girl that no projectile firing object, firearm or not, should be used to shoot people with?

Have you ever actually tried to impress something on a five-year-old? And who knew that five-year-olds could hit their mark like that ...

Five-year-olds have been known to dart out into traffic, put their hands on hot stoves, pull cats' tails, jump off high structures, start cars ... . I doubt that every one of them had negligent parents.


I didn't even know about this infant's demise.

I frequent that British genealogy board, where the case had been discussed in the past week. Only way I would have heard about it.

[iverglas]

92. overcome by sobs, are you?

Maybe by shame.

I'd doubt either one.

[tburnsten]

94. Yeah sure

Kids, especially dumb ones, shoot each other with BB guns from time to time. I had a kid in my seventh grade class that used to have BB gun fights with his friends. They were few. Barring extreme incidents like the one you posted where a little girl shot her infant brother with an air rifle (which tend to be significantly more powerful than your run of the mill Red Ryder BB gun, since they are usually intended for anti-pest work. Rats beware) BB gun injuries that actually require medical attention are pretty extraordinary, and do not cause life-threatening wounds.


Don't let me impede your sensationalist tirade against boy's culture though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. So an unsuccessful attempt to cut funding at CDC stopped them from doing the research?

Thanks for all the work.

David

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tburnsten]

110. maybe that was all you could fall back on

I don't know. maybe there was nothing to your previous statement that the CDC has been prevented from gathering information. Maybe that one failed attempt at cutting their funding is all there was to your claim. I don't know though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Gun laws are one of the reasons I'm glad I live in Britain.

We have some of the best gun control in the world, and a correspondingly low rate of gun-related deaths and injuries.

[dipsydoodle]

23. The low rate of gun-related deaths

is further helped by the fact our police are not armed as a matter of routine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. If you arm the populace, you generally need to arm the police; if not, you don't.

NT.

[tburnsten]

30. HMmm. Our government does not arm us.

And no one here there or anywhere has ever advocated that they do. If a private citizen wants to own and become proficient with personal arms that is entirely their own business, paid for by them and not the government. The arms are not provided by the government. So the government is not "arming" anyone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. If who arms the populace?

If there was a government gun give away I missed it.

David

[SteveM]

51. I'm sure you'll get some responses as to "who" is arming a population...

So I won't belabor the point. There is an important notion throughout the U.S. Constitution, however. That is, the federal government RECOGNIZES rights, the Second Amendment being one, and is thereby charged with defending those rights. Said another way, the government sees these rights as pre-existing the government itself. Therefore, the government has no place arming or disarming the populace.

An interesting note: within the United States Code governing militias is a qualifier for anyone eligible to be in the militia: he or she is required to PROVIDE HIS (OR HER) OWN WEAPONS suitable for the times. Even here, the government is not required to play a role in providing weapons. Understanding this is key to understanding why the right to keep and bear arms is individual, and not contingent on being in a militia. The militia follows and depends on the greater (and "earlier") individual right.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Every right has to have a source - in law, in the constitution, in a specific moral system at a pinch.

The 2nd ammendment created the right to guns. At present, Americans have that right; if (if only...) the 2nd ammendment were repealed, that would be removing a right, not violating one - that right would no longer exist.

[SteveM]

57. The term "inalienable" is used in the Declaration of Independence...

"among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This remains some of the most perceptive reportage in the English language.

In any case, the "right" to self-defense, I would argue, is inalienable. Governments may for a time effectively prevent citizens from exercising that right, but it exists and may perhaps be one of the few true "natural rights." The right to bear arms is so intertwined with that right because it becomes inextricably linked to self-defense; "life."

I therefore disagree with you when you state "The 2nd amendment created the right to guns." Once you concede that self-defense is a "natural right," then it is impractical to then attempt to disarm citizens. Even a "repeal" of the Second would not remove the natural right to self-defense, and the practical means by which to exercise that right.

I see where some governments have restricted and banned the ownership of guns. This is an attempt, I believe, to deny the right of self-defense to citizens. This, I believe, will not hold in the long run.

