UK Proves firearms ban works!

Petre

New member
NOT! :p

Think stats like these will help change gun control advocates minds. I'm guessing nothing but a lobotomy will do the job.

:cool:
----------------
Gun crime: Labour 'losing control'

Jan 25 3:03 PM US/Eastern

Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.

Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.

There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.

The figures come a day after two men armed with a replica gun robbed a Home Office worker on his way home after sharing a curry with Home Secretary John Reid. The 29-year-old civil servant was making his way home in Beckenham, Kent, shortly before midnight when he was attacked.

A Met Police spokeswoman said the man's wallet and mobile phone were taken and confirmed that two teenage men remain in custody at a south London police station.

The Home Office report shows that handguns are the most commonly used firearm in robberies, reported in 2,888 cases.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said of the figures: "This shows Labour is losing control of gun crime across the board, whether it be on the street or in innocent people's homes.

"Gun crime is mainly fuelled by gang warfare and drug addiction, which is a consequence of Labour's failing drugs policy. It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country."

Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "Firearm offences have fallen significantly, by 14% in the year up to September 2006, which amounts to 1,642 fewer incidents.

"While there is a small rise in residential firearm robberies, these account for a tiny proportion of recorded offences overall, although we recognise any firearm incident is traumatic for victims." He added: "We have some of the toughest firearm legislation in Europe."
 
Articles are great! They use percentages which can be misleading. If you had 1 gun crime in 2006 and 2 gun crimes in 2007 you could say you had a 100% increase in gun crime. Does that really mean that?

If you look at the FBI statistics for 2005 you will see that California had more firearms homicides than Texas but New York state had fewer than Texas. California and New York have stricter firearms laws than Texas. Arizona where you can open carry has a smaller number than all 3 other states. So it makes things conusing if you try to say that gun control laws are responsible for higher firearm crime rates If you look at Texas and New York.

There is an argument about gun control laws in Australia. Australia has small numbers to start with. The numbers are comparable to some states in the United States. If you look at a graph that most of them are using from 1991-2005 or 2006 you will see that there was already a downward trend line from 1991 in firearm deaths. I 1996 they passed new gun control laws due to the shooting at Port Arthur. the anti gun and pro gun sides are making their claims for this period. If your honest about it the numbers are to small to substantiate either sides claim.

What I can tell you is that the laws Australia passed were for feel good purposes if you look at the trend from 1991 to 2006. The politicians sold the citizens in Australia some pie in the sky feel good legislation.

What I can say is that gun control legislation effects law abiding citizens because they respect the laws and obey them. Criminals and mentally deficient people are not effected because they dont obey the law in the first place or dont have the mental capacity to understand. laws do not prevent crimes they merely serve to establish a societal norm.

I dont expect the antigun forces to come to the table with the truth because they are deeling with it from an emotional base since some of thier numbers go off the deep end for some theories. You are 47 more times likely to die if you own a handgun or some such theory. I should have been dead and buried a long time a go.

A a progun folks we can play the percentages games with the antigunners or look at it from where the problem areas with firearms crimes exsist and propose constructive solutions. Project Exile is already in place in some parts of the country. We already have examples of why citizens should be able to defend themselves that occured during Hurricane Katrina and the LA riots when law enforcment couldnt handle the problems.

So we should take a deeper look than just the numbers and percentages.

Lets keep the flames down please I left my asbestos suit at the cleaners. So lets play nice with each other.
 
"So we should take a deeper look than just the numbers and percentages."

I agree with your post, Eghad, so don't think I'm arguing with you. I just want to point out that anti-gunners seem to prefer the shallow approach to guns and crime: "Guns kill people. Killing people is bad. Get rid of guns." We shooters have known for years some methods for actually reducing violent crime: put violent criminals in prison for a long time; if they use guns in their crimes, feel free to throw away the key; execute the most vicious ones; make sure honest people have plenty of guns in their homes and on their persons, and know how to use them.

These concepts are deeply offensive to many anti-gunners, who rely mostly on emotion, and not clear thought, to guide them in these matters. That's why this is so frustrating for the shooters. You can point to all manner of rational statistics and solutions, and the anti-gunner will eventually say "Well, I just don't like guns, so I think we should get rid of them."

Tim
 
The figures come a day after two men armed with a replica gun robbed a Home Office worker on his way home after sharing a curry with Home Secretary John Reid. The 29-year-old civil servant was making his way home in Beckenham, Kent, shortly before midnight when he was attacked.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a while.
 
Thinking about non gun weapons,

We have a good selection of baseball and T-ball bats at work. It is interesting to see how lethal that little T-Ball bat can be. Light, quick, easy to wield one handed. Though I have only gotten to use it on cardboard movie displays that are going in the bailer. Great weapon if you have the strength to get that bat moving. If you are old, weak, or disabled you are kinda SOL with it.
 
So we should take a deeper look than just the numbers and percentages.

+1

Lets keep the flames down please I left my asbestos suit at the cleaners.

