England: 42 Deaths As Use Of Handguns Hits Seven-year High

D

dZ

New member
42 Deaths As Use Of Handguns
Hits Seven-year High
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/breakingnews/UK/0,2478,665043,00.html
From Ananova
Thursday January 11, 2001 2:27 am

Use of handguns in crime in England and Wales
reached its highest level for seven years in
1999-2000.

This is in spite of the ban on private ownership of
the weapons introduced in the wake of the
Dunblane massacre.

There were 42 people killed with handguns during
the period - more than in any other year in the
1990s.

Some 3,685 crimes involving handguns were
recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides,
310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies
and 204 burglaries, the Home Office revealed.

The total was more than one-third (37%) up on the
previous year, and the highest level since the
Dunblane tragedy in March 1996, when 16
children and a teacher died.

The details were released in a parliamentary
written answer by Home Office Minister Lord
Bassam of Brighton.

A ban on all private ownership of handguns
became law in November 1997, but handgun
offences have risen each year since then.

Levels of handgun offences were higher in 1992
and 1993, at 3,997 and 4,202 respectively, but in
each year there were fewer homicides than in
1999-2000.

The higher figures then were down to a far
greater incidence of robberies using handguns,
which reached a peak of 3,605 in 1993 before
falling every year until 1999-2000, when they
jumped from 1,814 to 2,561.


Edited to fix link. - TBM

[Edited by TheBluesMan on 01-16-2001 at 04:21 PM]
 
This is of course a lie spread by the pro-gun, militia loving radical right!!!

Because if there was a ban on private ownership of weapons, then of course, nobody would have weapons, proving this increase in weapon related crime is a lie.

But then again maybe a ban on private ownership of weapons doesn't stop crime...
 
When will the media and and the anti's just look at the facts?

I suppose they have no interest in facts. Only in politcal correctness.
 
Be careful, forty-two deaths in a country the size of England is a very small death rate from handguns. Compared to the US rate, it is just a drop in the bucket. So, forget this one. You are lobbying against our own interest. Anyone with any knowledge of US death rates will destroy your position.

The real question is this: How many rapes, assaults and murders could have been prevented if the English had been armed? This is a benefit/detriment issue. Did they lose more than they gained in outlawing guns?
 
Gary H,

Of course you are correct. Forty two deaths is indeed a small number for a country the size of England. However, the key statement in the article is that the number of handgun offenses has been on the increase every year since the ban of privately owned weapons.

As you may agree, to compare murder rates in two societies without an examination of the cultures, beliefs, legal and law enforcement systems would be ridiculous. Comparing the exact numbers of deaths would hurt a pro gun position.

I saw a chance for a sarcastic comment.
 
1)Compare rates, not absolute numbers.
2)State trends (in this case, towards higher rates)
3)Address the substitution of other weapons (knives, fists, sticks, etc.) for guns: the total rates of assault and murder by any means are important.
 
There are better countries to use as an example of where gun control failed,like Mexico,el salvador,venezulela,colombia,brazil,jamaica,hati,russia,.estonia,latvia,and lithuania.All of those countries have homicide rates higher or as high as the u.s.
 
The point is obviously that deaths and crime in England have NOT gone DOWN since the gun ban. So, what has the ban accomplished but to persecute the law abiding people that wish to own guns?


Also to throw into the mix: many people forget that England only has about 12 million people in it and one major metroplex. It could be compared to one of our smaller States with one major city. So, it is erroneous of many anti's to compare numbers directly. As said above, trends and rates should be compared.
 
Yes,but Jamaica only has three million people and has several hundred handgun deaths a year.In fact jamaica has a homicide rate higher than L.A. Like I said there's better countries to use as an example.England still has a homicide rate of 2 or less homicides per 100,000 people.The u.s. has about 6.But look at countries in latin america and the carribean,a lot of those countries have homicide rate 3 to 10 times that of the u.s. despite the fact that they've banned firearms.
 
I don't disagree at all.

Being that I live on the border, I often ask people if they would feel safe in Mexico, just a few miles away, since they have such strict gun laws.

At that point, the anti's racism shows and s/he usually gives me a look like "well, those are brown people, they are prone to crime" or that type of thing. It seems that using examples of countries where most of the people are brown or black does not sink in as well, because people tend to think that if we banned guns in a white country, we would all be safe, but in those "underdeveloped" countries...well, it is "expected" that everyone is killing each other and getting illegal guns. So, it is often better to use very industrialized countries for examples.

I am not arguing, I think using your examples is excellent, but am just pointing out that I often find that the anti's are racist and are not impressed with violence rates of non-white or underdeveloped countries. I live right by Mexico and dealing with their criminal element seeping over into our area is a daily problem. And yet, even with Mexico being right next door, people still think that if we ban guns here that it will somehow be different, because we are a "civilized" country (read, "mostly white"). I am not saying that I believe all of this, but THEY do, and it is evident in that they think that our banning guns would be different than "them" banning guns.


OT- To bring things home to America, I often ask the person "how hard do you think it is for a criminal to buy illegal narcotics in America? How long do you think it would take...a phone call and a few minutes to get any drug? So, why would it be different if we banned guns...how hard would it be for a criminal to get a gun? Drugs are banned from border to border, and even leave scents that dogs can trace as they come in, yet they still get in and they are everywhere. Even with our 'war on drugs', and stiff penalties for drug crimes, drugs and criminals selling them are everyhwere.
How easy it would be for criminals to import illegal guns and sell them, even if they were banned across the nation. Banning guns will NOT get guns away from criminals in America any more than banning drugs has."



[Edited by jdthaddeus on 01-18-2001 at 05:43 PM]
 
Well,you could say that russia,lativia,lithuania,and estonia are "white" countries that have banned or restricted guns and they have homicicide rates higher than the u.s.I do understand about antis being racist,they pretend to be tolerent though.But Boloivia is not a "white"country and has one of the lowest homicide rates in south america,not to mention that they have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top