Lest there be confusion about what constitutes reality, I believe humans and their institutions not only "create" but "record and build upon" phenomenon which seem to exist well before self-consciousness and organization; the natural right of self-defense is one of these phenomenon.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

85. there sure do seem to be some sensitive souls hereabouts nowadays

As I recall, I pointed out that the use of a term in an antique document proves nothing other than that someone sometime used the term.

My use of the term Flying Spaghetti Monster does not prove that such an entity exists, or tell us anything about the nature of flying spaghetti monsters, let alone how best to worship them.

The use of the term "inalienable" in reference to "rights" does not mean that such things exist, any more than the use of the term Flying Spaghetti Monster does.

Nonetheless, I'm fond of that term for a reason: if rights are "inalienable", how be it that they can be "taken away" from criminals and insane people and children and whatnot? Nobody got a dictionary?


Once you concede that self-defense is a "natural right," then it is impractical to then attempt to disarm citizens.

You sure won't catch me "conceding" that anything at all is <insert meaningless babble of your choice>.

But again -- hey, what about that "natural right" to life, and the death penalty, and military conscription, eh?

[SteveM]

114. I wish you were sensitive to sound argument, but I forgive you (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. Again who arms the populace?

[JonQ]

55. Correlation =! causation

your murder rates are lower than ours, true. However they were lower than ours before you put in to effect your draconian gun laws. Afterwards murder rates increased, not enough to beat ours, but more than they were prior to banning guns. Clearly gun control failed to reduce crime.

For instance, you have a pot of boiling water. I have an equal volume of ice. I take the ice and stick it in the microwave for a minute and measure the temperature. I find it's still lower than the temperature of your boiling water. From this I conclude that microwaves make water cold. What error have I made?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indy Lurker]

61. "Clearly gun control failed to reduce crime"

At least this is the case for Murder in Washington DC.

The murder rate today in DC is higher than it was in 1976 when their ban went into effect.

[JonQ]

62. Hmm

"What were lower than in the US were FIREARM POSSESSION RATES. Whether because of or independently of firearms laws.

Most especially, what was lower for a long time, much lower, was the HANDGUN POSSESSION RATE."

Would you say legal firearm possession among British citizens went up or down after it became harder and harder to legally own firearms? Obviously the rate of firearm ownership (legal) went down after the various gun bans took place. So your comment doesn't really make much sense.

"Clearly you don't have an iota of a clue."

Not one iota of a clue huh? I guess I'll just have to settle for overwhelming empirical evidence then. You sounds like a creationist defending intelligent design, you can't bring in facts for your side as they are solidly against you, so you rely on calling the opposition stupid, in so many words.

"You could try just reading this thread, if you happen to want one. In particular, a post by myself addressing the PURPOSE of the "draconian" laws to which you refer."

I don't care about the stated purpose of the laws so much as their actual effect. Which do you find to be more important; intentions or results?

"And unless you have a well-oiled crystal ball, you've just made yourself look a fool with that "clearly" statement. How exactly do you know what crime rates would have been were it not for those laws (which weren't intended to cut crime rates in the first place ...)? If crime rates WITHOUT said laws would have been double what they were WITH said laws, by what twist of the tongue could you say that there was a failure to reduce crime?"

So you contend that crime rates would have gone up, had it not been for strict gun control laws, which happen to correspond directly with an increase in the crime rate? And then you go on to accuse me of using some crystal ball. That is a remarkable about of projection there. Let's look at the facts: after your gun control laws went in to effect the crime rate went up. You could say that was a coincidence, but it happens here in the states as well. So to believe your side we have to accept that an increase in crime rate, closely associated with a decrease in legal gun ownership, occuring in many geographically, economically and culturally distinct areas is all a result of a massive coincidence that defies logic. To believe my side you merely have to exhibit common sense and an ability to read a graph.

"Gosh. About the same one you made when you said "Clearly gun control failed to reduce crime", I'd say."

Ok, you don't get analogies. I'll try to be more straightforward with you in the future and use simpler concepts.



-------------------------------------------------------------

edit: I'd like to add to that:

I'm sure an educated and enthusiastic individual such as yourself would be well aware that in the US we count our murder rates differently. Here, every homicide is counted as a murder.

