It happened in England, could it happen here?

[Bob Hubbard]

LOL! Don't wait until you are 50! Come and visit England now and do the above!

Soon as I can afford it. I want to do a photo tour of the whole country.


Now, far be it for me to tell the people of a soverign nation what to do. (Unless it's California, but that's another discussion, lol).

I will ask though, what is your and Tez's reply to this statement? The data's a bit older from the late 90's, and I don't have any data to support/negate it. Site I'm pulling from I've no idea of it's credibility at the moment. Came up on a Google search.

The Rise in British Crime and Violence

Despite the talking heads on the evening news implying otherwise, violent crime is steadily coming down in American cities, despite the fact there are more guns in America than ever before (i.e., refuting the simplistic public health view of "more guns, more crime"[5]) and record numbers of citizens carrying permits for concealed firearms. Only Switzerland, where virtually every home houses a fully automatic firearm and every adult male citizen is armed and expected to participate in the national polity as well as local self-government, can boost a longer-lived but just as stable a republic as ours. To make matters worse for British citizen disarmament, despite their draconian gun control laws and their loss of civil liberties, crime has steadily increased in Britain in the last several years: "Britons are chagrined by the findings of a U.S. Department of Justice study that says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. The Trans-Atlantic cousins can take comfort in the fact that the United States remains far ahead of Britain in violent crimes, including murder and rape, although the gap is narrowing there as well."(6)

Additionally, the study revealed, "In 1995, the last year for which complete statistics were available for both countries, there were 20 assaults per 1,000 people or households in England and Wales but only 8.8 in the United States."(4) While the U.S. still leads in the most violent crimes, rates for serious crimes such as murder are coming down relative to Great Britain. In fact, the Associated Press recently reported that U.S. murder rates have reached a 30-year low and "serious crimes reported by police declined for the sixth straight year in 1997."(7)

During this period of the study which was conducted by a Cambridge University professor and a statistician from the U.S. Department of Justice and reported in The Washington Times, several types of crimes rose steadily in Britain while declining in America. For example, "Robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales but fell to 28 percent in the United States. Assault increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States and motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England but remained the same in the United States."(6)

To make matters worse for England (and this is also true for Canada), in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto; whereas in the U.S., burglars prefer night burglaries and they try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victims. A recent report on this dangerous practice and the rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves." The London Sunday Times noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capitol of the West. Where," asks the British author, "have we gone wrong?"(8)

Ironically, the most drastic ascendancy of crimes in Britain was found in those types of felonies where recent studies in the U.S. have shown that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, not only save lives, but protect private property, reduce injuries to good people, and crime is generally deterred.(9) For example, the use of firearms to protect oneself against violent predators has proved to be an effective self-defense measure in the United States according to several studies described in the monumental books, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991) and Targeting Guns (1997) by Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University; Don B. Kates, et. al., in the Tennessee Law Review journal; David Kopel in at least two books, Guns --- Who Should Have Them (1995) and The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1993); and Dr. Edgar Suter and other members of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research in various articles in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (1994-1995).(10,11)

Even U.S. government studies have had to admit the beneficial aspects of gun ownership in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens, particularly in the area of self-protection. For example, a 1993 Department of Justice study found that "67.2 percent of people who had used a weapon to defend themselves against violent crime believed it had helped their situation." The results of this study are, of course, also in line with the 1996 epochal paper and subsequent book, More Guns Less Crime --- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998) by University of Chicago professor John Lott and researcher David Mustard, which found that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime --- without any apparent increase in accidental deaths. The work of these researchers, based on 16 years of studying FBI crime data for all 3,054 U.S. counties, concluded that "if states without right-to-carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1,570

Source: http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html

Now, before anyone thinks I'm criticizing English law, I'm not. What England does, is as I said earlier, Englands business. Same for Canada, etc. I don't think every student should have a notebook, pen and pistol. I don't think you should give em out as door prizes, or have a big $5 bin by the cash wrap. What I'm curious here is more, what's the -real- stats, and who are the reliable sources.

Cases in point: Vermont and Texas both have pretty liberal gun access laws. Vermont with the least, is also the safest US State. Texas has high crime. Vermont's also alot smaller, less populated, and has a more consistent population. Texas is pretty big, and diverse. El Paso and Houston are not the same.

"Crime has more than doubled". Did it go from 2 to 5 or 200 to 500? That's a big difference in scope. Etc. What's changed over the years to change the statistics?

