After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: LurchWritten by:
In this country, the NEED to own a gun just doesn't exist, due to the fact that only criminals have them
You honestly don't see a problem with that?
The insults of your enemy are a tribute to your bravery
Written by: Zauberdachs
It works. Why? I think because it is to much hassel for criminals to use guns in this country. An armed criminal in the UK can expect to instigate a major police response totally disproportionate to whatever crime he is likely to have committed. Effectively bringing down far more heat on themselves than they could justify by having it.
So
1. Because the police are not armed there is no need for the criminal to be armed
2. The criminal can expect to huge response if they do take a gun.
...
This way though less people die, there is less paranoia and less gun crime.
Written by: Lurch
999/1000 will be the good guys
Written by: Lurch
If he didn't have it, but there happened to be an axe in the back of his pickup, no doubt that would have come out. Maybe the officer would have had a better chance, maybe not.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: Sethis
P.S. If you're quoting someone, can you say who it is? It makes it easier to address the points. (You do that by typing "quote: Name" with square brackets instead of quotation marks)
Written by: Zauberdachs
I think the point is that only a very very small minority of criminals have them. We have armed police but they are called in specifically to deal with confirmed gun/weapons crimes.
Written by: Zauberdachs
It works. Why? I think because it is to much hassel for criminals to use guns in this country. An armed criminal in the UK can expect to instigate a major police response totally disproportionate to whatever crime he is likely to have committed. Effectively bringing down far more heat on themselves than they could justify by having it.
Written by: Sethis
Americans are casual about guns, so laws are more likely to be stretched. No-one is casual about guns here, so even a guy with a single revolver can expect multiple police officers with armour and automatic rifles busting down his door pretty fast. You might as well just get a knife, and then try whatever crime you're thinking of with that.
Written by: Sethis
The "It's part of our lifestyle" argument is bull. Sorry Lurch, but it is. It's the same argument used to justify everything from slavery to human sacrifice to our continued reliance on fossil fuels. Don't even try and defend that, please.
Written by: Sethis
There you go again (sorry). You need to work out that society isn't divided into "Good" people and "Bad" people. Anyone can commit a crime, previous record or not. I know criminals who present a very respectable outward face to everyone, and have never been arrested/cautioned. I also know people who have been arrested who are decent people that simply made bad choices.
Written by: Sethis
Tell me that an axe is much more preferable to a gun in almost any situation (from the defending point of view).
Written by: Sethis
I'll reply to the question: A fully equipped officer in this country has a baton, mace and cuffs. I imagine if the assailant was out of range then the officer would immediately call in backup, call "Officer down" and try to find a way to reach the assailant. Failing that, he would take a description so he could be indentified later. (A minority of officers are equipped with tasers, I imagine if he had one then he would use it)
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Written by: Lurch
I take pride in being able to own what I want, because I want to. You're telling me that a firearm is too dangerous for me to possess...
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by: FireTom
I repeat: Why would an officer die on the first hit, while a suspect seems to need at least 20?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Written by: Lurch
It's never been about the guns, it is about my right to defend myself. If firearms are the most effective means to do so, why would I allow them to be removed? I own and endorse weapons for the same reason I endorse fire alarms, or airbags, or seatbelts. I hope to God I never have to use any of those, but if I do, I know I want them there.
Ancient wiseman say "It is very strange person, who, when left alone in room with teacosy, does not try it on"
Written by: Lurch
Written by: Nephtys
USA: civilians allowed to own firearms
total population: about 281,500,000 (based on 2000 census)
gun deaths: 29,573 --> approx. 0,01% of total population
Netherlands: civilian gun ownership not allowed
total population about 16,000,000
gun deaths: 89 --> approx. 0,0006% of total population [/quote
I don't have the information to look it up, but again that is unfair. Of course there is going to be a higher percentage of gun deaths in a country where guns are more prolific. The use of guns isn't the issue, the violence of the civilians is. You also cannot look at the death rates, as no doubt there are many many many more cases in which someone survived. Aggravate assault is a much more accurate statistic to look at. Examining those, and removing any notion of firearms, and I'm guessing those statistics will start to become very close. As in, the aggravated assault rates per capita (regardless of weapon choice) are probably fairly close.
Hm, i can't get it to look right, only the bit with the numbers is mine, the rest is Lurch's.
Lurch, I'm not sure what aggravate violence is in Dutch, if I find out I might go a-hunting (or not, depending on how strong the ugre to procrastinate is... I'm supposed to be studying )
My problem with gun possession though is that it's a lot easier to kill someone on impulse with a gun than it is with anything else. The classic example of walking in on your partner in bed with another person: if there is a gun in the room (say, in the drawer of the bedside table) you're a lot more likely to do them serious -even fatal- damage than when you punch him/her/them in the face.
Same goes for burglary: burglars here don't tend to carry guns, because getting caught burgling with possession of an illegal firearm is going to get you into a lot more trouble than just burglary. If I were to wake up in the middle of the night and realise there's a burglar in the house, I'd probably scream and he'd probably hop right back out the window - whereas if either of us had a gun there might be a whole lot more damage.