In Britain they only count homicides that are prosecuted in court as murder. If it is dropped to a lesser charge, or found to be an accident, suicide, or self-defense, it is removed from the list of yearly murders, unlike in the US. Clearly if we were to follow your standards our murder rate would plummet overnight.

[iverglas]

98. I hesitate to speak

but ...

I'm sure an educated and enthusiastic individual such as yourself would be well aware that in the US we count our murder rates differently. Here, every homicide is counted as a murder.

In Britain they only count homicides that are prosecuted in court as murder. If it is dropped to a lesser charge, or found to be an accident, suicide, or self-defense, it is removed from the list of yearly murders, unlike in the US. Clearly if we were to follow your standards our murder rate would plummet overnight.

Got sumpin to back that up with?

I sometimes don't mind doing the work for the lazy when they need to know something, but doing the work to prove/disprove an assertion by someone on whom the onus of proof rests ... nah.

By the way, "my standards" have nothing to do with this, so I have no clue what you're on about there.


Would you say legal firearm possession among British citizens went up or down after it became harder and harder to legally own firearms? Obviously the rate of firearm ownership (legal) went down after the various gun bans took place. So your comment doesn't really make much sense.

Yeah. That would be meaningful and all, if only my own statement:

What were lower than in the US were FIREARM POSSESSION RATES. Whether because of or independently of firearms laws.
Most especially, what was lower for a long time, much lower, was the HANDGUN POSSESSION RATE.

Hadn't been in direct response to yours:

your murder rates are lower than ours, true. However they were lower than ours before you put in to effect your draconian gun laws.

Following at all?

LAWS are not the single, or even the most significant factor.

Undoubtedly lawful firearms possesssion is less prevalent in the decade since the recent round of measures were enacted.

Firearms possession -- in particular HANDGUN possession, handguns being the crime guns of choice -- was strikingly lower in the UK than in the US BEFORE that round of measures.

My point was that there is a pretty obvious correlation between firearms possession rates and firearms crime/homicide rates. If you want to say there's no causal link, that's your lookout.

But if you want to tilt at the straw edifice of firearms laws not reducing firearms crime/homicide, you'll be playing solitaire. There is a necessary intermediate condition: firearms laws must function to actually REDUCE CASUAL/UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS to firearms. If they don't do that, they may still have some of the slight deterrent effect that other laws have, but that is not likely to bring about significant changes in outcomes.


I don't care about the stated purpose of the laws so much as their actual effect. Which do you find to be more important; intentions or results?

Cripey. Remind me to watch next time you bake a cake so I can berate you for not making roast chicken.

Your stated purpose was to bake a cake. You baked a cake. Why would I *not* berate you for not making roast chicken??

The stated purpose of the firearms measures to which you refer was to reduce specific kinds of firearms crime by reducing legal access to the firearms used to commit them. There have been no Dunblane-type crimes since that was done. But you go ahead and berate the British for the fact that their recent firearms control measures didn't put a chicken in every pot.

That's an analogy. Enjoy.


For instance, you have a pot of boiling water. I have an equal volume of ice. I take the ice and stick it in the microwave for a minute and measure the temperature. I find it's still lower than the temperature of your boiling water. From this I conclude that microwaves make water cold. What error have I made?

Gosh. About the same one you made when you said "Clearly gun control failed to reduce crime", I'd say."

Ok, you don't get analogies. I'll try to be more straightforward with you in the future and use simpler concepts.

Yeah. I guess you can make 'em up and still fail to get 'em, eh?

You concluded, from current crime statistics that virtually exclusively report crimes committed by individuals in unlawful possession of firearms, that measures designed to reduce homicides committed by individuals in lawful possession of firearms didn't work.

Someone who would say that -- assuming s/he were saying it honestly -- strikes me as just the sort of person who would conclude that microwaves make water cold.

What was the error? Apples and oranges come to mind.

[iverglas]

8. I am very sure that very soon

about a dozen people (whom I could name) will be descending on this thread to chide one and all, and point out that the laws of the UK are none of the business of anyone residing in the USA, and it is the height of rudeness for anyone in the US to express any opinion about the laws of any foreign country at all regarding any matter of public policy at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. The Brits can do as they please.