 

[Empty Hands]

I asked my other half about using a pump action shot gun out hunting, he looked at me appalled. Dear god he said, there no sport in that, it's no bloody weapon for a gentleman! that's what he said I swear.

??? How bizarre. It's not like a semi-auto combat shotgun or something, the action still has to be worked for each shot. I prefer a single barrel break action shotgun myself, but that is because they are simpler and easier to clean and maintain. Similarly, I prefer bolt action rifles.

 

[myusername]

Soon as I can afford it. I want to do a photo tour of the whole country.


Now, far be it for me to tell the people of a soverign nation what to do. (Unless it's California, but that's another discussion, lol).

I will ask though, what is your and Tez's reply to this statement? The data's a bit older from the late 90's, and I don't have any data to support/negate it. Site I'm pulling from I've no idea of it's credibility at the moment. Came up on a Google search.


Source: http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html

Now, before anyone thinks I'm criticizing English law, I'm not. What England does, is as I said earlier, Englands business. Same for Canada, etc. I don't think every student should have a notebook, pen and pistol. I don't think you should give em out as door prizes, or have a big $5 bin by the cash wrap. What I'm curious here is more, what's the -real- stats, and who are the reliable sources.

Cases in point: Vermont and Texas both have pretty liberal gun access laws. Vermont with the least, is also the safest US State. Texas has high crime. Vermont's also alot smaller, less populated, and has a more consistent population. Texas is pretty big, and diverse. El Paso and Houston are not the same.

"Crime has more than doubled". Did it go from 2 to 5 or 200 to 500? That's a big difference in scope. Etc. What's changed over the years to change the statistics?

I know that both gun and knife crime are being reported more in the UK press so I wouldn't personally dispute the above article. However, the stats are old and the author of the article appears to be associated with the NRA so is probably not that neutral. I can give you a link to our home office statistics but again can we claim that they are neutral? The home office is run by the government after all!

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

I am not too proud to admit that my own personal take on this is riddled with hypocritical ideas and contradictions! On the one hand I personally don't want our government to relax our gun laws. On the other hand, if they were to be relaxed I would go straight out and buy one!

I also would not advocate stricter gun laws in the US. I think it is your right to carry a gun and I agree with the idea that banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns would not reduce gun related crime in the US.

I personally believe the difference in the UK and the US when it comes to gun control is a cultural difference. On the whole we are not used to carrying guns, we are not used to using them and to be completely honest for the average Briton it is not even an issue. As Tez mentioned earlier it is not an issue people really vote on or are bothered about. As I've never owned a gun I don't feel the need to have one. If on the other hand everyone in the UK suddenly got one I would feel I needed one. It is different for you guys as you have always had the right to carry guns so you would miss them.

Additionally, due to the average Briton's lack of shooting experience, the last thing I personally want is a bunch of idiots without a clue running about armed! Give my Mum a gun and she'd probably shoot herself getting it out of her handbag! Give my brother a gun and he'd probably use it to scare the local kids away from his garden! Give the average Briton a gun and there would be bloodshed across all the bus stops in the land as people enforced their self righteous qeueing etiquette on helpless tourists! Obviously I am being tongue in cheek but to be fair there are quite a few muppets that make up the general public!

Just because your gun laws work for your country does not mean the benefits would automatically transfer to the UK either. It's like 24 hour opening times for pubs and restaurants! What works in other country's doesn't necessarily work in the UK. People making the argument for 24 hour drinking claimed it would make England more relaxed and mature around alcohol! They claimed we would develop a Mediterranean cafe-style culture! That turned out to be an unfulfilled dream as what we have instead is some pubs sticking to previous closing times and others staying open just that little bit longer! So instead of police having to deal with one busy period of a night time they have a few "kicking out" times to police!

The UK is a little weird and I personally wouldn't want to arm it's public!!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Funny thing.....I don't care much for guns....

Soon as my *** in relocated to Texas, I'm buying one, and going to learn how to use the darn thing.

But I think we're in pretty good agreement on things.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

??? How bizarre. It's not like a semi-auto combat shotgun or something, the action still has to be worked for each shot. I prefer a single barrel break action shotgun myself, but that is because they are simpler and easier to clean and maintain. Similarly, I prefer bolt action rifles.

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

 

[Tez3]

In the USA? More so on the anti-gun side.

If you look at the anti-gun crowd's arguments, they're usually based on one of the following:

1) Arthur Kellerman's laugher of a study.

2) Michael Bellisilles sham of a study, where he falsifies data.

3) Emotional arguments (if it saves one child's life...)