Finally, if I'm out for the night, it's nice to know that the worst that can happen if someone gets annoyed with me is that they pull a knife (though switchblades etc. aren't allowed either here) - it's a lot more effective to run away from a knife than it is from a bullet!everyone's unique except me
Written by: Lurch
I have a feeling that the actual number of criminals with firearms in your country is far higher than you believe.
Written by: Lurch
I take pride in being able to own what I want, because I want to.
Written by: Lutch
You just justified the use of excessive force merely because a handgun was involved. If it takes you guys three armored cars and a SWAT team to settle what a single deputy who was armed to begin with could settle, faster, and by putting less people in danger, who is being unreasonable?
Written by: lutch
Over here at least, it takes at least 30 minutes to up to 2 hours to assemble a SWAT team for an assault. How much damage could an armed person do in 30 minutes while you sit and wait for the police to show up with the power to stop them? I'm sorry, but someone intent on hurting you isn't going to wait. Even if you call emergency, it's going to be long over by the time police get there.
Written by: lutch
You said it yourself, if a gun isn't an option, get a knife. Removing the guns won't change the crime rate
Written by: lutch
So you're forced to stand there, and watch an officer be beat to death and all you can do is 'call in backup,' and 'take down a description'.
The insults of your enemy are a tribute to your bravery
Written by: Lurch
It's never been about the guns, it is about my right to defend myself. If firearms are the most effective means to do so, why would I allow them to be removed? I own and endorse weapons for the same reason I endorse fire alarms, or airbags, or seatbelts. I hope to God I never have to use any of those, but if I do, I know I want them there.
Noone has even asked why I own a weapon.
Written by: Lurch
I would never want to be put in a position where I cannot save a life of an innocent person, merely because I do not have, or am not allowed to have, the tools to help them.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
Written by: Lurch
They are also designed for sport and for fun. Believe it or not going to the range is actually a lot of fun. Hell 10% of the winter olympics sports involve shooting last I knew.
Written by: Lurch
You just justified the use of excessive force merely because a handgun was involved. If it takes you guys three armored cars and a SWAT team to settle what a single deputy who was armed to begin with could settle, faster, and by putting less people in danger, who is being unreasonable?
Written by: Lurch
No wonder you're afraid of your police if they will send an assault team to your house because they think you might have a weapon. Sorry but *that* I would have a problem with.
Written by: Lurch
Even if you call emergency, it's going to be long over by the time police get there.
Written by: Lurch
You said it yourself, if a gun isn't an option, get a knife. Removing the guns won't change the crime rate, you're only removing the ability and tools law abiding citizens use to protect themselves.
Written by: Lurch
Maybe you honestly do think it's better to roll over and get stabbed instead of fighting back. I disagree however, and I will refuse to be a victim. I mean no offence by this, but I will not merely say 'Baa' when I'm bit, I'll bite back.
Written by: Lurch
So firearms equate to slavery and human sacrifice? I fail to see how that jump is being made. Why do you need alcohol? It does nothing positive for society, but it is part of your lifestyle, might as well get rid of that, look at the lives cost due to drunk drivers, no doubt that is far higher than firearm related deaths in either of our countries. How about tobacco? At least firearms have a viable defensive and sporting use in society, you see it as a negative, I see it as an equalizer. "God made man, Mr Colt made them all equal"
Written by: Lurch
I'm not saying that it is all peachy and clear cut like that. But it is still saying something when the officers themselves encourage people to take the steps to ensure their own protection.
Written by: LurchWritten by: Sethis
Tell me that an axe is much more preferable to a gun in almost any situation (from the defending point of view).
I'll agree to that. As long as I have a gun. Combat statistics show that within 20', a person with a knife, versus a person with a holstered side arm, the knife will almost always win. I would definatly not want to go up against someone with an axe if all i had was an asp or pepperspray. Taser maybe, but tasers are not always effective, and there is still a large part of the LEO community that do not carry them.
Written by: Lurch
So you're forced to stand there, and watch an officer be beat to death and all you can do is 'call in backup,' and 'take down a description'.
Written by: Lurch
Over here at least, the "correct" answer would be to draw, order them to stop, and if they didn't you shoot them. Simple as that. Down officer lives, bad guy goes to the hospital or goes to the morgue.
Written by: Lurch
I would never want to be put in a position where I cannot save a life of an innocent person, merely because I do not have, or am not allowed to have, the tools to help them.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: ducky2108
That's an argument I've seen before. However, it's also not entirely accurate. If you own the very latest, best fire alarm, all it will do is up the chances of saving your life, if used.
If you buy the most up to date, best gun, then all that will do is up the chances of you TAKING a life, if used.
Written by: Nephtys
Lurch, I'm not sure what aggravate violence is in Dutch, if I find out I might go a-hunting
Written by: Zauberdachs
For example: A single criminal with a gun is met by a couple of highly trained specialised gun experts.