Their country, their laws. We have different cultures, comparisons with the United States fail to address the underlying causes of violence in the US.

David

[hogwyld]

52. It could be a real simple answer

Their country, their laws. We have different cultures, comparisons with the United States fail to address the underlying causes of violence in the US.

Could it all be related to the easy accessibility of guns?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. No, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Some cities with extremely strict gun control have very high gun crime rates, many cities with much more lax gun control laws, open or concealed carry laws have very low crime rates. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but also one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world. Accessibility to guns doesn't seem to automatically increase violent crime. I think it's to complicated an issue to just say it's the guns fault.

David

[iverglas]

70. now read the question again

"Could it all be related to the easy accessibility of guns?"

Your answer:

Some cities with extremely strict gun control have very high gun crime rates, many cities with much more lax gun control laws, open or concealed carry laws have very low crime rates.

Unless you can establish that LAWS and ACCESSIBILITY are equivalent, you haven't answered the question.

As for Switzerland ... well, you might want to update your info.


I think it's to complicated an issue to just say it's the guns fault.

And I think you need to take that statement somewhere where someone has said that anything is the guns' fault. A discussion board for people with delusions might be the place to start.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

63. Hard to believe but shootings still occur in England...

The mother of a teenager who became the unintended victim of a gang shooting said last night that her son had been killed in a "cold blooded and reckless act".

******snip**********

His death brings to 22 the number of teenagers to die violently in the capital this year. The 18-year-old was shot in the back by a gang wearing bike helmets shortly after he entered the Costcutter shop in Camberwell Road, in south London, at around 9.40pm on Wednesday.

***** snip**********

A Scotland Yard spokesman tonight said last night that the shooting was not linked to an incident at 4.30pm in which a man was shot in the leg in nearby Kennington.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/08/ukguns.ukcrime

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Police in Birmingham appealed to rival gangs to stay calm last night after a 24-year-old man was shot dead, the latest in a spate of shootings in the inner city area of Newtown.

West Midlands police said Dimitri Foskin was shot once in the chest shortly before 10.15pm on Saturday in Hockley Close, north of the city centre, which local residents said was frequented by drug dealers. He was taken by ambulance to City hospital where he was later pronounced dead.

The victim was unemployed and had lived nearby with his mother. Police said he had been socialising with friends and cousins and had visited a number of houses in and around the close with at least two other people before leaving one of the properties alone. It was then that he was killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/25/ukguns.ukcrime

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Police yesterday appealed to clubbers who spent Saturday night at an east London venue to come forward with information after a young man was shot repeatedly and killed outside the nightspot, following an evening out with friends.

The man in his 20s, who is not being named until he is formally identified, became the latest in a succession of young people killed in London this year after he attended a house music event at Club Red in Limehouse.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/28/ukguns.ukcrime

[spin]

64. Perhaps gun crime is INCREASING in the U.K.

THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

This weekend the Tories said the figures challenged claims by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that gun crime was falling. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, tells her in a letter today that the “staggering findings” show her claims that gun crime has fallen are “inaccurate and misleading”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

Gun ownership is tightly controlled in the UK, but anyone reading the newspapers or watching TV would think that the streets were full of gun-toting gangsters. The overall level of gun crime remains low, but it is certainly true that in some areas guns are a feature of everyday life, and that over the last seven years crime involving the use of some kind of gun has been on the increase.
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=102&category=factsheets

edited to add another link

[iverglas]

67. "crime involving the use of some kind of gun"

And of course you know as well as the rest of us do that the kind of gun involved in a majority of instances is a FAKE gun.

This time I'll let you post the numbers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. 3,821 people is a lot to kill or injure with FAKE guns.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.

David

[iverglas]

77. wowee -- it sure WOULD BE!!

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.

Try reading that again.

It's pretty easy to find how many firearms homicides there were in England in 2005-2006.

When you find the number, you'll notice that it's a two-digit one.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Fixed it for you.