4) Attempting to associate law-abiding firearms owners in the same crowd as criminals.


If you look at advertisements put forth by the Brady Campaign, you'll see that virtually all of them that aren't solely for the purpose of endorsing a political candidate, are going to use one or more of the above methods. For example, the Prop B advertisements, the slew of ads they ran in Ohio a few years ago, the New Mexico campaign, etc.

Each of those ads showed criminals using firearms, and also using firearms that weren't even relevant to the matters at hand. They would claim that there would be bloodbaths in the streets when law-abiding civilians carry firearms, even though the characters portrayed in the ads were hardly of the law-abiding type.

To make things worse, the media is mostly anti-gun, and is quite guilty in spreading such misinformation.


On the other hand...

If you look at the pro-gun arguments, you will find that most of them are backed up by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, whose authenticity isn't nearly as much in question as the anti-gun sources.

Sure, there are several pro-gunners who are horribly flawed, use items that were proven wrong (the Hitler quote is probably the worst of them all), but in the end, the majority of pro-gun arguments have factual backing from a much more reliable source than those two characters at Emory University.




This is where I whole-heartedly agree. The problem, though, is when a lie is believable, and repeated enough, that people begin to adopt it as the truth.





You'd be surprised at how many people leave the anti-gun cause, once they open their minds, and take a look at the FBI UCR.

Even more of them leave once I've introduced them to recreational shooting.

I'm not being funny here but us Brits don't know any of the people mentioned I'm afraid and we haven't seen any of the adverts.




As for the British being armed, I don't think people really want to be. We never really have been armed in the same way that Americans have. Guns were always for the well off, the peoples weapons have always been knives, cudgels, staffs etc and way back the long bow.

Myusername is right about the figures on crime, as I've explained on here many times, we have a gang problem in the inner cities, we have a knife problem with the young people, it's a Catch 22 situation there, young people carry knives to feel safe from other young people carrying knives which in turn makes yet more young people carry knives.


Emptyhands, country people are very traditional, they will carry shotguns handed down through father to son, there is an etiquette to shooting which is not just English but European. One doesn't just go off into the woods and start blasting at things.The gamekeepers would be displeased and shoot you. We've only just got them to stop laying mantraps.

http://www.ruralsports.co.uk/game-and-grouse-shooting.html

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=38&storycode=3071955

 

[Tez3]

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

LOL! We get Americans over here who buy into our shoots and bless them they love it when Lord Bolton joins us, they love the way we have a snifter and lunch brought out by the staff. It can be a very big status thing who you shoot (and hunt) with but most of us do it because it's fun and we enjoy it, we also enjoy eating the results.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

LOL! We get Americans over here who buy into our shoots and bless them they love it when Lord Bolton joins us, they love the way we have a snifter and lunch brought out by the staff. It can be a very big status thing who you shoot (and hunt) with but most of us do it because it's fun and we enjoy it, we also enjoy eating the results.

Hell, If I were over there I'd buy into a shoot too( Might need a loaner piece since I imagine they'd prefer I left my Mossberg 590A1 at home......)

 

[donna]

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

Over here, shotguns are for killing snakes, the 22 is for game!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Over here, shotguns are for killing snakes, the 22 is for game!

What sort of game is around in Oz?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

As an aside to remain on the original topic as well:

As I understand the Tony Martin case the circumstances surrounding the incident would have sunk him even by US legal standard( IE , I have heard it that he had bragged/threatened to others at his favorite pub that he was gonna fix this kid, and that he had fired on him after he had already abandoned any assaultive/larcenous behavior and basically broke and ran).

 

[donna]

Kangaroos, rabbits, goats, wild pigs.

We also have a vermin problem with wild dogs, foxes, and feral cats.

 

[Empty Hands]

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

I guess. For myself, I won't question the manhood of someone standing near me with a loaded shotgun.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I appreciate the additional background; however, in my mind that only furthers the fact that it's the individual, NOT the gun that is dangerous. If this fella' didn't have a shotgun I'm sure he'd find something else to bash them over the head with, throw or hurl at them, stab them with, etc, etc....

There are some things relevent to this and similar occurances that should be the focus of the debate IMHO.

1. Personal Responsibility

• There's very few people that don't know that its' NOT okay to break into another persons house.
• Freely making the decision to break into a home (for whatever reason, none of which are honorable) means freely accepting the consequences of that decision.
• Breaking into someone's home means risking getting caught, which means risking being shot where guns are legal or suffering other bodily harm.