I would much prefer this to one or a couple of nervious/gungho stressed out deputies or even to a room full of nervious untrained stressed out fellow citizens all with the right to arm and defend themselves
Written by: Zauberdachs
Does this happen often in the States? Can you expect to find yourself in a situation where someone is being beaten to death and you cannot intervene without a gun?
Written by: _kevlarsoul_
Oh come on, surely you can see the difference that it'd be fairly hard to kill someone with a fire alarm, or accidentally kill someone with a seatbelt or airbag.. a gun is designed to injure or kill things, people or animals. Surely you can understand how ridiculous that paragraph looks when you put it next to fire alarms - how many fire alarm related deaths were there in the US last year?
Written by: Sethis
I know going to the range is fun, I quite enjoy shooting air pistols and .22 air rifles. I question why it is necessary to use a real gun for these purposes when air rifles are just as effective. Why own something like a Mag .357 to go to the range? Why not an air pistol? Unless it's the whole "My balls are bigger than yours because I've got a bigger gun" thing...
Written by: Sethis
That's applicable to any crime, regardless of the weaponry involved.
Written by: Sethis
Point out anywhere where I said I wouldn't defend myself please? In the UK I fight back with my knowledge of hand to hand combat, because that's how I'm most likely to be assaulted. In America you fight back with a gun, because that's what YOU'RE more likely to be facing. I know which I'd prefer.
Written by: Sethis
Our officers encourage us to protect ourselves. They say "run away and call the police" or failing that "Give the attacker what he wants, your wallet is not worth your life"
Written by: Sethis
You didn't say beaten to death, you said "on the ground getting kicked".
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Lurch
People with CCW's do not go around killing people. The same way people who carry pocket knives don't go around stabbing people when they get upset. If you cannot control yourself, or don't have any faith in anyone else to control themselves then no wonder you fear guns. Firearms require discipline, plain and simple.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: jeff(fake)
You and your family are more at risk if you own a gun.
Written by: jeff(fake)
The danger of a murderous intruder is far less than that of a fatal gun accident. I'm also a little uneasy about your 'good guy - bad guy' mentality.
I don't know what the situation is in the states but in Britain there aren't any heavily armed gangs of crimals roving the streets with impunity. The practice of using heavily armed policemen for a street patrol isn't appropriate here.
Written by: spiralx
Will a background check spot that you're the sort of person who will shoot their wife when you find out she's been having an affair ten years in the future? Because this is what happens regularly when people have guns in the house
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
The insults of your enemy are a tribute to your bravery
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by:
The murder rate in London has doubled in 12 months to reach one of its highest levels ever, according to the most recent Home Office statistics, which have been leaked to the Telegraph.
In the final three months of last year there were 61 murders in the capital, compared with just 31 in the same quarter, the previous year. The figure is the highest total for the last three months of any year, according to the Metropolitan Police's published figures. In the final three months of 2000, for example, there were only 40 murders, while in the same period of 2001 and 2002 there were 43 and 31 respectively.
Written by:
In England and Wales:
Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.
Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.
In Australia:
While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise -- for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.
In Canada:
Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.
Written by:
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
Written by:
...It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
Written by:
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Written by: Lurch
Note: This was written in March 2004, a couple years old but I think it probably still holds merit.Written by:
The murder rate in London has doubled in 12 months to reach one of its highest levels ever, according to the most recent Home Office statistics, which have been leaked to the Telegraph.
In the final three months of last year there were 61 murders in the capital, compared with just 31 in the same quarter, the previous year. The figure is the highest total for the last three months of any year, according to the Metropolitan Police's published figures. In the final three months of 2000, for example, there were only 40 murders, while in the same period of 2001 and 2002 there were 43 and 31 respectively.
Written by:
In England and Wales:
Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.
Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.
Written by:
In Australia:
While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise -- for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.
Written by: Snopes
Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends.
Written by: lurch
In Canada:
Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.
Written by:
Despite the widely publicized number of 52 shooting deaths in Toronto last year, figures from Statistics Canada show that in 2004 the crime rate was 12 percent lower than a decade ago. Other figures show that Canada’s homicide rate did rise 12 percent in 2004, but only after hitting a 36-year low in 2003.
Written by:
Violent Crime rates (essentially the aggravated assault rates that I discussed earlier) In Canada vs. the US
Non-Https Image Link
I'll admit that one surprised me, I didn't know that the Canadian violent crime rate was higher than the United States, and it makes me question the validity of these a little bit, but I'll have to do more research on that later.
Written by:
UK vs US
Non-Https Image Link
Now if these really are true, which as far as I can tell are fairly accurate, than please note the massive spike of violent crime in the UK. And also note the date when it starts the rather impressive upswing. I don't think it's merely coincidence that matches with the handgun ban in 1997.
Written by:
...It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by:
While the numbers are obviously true the majority of these murders were due to Jamaican Yardies moving into the crack trade over here causing plenty of gun fights and killings over business, and knock-on effects on black youth culture.
"Moo," said the happy cow.