[iverglas]

79. but hey, allow me

Just the first source that came up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383911.stm

GUN CRIME

The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998

In 2005/2006, the number of gun murders fell by more than a third from 78 to 50

There were 11,084 recorded firearms crimes in 2005/2006 - up 0.12% on previous year

London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands account for 54% of recorded incidents

Source: Home Office

I particularly draw your attention to these two facts:

- In 2005/2006, the number of gun murders fell by more than a third from 78 to 50
- There were 11,084 recorded firearms crimes in 2005/2006 - up 0.12% on previous year

If the US had a firearms homicide rate the same as the UK's, it would have had ~250 firearms homicides that year. It actually had around 10,000.


Firearms crime rose by 0.12% that year -- as a fraction, that's 12/10,000, or 1/83. Using purely hypothetical figures, if there had been 10,000 firearms crimes the year before, there were 12 more that year. That's pretty close to the case, but in actual figures:

11,084 is 0.12% higher than the previous year, so the previous year there were 11,070 firearms crimes.

There were 14 more firearms crimes in the UK in 2005-2006 than the year before. I think that's probably within any margin of error one might imagine arising just from reporting or tabulating error.

Meanwhile, the firearms homicide rate FELL by more than 50%.


Any clearer now?

[tburnsten]

87. Why don't you edit in the "normal" homicide numbers?

[iverglas]

90. why don't you do your own work?

Lordy, I'm tired of carrying the can for every lazy sod in the vicinity.

If you want to talk about non-firearms homicide, non-firearms crime, non-firearms accidental death and injury, non-firearms anything your little heart desires, you feel free, 'k?


But what the hell.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

US murder rate 2006: 5.7/100,000
(approx 2/3 being firearms homicides, for a non-firearms homicide rate of roughly 1.9/100,000)

(wasn't somebody just going on about how the US counts all homicides or some damn thing? Guess not.)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

UK murder rate 2006: 1.4/100,000
(leaving roughly 800 non-firearms homicides, for a non-firearms homicide rate of roughly 1.3/100,000)


(btw, Canada hit 2.0/100,000 total firearms/non-firearms homicide rate in 2006, but went back below 2 in 2007.)

Happy now?



The near-universal cry will be: all those firearms homicides in the US would just have been committed using bricks and bats and fingers and toes and dry-cleaning bags if there had been no guns!

The response from me will still be: phftth!


edited for clarity

[tburnsten]

95. In other words...

While Britain's firearms homicides were down whatever amount, they were never a big part of Britain's homicide counts to begin with. Wonderful.

[iverglas]

97. insert loud scream here

Please don't be trying to make it look like *I* was trying to prove some point here.

I do not start discussions of firearms crime in the UK. I merely debunk the dishonest representations of that situation that are posted here, which always amount to cries of the sky is falling and great teeth gnashing and hand wringing about the state of firearms crime in the UK today.

Firearms homicide is so low in the UK that any year-over-year change is of no statistical significance whatsoever, frankly, even if it were to triple from one year to another.



grammar edited

[spin]

83. Glad to post info on fake guns...

Up to half a million replica guns are flooding into Britain each year just through one port alone, police revealed today.

The imitation weapons, which can be converted into real guns in a matter of hours, are bringing terror onto the UK's streets.

Uzis, Berettas and AK47 rifles are among the huge stash of firearms being shipped in from across the globe by importers at Felixstowe in Suffolk.

*********snip************

Half of all gun-enabled crime, including street robberies, involves imitation weapons that have either been converted to fire deadly live ammunition or look so realistic even police can't tell they're fakes.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23433408-details/500,000+fake+guns+a+year+reach+Britain/article.do

Police seize fake guns
Kathryn Ryan
6/ 3/2008

MORE than 800 imitation guns have been seized in Salford after an action day by police.

The haul, which included replicas of ME 38, Beretta pistols, semi automatics, M16 machine guns and fake full bore rifles, came from just three stores in Lower Broughton.

They were seized as part of a county-wide scheme to tackle businesses selling realistic imitation firearms and weapons.