2. Right to Protect What is Yours

• I like my stuff. You like your stuff. We both work hard for our stuff. It would be hard to replace a lot of stuff. A thief has no right to my stuff. If you want to give them your stuff....groovy, but I ain't giving mine away and I feel I have a right to protect it and so do a lot of other folks.
• Some things can't be replaced, like family heirlooms for instance. The police don't sit on my front porch 24/7 so the only thing I can expect them to do is file a report and hope it just happens to show up in a pawn shop. I think my chance of retrieving my items from a wounded crook that just tried to climb out my window are a little better.

For those that would argue that it's not worth killing someone over, yadda-yadda....refer to point #1 in particular. "Freedom" means being free to make your own decision, which also means being free to suffer the consequences of those decisions. Everyone knows B&E is illegal and wrong so deciding to participate in it means accepting the risk. I personally don't agree with suicide either, but I won't stand in the way of someone's right to do it.... which is pretty much the same thing as breaking into my house. LOL

Don't want to die? Don't play Russian Roulette. Don't run across busy 4 lane highways. Don't fish toast out of the toaster with a metal fork. Don't shower with your hairdryer. Don't tug on Superman's cape. And don't break into my house.

...it should be a matter of common sense but our legal systems are superb at flushing common sense down the toilet.

 

[Empty Hands]

Emptyhands, country people are very traditional, they will carry shotguns handed down through father to son, there is an etiquette to shooting which is not just English but European. One doesn't just go off into the woods and start blasting at things.

Were you under the impression that it works that way here? :lol:

 

[donna]

Were you under the impression that it works that way here? :lol:

If you believe the media, yes that is the impression we get here in Australia !!

 

[Tez3]

Were you under the impression that it works that way here? :lol:

yeah! You all go out shooting in the woods and come back home with a deer strapped to the bonnet of the car, sometimes you shoot each other by mistake though! And you have those big hound dogs which the local sheriff always calls in to track down escaped prisoners.
You all wear those red checked shirts with jeans too.
I've seen it in America television shows so it must be real!!!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

If you believe the media, yes that is the impression we get here in Australia !!

It is always very funny the impressions people get from media about people from other countries. The reality is usually a little different on several levels!

 

[Gordon Nore]

I appreciate the additional background; however, in my mind that only furthers the fact that it's the individual, NOT the gun that is dangerous. If this fella' didn't have a shotgun I'm sure he'd find something else to bash them over the head with, throw or hurl at them, stab them with, etc, etc....

I don't think anyone is arguing that. The basis for posting this story was the false premise that a gun owner was being persecuted by his government. That wasn't even close to the truth, which was that the gun owner was a deeply disturbed individual who crossed paths with a very foolish adolescent. It's just tragic -- the legality or illegality of the gun in the story does not negate the result: a ruined man and dead kid.

The story itself makes a far more important point.

When a news story involving a gun breaks, it immediately is transmogrified into a gun rights story. Two implacable adversaries -- Pro and Anti -- start churning rhetoric and arguments to support their respective sides before anyone knows what actually happened. People virtually trip over dead bodies to get to one side of the issue or the other.

When the VT story was unfolding, I remember one reporter was lamenting how easy it is to get an assault rifle before somebody else pointed out that all the destruction was caused by a .22 and a Glock. Then somebody else chimes in about how great it would be if profs and students could pack heat on campus. For cryin' out loud, the bodies weren't even cold before these vultures swooped in. And the media are absolutely complicit in this tawdry behaviour.

The Martin story is a pathetic but familiar tale of the difficulty that civilized societies have in managing people with severe mental health problems. On the one hand, we want to protect people, but not at the expense of taking away the liberties of others. As you suggest, crippler, Martin was a ticking bomb, ready to go off. But nobody really wants to have a serious discussion about prevention, which might require soul searching and an expenditure of intellectual and monetary capital, so it's easier to talk around the periphery, and figure out a way to spin this into a Pro or Anti-gun story.

Many, many times I've heard Pro and Anti-Gun advocates from outside my county point to the same tragic incident in my country and come up with two different conclusions. Increasingly I find both of these 'sides' very unsatisfactory and self-serving.

 

[Empty Hands]

yeah! You all go out shooting in the woods and come back home with a deer strapped to the bonnet of the car, sometimes you shoot each other by mistake though! And you have those big hound dogs which the local sheriff always calls in to track down escaped prisoners.
You all wear those red checked shirts with jeans too.
I've seen it in America television shows so it must be real!!!

I see I can't fool you. Yes, it's all true.