You might wish to consider switching to Nomex instead of asbestos, I wash my Nomex suit at home and save on the cleaning costs.:p

Seriously I use to play the numbers game, still keep my hand in but I now think a little differently due to John Ross

THEY SAY: “If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.”



WE SAY: “Studies have shown blah blah blah” (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)



WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?”

The above shamelessly borrowed from http://www.john-ross.net/mistakes.htm


NukemJim
PS I hope the link thingy works run a search if it does not he wrote "Unintended Consequences" which IMHO is a must read for anyone concerned with firearms rights.
 
A Quotable Quote...
Eghad...
"laws do not prevent crimes they merely serve to establish a societal norm."
That quote makes me wonder if anarchy would bring crime down? Or if it would be simpler to dispense with the notion of criminality altogether- after all, establishing societal norms is want we want right? Maybe if we abolish the concept of crime, then criminal behaviour can be justified as a societal norm? That's pretty much what you have when everyone may carry weapons openly in public. The only problem is if you abolish the concept of a crime, you will then also have to abolish the entire legal system.
Essentially- we're talking about returning to the stone age.
Fine by me:D
 
It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country.

IT IS AN ISLAND!!!!!!

So where do those easy to obtain weapons come from that are pouring across the border? Perhaps they can join Bloomberg in blaming Virginia.
 
It was not so long ago that England had relatively relaxed gun laws. The illegal weapons used there now are the remnants of that still in circulation.
 
Anarchy nor doing away with criminal laws would help the problem. We have to establish a baseline somewhere so you can punish offenders for violating the law or societal norms. My point would be that some gun control legislation is like using a cluster bomb making a great deal of collateral damage. Which means that the majority of your target is going to elude you and you will you have killed a lot of innocent bystanders.

We try to get to politically correct in defining a problem and the end result is sweeping it under the rug for a solution to jsut make people happy.. Innocent poeple still suffer because some feel good legislation was passed.
 
Just like the newest Guns=Crime Study

They left out DC.......didn't say why

Maybe because it didn't fit their preconceived outcome:eek:
 
It was not so long ago that England had relatively relaxed gun laws. The illegal weapons used there now are the remnants of that still in circulation.

I do not have any data on the above. Could you please provide a source?

Thank you

NukemJim
 
It was not so long ago that England had relatively relaxed gun laws. The illegal weapons used there now are the remnants of that still in circulation.

It used to be that England had relaxed laws concerning shotguns and some rifles, but handguns have been pretty well regulated since the turn of the 20th century. Most long guns were required to have a "sporting purpose" under British law, though there were some collectors of militaria preserving the history of British military firearms.

In 1996 the Brits pushed through a huge ban on most all firearms and required those still existing to have a permit and be stored partially disassembled.
 
I do beleive that the 46% number is the number of:

1) Reported crimes

+

2) In private residences

+

3) Where a firearm (or reasonable facsimile) was produced by the intruder.

Though I do feel it's worth mentioning that ten years ago, roughly 30 to 50 home-invasions were recorded as involving firearms in the 2000-2001 period.

What can I say? When you breed the Principle of Passivity, rather than the Principle of Non-Aggression, then there'll be the obvious dwell-time between even the critters realising that they're actually allowed to use force, and them daring to do so. That dwell-time appears to have reached the +X end of it's plateau, and now the storm begins in the UK - over the next few years - where every crime becomes and armed crime.

The critters are starting to realise that force is what they're allowed. Oh boy.

After all, half a hundred people a day die by violence in the Uck, with about 1,000 a year being classed as "murder" "infanticide" or "manslaughter" - that's for sixty million people. Those are Gubment figgers, which I trust as much as my spelling of them.

This tells me that it's about to get right ugly in old Blighty.
 
We have a good selection of baseball and T-ball bats at work. It is interesting to see how lethal that little T-Ball bat can be. Light, quick, easy to wield one handed. Though I have only gotten to use it on cardboard movie displays that are going in the bailer. Great weapon if you have the strength to get that bat moving. If you are old, weak, or disabled you are kinda SOL with it.

Tell me about bats being lethal I had one swung at my head this summer. My buddies and I were partying at a cabin and some guys looking for trouble found us and tryed to start a fight for no reason. I had a bat swung at my head cuz I'm a big guy and they went for me first and we all proceded to run away.
 
You should look at actual numbers then percentages....

If I had 1 armed assault in year 1 then 2 in year 2 I had a 100% increase. Realistically does that mean crime is out of hand? I think that if we try to camoflauge numbers as percentages with out looking out at other factors then it could come back to bite the pro gun movement in the butt sometimes.
 
Petre
Think stats like these will help change gun control advocates minds. I'm guessing nothing but a lobotomy will do the job.
LOL :D :D
Doesn't a lobotomy require a brain to begin on?

The Liberal Left (Labour) will never see these stats...
and if by some fluke they do...
they will refuse to read them...
Then they'll deny they exist...
And then rush to discredit them... :rolleyes:

They are like spoiled children, who, when confronted with their short-comings...
They plug their ears, close their eyes, and scream until the truth goes away... :rolleyes:

KSFreeman
"Look we know that this isn't working, but look how progressive we are."
LOL :D :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top