As part of the initiative, called Operation Peregrine, police held a day of action against these firms to remind them of new legislation preventing the sale, manufacture or import of imitation or replica firearms.
http://www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1039641_police_seize_fake_guns

Grant Wilkinson, 33, was found guilty of adapting fake Mac-10 sub-machine guns that have been linked to a number of murders in the UK.

In 2004, Wilkinson posed as a member of the production staff for a Bond film to buy 90 replicas worth £55,000 from Sabre Defence Industries, West London.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Grant-Wilkinson-Jailed-For-Producing-Gun-Factory-In-Three-Mile-Cross/Article/200808415088088

[tburnsten]

88. "even police can't tell"

"Half of all gun-enabled crime, including street robberies, involves imitation weapons that have either been converted to fire deadly live ammunition or look so realistic even police can't tell they're fakes."

Like they are subject matter experts.

[iverglas]

91. like you're so fucking smart

You try staring down the barrel of one of these things and trying to decide whether to shoot the 15-yr-old holding it, mr. cleverclogs.

http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/aeg.htm



How does it compare to this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7013823.stm


This Mac-10 sub-machine gun was found last year in the boot
of a car in Peckham, south London.


Jeez there are some loud-mouthed louts in these parts.

[tburnsten]

99. So they are talking about fake guns POINTED at cops?

totally different. Only someone with a deathwish would point any kind of object at a cop.

[spin]

103. You assume that the cops are armed...

Police across the country are to be issued with the controversial Taser stun guns.

The Tasers - which civil liberties groups claim are open to abuse - will be used by special units focusing on violent crime hotspots.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been impressed by trials in 10 forces which began last September allowing non-firearms officers to use the stun guns, which fire non-fatal 50,000-volt charges. She plans to extend the project to all 43 forces in England and Wales.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/08/10/more-cops-to-get-taser-stun-guns-115875-20691985/


Maybe the government could issue fake guns to the "non-firearms officers". That way if they faced a bad guy with a fake gun, they could have a Mexican standoff.

[iverglas]

107. good lord

They are talking about fake guns being used in the commission of crimes.

The point that was being made was that even the police can have a hard time distinguishing real from fake -- so what chance does yr average shopkeeper or a pedestrian have?

When a firearms incident is reported to police, a police squad with firearms goes to the scene. If there are police on the scene of a firearms incident, they would be no more likely to know whether they were facing a real or fake firearm. (And the fact is that converted replicas are a serious problem in any event.)

If somebody points a gun-looking thing at you and demands your money, are you going to say "Now hold on a minute, you're going to have to prove to me that that's a real gun you have there and not one of those fakes I've heard so much about"?

I wouldn't.

And if you hand over your money and the robber fades away with your money, neither you nor the police has any way of knowing whether you were the victim of a real gun crime or a fake gun crime. The object was used to facilitate the crime, and it didn't make an iota of difference whether it was real or not.

The fact is, though, that you're unlikely to end up dead or wounded if you are robbed by someone using a non-functional firearm-looking object. Homicide during a robbery is multiple times more common in the US than in the UK or Canada, for instance. The main reason is that firearms are used in vastly more robberies in the US than in Canada.

There is more than one aspect to the fake-gun crime problem in the UK.

The other main one is that replicas / disabled firearms are being converted into functional firearms. One of the articles I was reading earlier today went into that.

It also discussed street availability. Some crappy looking revolver goes for about $300 US on the street. Can't find the article again, dang. There was a street price of about $3,000 US given for something, could have been a Mac-10. Would I be correct in thinking that these are not the usual street prices in the US? Could the laws of supply and demand have something to do with this? Might the streets of the UK not really be awash in firearms after all?

Here we are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

A Webley revolver pistol. Photograph: Duncan Campbell

The gun shown here, a Webley, is up for sale in London for £150, one of hundreds of such weapons that are easily and cheaply available on the streets of the UK's big cities, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

"You can get a clean <unused> 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s," he said. "Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They're easy enough to get hold of. You'll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it's even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don't go.

... According to Dyson, the latest "weapon of choice" is a Russian 8mm Baikal self-defence pistol, originally used for firing CS gas. "They are legally sold in Germany and won't fire a bullet but they can be converted by removing the partially blocked barrel, and replacing it with a rifled barrel," he said. "After other small alterations, it can then fire 9mm bulleted ammunition. The replacement barrel is longer than the original, and is threaded so that it will accept a silencer, which is commonly sold as part of the package.

"There are hundreds of these floating around and hundreds have been seized," he said. "They look the part as they are based on the Russian military Makarov pistol. If you are a 20-year-old drug dealer and you want a gun, that is what you will get and it will cost about £1,000 to £1,500."

"The trends in firearms are driven by the suppliers," said Dyson. "About two years ago, a supplier brought back hundreds of German-made revolvers, blank-firing pistols which can be bought legally in Germany. They were then converted and new cylinders made. They could then be sold for £700 to £800 when the supplier would have bought them for €60 and spent about £30 on converting them."

Just for good measure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6383911.stm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. So a fake weapon converted to a real one is still considered a fake?

If that's the case then I can see how those deaths and injuries occurred with fake weapons. Logic seems a little off to me, but hey I'm not British.

David

[spin]

102. I wonder what caliber they were converted to...

of course a .22 can be deadly.

[iverglas]

109. No, Dave, it isn't.

I'm giving up here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. Hope everything is ok.

I've never known you to give up. It is tiresome to beat ones head against the wall though. I'm sure that you feel like that's what you are doing, what's funny is that's what I feel like most of the time I'm in the gun and health forums. Anyway I really do hope everything is ok.

David

[iverglas]

117. actually everything pretty much sucks

The tale of the CDC gag is actually quite interesting. I'm just not up for reconstructing it at the moment.

It seems that not only does my sister have cancer, but my mum may have as well. A tumour; whether malignant or not we won't know for a while yet. The scan was this morning, the surgeon is Monday. And my sis got a short-notice appointment this afternoon to discuss the radiation/chemo options for hers, to try to make it operable, which she has not yet told my mum about. And my mum doesn't know that I know about hers, and was supposed to call this afternoon and didn't ...

Had been hoping to spend the weekend at a cottage with my bestest friend and her ex. That got solved when the bestest friend called today to say she had exceeded her 3-day threshold of tolerance for the ex by 3 days and guests would not be needed, even if she didn't leave early herself. No lake-paddling and card-playing and marshmellow-roasting for moi.

Life's a bitch and sometimes you die too soon.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Terribly sorry.

I'm dealing with parental health issues also. I hope the best for your family and friends and will keep you all in my thoughts. Take care and try not to get discouraged.

David

[iverglas]

119. thank you

and the same.

[spin]

120. Good luck and my best wishes...

for your sister and mum.

I hope something positive comes up for you to do for the weekend. You need a break to help get your mind off the situation.

[iverglas]

121. ah, there's always work!

It's what we cold emotionless virgos do. ;)

But with the House in recess, and us heading into an election too in all likelihood, there'll be less of that for a while. So I may just have to get that passport renewed. I have three invites to foreign parts that would involve shooting, actually -- although one would involve actual animals, in southern Africa, so I'd be opting for the photo shooting.

And heck, there's always the colonoscopy and full-body MRI and assorted other poking and prodding I'm going to be needing asap. I'm the eldest, so with 2 of the other 3 already struck, seems wise.

Ta to you too, and I think I'll go make lemon garlic chicken. Cooking is my other mind-off-situation trick. Unfortunately, I filled both fridges' freezers last weekend ... maybe eating it all would work ...

[spin]

122. I like the idea of hunting with a camera..

Trophy hunting is something I have little interest in (or for that matter hunting with a firearm). I'm considering hunting if the price of meat skyrockets but that would be a different matter as I would be hunting to feed the family. Venison or wild hog can be tasty if prepared correctly. I have some hunter friends to help show me the ropes.

I also am at the age where I have to get a colonoscopy or an MRI occasionally. My left hip is shot and I have numerous back problems so I'm going through a pain test tomorrow to determine which is causing me to lose my getty up and go. My doctor tells me my hip can be replaced and should solve most of my problems, but he feels the back is a lost cause. I walk kinda like Chester on the old Gunsmoke TV program. Oh well.

The vacation does sound like a great idea. Life is short. Memories can make it more worth while.